Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive192

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

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

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

Thank you.

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

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

Per this also it appears the user is under a 0RR restriction, which would mean that these edits [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

1. [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]

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.

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]
• There is enough evidence here to justify an indefinite topic ban of User:FreeatlastChitchat from conflicts between India and Pakistan and from anything to do with Bangladesh. This would include the topic of 1971 Bangladesh genocide which is the article that led to this filing. There may be a need to crank up the level of enforcement on a set of articles that have to do with the 1971 conflicts, and the case of FreeatlastChitchat is the most obvious instance where action is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification to the editor

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

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]

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

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

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

1. This IP is not myn. I just copy and pasted his comment at article's talk page because the IP was absolutely correct and a patrolling user Sminthopsis84 also agreed with the IP. They also suggested a topic ban for SheriffIsInTown. Again this IP is not myn as i already explained above. This Infact should be considered as obvious personal attack since this user is trying to connect me with unknown IP's based on his suspicion. They should report me at SPI noticeboard to clear their suspicion. Infact his unback accusations are sanctionable itself since they fall under WP:ASPERSIONS.
2. SheriffIsInTown is intentionally distorting and mispresenting edit diffs as explained below.
3. 04:03, 20 April 2016 I created a new section regarding misleading figures in the lead that was recently added without any discussion whatsoever at talk page [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].
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. This user made around 7 reverts on Mukti Bahini within 1½ day just to remove mass contents from lead (that he doesn't like), which is still there. These back to back 4 reverts are Infact very well within 24 hours. Clear WP:3RR violation.

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

1. He was told by atleast two users in edit summaries that lead material that is sourced in text is considered sourced and some of them are actually sourced [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].
2. For the sake of betterment and neutrality of this project area of India.Bangladesh.Pakistan, I highly recommend SheriffIsInTown be indefinite topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages (as reasons and evidences provided above). This user has a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with a strong nationalist bias and is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Note also previous misbehavior right here at WP:AE, as noted by Administrator Spartaz. Spartaz warned this user right here at AE that they are strongly minded to impose a T-ban if this user continue to make nationality based slurs. They further warned this user on their talk page [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.

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

1. 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] ).
2. WP:EDITWAR on Bangladesh. See [41], again this user did not seek talk page to address issues.
3. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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[46][47] removes sourced content and puts unsourced claim, edit warring, breaks WP:3RR on Operation Steel
• [48][49][50] edit warring and removes sourced content on Zeitun Rebellion (1895–96)
• [51][52][53] 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)
• [54][55][56][57] edit warring on Siege of Plevna
• 10 January 2016[58] edit warring on Greek War of Independence
• 13 December 2015 removes sourced content
• [59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66] removing sourced content, edit warring, and breaking three revert rule on Gülbahar Hatun
• 7 December 2015[67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81]24 January 2016 many instances of edit warring, removing sourced content, and adding unsourced content on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present)
• 27 February 2016[82] edit waring on February 2016 Ankara bombing
• 6 March 2016[83][84][85]22 April 2016 edit warring on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present) still
• 3 April 2016[86][87][88][89][90][91]3 April 2016 3RR broken on Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War
• 3 May 2016[92][93]3 May 2016 3RR broken on on Turkish War of Independence
• 11 May 2016[94][95][96][97] 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 [98][99][100] 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 [101] personal attack: "Are you dumb or what?"
• 11 May 2016 [102][103][104] 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)

• [105] warned about edit warring by User:Psikomania
• [106] warned about topic bans by User:EtienneDolet
• [107] warned about edit warring again and three revert rule by User:DatGuy
• [108] reported for edit warring on noticeboard User:Ferakp
• [109] warned about topic bans again, by admin User:KrakatoaKatie
• [110] reported for edit warring on noticeboard again by User:Amortias
• [111] warned about edit warring yet again by User:Ferakp
• [112] warned about harassment by User:DatGuy
• [113] warned for edit warring by User:Mr.User200
• [114] warned for disruptive editing by User:Mr.User200
• [115] edit warring notice by User:Jim1138
• [116] edit warring notice by User:Cahk

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]

The linked 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

[117]

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.

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]

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]

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]

Gala19000's edits at Greco-Turkish War (1919–22) are entirely unproductive. On that article, if there have been valid content changes or additions by Gala19000, they has been lost amid the general ineptness of this editor's editing. I don't think it is deliberate vandalism, it looks like plain stupidity at work. Observe this edit by Gala19000: [118] - it has resulted in most of the article's content being reproduced twice! That edit was reverted by Oatitonimly. What does Gala19000 do next - makes an edit that now reproduces the article's content three times [119]! An IP editor sees this and fixes it [120]. Gala19000 puts the duplication right back in again [121], and does it again [122], and AGAIN [123]. This is blind reverting of the worst sort. Caught up in the heat of edit warring, Gala19000 has not bothered to look at what his editing has been doing to the article, and has ignored the edit summaries of others that have repeatedly mentioning this duplicating or triplicating of the content. Gala19000 simply reverts those corrective edits made to remove the duplication or triplication, and claims he is reverting vandalism. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I recommend an indefinite ban of User:Gala19000 from anything to do with Armenia and from all wars involving Turkey. He could apply for the ban to be lifted in six months. Recently Gala19000 has managed to get himself blocked once regarding the Syrian Civil War and has been named three times at WP:AN3. The edits mentioned above by User:Tiptoethrutheminefield do suggest a problem of competence. There is some hope that Gala9000 might be able to gain experience by editing in less contentious areas. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing: Gala19000 is indefinitely banned under WP:ARBAA2 from all wars and conflicts involving Turkey, and from anything to do with Armenia. He can apply for the ban to be lifted in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [124] 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 [125].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The article is placed under 1rr, and Abbatai already made 2 reverts of his edit of April 20th ([126]).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[127]

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.

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 [128] and [129] Thanks Abbatai 18:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding latest accusations, what about this: Abbatai ate my homework or Abbatai causes global warming. --Abbatai 20:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am amused to see how one revert of me maliciously brought here and there started an anti-Abbatai campaign by pro-Armenian users. @Étienne Dolet if you think my edits were wrong you are welcomed to discuss it on talk page. However you seem you even did not read what I wrote there. What you are doing here is not constructive at all with being very willing to have me blocked. I find what you are doing here quite threatening since simply you accuse me with socking without any IP investigation and calling admins to ban me just because you do not like my edits. Can you please explain what was wrong changing this [130]. The section is "Caucasus" but Central Asian Turkic legions stated there. So it was completely wrong. I added Azerbaijani and Georgian legions along with Armenian legion which were the collaborators from Caucasus. And here [131] instead of picture from Turkistan I added Armenian soldiers which were native to Caucasus. Next time please read carefully what you are reporting. I hope you have basic geography knowledge that Turkistan is not in Caucasus. Thanks Abbatai 22:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finally @Étienne Dolet seems s/he has an obsession with me. Trying to dilute the topic and extend this thread by several baseless accusations [132] [133] and reverts[134] [135]. I demand closure of the case because as I explained above I feel threatened by him or her bringing unrelated things here and accuse me every means possible. Abbatai 00:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly as @Étienne Dolet could not support his latest groundless accusation S/he came with something that happened earlier. Just wondering how long this will last. Abbatai 01:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abbatai still continues editwarring as an IP [136]. OptimusView (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned about the socking. In addition to the IP OptimusView has aforementioned, I ran into a similar case at the Defense of Van (1915). Abbatai apparently lives in Istanbul. An IP out of Istanbul, similar to the one OptimusView has shown, reverted on Abbatai's behalf (IP edit and Abattai's edit). This also appears to be the case at Drastamat Kanayan ([137] and [138]) and also at Persecution of Ottoman Muslims ([139] and [140]). Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wordsmith, Seraphimblade and Dennis Brown: Abbatai continues to push a very strong POV here: [141] and [142]. He has removed anything related to Turks and replaced it with Armenians in relation to this controversial episode in history. Even as talks of banning him are ongoing, the user seems to have no remorse and is playing with fire. I find 1 month too little for such behavior. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: Another pattern of disruption I have stumbled upon was at Persecution of Ottoman Muslims. Abbatai added a large chunk of questionable material about how Armenians massacred Azerbaijanis in an article dedicated to Ottomans (how he makes such a correlation between Azeris and Ottomans is beyond me). After the filing of this AE report on May 1, Abbatai's sock (as explained in my first comment) then arrived and edit-warred to maintain its inclusion ([143] and [144]). This is a pattern we see in almost every article he has been involved with in the AA2 topic area. Abbatai, who apparently lives in Istanbul, adds controversial material to an article. The AE report is launched. Abbatai edits covertly with his Istanbul IP as a smokescreen while the investigation into his behavior continues at arbitration. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• I agree that 30 days is probably appropriate. There was a clear violation, but it wasn't particularly severe and doesn't seem like there was disruptive intent behind it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

@The Wordsmith: There are actually three separate DS imposed, not one big one. I appeal my own. If either of the other two parties wish to keep theirs in place, that is up to them but I don't oppose lifting all three. ThargorOrlando already appealed it immediately after it was imposed and I supported him (in Archives if you care to search) and I would presume that is still his desire. I cannot comprehend the moving target. It only causes confusion as to what and where I and others may comment and every editor interprets it differently. MarkBernstein's comment above about a direct question was exactly the conundrum faced by me as I weighed whether someone would interpret a reply or even his question as a violation. It's not even clear that Gamaliel would be able to offer an opinion on the sanction given his ArbCom imposed GG AE restrictions. There's nothing gained here by waiting except more drama. --DHeyward (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ThargoOrlando's appeal [145]. --DHeyward (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The AE request that led to the sanction[146] (note, the point was originally to stop AE sanction rquests). MarkBenstein opened the request claiming this edit was a personal attack so the sanction was imposed to stop frivolous enforcement actions. And only in wikiland would that morph into a restriction where we are allowed to file enforcement actions. --DHeyward (talk)

@Liz: The restriction on filing AE or any other kind of request was lifted in November 2015. I've not filed anything regarding MarkBernstein. I've not commented either on the many times MarkBernstein has been brought here by other parties except above when he received email reinterpretation. Considering I've been able to file requests for 6 months and haven't even commented shows both an iban or tban is unnecessary. In addition it did not slow down the AE requests filed against MarkBernstein so whatever its intent, it did not happen. MarkBernstein is now topic banned from GamerGate so I see no overlap at all. I believe I have only filed 1 AE request (it's a good read) regarding MarkBernstein and that was met with Gamaliel's topic ban well over a year ago when MarkBernstein filed a retaliatory request (one against Thargor Orlando and one against me). You can read the diffs above and the sanctions log to see that it was modified in November. Also, do you still consider yourself involved in GamerGate related matters per your RfA? If so, can you kindly move your statement to the statement section? --20:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: No. Liz, this is ArbCom DS Topic Ban listed under GamerGate discretionary sanctions[147]. Search for Thargor, note the modification. It is not an iban. This is why I am appealing at AE. Your confusion is exactly why it should be lifted. Read that log and you will see I can bring any action I choose as can MB. It's confusing and unenforceable. If you are "involved" regarding GamerGate discretionary sanctions, this is GamerGate discretionary sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: to clarify, it was a Topic Ban so that we could all contribute and discuss article edits. Both MarkBernstein and I can edit any article, discuss any content with each other, comment on any proposal, etc. I am Topic Banned from the topic of MarkBernstein, though, but with the exceptions (noted in the log and email in MarkBernstein section above) there doesn't seem to much of even a Topic Ban anymore and it is difficult to parse where the line is. It would be incorrect to change to an Iban as there never has been an interaction restriction, nor does there need to be. --DHeyward (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: See above, it is a Topic Ban. MarkBernstein and I can interact on any article or talk page we like. Second, the section you commented in is for "uninvolved admins". Feel free to move your comments to the regular statement area. If you cannot take administrative action because of involvement, your statement/opinion is in the wrong area as you are not "uninvolved". --DHeyward (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Wordsmith, lifting or modifying an existing sanction only requires a clear consensus at the relevant noticeboard. It doesnt actually *require* the sanctioned editor to lodge an appeal first. If an Admin places a DS restriction and then rescinds it, it doesnt require the sanctioned editor to have appealed it. That part of ACDS is the process for the lodging of appeals by a sanctioned editor. If the consensus of uninvolved admins in a discussion here is to lift Thargor's interaction ban, You can go ahead and do it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the intentions behind these topic bans, it is clear that they have long outlived any usefulness they might once have had. I should not wish to dwell on the unfortunate genesis of these topic bans in two WP:POINTy noticeboard filings, but do consider that if we have now reached the point where that same editor "complies" with the topic ban by talking not about another editor but about their dog,[148][149] and is encouraged in such "compliance" by the sanctioning admin,[150] it might be time to remove these sanctions.
Recommend upholding this appeal. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: Just a wee heads up that Thargor Orlando has not edited since December 2015, and has not edited Mainspace or Talkspace since March 2015. Their thoughts on the topic ban discussed, however, might be discerned from their statements in a previous appeal of the topic ban.[151] Hopefully this is of assistance. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Respectfully, commenting in a section reserved for uninvolved admins is "taking an admin action". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: Please self-revert your latest comment, which is in violation of a topic ban. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this sanction ought to either be lifted or converted into a mutual interaction ban, which is easier to understand and enforce. Note to The Wordsmith: Thargor Orlando's last edit was in December 2015, so I think waiting for him to respond here may not work out. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an urgent reason to deal with this now now now? (What reason might that be?)

• The administrator who designed and then modified the ban cannot comment here at present for compelling reasons that are known to the Arbitration Committee. His opinion would normally be sought; I am sure he will be happy to offer it when he is able.

• I am not currently participating on-wiki in the Arbitration case Gamaliel and Others. I am not working on-wiki on Gamergate. In fact, you'll observe that, in recent weeks at Wikipedia, (a) I answered direct questions (like this one), (b) I wrote an informal note at AN titled You may all be barking up the wrong tree (which proved to be the case, by the way), and (c) I queried an editor of The Signpost.

• Speaking of the walls being pairwise parallel, those who follow ArbCom closely may recall the phrase, "lowering their profile."

• I happen to be fairly busy at the moment, writing a number of pieces on tight deadlines.

• Just now, we have an awful lot of moving parts. Additional complications are likely to arise, some soon. This might not be a great time to invite further complexities.

So, I have no need just now to talk about DHeyward or Orlando on-wiki. I’m not doing anything on-wiki that DHeyward or Orlando would want to discuss, or could properly discuss even if they thought discussing it would be really swell. We have a complex and volatile situation with potentially serious consequences, involving any number of people and processes. My recommendation would call for a cautious approach. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

. [152] MarkBernstein (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:: No, they won’t be bringing more traffic about MarkBernstein to AE because they don't don't need to. As Ryk72 attentively points out, I may not bring to your attention incontrovertible facts that are directly pertinent to your question, and to the issues discussed above. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This frankly Byzantine sanction is clearly not doing much except confusing people who try to enforce a moving target. I would be okay with lifting it on all fronts, but I would first like to hear from MarkBernstein and Thargor Orlando regarding their opinions on the interaction ban, since this effects them too. I doubt Mark will object, since I don't believe he is interested in being continually dragged to AE due to a ban that nobody understands and is constantly being reinterpreted. I haven't seen anything from Thargor one way or the other. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll send an email to Thargor then, but if he doesn't respond our ability is somewhat more limited. If I'm reading the DS policy correctly, only the affected editor may appeal their sanction, and it can't be done on someone else's behalf. If Mark and DHeyward both want it lifted, and there is a consensus of uninvolved admins, then I think the most we could do is remove two of the three legs, modifying it to a one-way interaction ban for Thargor. If anyone reads the relevant part of WP:ACDS differently then I'm open to discussion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It would seem the problems that led to the restriction aren't as pressing now. Seeing how confusing it has been, lifting the full restriction is probably the best way to handle it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't speak for other admin, Mark, but just as I stated for your benefit above, I would say that breaching the topic ban within an Arb case where lots of names are involved is different than on an article page, and I tend to cut a lot of slack when the context is within the purpose of that administrative board. This ties into the spirit being more important than the letter, and not every exception needs to be written down. We are allowed to use some common sense. How accurate he is doesn't matter, it only matters that it was within the context of the Arb case itself. Again, in my opinion, and again, pretty much the same as I said for you in another case regarding you, above. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• As I read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive167#DHeyward, the interaction ban was imposed out of exasperation by Gamaliel because of the frequent appearance of Gamergate-related enforcement requests and he stated that "none of you can open a new noticeboard thread or enforcement request about any of the others without the permission of an uninvolved administrator."

So, my question is will lifting this iban lead to fewer visits to AE (for possible ban violations) or more visits because you now can complain about each other? I'd support a mutual iban between Bernstein and Heyward unless they can agree to a iban on a voluntary basis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, this is an appeal about an Iban, not a topic ban regarding Gamergate. In my RfA, I stated "if I pass this RfA, I would never take action in a subject in which I am involved" and I specified Gamergate as the only area covered by DS where I considered myself involved. But I don't believe expressing an opinion is taking an action. The context of that comment was a question from Brustopher about whether I would impose discretionary sanctions and I still would never impose DS regarding Gamergate-related articles. If my fellow admins feel differently and see my statements as taking an admin action, please let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing is an admin action, opining is an admin activity since only admin can, at least that is what I got out of the last Arb case on it, where I (unfortunately) was participating. (to compare, looking at deleted articles is an admin activity, but not an admin action as you aren't changing anything.) I see this as more of an interaction ban rather than topic ban, even though many involved have called it a topic ban. It did result from editing in GG. I think you closing or implementing or removing a sanction might be problematic, but don't see offering an opinion as a particular problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would never close this discussion, impose or lift a discretionary sanctions ban involving Gamergate-related articles. Offering an opinion on this Iban which I think is neutral, in terms of not favoring either party, is the extent of my participation in this ban appeal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• DHeyward, it is an issue of nomenclature only. Bans about interacting with humans are generally iban, while bans about interacting with ideas are topic bans. Why it was originally worded that way, and drawn up that way, is unknown. Regardless, I've opined that removing any limits on interacting with these two humans is best, without affecting any topic bans on topics. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that these sanctions generate a lot more heat than light, and I wouldn't see any reason not to just remove them. Also, I don't have any objection to lifting the interaction ban on all three parties. While it's true we don't accept appeals by third parties, the individuals appealing here are parties to the sanction. One-way interaction bans are inevitably a bad idea, so I wouldn't want to see that remain as leftovers purely by chance as to who's active when an appeal is filed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Every uninvolved admin seems to think the ban should be lifted, so is it time to close this with that effect? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

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

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.

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[153]. 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 [154] new sentence that we had all three of us (Mo ainm, Eckerslike and myself) discussed and agreed on here[155], 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 [156]. 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 [157] Miles Creagh (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Really? Of all the wars that have been fought in the name of a flag, this (edit) war is probably the lamest. Miles seems to have self reverted, and I don't see the sort of abuse that typically gets sanctioned here. I'm inclined to leave it as a "Don't do that again" and move on, unless someone provides substantial evidence of wrongdoing. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• With no new developments, I think we can mark this one as resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

ArghyaIndian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

TripWire (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

The subject is a disruptive nationalist, tendentious editor and a POV-warrior. This user is recently got off a topic ban this year. And has been warned many times, not to jump right back into the kind of edits and behavior which led to his ban in the first place. [158], [159].

• Note; previously reported right here at WP:AE for Edit warring and WP:GAMING in April, 2016 [160]. Note closing admin's admonishment; "Thus far I am disinclined to sanction TripWire. I see a lot of disagreement and somewhat heated rhetoric on the locus of dispute, but nothing so egregious as to warrant a sanction."
• On Balochistan conflict

1. EDIT WARRING, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:GAMING to have consensus; 22:14, 7 May 2016, 22:08, 8 May 2016, 22:17, 8 May 2016, not only he took the 3RR rule right to the limit, but also violated WP:BLP and called a living person a terrorist and Baloch National Front as Wikipedia is not the mouthpiece of BNF.

• Continues to WP:EDITWAR (along nationalist lines) and delete sourced contents (that he doesn't like).

1. 16:33, 10 May 2016, 18:00, 10 May 2016, gets reverted again [161], continues WP:EDITWAR 19:32, 10 May 2016. Again took the WP:3RR rule right to the limit.

• On Talk:Balochistan conflict

1. Conitnues to call a living person a terrorist and BMF a terrorist organisation [162], [163] and other involved editors as Indian POV pushers [164], [165] contents as Indian propaganda [166], etc [167]. Even leaving WP:ASPERSIONS aside, this speaks to the fact that the user has a nationalist and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and is WP:NOTHERE.

• WP:NPA, WP:SOAP violation and use of very hostile language, WP:BATTLE [168].

1. [169] "So you agree that you are just here to push your/Indian POV into a Pakistan related article? BTW, the info/POV you are trying to push is from a woman who belongs to BSO-Azad - a terrorist organization. I doubt Wikipedia is a propaganda mouthpiece of terrorists organizations. More [170], But you are expected to push Indian propaganda instead...
2. Again calls Karima baloch a terrorist and using very hostile language. read propaganda websites of these terrorist organizations and their supporter states. That's precisely all that matters. And as such, she has no place at WP. Sorry, but you need to find a better terrorist.
3. Many editors asking him to stop and told him to adhere to WP:NPOV [171], [172] [173] but he ignored them and continue uttering heavy nationalistic words Thanks for confirming that you indeed want to push Indian POV in the article..... what intrest India has in Balochistan..... we can add the Indian POV while also mentioning what stakes India has in Balochistan i.e. state soponsored terrorism.
4. Exhausting other editor's patience [174], [175].
5. Same edit warring, and WP:NPA on other pages. Balochistan, on TP [176] "First, your usage of PoK instead of Pak administered Kashmir confirms that have a POV and a bias...."].
6. Edit warring, WP:3RR, and WP:NPA on Kulbhushan Yadav and on Talk:Kulbhushan Yadav, attacking other editors and exhausting their patence. Please read this statement by Nuro Dragonfly [177] to get a better understanding, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and etc ARBIPA pages.

• On 1971 Bangladesh genocide, right after the protection expired, sock IP reinstated POV version [178], an uninvolved editor Volunteer Marek restored NPOV version that was protected by the administrator [179], TripWire made back to back two reverts [180], got reverted again [181], reverted again [182] and got reverted again [183]. TripWire sudden edit warring led EdJohnston to full protect the page.
• Note; TripWire and Freeatlast persistent Edit warring and WP:GAMING led administrators to full protect Balochistan conflict, Balochistan and twice- Kulbhushan Yadav articles. And It is highly likely, that after the protection expires, they will again WP:EDITWAR.

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

1. Topic banned from all "edits related to Pakistani politics and Indian/Pakistani conflicts, for a period of 6 months".[184]

;If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): Just came off a topic ban this year.

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : I don't see how one can deal with such user after they create such a toxic environment. it's time for a ARBIPA topic ban at the very least. @The WordSmith, If you think I should withdraw this request then I will. However, I have only provided edit diffs from 8 May and as latest as of 2-3 days ago. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [185]

Withdrawn and  'My apologies! --ArghyaIndian (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• All diffs are more than 2/3 weeks old, as old as from 26 April, hence stale. Digging up the entire history of an editor and piecing together random edits/reverts while presenting them as if they violated WP:XYZ, WP:123, WP:$%@ etc is not what AE is for.

• Calling a person (not a WP user nor a subject of an article - just some random person) on a Talk-page a terrorist is not a violation of BLP. The person in question is non-notable and belongs to Baloch Students Organization, which WP explains as; "is a designated terrorist organization that campaigns for the independence of Pakistan's Balochistan Province."

• All of my reverts/edits were to revert socks, Freedom Mouse (now banned as a sock) in particular.

• This report is part of the series of reports to harass (particular kind of) editors - report innocent editors repeatedly, throw them in the limelight, frustrate the Admins, atleast one of them is going to take some action.

• Most diffs are from here/original thread. Please go through it see how the report has been spiced up.

• As regards the rhetorics of "just got off topic-ban"; Sir, it's been a year now since that happened. Just copy/pasting the reply I gave when I was subjected to similar harassment in the past (hatting it myself):

The request should be declined as stale. I went through almost all the diffs, i did not find a single diff younger than a week. Also, please take a note that this request might have been inspired by a couple of recent topic bans e.g. User:Towns Hill and User:FreeatlastChitchat. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here as I watch TW's talkpage. The report is blatantly frivolous and full of stale diffs. From what I understand, it is an attempt to resolve disputes by removing users from the topic area which is not how wikipedia works. You have to go through the DR process. I also noticed that Arghya was warned just above in another AE report. The fact that he filed this report inspite of that definitely calls for a block of appropriate length that would deter any future hounding of such sort. The offer of withdrawal of this report by the filer seems be looking for a way to avoid WP:BOOMERANG only after he saw it coming where as he was wasting every one's time with lengthy replies in the above AE report(s) and even here till now when he had the WP:ROPE. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable on wikipedia. TripWire, I would really like to note that you dont need to respond with such long statements... admins are generally experienced enough users to get your point if you simply list your arguments (as you finally did in your update statement). I also hope you will avoid discussing the users in future and focus on content instead, unlike those diffs from April (although stale) as I noticed RegentsPark recently applied restrictions to the Kashmir conflict topics for all users, esp. wrt discussion on users. I am also noting this here as a record so that admins can keep a check on editors who bring ethnic claims about other editors in future edits instead of discussing content which is categorically mentioned in the restriction. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS. ArghyaIndian blanked the report which I have reverted. If you want to withdraw, please leave a comment... but let the admins deal with whether they have to hat the report or take some action. Blanking does not guarantee that WP:BOOMERANG wont be opted by an admin anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm inclined to dismiss this case as frivolous and issue a short block to deter future filings like this. If anyone thinks I should not then please speak up. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with The Wordsmith. Hunting through the sea of diffs above it is hard to find anything recent. I would encourage TripWire to stop accusing editors of pushing a POV but there is nothing recent here that is actionable. A short boomerang block to deter frivolous filing is warranted. Or, perhaps a restriction against filing AE actions since the user has a clean block log. --regentspark (comment) 20:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAA2 :

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

1. [186] "Volunteer Marek needs to pack up his own crap and stick to edit warring in subject areas he knows he has a carte blanche permit to edit war in. " <-- self explanatory
2. [187] Tiptoethroughtheminefield doubles down on apologetic personal attacks - discussing editors rather than content. "Volunteer Marek is misusing this talk page" - apparently attempting to discuss the issue on talk is now "misusing the talk page". This is clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND and evidence of WP:NOTHERE.

Probably could find more evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in the AA2 area but the above should be sufficient.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [188] Placed under 1RR (since expired) This also serves as notice of discretionary sanctions in this topic area.

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

[189].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm not quite sure what EtienneDolet is talking about. Apparently they object to me making edits to this article at all and think this is some kind of conspiracy against *them* despite the fact that this report has nothing to do with them. I made edits to the article because it was in the news, then I remembered about it when Jamala won the Eurovision contest and I followed some links. This appears to be a desperate attempt at deflecting the issue from Tiptoethrutheminefield's problematic behavior. I'll leave EtienneDolet's - who just jumped in to edit war on that article [190] - motives out of it, though it's not hard to guess them. I resent any charges, which are completely baseless and amount to casting WP:ASPERSIONS, that I have "unclean hands" (whatever that is suppose to mean) or that I'm pushing "pro-Azeri POV" which is ridiculous and it only reveals EtienneDolet's own biased WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to discuss content (I have discussed it on talk page - EtienneDolet and Tiptoethroughtheminefield, aside from their personal attack above, have not) but just to make it clear the two paragraphs I removed (I guess that's "mass deletions") are obviously highly POV, and sourced to non-reliable sources like breitbart news, a bunch of primary sources from the involved governments and a few others non-reliable sources. Then a couple actually reliable sources are included to source trivial or irrelevant facts to make it look legit. It's a classic POV pushing tactic.

And yes, like many topic areas which have been placed under discretionary sanctions due to nationalistic WP:BATTLEGROUND this one too has its share of dedicated tag teams.

@User:The_Wordsmith - in the past I've let stuff like this slide. Then it just build up and eventually ended up being a huge mess. And at that point administrators and arbcoms were like "why didn't you bring it to WP:AE earlier?". Well, here I am bringing it to WP:AE earlier. Additionally keep in mind that User:Tiptoethroughtheminefiled has been sanctioned, with good cause, in this topic area.

ADD: another diff to support that Tiptoethroughthebattlefield is just not getting it. A reasonable user, interested in compromise and working towards a neutral article would have at this point struck the offending personal attack and said "ok sorry, I went to far, let's discuss the issue". Unfortunately this is NOT what Tiptoethroughthebattlefield has done, instead they've just flung around more weird accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, after a comment like that *how exactly* are we suppose to have a constructive discussion about the issue at hand? Putting aside for the moment the fact that the comment clearly indicates Tiptoethroughtheminefield is not interested in such, it also shuts down discussion with others. And of course the fact that s/he is not only defending but doubling down on the personal attacks in their comment here only makes it more problematic. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiptoethroughtheminefield - yes, the article, and that section in particular is garbage (there's a ton of material on Wikipedia which is most accurately described as garbage, this is just one instance of it). It uses sources like breitbart news and a bunch of press releases from obviously biased governments, which then it presents as fact. Describing it as such reference content. You may disagree but in that case you should respond on talk page with constructive arguments (and preferably do the real work of finding reliable sources) on the talk page. What you SHOULD NOT do is make comments like "Volunteer Marek needs to pack up his own crap and stick to edit warring in subject areas he knows he has a carte blanche permit to edit war in. " which is a clear cut personal attack specifically because it involves discussing editors. See the difference? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[191]

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.

Volunteer Marek drives by an article he has never edited before, in a field he has never (or very rarely) edited before, and starts deleting VERY large quantities of referenced content [192] without prior discussion, content he MUST have known would constitute a contentious deletion. When reverted, he refers to a talk page post he's made in a dead and settled discussion thread (his post is made one month after the last post there [193]), that is half way up the talk page and is about an entirely different subject, to allege that a lack of "consensus" permits all of this deletion, and he deletes it all again [194]. This is a misuse of the talk page (pointing out that misuse and suggesting it should stop is a "personal attack" according to VM). When others point out that the deleted content had numerous sources VM then goes on an I-don't-like-it tirade against all the sources. Without presenting any argument or evidence, he asserts this source is not "reliable", that source is not "reliable", that one too is not "reliable" - all this is referring to well known and well used sources like The Sunday Times, Le Monde, Eurasianet, etc. And he asserts that media sources based in Armenia or Azerbaijan are "primary sources", when they clearly are not. When this is questioned his assertions get even wilder, now the sources are all "junk", are all "crap" [195]. However, the only "crap" I saw on display was in the arguments coming from Volunteer Marek, and I think for me to have reused his use of the word "crap", and asked him to leave with it, is a fair comment to have made under the circumstances. If he wants to return with proper arguments, and present those arguments in a reasonable way, without edit warring, then he is welcome and I will engage with him. No other editor who has worked on the article has advocated such a massive deletion of content, prior discussion about it been mostly about what appropriate wording to use. I suspect the only reason Volunteer Marek came to 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes is that he was following Étienne Dolet around to cause harassment, after having had several disagreements with that editor on Syrian and Ukrainian and Putin-related articles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek has also now added a number of bad faith assertions and false assertions. He made three attempts at mass deletion of content on 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes. Three different editors restored the content - none of those editors was me! My supposed "sanction", 1RR, long expired, was a ludicrous sanction imposed by Sandstein, ludicrous because it was imposed without me having done any reverting (far from making more that one revert a day, I was not even making one revert a week in the article the case concerned). It was imposed simply to match the sanction imposed on another editor who was doing the reverting. This will be on Sandstein's talk page for that time, if someone wishes to dig it up. Of course VM has already dug it up - or has his claim that my sanction was imposed "with good cause" got the same lack of evidence as his "crap" sources claim? I doubt that I have ever done any more than one revert a day on any AA2 article, ever, so I demand he explain why he knows that my 1RR sanction was imposed "with good cause". I should have appealed it at the time, to avoid just this situation - an unscrupulous bullying editor digging up old history to cast unfounded aspersions - but since abiding by the sanction was causing me no difficulty whatsoever and involved no change to my editing, I let it go. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See this [196]. about my "with good cause" sanction. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek has now described the entire article as "utter garbage" [197] - is calling the work of numerous editors over several months "utter garbage" acceptable? Is npov-tagging an article without initiating a proper talk page discussion [198] to support that tagging acceptable? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The filer of this report appears to have unclean hands. Volunteer Marek, who has never edited an AA2 article, only did so to revert an edit of mine after the whole feud at Putin subsided in what seems to be classic WP:HOUND-like behavior. He has been pushing some strange pro-Azeri POV at that article ever since. A month later, Marek gets reverted by me at this article, and responds 10 minutes later by making a massive deletion of material concerning human rights violations against Armenians here. In other words, Marek's two instances of editing at this article was either to revert me or bait me to revert him. Since then, for the past three days, Marek has made 2 reverts ([199][200]) to maintain his deletion of an entire section consisting of 11,000+ characters and 30+ sources/reports while edit-warring over several users in this 1RR article. That's one revert every 24 hours. One can only assume that there's some WP:GAMING going on. As for Tiptoe's comment, I don't know if that is necessarily an AA2 issue in and of itself. Perhaps WP:ANI would be a better venue to handle a single remark like that. As for his editing pattern, I'd say that his edits are rather productive and neutral. He'll go so far as to confront Armenian POV here, Azerbaijani POV here, and Turkish POV there. That's quite a rarity in the AA2 these days. Hence the main reason why I think he's a good asset to the topic area. Étienne Dolet (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the article is under 1RR rule, Volunteer Marek already made 3 reverts [201][202][203] during the last 4 days, deleting a whole section with very dubious and disaffected comments. Several users asked him to stop editwarring, but no result. OptimusView (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong that lower civility standards should apply to discussions in nationalism-related areas. To the contrary, higher standards must apply. It is precisely the personal attacks of the kind provided above (and these comments are undoubtely directed at a contributor) that makes editing in such subject areas unbearable. If someone can not edit politely in difficult subject areas, s/he should not edit in such areas. Very simple. My very best wishes (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even comments like that ("there's no need to attack [subject of the page] over and over" in response to question "what exactly was wrong in my edit?") is not acceptable on article talk page. Yes, such comments are rather common and should be generally ignored. That is exactly what many people, including VM normally do. However, if someone's patience was exhausted, and the matter was brought to WP:AE, this should be properly addressed, not ignored. My very best wishes (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiptoe. You said to VM: "stick to edit warring in subject areas he knows he has a carte blanche permit to edit war". What "cart blanche permit" do you mean? I saw you making similar statements on a number of occasions. My very best wishes (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to me to teach you Wikipedia's history. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not have a slightest idea why do you think he is protected by admins. I thought he is simply another contributor, just like you or me. Actually, it is exactly the opposite. I saw that VM recently submitted a 3RRNB report about an obvious 3RR violation, and a user he reported continued edit warring during standing 3RR request about him. But that was left without action. I think you should apologize for your comment and never do it again because you can not support your accusations by anything. My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[204] (Radeksz). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It tells that several contributors were sanctioned, not that they have a "carte blanche" about anything. You are wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is almost impossible to avoid this mild level of hostility and language in nationalist areas. I suggest closing with no action. On the content matter, I agree with Volunteer Marek's position - a lot of the content is junk and should be deleted. However, the local consensus is for inclusion. Unfortunately, it can be very hard to get consensus to delete junk in such areas. That's just the way it is. I suggest an RfC to get more people looking at the article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Major points for brevity, but a single rude remark is the only evidence? Given the usual bile with discussions in nationalism-related areas, this seems downright mild and not really what AE is for. Unless there's more evidence or more context I'd be inclined to close this with warnings all around. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Kingsindian probably sums it up best above, so I won't repeat it, but will add that VM's hands are far from clean here. I suggest closing with a simple warning for both parties. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]