Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:42, 13 October 2015

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

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

VictorD7

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

Request concerning VictorD7

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EllenCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

VictorD7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

discretionary sanctions for all topics involving post-1932 American politics established by WP:ARBAP2.

Proposed resolutions

This section is for proposed resolutions to the dispute, comments on proposals, and limited replies to administrators. It is not for extensive discussion between parties. Please be concise. Off-topic posts or inter-party discussion may be removed at the discretion of an administrator.

Comment from Jbhunley

I have not encountered VictorD7 but his behavior here is enough that I would support a topic ban. EllenCT, I have seen around and in fact one of the first articles I thought of editing here was Economic growth while she was having a 'discussion' with Volunteer Marek. Her tendentious behavior there put me right off the entire topic area - I still have some sources in my sandbox I wanted to introduce into the debate but no way in hell was I going to engage with an editor that fixed in their POV. Her recent diatribe on Jimbo's TP, mentioned above, reaffirms my view she is a POV warrior and a topic ban, preferably on all issued related to growth, inequality and taxation since they are all tied together in her anti-Trickle-down crusade.

I am less inclined to allow them to participate in mediation, neither is likely to change or soften their POV and the walls of text and venom would insure mediation failed. I guess an AE imposed Misplaced Pages Cage Match might be interesting in the same way the Romans sentenced people to the gladiator pits but even then it was done solely for entertainment not to actually solve anything. I am as atavistic as the next guy, maybe more so, but I do not see how forcing these two into mediation would benefit the project. Just ban them for three months and go up from there if the same disruption resurfaces on their return to editing. Jbh 20:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

AE requiring mediation for issues already worked out does nothing but reward persistent, disruptive editing and allow EllenCT to continue here crusade to the exhaustion of the other participants. If other editors than VictorD7 and EllenCT think mediation is required then mediation should occur. If it is just based on these two participants it is healthier for the project to simply remove them from the field for a while and let the other editors form a consensus without the constant disruption.

I doubt mediation would be successful with these editors since EllenCT is already begging the question by getting VictorD7 to agree to her views of sourcing up front with her 'Proposed mediation' section below - bad form, very bad form. Jbh 16:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Per this conversation I want to clarify the above is intended as a comment on the wisdom/advisability of mandated mediation as a useful AE remedy not as an additional call for topic bans. I also feel more strongly that EllenCT's behavior warrants a topic ban than VictorD7's although I do feel his behavior here indicates a ban would not be an unreasonable outcome. Jbh 00:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Capeo

Since my proposal and the reasoning behind it are hatted I'll just reiterate my suggestion. A 3-6 month topic ban from American Politics and Economics for both parties is probably in order. If just the most recent activity is taken into consideration though I would say Ellen's conduct has been far, far worse. On the article and talk page that was the impetus to this filing I see little fault in how Victor dealt with it. He also hasn't seemed to have any conflicts on articles in recent months so I could see an argument for currently only topic banning EllenCT. Capeo (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Striking the above. I had not seen those RFCs. They are quite literally EllenCT trying to include cites from sources she lambasts above including Op-Eds and the WSJ. There seems to be no logic to her arguments other than bolstering her POV at all costs. That the responses from other editors who are both sympathetic and those that disagree ask her to stop pushing her trickle-down crusade show that this is symptomatic of a bigger issue. After EllenCT stopped editing the article that prompted this report the issues were worked out amicably on the talk page. I'd suggest a topic ban for EllenCT would solve 90% of the conflict in these articles. Capeo (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why mediation is even in play here. The content issue is done. It was resolved on the talk page once EllenCT left the article alone. Capeo (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm wondering on what basis Victor would be topic banned here, as that seems to be where this is heading, with both parties TBed. Past behavior? Because if it's just this incident alone I can't see the justification. It seems Ellen is still excusing her edit-warring against consensus as justified and claiming some cabal of editors were trying to use biased sources when in fact, as shown above, the sources that ended up being used per consensus are anything but. The real issue is consensus didn't reflect her POV hence we're here. In this particular report I'm only seeing one party doing anything wrong. I'd venture it's no coincidence that everything got quite after Ellen stopped editing. Capeo (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Some of the sources EllenCT seems to think meet the criteria she lays out below: Citizens for Tax Justice? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities? FiveThirtyEightEconomics? Not to mention having an issue with a WSJ op-ed above but starting a prior RFC to include a WSJ op-ed because it supported her POV? Lastly her saying "Ideally, Victor will see the light and decide to embrace demand side economics," pretty much shows she believes her edit-warring was justified because she's spreading the Truth and will continue to do so. Capeo (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment from VictorD7

Of course I oppose a topic ban for me since no evidence of me actually doing anything wrong regarding taxation has been presented or cogently articulated, much less in the last several months. Since I'm not entirely familiar with the procedures being discussed here, I would like clarification on whether an appeal is possible. I wasn't planning on editing much over the next few months but I'd prefer not to have a frivolous topic ban on my record. Either way I'm willing to engage in a mediated discussion on the topic with EllenCT, but I would also like clarification on the scope and eventual impact of this process. Because, as I pointed out earlier, a talk page consensus has already formed among editors who have been involved in the discussion and know a great deal about it. Could this mediation result overturn that? If so, I don't see the purpose or justification for it. Starting a discussion from scratch that brings in new editors who know little or nothing about the topic would likely lead to a lower quality result than what's already been achieved, and might be disastrous. We saw what happened when admins here tried to wade into a content dispute on the complex topic. They admitted being hopelessly confused by it.

Also, would it include the inequality dispute? Because an RFC initiated by EllenCT herself weeks ago is soundly rejecting her preferred wording and should be closed within the next few days.

This follows the community likewise rejecting three other recent RFC proposals by EllenCT along similar lines: , , (nobody bothered closing the last two, though they overwhelmingly went against her, as you can see).

The recent discussion on tax progressivity also seems to have reached its conclusion, with a 2 to 1 majority opposing EllenCT's proposed changes, not counting multiple other editors who made their opposition known in edit summaries while reverting her.

Is all this time and effort invested by these editors now arbitrarily invalidated just because EllenCT didn't want to accept consensus? Is she being rewarded for her edit warring?

If so, out of curiosity what would happen if I declined mediation?

I would also like to ask HJ Mitchell to self revert and restore my final edit to the above discussion. I was already typing it (and was likely almost finished) when the section was hatted, and had posted a place holder in my previous edit saying more was soon coming and asking for it not to be closed yet. It's only fair that I should have the right to respond to last second accusations made against me, and have that response in the record. VictorD7 (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a clarification on precisely what this mediation would entail, but if the goal here is to avoid future disruption, this may be a solution in search of a problem. The established consensus formed on the talk page in the links I provided above has settled both specific content issues at play here. The only documented recent behavioral issue here was EllenCT's edit warring against consensus. If that stops there is no problem. Before this I certainly wasn't planning to interact with EllenCT more or discuss these same issues again from scratch unless absolutely necessary. I don't see the need to take any action based on stale links or even against Specifico or Protonk for the false personal attacks they leveled here.

The reason this request blew up into a confusing mess is that it was malformed and confused from the start, not reflecting the facts. It didn't help that the initial admin to respond (rather than close it as malformed) ended up recusing himself over a past personal involvement. At this point, especially given the paucity of actual evidence presented (except in the edit warring report I filed) the best thing to do would be to close this with no action taken and a caution for people to follow instructions next time when filing an AE report. VictorD7 (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If I'm truly a "problem" editor (which I'm not), then it won't be long before someone files a report here against me that actually contains clear evidence of wrong doing. In the meantime, when in doubt it's more responsible to err on the side of not being heavy handed than to rush into punitive action just for the sake of taking action. VictorD7 (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment from SPECIFICO

Per my comments above, now hatted: I propose a one month TBAN from American Politics for VictorD7. As I understand it this is the prescribed maximum sanction under the American Politics Arbcom rulings. I propose a stern warning for EllenCT that she should ensure she does not edit or use accusatory language in talk page discussions. I urge some Admin to un-hat the previous evidence here and to use some other display format to indicate that no further evidence should be presented. Hatting the section obscures the facts in the case, including diffs and VictorD7's personal attacks and undocumented aspersions which are in themselves prima facie evidence that he is worthy of tough love here. SPECIFICO talk 23:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

According to VictorD7's comments, as I understand them, he does not favor voluntary mediation of the content dispute. So that solution is stillborn. Moreover, content mediation will not resolve the behavioral issues on both sides that are evident on this thread alone. I'd be very disappointed to see the current group of AE volunteers kick the donkey down the road. Most editors react to bad behavior simply by fleeing the scene. At least we've got some contributions of evidence by uninvolved editors here. If nothing comes of this case, that effort will have been lost and more editors will walk away concluding that WP cannot deal with personal attacks, unsupported allegations, tendentious disruptive behavior, etc. SPECIFICO talk 12:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the ins and outs of AE, but it seems to me that since the Arbcom sanction relates to American Politics and because we've seen these editors have problems on several articles related to American Politics, that any temporary or permanent TBAN should cover American Politics, not an ad hoc subset defined here, e.g. progressive taxation. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Robert McClenon

I concur with all of HJMitchell, Guy, and Dennis Brown. This is in part an interaction issue, in that we have two editors who have quarreling for a long time. However, an interaction ban would not work in this case, where the dispute is mostly in one article (and interaction bans do not work very well in general), but discretionary sanctions need to be used somehow. Of course, formal mediation is voluntary, but a topic-ban via Arbitration Enforcement on the issue, with an exception to permit formal mediation, does not have to be voluntary. If one party declines to take part in mediation, or if a mediator cannot be found because of the hostility of the dispute, the AE administrators can re-address this. I concur with a topic-ban with an exception to permit and encourage formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Mediation proposal by EllenCT

I would like to try mediation but first I would like to know if Victor agrees to the traditional reliable source criteria of basing the encyclopedia on peer reviewed literature review articles in academic journals, when available, when the primary sources disagree, no matter how scholarly or well funded those primary sources may be. My anti-trickle down crusade, as it has been called, is nothing other than proper editorial discretion when the secondary sources which reach conclusions on a question all come to the same conclusion. For the question of trickle down, or supply side economics, or whether income inequality is beneficial, the secondary peer reviewed sources which reach a conclusion have in past decades reached the same conclusion. Yes, that fact influences which sources I find reliable when the unanimous conclusive peer reviewed literature reviews disagree with paid advocacy foundations, for what should be obvious reasons distinct but apparently difficult to distinguish from bias towards non-mainstream views. If Victor was not a problem editor, why would complaints about me boomerang against him? The worst transgression I am guilty of is thinking that the secondary literature was entirely unanimous for decades, when in fact there are secondary sources which do not reach conclusions, including a meta-analysis. Mediation may give him the opportunity to air his views about how he believes advocacy foundations which reject peer review because their arguments are so unsound that they usually fail to pass peer review. Mediation may allow the process of explanation why literature review articles that pass peer review are substantially more accurate than paid advocacy which is unable to achieve peer review. Ideally, Victor will see the light and decide to embrace demand side economics. EllenCT (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning VictorD7

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

• I agree with Gamaliel. This is a mess and asking a few admin to read through and make sense of it is asking too much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• I've read the wall of text; it's not the most coherent, largely due to the copying and pasting of a thread from another noticeboard, but what we essentially have is EllenCT complaining that VictorD7 is POV-pushing and using unreliable sources to support his POV, and a counter-claim from VicotrD7 that EllenCT is edit-warring. I note, for the record, that the two are not mutually exclusive. From a superficial look at the history, the claim that EllenCT is edit-warring is borne out. I would be interested to hear more from @EllenCT: about her complaint against VictorD7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• In as much as I can make sense of the above: the two editors are engaged in a content dispute, in which both are edit-warring but EllenCT has the advantage of being right and VictorD7 has the distinct disadvantage of pushing a non-neutral POV. The solution is fairly simple: Ellen makes a good and IMO compelling case for VictorD7 to be topic-banned from the subject of US taxation, following which it may become easier to unpick behavioural issues from necessary defence of the wiki. I recommend a 3 month topic ban followed by probationary review of edits with a view to a permanent ban if the issue continues. I concur with Rhoark, and thank him for the patient extra analysis. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • You know what? This is beyond the capacity of us mere mortals. It needs to go to WP:DR and thence to ArbCom if not settled. It requires detailed analysis of much more than I (and I venture to suggest most others here) have time to delve through. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• I endorse Robert's suggestion of formal mediation for the content issues. It's not the place of admins at AE to rule on reliability of sources or other content issues, except where problems are immediately obvious. As far as the conduct issues, it's clear that neither party is a saint. At this point, my suggestion is to defer the content issues to mediation, and in the meantime to ban both EllenCT and VictorD7 from the subject of the progressiveness or otherwise of taxation in the United States (except for discussion as part of mediation) for three months or until the mediation is finished, whichever comes first. If mediation fails or doesn't start because of the conduct of one or both parties and the disruption resumes, much more stringent sanctions will likely be forthcoming. Unless any uninvovled admin vociferously objects (@Dennis Brown and JzG:?), I will implement this and close this request in 24 hours or so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me. I don't see this as an American Politics issue as much as a user interaction issue, but it may boil down to enforcement of American Politics, it is simply too messy for me to unpick. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Ditto what Guy said. This is the least aggressive solution I can see coming from this mess while the content issues are resolved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I think a ban from the topic (except mediation) is what's needed to deal with both content and conduct issues here. My only suggested modification is that the ban lasts until mediation finishes whenever that may be. Reason is it gives them both an impetus to participate fully in the mediation rather than wait out the three months (whether they were to do that blatantly or not). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Part of my reservation is that at least one side is claiming that the issue is resolved and that further dispute resolution is unnecessary. I don't want to force further dispute resolution where the dispute is one party's refusal to accept consensus, but nor do I want to impose sanctions on one party for responding poorly to tendentious editing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah good point, go with three months or after mediation (which ever is sooner). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Are you still planning to do this? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Slovenski Volk

Appealing user

• Slovenski Volk (talk · contribs) / Slovenski Volk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User imposing the sanction

• HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notification of User imposing sanction

Sanction being appealed

• Indefinite topic ban since January 23 2014 from all articles and discussions related to Balkan history, sensu latu, for alleged violation of restrictions relating to ARBMAC.

Statement by S.V.

• I have been indefinitely topic-banned by HJ Mitchell, subject to appeal after 6 months (" but you may ask for it to be reviewed after six months. If, in six months' time, you have built up a history of uncontentious editing in another subject area, and you have not been sanctioned for any violations of this topic ban, I would look favourably on loosening or lifting it, and I would hope other admins would agree"), after being accused of violating my specified restrictions. Those in place had been:

1) an indefinite 0RR in Ancient Macedonians article since 2011 for violating the 3RR once AND simultaneously a restriction to one revert per article per 24 hour period on all other articles within the scope of the case (ARBMAC article).

2) In August 2012, I was placed on a partial topic ban for breaching restriction # 1 by Blade of Northern Lights, although the BoNT initially suggested a 3 month ban only. I was allowed to edit prehistoric and Roman period Balkan article , however.

3) This was then extended to all Balkan articles, because of a complaint by an editor for my editing to Illyrians. However this article clearly falls into the Neolithic- Roman time frame, and thus I felt was OK, and had little if anything to do with Ancient Macedonians. I nevertheless, did not appeal, admittedly I might have taken at times a too liberal interpretation of my allowances, and took a Wiki break.

• I initially believed that the very first sanction was heavy handed ( an immediate 0RR and 1RR for all other articles just for 1 breach).I understand that Balkan articles are a hot bed of editorial conflict, and can retrospectively understand the need for such. In addition, because I’d had previous 24 hour blocks, I suspect this had something to do with it. However, the first one (“sock accounts”) was when I very initially began, and was a honest error of creating two accounts because I’d made a spelling error in my username (in 2007 I had just started using the Internet)  ! Another block on the Scythians for edit warring, (but the article has nothing to do with the Balkans, but is in Iran and Russia).

• Nevertheless, I plainly see that my behaviuor has been hardly been model. I did edit war. I really saw my edits as non-partisan, academic, in perfect English, etc, and thus had an air of arrogance about my editing, I admit. Moreover, I felt often cornered into edit wars because I was facing ‘tag-teams’ of editors. I now know that there are better ways to approach this – attempting to reach consensus on talk pages, asking for third party advice, arbitration, or simply walking a way for a few days ! I have since participated in other forums and feel I have ‘grown up’ as a contributor.

• I also want to point out that the content of my editing has always been non-inflammatory. I.e. I have always edited- indeed that is my interest- prehistoric and medieval topics, and discussions about prehistoric minutiae of little relevance to modern controversies. I have never discussed about modern wars, conflicts and politics. I’d argue my interest is ‘pure’. I'm a western born person with mixed Balkan ancestry, and feel I am impartial and respectful of all nationalities, and my only aim has ever been to infuse the often poorly written, un-referenced, and partisan Balkan article with an air of impartiality and scholasticism. Unfortunately, this had attracted resistance by several editors. And even, then, there was nothing personal or inflammatory. In fact, one editor who’d I’d edit-warred thanked me for highlighting better references

• . Overall i have very cordial interactions with other users. Dare I say, I'm often a go-to person for advice and pointers (and there's 7 volumes). :)

• Not to sound high and mighty, but I believe my edits are of an excellent calibre. For example, I wrote this section . I trust it speaks for itself. In fact, after the 0RR, I essentially wrote the entire Ancient Macedonians article, replete with maps, and images in full cooperation and after getting the entire content checked by other editors on the talk page first. The non-biased content and the sheer databank of references I have at my disposal again speaks for itself. I have also created numerous maps for Wiki Commons, some of which are here , and indeed have won Misplaced Pages renown as even erudite scholars have used them, like James Mallory in his talk in Indo-Europeans.

• In summary, I am a very well informed, and well intentioned editor who in the past erred with hot-headedness. I am now beyond that, and a more mature contributor. I ask that I can be re-allowed to edit on Balkan history topics, and continue my contributions to further improving areas of needed work.

Athenean, I'm sorry that is untrue. The only view i do strongly push is that all perspectives supported by evidence and reputable sources be fairly represented. That is often not the case prior my involvement in articles, which I seek to remedy. Otherwise I'm personally disinterested in matters of "historical significance". The "bickering" you refer to is negotiating, and yes, at times intense debate. But that's how it is supposed to work, isn't it ? Anyhow, i can assure you that should that I'll continue to bring forth quality material and current state of the art materials to all historical topics (time permitting- as I'm rather busy these days). I look forward to your feedback and collaboration. We have both been on wiki for years and are mature and cordial enough to negotiate things open mindledly should any perceived differences of opinion arise Slovenski Volk (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua, As I stated clearly and transparently in my opening sentence, my initial topic ban was ABMAC - placed in 2012, with allowance of appeal after 3 months. I clarified what I could edit from the admin in Question. He said "Anyways; ARBMAC is generally meant to cover the former countries of Yugoslavia (although in practice, I'd have no problem with you editing articles on Slovenia) as well as the naming dispute between the FYROM and the Greek province (other articles on Greece not related to said dispute are fine). You're not supposed to edit any of the articles or discussions, but should someone start an AE thread on the topic directly concerning you you're allowed to respond" Also The Neolithics and Roman Balkans aren't a problem, no. Those are fair game." The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC).

Clearly my contributing to Byzantine/ Roman Peoloponesse was permissible, as was my editing on Illyrians (who are a prehistoric/ Roman Age discussion). And I did not 'edit -war', i undid the mass-reversion of Alexikou who felt my otherwise excellent quality edit was not allowed, although I discussed with him on the talk page I was in fact allowed to do so. And this was in 2014- well after the 3 month appeal time was up. But i did not appeal the ARBMAC out of good faith and as a prolonged cooling off period, and stuck to things I considered Roman, Celtic, Iron Age - which are clearly very peripheral to anything on the main crux of ARBMAC - and I had obtained express clarification to do so.

Nevertheless, you and Alexikoua complained after the abovementioned edit to Peloponessu, and Illyrians. My ban was resultingly extended to all Balkan articles in Feb 2014. This was unfair, and very harsh I felt at the time. Nevertheless I accepted it and let it be. I was allowed to appeal after 6 months, but did so only ~ 18 months after. I think I have done my penance, for a ban that was rather harsh to begin with. I urge to you chaps to be fairer and less partisan. All I ever want to achieve is more academic and balanced articles.Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

no such "sporadic violations" exist- apart from one instance of my replying on a talk page when asked. Everything else you have mentioned is pre-2014 and this not pertinent to this discussion (and in anycase fell within permissible editing as per admin "Northern Blades" stipulations. You cannot claim I have wronged in this when I clealry and demonstrably got his clarification on the matter). Thus, you have not brought any evidence at all that i have been anything less than compliant with the restrictions imposed, and you have not provided any solid reason why I should still be on restrictions other than you "feel" I should. If the admins feel a probation period is justified, then fine. But you're reasons are absent or false; and only rests on the fact that I did edit war in the past (2010 (!)), and am somehow incapable of amending this behaviour in the present. I very much beg to differ. Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Athenean, I disagree. The poor climate was due to an entente-blockade style tacticking by certain members, yourself included. mass reverting cited, relevant, NPOV and up-to-date referencess. It is only your perception that i had a slant to play, becuase the article previously read like a propaganda forum site than an encyclopedia article. Changing it to a more NPOV, balanced and academic article was always going to be a tough job, and required someone to be WP:BOLD. Unfortunately, you a priori assumed bad faith, when the opposite was the case. It has never been my intention to prove that AMs were not "X", but were "Y", etc; and in fact yu never had any problem with my edits to any other article but AM (seems a bit odd?) Anyhow, my overhaul of the article, with your kind help now (rightly) displays various lines of evidence and interpretations - from ancient and modern scholars - as it should ! Anyhow, Im happy to discuss any significant changes with you in the future, if I ever get around to editing the article in question. My current focus is Celts, etc Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevance ? Everything you're referring two is from 2010-11. Yes, I edit warred in 2010. The reasons were my frustration in lieu of tag -teamed reversions of sourced content - but I do not pretend in blameless and could have handled the situation better. The restriction has been in place for 5 years; it can now be removed as I now know what other avenues to pursue in case of content debate; plus I'm simply calmer :) Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I have not made allegation that others are "POV pushers' or other words to that effect. Rather, I can honestly state that my edits are academic and non-partisan. To claim this is not to "miss the point", as it not attempting to accuse anyone else or shift the blame in anyway. I'm fully aware that ultimately its one's own actions which earn one consequences (stating 'I do not pretend to be blameless and could have handled the situation better"), and admitted from the outset that no matter the sophistication of language or reference base one perceives to posses, I understand very clearly that consensus is the name of the game on Misplaced Pages and I should not arrogantly engage in edit warring. Moreover, I am now aware of the dispute resolution process (yes, I was actually ignorant of its existence until last year !).

I had not edited the AMs article since 2011, and indeed, the bulk of my editing has focused elsewhere, as is clearly visible on my log (more than 95% of all contributions ) and the maps I have created. So I;m not really sure why your focusing on this; the AMs article is merely what began my initial 1RR back in 2010.

Since then, I had been editing as per Northern Blades guidelines ("other articles on Greece not related to said dispute are fine" as per Northern Blades, and "Neolithics and Roman Balkans aren't a problem"). So, for example, i made a contribution on the Byzantine theme of Peloponessus. Aleikoua reverted it citing not a problem with the content, lack of references, or anything substantive, but that he felt it was a violation of my ARBMAC terms, although it was clearly not. I thus felt justified in re-instituting what was an erroneous mass revert of a well intentioned edit ( I even wrote to him to try and explain). Nevertheless, I was Topic banned for this (in Jan 2014).

It is now 18 months since that, and 5 years since the very initial restrictions. The conditions which required my restrictions are no longer present: I am a more mature contributor now, more relaxed (after all, these are just article) and I now know about Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process (yes I was actually ignorant of this !). I am not bitter, I am not resentful. I just have a lot to contribute, and after all this time, I humbly believe that a return of full editing privileges (as any other editor) is not unwarranted Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by HJ Mitchell

Statement by Glrx

His writing is dense but otherwise seems good. I'd remove the restriction; it's been 18 months. Glrx (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Athenean

Slovenski Volk pushes a very strong POV at ancient Macedonians. His claim that "I essentially wrote the entire Ancient Macedonians article, replete with maps, and images in full cooperation and after getting the entire content checked by other editors on the talk page first. " is totally misleading. He most certainly did NOT edit that article in full cooperation with other users. I remember endless bickering and edit-warring, which is what led to these sanctions in the first place. While the blanket topic ban on all Balkan topics is excessively harsh, I'd be very cautious about lifting the 0RRR restriction on Ancient Macedonians. Athenean (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

SV, it appears you were editing Balkan topics throughout the duration of your ban . Here is a diff of you edit-warring in an article covered by the ban . Such diffs are not hard to find. Can you please explain? Athenean (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I remember. I remember you being blocked three times for edit-warring on Ancient Macedonians, including once when you socked to circumvent the 0RR (June 20 2011), and each time it was over the same topic: the "Greekness" question. There is a reason that 0RR was imposed in the first place. It's only after that restriction was imposed that the climate in that article improved and we started making progress. Like I said earlier, I think the blanket ARBMAC topic ban is excessively harsh, but the revert restriction at Ancient Macedonians is for the better. Athenean (talk) 05:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you edit-warred in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. Your latest comments show you have not understood the problem. Of course you think you were right and you were NPOV and they were POV-pushers and they ruined the article. Of course you thought you were right when you edit-warred. No one edit wars thinking they are wrong, do they? Don't get me wrong, you are a valuable contributor I think the topic ban is excessively harsh. But your latest comments are the best indication that the revert restriction at Ancient Macedonians should stay. Athenean (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Alexikoua

I can't understand why SV claims that his restriction is already over ] while this wp:ae is not closed yet. From his history log it's clear that he not only edits Balkan-related articles freely while this AE was already filled, but in a vew cases he was already violating his topic ban in the Balkans-field in this 20+ month period for example ] patricipating in talk:Croats, a Balkan people.Alexikoua (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Nevertheless, after a long period of absence (if we ignore sporadic violations of his restriction) I agree that a 1rr restriction will be a good start, but SV should realise that wp:ARBMAC concerns the entire range of articles concerning the Balkans.Alexikoua (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

really ? Chatting on a talk page in April 2014 is a violation?

You are topic banned from February 2014 and per policy this is supposed to include the correspodent talkpages too. Per wp:TBAN a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles). It's not the first time you breach a topic ban, this was also mentioned in the previous wp:AE.Alexikoua (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

20+ months is a long period, but seeing that sporadic violations during the current topic ban occurred, I still believe that a 1rr restriction in ARBMAC topics for a limited time period will be a good restart.Alexikoua

Statement by Aigest

I was so much surprised seeing this thread. As far as I remember I know user:Slovenski Volk since 2009, from conversations we've had with him and user:Andrew Lancaster here in wiki. Our debates here were one of my best experiences here. Both him and Andrew Lancaster were very good contributors on genetics and prehistory. Their articles or edits were on the point and extremely well researched and referenced, a rare thing from what I've experienced with many contributors here in wiki. This is the quality wiki needs and we can not afford to lose.

I want to add something else. I've taken a wiki break of about two years because I was tired of the continuous edit wars, hate and lack of collaboration between wiki users from different countries, especially between neighbors. From his article interests I presume user:Slovenski Volk to be of Slavic origin from somewhere in ex Yugoslavia. Being myself an Albanian editor one would presume automatically some kind of clashes here between us. On the contrary, I have only good memories and our collaboration showed me that we can overcome such things. As I told above, I was surprised seeing in his talk page this thread, dragging on stories so old that none can even remember how it started.

Dear administrators. We all know wiki is losing contributors. The reasons are many and the more I read wiki article on that, the more I beg you to embrace his appeal. He is an excellent editor and a good collaborator. We should be happy for him to come back and contribute. Don't push him away. Show us that something is evolving for good. Please don't be part of the problem, be part of the solution. Best Regards Aigest (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Slovenski Volk

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

• No blocks since 2013, seems to understand the problem, he doesn't agree with all previous sanctions but accepts responsibility and seems more mature, at least in this filing. When the tban was put in place, the admins participating seemed very open to a review later. I've looked only a little into this, but I wonder if lifting the restriction, or at least relaxing to 1RR would be ok. I also see that he could have filed this request a year ago, but didn't rush to meet the first deadline, which I see as a positive. I'm inclined to say give him a chance and a fresh ARBMAC warning template so any inkling of a problem can be dealt with quickly. Unless someone has some evidence to the contrary, of course. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Slovenski does not seem to be the sort of ideologically motivated warrior that we all to often see at AE, and he seems to have mellowed in the past 20 months (which is a long time on Misplaced Pages). Unless there was evidence of significant recent disruption, I'd be inclined towards lifting all restrictions and seeing how things go from there. I can't work out whether all the sanctions are mine and thus whether we need a consensus of admins or not. I'm certainly happy to vacate all the restrictions I've imposed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with comments above. It seems that Slovenski Volk understands the reasons for the sanctions, even though they don't agree that some of them were necessary. There doesn't appear to have been any (recent) misconduct which would suggest that the sanctions are still necessary. Therefore I'm in favour of lifting all sanctions and seeing how it goes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Caste articles and talk pages

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

Request concerning Caste articles and talk pages

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to limit editing of Caste pages

This concerns the topic area covered under Category:Social groups of India and Category:Social groups of Pakistan. I propose that uninvolved administrators should be empowered to limit editing of an article about an Indian or Pakistani social group (and/or its talkpage) to accounts older than 30 days and with at least 500 edits. This is similar to the Gamergate 500/30 restriction and can be implemented through an edit filter similar to Filter #698.

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan : standard discretionary sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a proposal that some of us editors and uninvolved administrators who patrol this area came up with and is reflective of what seems reasonable to all of us. Discussion can be found at User talk:SpacemanSpiff/sandbox2. (Contributor list: Abecedare, Bishonen, NeilN, Philg88, Sitush, The Blade of the Northern Lights, SpacemanSpiff)

Background

• The environment around caste articles has been found to be toxic and disruptive numerous times at various venues.
• We have Arbcom-imposed WP:ARBIPA that covers all India-Pakistan-Afghanistan topics and thereby the caste-related topics.
• We have WP:GS/Caste imposed by the community to cover caste-related topics across South Asia (which includes Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, as well as India and Pakistan) but the overlap with India makes the coverage similar to ARBIPA.

Current issues

• While the sanctions are helpful in dealing with stuff post facto, they do not prevent disruption which results in time and effort of editors and admins being wasted as well as bytes on ANI and other related forums
• Caste-based off-wiki discussion groups are dime a dozen and we often see coordinated edits. Worse than that, though, are the off-wiki attacks that editors and admins in this space have had to suffer. A few such incidents have been brought up to ANI or Arbcom on an ad-hoc informational basis, but very rarely are they brought up for remedial purposes as the people targeted by them don't want to take the extra effort.
• With our low level of policing of such articles in the past, numerous mirrors have sprung up and are now regularly being used as sources for contentious material within the same articles. An extreme problem of this can be seen from this CCI, pending for five years.

• Article gets written on the Jatland open wiki --> gets copied to en.wiki--> gets mirrored to Encyclopedia of Martial Races or Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh --> Some good faith editor cleans up the related Jat article here --> New editor comes back and uses Encyclopedia of Martial Races or Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh as a source--> talk page conversation goes in circles as every time this mirror has to be discredited.

• Another example where this sanction would have been useful over the past five years is at Nair. The talk page history shows just how many SPAs and socks come up and how few "regular" editors are there to deal with this problem.
• We have to create an environment where our regular editors are not driven out by such activity, and also keep our articles at a reasonable level of cleanliness.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

NA

Courtesy pings to contributors: @Abecedare, Bishonen, NeilN, Philg88, Sitush, and The Blade of the Northern Lights: —SpacemanSpiff 05:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Replies

@Ryk72 and Floq: If you look at Talk:Nair and the talk page history you will notice how this would have helped in the past (let's ignore the standard vandalism in the pages for now). Almost all the new accounts and/or IPs have been part of a sock/meat collective (with one exception that I see) and you can see how much time "regular" editors have to spend discussing the same issue multiple times. In addition, you can also see how uninvolved editors get dragged into the discussions while responding to semi-protected edit requests. The latest sock was not identified by any of the page regular editors. I just happened to patrol that page and noticed that to be a sock and filed an SPI, but I was wrong in identifying the master. This isn't to say that the restriction has to be concurrent -- both article and talk page. My recommendation is that it is a possibility, let the patrolling admin decide whether it is required and/or if they should be imposed for varying duration. —SpacemanSpiff 16:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Proactively case-by-case. I don't think we need to wait for the disruption to reach a boiling point before implementing this. Admins who patrol this area generally have an idea when there's a sock/meat or other disruptive uptick etc but can not take things to SPI. Sometimes we know that disruption in one article is going to mean that another follows. e.g. Ezhava will follow suit when there's group editing at Nair and it's just sensible to apply the sanctions then. Likewise when something pops up on Mukkulathor, Agamudayar isn't far behind. On the other hand, I don't see why it should be applied for something like Kadiyan even though there's a history of poor content, but just not enough disruption. —SpacemanSpiff 03:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:I think any time we add this restriction to an article and/or talk page it would be appropriate to post a banner notification on the talk page, that could perhaps be linked to a category that's included at EDR. There is a bit of paperwork involved with adding and removing entries from edit filters and that part of the process will also have to be documented. On the other point regarding appeals etc, the suggestion here is to treat this as a standard AE process: the sanction can be imposed by an uninvolved admin or through AE, and follows the standard appeals process also -- imposing admin/AN/AE/ARCA.—SpacemanSpiff 15:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston and Callanecc: I've created {{Ds/talk caste}} as a start to document this. This would place the article in the necessary cats and the categories could simply be linked from WP:AC/DSL/2015 and any future logs. Of course placing the template on the unprotected talk page of a 500/30 article might not be the best idea as it could be removed without anyone noticing it, so a simple transclusion of a template similar to {{Pp}} on the article might be an option too.

And for clarity: The proposal here is to add individual articles and individual talk pages by name to the edit filter. cheers —SpacemanSpiff 11:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Lowercase SigmaBot was eager to archive this and I've reverted; timestamping so that the uninvolved admins have another week to close this before the bot tries to archive it again. —SpacemanSpiff 13:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Caste articles and talk pages

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

Statement by Bishonen

I support this proposal. Disclosure: I took part in the preliminary discussions, and I'll repeat a little of what I said there. The area is dogged by socking, off-wiki canvassing and WP:CIR issues. New editors on caste articles need, and get, a lot of advice from experienced editors and admins, but are unfortunately often too suspicious of our intentions to accept it. I've come to realise people who edit Misplaced Pages with a caste agenda tend to assume anybody contradicting them has a caste agenda of their own, and in extreme cases this is the lens through which they view all other editors. I've seen both Sitush and myself accused of inflating the claims of our own caste and despising other castes… apparently Sitush is a brahmin — yes, I've seen that confidently asserted — and god knows what I am, but I seemingly have no respect for this, that and the other caste. On a good day, I may have heard of these castes, but usually not. I only admin the area, I don't edit it, and so it's water off a duck's back for me, but it must be terminally frustrating for the editors in the trenches. A 500/30 restriction should forestall some of the worst waste of their time and patience. For instance, I've been watching Sitush's talkpage for years, and I frequently see new users (I can't tell how often they're genuinely new) complaining there about being reverted on some caste article — sometimes complaining politely, indeed — but more usually with angry accusations about how he must "hate" their caste, or must be paid to defame it. It's downright depressing. An ounce of prevention would be worth a pound of cure here. Bishonen | talk 11:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC).

Response to User:Floquenbeam and EdJohnston: I take a notion from your comments that you may be willing to approve stronger measures than we have actually requested. We don't want a blanket 500/30 restriction across caste articles. (And to User:Liz; this is what you ask about.) When SpacemanSpiff asked some of us to look at his draft proposal, I originally suggested it should be a blanket restriction across the articles in Category:Social groups of India and Category:Social groups of Pakistan, but that was because I didn't know any better: these categories are huge. The non-comprehensive Category:Social groups of India by state includes over a thousand pages, mostly probably quite unproblematic, and we may add something like 10-20 every month. What we want is to be able to apply the restriction to the problematic articles, starting with a few notorious hotspots — say Nair, Jat people, Vanniyar, Bhumihar — and then see how that goes and whether more are needed. Nobody wants to restrict the whole area, or in any way be aggressive about this. As far as I know, the (few, overworked) admins who enforce discretionary sanctions on caste articles aren't known for being trigger-happy, and I don't believe they would be wrt to this restriction either.

To make this reasonably smooth to administer, I think two things are important: firstly, single uninvolved admins need to be empowered to put an article under the restriction without asking for consensus, going to AE, or any other pushing-a-locomotive-up-an-incline nonsense; simply per admin discretion, which I hope is considered as trustworty in this area as others. (And to remove restrictions without any special by-your-leave, too.) And secondly, it's quite important that talkpages can also be restricted if needed. @Ryk72: you ask why editors should be restricted from discussion of content. This is because bloating-up of talkpages by disruption and eternal repetitiousness by meatpuppets and throwaway socks prevents useful discussion of content. Look at Talk:Nair and its archives. It's only when talkpages are in imminent danger of becoming unusable that we would want to restrict them. Bishonen | talk 14:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC).

EdJohnston, I agree with what you say about having a category for the restricted articles, and restrictions being appealable at AE, and very much about the importance of spelling out the rules clearly. I'm not sure about logging restricted pages at WP:EDR; I only see individual restrictions there. The GG restriction is logged in the discretionary sanctions log, which does have provisions for page-level sanctions. Do you think that would work for our articles? Btw, I want to thank you for pinpointing the problem: "Everybody wants their own caste to be descended from warriors". That's it in a nutshell. :-) Bishonen | talk 15:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC).

P.S. @EdJohnston yet again: I just realized you speak of excusing innocent violations. But there shouldn't be any violations, innocent or otherwise, because the restriction is supposed be automatically enforced by a filter, as it is for Gamergate. This is an important part of our proposal, because for admins to enforce the restriction by hand would be arduous. If the responding uninvolved admins below haven't taken hold of the filter proposal, could they please say whether they support it or not? Pinging NeilN: you understand these things, could you please explain in simple terms how the filter would work? Bishonen | talk 10:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Ryk 72

W.r.t the limitation as applied to WP:MAINSPACE, this is a de facto Semi-protection 2, and I suggest that it be documented as such at WP:Protection policy; with the same caveats & advice as listed there for Semi-protection. Similarly, given that this is a de facto change in WP policy, suggest that it should follow the normal process for such changes - RFC at the policy page (as I understand it).

While the limitation as applied to MAINSPACE is easily understandable in terms of protecting the integrity of the Encyclopedia, it is less obviously so w.r.t the limitation as applied to Talk space.

Would supporting editors be able to advise the reasoning by which editors should be restricted from discussion of content? - Ryk72 11:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark

This is a sensible proposal. Caste related articles are a problem because most of us don't understand the web of relationships between various caste articles and cannot effectively act as administrators on those pages. The articles are plagued by SPAs - often with off-wiki relationships - and an inordinate amount of time is wasted by very productive editors in dealing with these SPAs, filing sock reports, and trying to separate out the good editors from the not so good ones. This proposal will keep the articles open for editing by editors who have an encyclopedic purpose for being here while closing off editing - when necessary - by SPAs and off-wiki cabals. The proposal is simple, easy to implement, and will be effective. --regentspark (comment) 15:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark

Neither endorsing nor rejecting the present proposal, some retrospective of the GG restriction's motivation and effects is in order. Essentially, the restriction was an extraordinary measure to salvage a problematic editor by depriving him of newbies to bite. It failed, inasmuch as Zad68 (talk · contribs) who instituted the rule would eventually topic ban the editor in question. In ancillary comments, he confirmed the whole thing had been an experiment in extending rope. Nor did it seem to particularly improve the conduct of other similarly problematic established editors assuming opposition was based in nefarious motives. In the case of castes, it seems to be the fresh rather than established editors who fail to assume good faith, so the situation is not parallel. (Which is not to say it must be parallel to be considered.) The restriction did have a salutary effect in that it reduced the velocity of the talk page, making it more convenient for the remaining participants. I wouldn't personally choose to reverse that change, but I can see how others might not balance convenience opposite core wiki principles. Ultimately, I think the question is whether the problem is large enough as to make the page(s) impossible to maintain. If so, IAR. Rhoark (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN

Explanation of caste edit filter as requested by Bishonen. It would be modeled off the GG edit filter which editors can see here. When an editor clicks Save to save their edit they see a message, "Sorry, editors with accounts that have fewer than 500 edits or are less than 30 days old may not edit the Gamergate controversy article, its Talk pages or subpages at this time. This page restriction is an Arbitration Enforcement action. We apologize if your edit was well-intended. Please gain experience editing other areas of Misplaced Pages before considering returning to this article. Thank you." For caste articles, the filter should probably look for a category. Pinging MusikAnimal to see if that's possible. --NeilN 13:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Masem, the disruption experienced at caste articles is different from GG. GG as a topic is not that complicated and basically all the sources are in English and can be judged by any experienced editor with an awareness of pop culture. Caste warriors constantly bring sources only a select few Wikipedians can evaluate. Plus, as opposed to GG, Palestine/Israel, India/Pakistan, Greece/Macedonia, etc., there's usually no "other side" to keep things in check. The caste warriors are interested in promoting their own caste and that's about it. And since the topics are obscure and unimportant from a Western point of view, many of them suffer from a "too hard to understand, not worth figuring out" attitude. --NeilN 05:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MusikAnimal

In response to NeilN (I guess this is how it works at ArbCom?), you can certainly target categories using edit filters. We should try use the combine the proposed filter with the Gamergate one, simply for performance and that they do exactly the same thing. The new copy should read something like "Sorry, editors with accounts that have fewer than 500 edits or are less than 30 days old may not edit this article, it's talk page, or subpages at this time..." The part we're missing is the clarification of what subject they are unable to edit, but the upside is performance for what is otherwise an expensive filter. Just a thought, and obviously that can be discussed later — MusikAnimal 14:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Darwinian Ape

There is an increasing trend to restrict Misplaced Pages to new users and it is fundamentally against the spirit of the project. Excluding new users will not solve problems, it may make it quieter but it wont solve anything. Just look at the first application of that rule at GG page. It's still a mess that no one can understand. What do you think will happen to new editors who want to contribute because they are interested in this topic? Will they continue to contribute after being chastised for no apparent reason. It is against AGF and it is contradictory with the "everyone can edit" motto. New editors and IP editors are a tremendous source for this project, and yes it comes with a price. But I think the price doesn't outweigh the benefits and so does the foundation, since they are firm on not changing the "anyone can edit" rule. 500/30 rule has no place in a 💕 and if it becomes a norm, it will eventually be the end of the project. So if you want to speed up the slow death of Misplaced Pages, you are on track, if not please reconsider. This rule might seem convenient, but it's much more destructive than a couple of socks and agenda pushers in the long run Darwinian Ape 15:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sitush & Masem: I understand it can be extremely frustrating to deal with bad faith or just downright unexperienced editors, but preemptively baning every single new editor from a topic just seems to me unfair, and it's a bit of an overkill at any rate. I proposed this for the original GG sanction at the imposing admin's talk page:

We let any auto-confirmed editor to edit, but implement a zero tolerance policy for disruption and impose 500/30 sanction only to those who seem to be disruptive or unfamiliar with the Misplaced Pages rules to comprehensively discuss the topic.(Note that this would not be count as a sanction, only giving time to a new user to familiarize themselves with the Misplaced Pages rules just as it was meant to be in the original sanction) Therefor we would be assuming good faith and let new editors say their piece and give them a chance to constructively contribute to Misplaced Pages, while simultaneously protecting the article from people who, willingly or unwillingly, disrupt the work of others.

I understand this will be an inconvenience for the admins monitoring the topic, but at least we can filter good contributions in and not drive new editors from the project. Darwinian Ape 16:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, No I've never edited the subject area, I am against the restrictions of this kind in principle. I am not against sanctions being imposed in problematic areas, least of all in this subject. I am against sanctions of this magnitude becoming the norm. Darwinian Ape 16:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Masem, okay perhaps I am being naive, I tend to be naive sometimes. But this rule has the potential to ruin WP for good. I was a happy IP user a few months ago and this restrictive attitude made me use this account, because I thought one day I may not be able to contribute as I like. Darwinian Ape 17:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

@Darwinian Ape: no, sorry. I understand your concern about creep but you have two choices here: either introduce something along these lines or watch the caste articles descend into even more chaos because I, for one, am fed up of the do-gooding attitude destroying them. Nowadays, I spend most of my time re-arguing and reverting, and there are very few other experienced contributors involved in the subject area. You either support this proposal or some derivative of it or you watch me walk away. And without me, you might as well scrap all policies when it comes to caste articles because newbies in the subject area almost always do not give a shit and experienced people avoid them.

Misplaced Pages has gone past the "anyone can edit" phase - accept it or watch it become absolutely pointless as a repository of knowledge. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I notice your edit summary for Darwinian Ape's post says Misplaced Pages: The encyclopedia anyone can edit, unless it's a contentious topic. Most caste articles are not contentious in the sense that DA means - the disputes and disruption, prolific socking and meating etc occur because people are unwilling to accept our policies, even when they are explained to them. I also notice that DA seems not to have edited in the topic area at any time in at least the last three months, and I can't recall ever seeing them edit in the area: do you really know what is going on? - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: problematic caste articles, such as Nair and Rajput, will always be problematic: it is the nature of the beast. Reviewing any imposition of editing restrictions every six months is just bumptious officialdom. Far better to review if challenged by an editor in good standing. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: the proposal is not intended merely or even necessarily to combat off-wiki co-ordination. This is not GG Mark 2. - Sitush (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: no, semi-protection and "careful observation" do not work for caste articles. Nor is the issue always COI. That is why this proposal has emerged. I'm sorry but I find it very frustrating that people who have no clue about the things are weighing in here with comments that are miles off course. Please take some time to dig through the history at, say, the Nair article and its related talk page. Then comment. - Sitush (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Masem, I think your past investment in Gamergate is showing and it is overwhelming your opinion. If you don't think that the Nair article has been a time-sink for a very small number of experienced contributors for many years, you're missing something. - Sitush (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Liz, I don't really care why you suggested six months. The fact remains that it should be indefinite by default because of the nature of the beast. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'm out of this. My tolerance for the clueless is pretty poor at the moment, and too many have appeared in this discussion today. I just hope common sense prevails and that people are not put off by irrelevancies that are being raised. - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

@Darwinian Ape: While the 500/30 rule is antithesis of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", if we are clearly aware of outside influence that are engaging in long-term attempts to alter an article, as was the case in GG and appears to be the case here for castes, then we do need stronger measures to counter that to avoid a flood of new accounts and IP that can be used to support that outside influence (even if it necessarily is for the right reasons and/or in line with policy) that simple semi-protection and 3RR/1RR limits on an article cannot stop. But that influence must be something that is readily evidenced, otherwise asking for such protection is a chilling effect. I know we could readily demonstrate it for GG, and I would expect that such can be demonstrated for these caste articles where the 500/30 rule would be proposed. But if editors are simply asking for that type of 500/30 protection without any strong evidence of that influence, we should not allow that 500/30 rule to be used; it should be seen as a last resort to handle something that is outside of WP's control. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Darwinian Ape: I'm not sure if a "acting in bad faith" is an easily discernible metric, and to me invites both false positives and negatives that make it more of a headache. Sometimes it takes many edits of the individual in question to figure this out. 500/30 sets a rather objective bar that the editor has learned the ropes about how WP functions (and that we can readily detect gaming the system to get to 500/30 as one ArbCom enforcement for GG showed); an editor with an earnest interest in improvement to WP can still participate elsewhere to get to that point and then participate fairly. But I will stress that if this is to be adopted at caste articles, there has to be a clear set of evidence of off-wiki organization, and that it should be the last resort after other page protection methods have been tried. It keeps articles to be those that anyone can edit, once they've shown us they've learned enough elsewhere on WP to participate usefully, in contrast to a full-protection that absolutely limits participation. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: If we're talking about using this just because it is a caste article that attract COI-like issues (which assuming we're talking either an editor that is a member of that caste, or a member of a caste that is in disagreement with the caste article that is at attention), and we cannot find evidence of outside collusion that are trying to impact the article specifically, that's overkill. We have other tools at our disposal that should work. (Prior to 500/30 at GG, it was semi-prot on the mainspace space with careful observation on the talk page). Now, as I'm reading here, we're talking 500/30 on the mainspace page only and leaving the talk page open, and to that, a half-step between semi-prot and full-prot on mainspace, I think is a fair concern if all available methods are unable to cope with the volume of IP/SPA changes. But again, that volume also needs to be demonstrated. There are pages that I watch that are a constant target for "slow" vandalism by IP/SPA, and I'd never consider the need for something like 500/30. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: When I look at the Nair talk page (which was given as an example of SpacemanSpiff) and consider it by itself, I don't see anything that triggers a need to lock down the page that is not already covered by the above ArbCom motions. Compared to GG, where it was both volume and civility of the IP/SPAs activity that required a novel solution, that doesn't exist here. But that's purposely not considerign the statement that there is off-site coordination happening. Given everything else said (the sparsity of editors on these pages to start, the nature of them being castes, etc.) then as long as the off-site collusion can be readily demonstrated, 500/30 makes sense. But to say that just based on the Nair history and talk page alone, I would not support that, because there's thousands of non-controversial articles that have the same exact type of behavior (a random IP or new editor coming along and trying to have the article making a specific point without sourcing or the like), making the 500/30 a potential thing that can be abused if we are not careful. Critical is the demonstration of the off-site influence to justify the 500/30. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: All I'm trying to point out is that as long as we are aware this is coordinated off-site influence (which I'm not denying, I just want to make sure we have that evidence), as was the case in GG, the 500/30 rules seems reasonable because that is narrowed aimed to cut off that influence. Without knowing that, the problems otherwise described for these pages appear to be the otherwise unfortunate side effects of our open wiki nature that to put further measures that are beyond existing means (3RR, page protection, and arbcom decisions) does impact our openness. 500/30 is a good concept but should only be a last resort. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

I would like to add my own comments to disagree with those of Darwinian Ape. They appear to be focused on the words "which anyone can edit", but those words have always been hyperbole, a slight rhetorical exaggeration. There has always been an exception to the "anyone can edit" concept for users who were banned by Jimbo Wales. Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in anarchy or an experiment in democracy. It is an experiment, mostly successful but with a mixed record, in crowd-sourcing an encyclopedia. As such, it is necessary to learn from the results of the ongoing experiment. Since the early days, it has been found necessary to impose a few restrictions on the "anyone can edit" rule, such as banned users, topic-banned users, and sockpuppets. GamerGate may illustrate the limits of the experiment; there may be a few areas that are so contentious with so much off-wiki coordination that it has become impossible to develop a satisfactory crowd-sourced encyclopedic article even with 500/30. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep trying in other areas. If we need 500/30 to maintain NPOV in caste-related articles, then we should try 500/30. I think that I agree with Masem in that 500/30 is a draconian restriction, but occasionally we need draconian restrictions in order to maintain the encylopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Arjayay

As someone who has tried to deal with caste article problems, over several years, I fully support the 500/30 proposal.
Many new editors over-enthusiastically promote their caste, adding puffery descriptions such as "brave", "intelligent", "generous" etc., as if these could be universally true about any group. They also add the names of famous people, merely on the strength of their family name, and often add themselves as well. There are also attempts to promote one caste (presumably "their" caste) above others. These additions/changes are almost always totally unreferenced, although some do cite Victorian British Empire writers, whose sweeping generalities are not considered reliable sources. Attempts to revert these changes as unsourced, or for not using reliable sources, are almost always reversed with, as Bishonen reports, frequent accusations of bad faith and even claims that they don't need reliable sources because as a member of that caste, they "know", and only members of their caste should be allowed to edit that article. This frequently leads to multiple IPs and SPAs edit warring.
I have also seen negative edits, adding derogatory descriptions to castes, adding criminals/terrorists to them, and demoting them in the "pecking order". 500/30 would prevent all the drive-by editing, and most sockpuppetry, and would, I believe allow us to retain the best new editors, who are often frustrated/appalled that their genuine work, within the guidelines, is being over-written/undone by COI editors trying to push their cause. - Arjayay (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Abecedare

Disclosure: I have commented upon and edited the proposal when it was in draft stage.

I too wanted to add my support for the proposal as an admin who has been involved in monitoring the area, and as someone who has great regard and sympathy for editors who try to keep wikipedia's article on the subject well-sourced and neutral.

Instead of repeating the points others have already made about why such a proposal is needed, I'll just like to highlight/clarify a few points that seem to have caused some confusion:

1. It is not proposed that the 500/30 rule be applied automatically to all articles under Category:Social groups of India or any similar category. It is only proposed that uninvolved admins be allowed to apply such a rule on articles and/or their talkpages on case-by-case basis.
2. It is important that admins have the ability to apply the 500/30 rule to talk-pages and not just articles, because the most common/frustrating problem seen in this area is IDHT behaviour and endless/circular arguments by a roving band of SPAs/sock-/meat-puppets who are convinced that they know the TRUTH about their caste (case in point: see edit-summary by IPsock of User:Truth only 1). Again the talk-page restriction would not be automatic, but would depend upon the particular form of disruption being seen.

As other have already pointed out, the proposed restriction is partially motivated by the type of off-wiki co-ordination and sock/meat-puppetry that has been seen in the GG area. In addition though, unlike the GG area, these set of articles also attract participation by truly inexperienced editors with marginal language skills and limited experience in searching for scholarly sources. It is both rude and ineffective to point such editors to WP:CIR. And blocking/topic-banning them individually is far from ideal, since doing so too early risks false-positives, while waiting till disruption from each individual SPA has reached conventional blockable level makes the cumulative disruption an unbearable burden for editors actually following and explaining wikipedia policies in this lightly patrolled area. That is another reason I am in favour of the 500/30 rule since, (a) it is not a logged sanction against an individual editor and makes it clear that it is only inexperience that is keeping them from editing an article, and (b) it separates editors who are willing to gain that experience from ones who believe they already know all the TRUTH they need to know. Abecedare (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kautilya3

I took this long to comment here as I was trying to make up my mind whether it is appropriate to apply the 500/30 restriction to both the article and talk pages. I finally came to the conclusion that it is appropriate. We are mainly trying to combat the disruption caused by the POV-pushers, not just the damage caused to the main space. However, this does have the unfortunate effect that a new editor trying to suggest an edit to the article has no place to go. That is concerning.

On the other hand, my experience is that well-meaning new editors make casual and sporadic edits for years before they become active Wikipedians (if at all). The new editors that start battling on contentious issues from the get-go are the ones with pre-formed agendas. There is no harm in asking such editors to gain experience before we allow them to participate in highly problematic areas. If they are serious about Misplaced Pages they will stay and gain the necessary experience. If not, they will disappear. This is merely an instance of WP:PACT.

Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights

This obviously has my wholehearted support, seeing as I helped out a little with the draft. The only major thing I want to add is, in addition to Sitush's work, these are massively difficult topics to administrate. The number of e-mails I've gotten accusing me of being all kinds of shit are too many to count, and I'be mostly been on the fringes for the last couple years (though I'm intending to change that). Although intended as humorous, at one Wiki-meetup I was telling the truth when I said I'm nearly fluent in Hindi swear words from talkpage comments and e-mails directed at me. Putting this in place will cut so much of that out it might just make the area a bit more palatable for other admins, which will make things even that much less difficult. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Question from NE Ent

Not saying this isn't a good idea -- but what exactly authorizes ya'll to put a 500/300 restriction on an article. Hint: the answer definitely isn't WP:AC/DS as written, cause of the whole notification requirement thing. NE Ent 16:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston ... except for the gamergate thing (which I just learned about this morning), any action which predates 3 May 2014 was not taken under the current policy. It enumerations the page level allowable sanctions at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions and I'm not seeing anything the can be construed as matching the proposed 500/300. NE Ent 17:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Caste articles and talk pages

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

• I've seen enough problems with caste articles over the years to make this an easy choice. We have evidence that this particular threshold is adequate to get them up to speed while only being mildly inconvenient to that editor. We are more likely to gain and keep more editors this way, as fewer will be getting blocked due to inexperienced editing. It's a Win/Win sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• So it is clear, I support the 500/30 rule in this case whether or not the talk pages are included, and trust the judgement of my peers to define the scope. I'm wikibreaking, so didn't want it to be bogged down due a lack of support or clarity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm supportive in general, for two reasons. First, because I sympathize with the people on the front lines dealing with this. And second, because I think it would be a very useful limited trial to see if this can be used more broadly. I'd like the 500/30 rule to be considered a possible tool in many other AE areas of constant SPA's and sockpuppetry, like Israel/Palestine, etc. But we'll never know if this is productive - or too restrictive - if we don't try it in more places than GamerGate controversy and see. I'm not familiar with the type of disruption on caste articles; my immediate uninformed impression is that it seems different from the type we see on GamerGate controversy. What do people more on the front lines of this think about Ryk72's idea of limiting it to article space at first, and see if that's sufficient? I mean, it wouldn't be perfect, but neither is a full 500/30 rule on both articles and talk pages. If implemented, this would be an AE enforcement, so I don't see the need to change policy pages. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Per Bish's and SMS's clarifications, I support giving uninvolved admins the option to impose this 500/30 restriction on editing a covered article, or a talk page, or both, at their discretion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Concur with Floquenbeam on this matter. The restriction has been an enormous help with Gamergate articles and we should try it elsewhere to determine if it is a universally effective method at combating SPAs. Gamaliel (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• SpacemanSpiff, do you foresee this restriction being imposed on a case-by-case basis for articles that are facing disruption or do you see this editing restriction being applied pro-actively to all caste articles? My basic question concerns how many articles/talk pages this would affect...a dozen? a hundred? more?

In the case of Gamergate, there are several associated articles but the editing restriction only affects the Gamergate controversy article. I'm not familiar with how extensive caste articles are so it's unclear to me how much of an impact your proposal would have if enacted. Liz 21:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

My concerns are about "editing restriction creep" and while I can see that applying this filter would be a judgment call by an admin, I hope it would only be used for articles that are experiencing persistent disruption (trolling), not ones where there are simple arguments and disagreements that are a natural part of determining consensus. It worries me that we don't have an easily determined method of knowing when and when not such an editing restriction would apply but I understand that longtime editors working in this subject area have a good sense of when there might be off-wiki attempts to influence article content.

It looks like this editing restriction will be accepted and I just hope that it is used selectively and not liberally. Also, articles with such a restriction (and this would include Gamergate, too) should be reviewed after 6 months to see whether the restriction is still warranted. That is, editing restrictions should be a temporary solution (even if temporary means 1 year or 2) and not a permanently existing condition for an article or talk page. Liz 17:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, I just mentioned, as EdJohnston suggested, that these editing restrictions can be appealable or reviewed if an editor believes they are no longer necessary. I said "after six months" because I think it would add to the disruption if an editing restriction was challenged on a more regular basis (as Gamergate controversy was for the first three months it existed). Liz 19:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Floquenbeam. There should be a full 500/30 rule on articles. (Talk pages could be omitted from the blanket ban, but admins would have discretion to include specific talk pages). Wording should be the same as the ARBGG 500/30 rule if that is possible. For comparison, here is the scope of the community's caste restrictions: "..all pages about social groups, be they castes, communities, tribes, clans, kootams, gotras etc., explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal." A template should be created that can be placed on the talk page of affected articles. New editors not familiar with the rule could be excused for some innocent violations. To get some idea of the scope of the problem, notice that Talk:Nair is up to 20 archives. Everybody wants their own caste to be descended from warriors, and we have to keep explaining the WP:RS rules to a very unwilling audience. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Bishonen's further comment sounds right. Just need to spell out whatever the rules are. Perhaps there should be a category for articles that are placed under the 500/30 restriction. Also WP:EDR could be used to record which articles are restricted. Single admins could add or remove the restriction, but restrictions should be appealable at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• If the same sanction (ie 500/30) is used then the names of the articles could be added to the same filter which provide a public list (if you know where to look, but we can put that link in various places, also has the benefit of not needing to be advertised). I'd hesitate to put them on EDR since other discretionary sanctions, both ArbCom and community authorised aren't recorded there. Regarding how the filter would work, it'd check every account (assuming it's semi protected as well) which edits the article for 500 edits and for 30 days of registration, if the account doesn't meet that requirement the filter will prevent the edit from being made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Having the filter apply to all caste article could be very difficult unless there is something specific which is included on all those pages (which could be gamed quite easily, c.f. the reason there's no cascading semi-protection). It might be better filter enforcement as an option for all caste articles and individual pages can be added to the filter as needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Fully support the 500/30 concept here. — Ched :  ?  23:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• In agreement with this post at User talk:SpacemanSpiff I am ready to close this request with (a) general approval for admins to place caste articles under a 500/30 restriction and (b) article restrictions for Nair, Jat people, Vanniyar, and Bhumihar. There would also be a 500/30 talk page restriction at Talk:Nair. The discussion that came up with these titles was at User talk:SpacemanSpiff/sandbox2#Yet another modification. People who participated there were User:Sitush, User:Bishonen, User:Abecedare and User:Philg88. No objection if anyone wants to improve this language, and post their own text of a proposed closure in their section above. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply to User:NE Ent: See WP:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Log of article-level discretionary sanctions for some previous use of article-level discretionary sanctions. The 500/30 restriction on Gamergate is also an article-level restriction and is currently visible in WP:DSLOG. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Bachcell

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

Request concerning Bachcell

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Bachcell (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

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions:

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

1. 20:50, 28 September 2015 Adds info violating WP:BLP to page, sources that blatantly fail WP:RS (eg Townhall.com, Breitbart.com), to back up his WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims.
2. 20:59, 28 September 2015 Adds unsourced info to WP:BLP article, with unsourced description, attempting to connect an innocent living 14-year-old-boy to claims of terrorism.
3. 21:06, 28 September 2015 Adds info violating WP:BLP to same page, sourced to what editor admits is "Conservative blog Weasel Zippers.
4. 16:34, 29 September 2015 Adds back, again, same unsourced info to WP:BLP article, as above.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Numerous previous talk page warnings for disruption:

1. May 2010 - edit warring warning.
2. June 2010 - canvassing warning.
3. July 2010 - spam links warning.
4. August 2010 - canvassing warning.
5. November 2010 - Wikiquette alert.
6. June 2011 - Disruption at BLP warning.
7. May 2015 - edit-warring and WP:NOR warning.

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 01:39, 29 September 2015 by Liz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• NOTE: Bachcell (talk · contribs) is wrong, he most certainly was informed of this request, per my DIFF. Note that most recent WP:BLP violations were after discretionary sanctions warning by admin Liz. — Cirt (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User notified, see DIFF. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Bachcell

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

Statement by Bachcell

Was not informed of this request, will not contribute to the clock incident if my contributions are not wanted. Bachcell (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by IP Editor

Again we see Gamaliel jump to apply sanctions in a content dispute involving TheRedPenOfDoom, Aquillion and MarkBernstein against an editor on the other side of that content dispute? This is becoming a pattern. 168.1.99.212 (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I see little evidence of IP involvement or sockpuppetry at the article (Ahmed Mohamed clock incident) or talk page and none directed at the editors in question. Certainly nothing rising to the level of the Nazi-related? (I don't see the relevance) conspiracy suggested by Mr. Bernstein. 168.1.99.212 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Quite right of you to call that out - one of the dangers of a dynamic IP, I didn't even think to check but I assure you the edit was not mine. 168.1.99.212 (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark

The one violation after notification, while unsourced/poorly sourced, is a claim about a clock rather than a living person. I agree with Gamaliel's ban (temporarily) as a preventive measure against further disruption, but procedurally I question whether this is actionable under BLP discretionary sanctions. Rhoark (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein

An IP from the same block, presumably the same editor, made a neatly identical complaint yesterday at AN/I . Presumably, this is another little reddit quest -- this topic is now at the top of one of the Gamergate planning boards under a long, long post by the fellow whose name commemorates the sweet music of Nazi dive bombers.

I'd like to call the attention of administrators to the chilling effects that the continual threats of sanctions -- or at least time-consuming complaints at WikiLaw -- have on editors who are, as here, trying to prevent Misplaced Pages from being embarrassed by conspiracy theories. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

To the IP editor, if in fact, there is a group of people who are consistently editing in compliance with our policy regarding content about living people, and other editors who are consistently editing in contravention of the policy regarding content about living people, one would expect that one group would be praised for their work and one set would be sanctioned. When this happens, that would be a sign that the system is functioning as it should and everyone who cares for the encyclopedia should be happy! IP, you don't sound very happy, and that is troubling. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

As an IP who has made very few edits, but among those edits is , your unhappiness with the situation outlined above is probably to be expected. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by LavaBaron

I would like to echo the comment made by MarkBernstein above, vis a vis allowing low-tolerance for the block-shopping of editors attempting to enforce some minimal standards in terms of the injection of conspiracy theories and innuendo to the encyclopedia, a battle we are (IMO) losing. I have recently, myself, endured this when confronting a SPA/IP Editor duo (sock investigation active here) attempting to sanitize and legitimize the articles for Frank Gaffney and Center for Security Policy, well-known conspiracy theorists. The editor in question in this arbitration action, Bachcell, just today left a congratulatory aplomb on the SPA's Talk page in that case , seemingly underscoring his intent to continue participation in this "bad boys club." I'd ask the arbitrators to consider whether, given the established profile and edit history of Bachnell, he is currently in a position to immediately make an adjustment to his editing patterns and sourcing standards if nothing more than a warning is given? There is a journey of intellectual maturation on which Bachnell needs to embark and limiting his editing privileges to articles outside this topic area for a year or so will allow him to develop the skills in identifying RS and composing NPOV prose that will give him the best chance at reintegration into the mainstream of WP. LavaBaron (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

What area of conflict is this topic under Discretionary Sanctions from Arbcom? This is forum shopping and doesn't belong here. No ArbCom case is cited for Arbitration Enforcement. Where would a "topic ban" be logged? --DHeyward (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by "IP Editor" (Re: Statement by LavaBaron)

As the "IP Editor" is totally unrelated to the alleged "SPA" (i.e. not the same, nor related any way whatsoever) other than through correlation due to erroneous claims presented by LavaBaron after coincidental edits on the two pages mentioned – seemingly post hoc ergo propter hoc among other potential or actual fallacies – the commentary concerning innocent parties, exacerbated by the fact similar allegations have been posted multiple times on several boards and/or pages, could be perceived as an attack on the character of the "IP Editor" (et al) or in the least (each, some, if not all of those when viewed in total) seems uncivil. Therefore, I respectfully request references to the "IP Editor" be stricken from this discussion!

As for Bachcell posting a comment on the talk page of supposed "SPA", the reason is unclear, only Bachcell would know for certain. What I propose, as a potential explanation is that in having taken an interest in the "clock incident", Bachcell may have observed a fringe theories discussion on same subject matter, where LavaBaron posted on the thread commenting "I'd love to get into this but I have my hands full with the CSP (above), at the moment" (perhaps foreshadowing future involvement?), next clarifying "CSP" by using the full name and (what could appear to be a developing or adopted modus operandi of possible ad hominem?) when adding "uffice to say, WP is on LoonWatch Level 5 right now." Later on, posting an RfC notice directly below the "clock incident" discussion. Note: This was done prior to the post by Bachcell on user talk page referenced by LavaBaron. Considering the aforementioned theory, which seems plausible (only Bachcell would know for sure), then I do not think any undue weight should be given to an editor becoming involved in what seems to be unrelated matters, or where relevance provided by an interlocutor seems to focus on extraneous issues LavaBaron brought into this discussion, i.e. why should Bachcell be called out for what appears to be simply a comment of support for an uninvolved editor when that may have been influenced by previous actions of LavaBaron, now commenting against Bachcell. 99.170.117.163 (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

User:DHeyward asks what is the area of conflict for Discretionary Sanctions for this topic. The answer is American politics 2 (as per my comment on Talk:Frank Gaffney in response to a Third Opinion request that appeared to be a conduct issue rather than a content issue). This concerns a controversial political organization since 1932 that is still active and is within the scope of the ArbCom case. (It is true that the filing party doesn't identify the case, but that is where any sanctions would be logged.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Bachcell

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

• Given the sensitive and inflammatory nature of these edits, which appear to link a 14-year-old to acts of terrorism, I'm issuing an immediate topic ban, but I will leave this matter open for discussion so editors and admins can evaluate whether or not that ban should stay in place long-term. Gamaliel (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• 168.1.99.212 Yes, it is an unfortunate pattern when certain editors are stalked by an army of sockpuppets and IP editors. Regardless, I did not scan the article history to see which editors were participating before responding to the sanctions request here, but I doubt conspiracy HQ will believe such inconvenient facts. Gamaliel (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Do you actually have a relevant comment on the sanction or do you merely wish to provide more proof of this phenomenon? Gamaliel (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• I endorse the topic ban as self-evidently justified. Poorly sourced negative content in a controversial WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• User:Bachcell was notified of the BLP discretionary sanctions at 01:38 on 29 September by User:Liz. So the last of the edits by Bachcell shown above was made after the notice was given. I favor User:Gamaliel's topic ban of Bachcell, phrased as "indefinite topic ban from all edits related to Ahmed Mohamed, broadly construed, while this matter is being considered at WP:AE" and recommend it be made permanent. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Gamaliel: It's easiest (per the DS procedure) if you modify the sanction yourself. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

HughD

E.M.Gregory

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

Request concerning E.M.Gregory

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kingsindian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

E.M.Gregory (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:ARBPIA :

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

1. 12 Oct WP:NPA, WP:BATTLE
2. 9 Oct WP:NPA, WP:BATTLE
3. 4 Oct Article creation, see explanation below
4. Sometime in Sep/Oct Article creation, see explanation below
5. 17 September Article creation, see explanation below
6. 21 July Article creation, see explanation below

(and many more in this vein - see this for the articles created by this editor)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Let me state at the outset that the editor might be acting in good faith, probably due to some personal experience and I dislike prosecuting people, but this can no longer be ignored. I am not asking for any harsh sanctions.

The editor creates a spate of articles on rock-throwing in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Obviously only one side uses rocks, the other side uses bullets. When this was pointed out here and here, the user gave this answer (ignore the WP:BATTLE in the edit summary for the moment): "I make articles about rock throwing regardless of ethnicity", which is patently ridiculous. Their justification is not tenable because they also create a spate of WP:MEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS articles - not involving stone throwing - on one side of the conflict (see diffs above for examples - many more can be found by their article creation link).

When I again point out the WP:NPOV problem this creates here, the user dismisses my point and accuses me of whitewashing murder. Now, I don't mind any insult thrown at me (I have a pretty thick skin), but the repeated behaviour through article creation and behaviour at WP:AfDs is becoming unmanageable (see the first diff). Moreover, other people are posting messages on their talk page asking if they are going create more articles. WP:AE should clarify whether it is permissible to create one-sided articles like this based on skewed sampling. This is an endemic problem in this area (see this POV travesty for instance - not created by EMG), and something needs to be done here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark: I will note that categories, in contrast to statements inside a single article, do not require even a reference. For instance, as noted on the AfD page, Category:2005_murders_in_Jersey_City contains a single article (not created by EMG - but being vigorously defended at AfD by them) which was largely a WP:COATRACK article (permalink) insinuating Muslim attack on Coptics. Compare the POV travesty: it is entitled Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2015) - while all it contains are stabbings and attacks by Palestinians. Is that allowed? If not, why is creating a bunch of separate articles doing the same thing allowed? Finally the articles themselves are not WP:NPOV: they quote little or no Palestinian sources or even what happens to them. For instance, the Lion's Gate stabbing article: one of the people accused - Fadi Alloun - was himself killed in disputed circumstances - nothing at all is mentioned there. The article contained no background of the recent Al-Aqsa troubles and so on. There are a hundred POV violations, blatant and subtle, in the article - which is unavoidable because of the way the articles are created using skewed sampling. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gaijin42:: many of the articles are not being kept at AfD's. Many are "no consensus", many are being deleted/redirected. But that is not the point: AfDs are notoriously capricious and equally notoriously disrupted by sockpuppets - see (this for instance). As to "eventualism", that is an essay, while WP:NPOV is policy. According to Gaijin42's logic, it would be ok to create the POV travesty linked by me above, because someone will eventually come around and add deaths on the Palestinian side and the needed context. That is absurd. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, the case Nishidani mentions is here. Note the disagreement even between administrators there. I can't say it has gotten worse, but the issues remain. Kingsindian ♝♚ 05:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning E.M.Gregory

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

Statement by E.M.Gregory

The accusation does not merit a response, as my editing record will bear out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark

As long as the articles themselves adhere to NPOV, there is no requirement to balance article creation between pro- and anti- sides of any issue. Misplaced Pages is not mandatory. Rhoark (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

These articles will continue because the criteria of WP:NOTABILITY, WP:EVENT, WP:NOTNEWS, are never taken seriously in the AfDs. The larger point is WP:NPOV, as an editorial obligation. I can remember Sandstein stating, some years back, that this means editors in the I/P area are under an obligation to contribute neutrally. I expect that means that we are obliged to ensure an article is constantly monitored for balance, and (b) more saliently here, that article creation by an editor cannot harp on one POV. Since you like creating these articles, E. M. Gregory, why is it they deal exclusively with Israeli victims of terror or stone throwing? I would expect that if you write an article like Death of Binyamin Meisner because of a horror of death from stoning, then it would surely tempt you to write a parallel one, The Death of Edward Ghanem. The Palestinian Christian boy after all was killed in exactly the same manner as the soldier Binyamin Meisner. A block of concrete was dumped on his head, falling from an Israeli outpost. That would be evidence that you contribute with encyclopedic neutrality, and not to abuse wiki for a set of articles as a political statement.(I should add that I don't think this kind of article be it for Meisner or Ghanem, should be written)Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Gaijin/Roark. All of these articles start out as POV messes, remain so unless someone steps in and starts to fix them. I've had to do this on dozens of such articles, since the editors themselves either do not understand WP:NPOV or don't care to edit towards NPOV. So this kind of article always translates into a Fix it obligation on external editors who would like myself prefer to do something genuinely useful for an encyclopedia round here (e.g.Qos (deity) ). The sources say the Bennetts lived in a West Bank settlement. This doesn't interest Gregory. The sources provide a contradictory set of descriptions of the event. Gregory gives just one version. The sources tell a much more complicated background than just the version Gregory cherrypicks (Palestinians started it by barricading Al-Aqsa etc) If you search Bennett at List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015 you'll get everything you get in here. Why try to make an encyclopedic article when the story is summable in a paragraph. Why persist in jerryrigging articles that scream for editors to fix them per NPOVNishidani (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)?

Gaijin, showing NPOV violations would just spin out into a content dispute argument. I have tried to solve this chronic obsession with rushing to create dozens of independent Israeli victim articles (User:ShulMaven did several in a similar period of killings last year, and now one can expect a surge this time round. All that is needed is to create a list of all incidents, succinctly and neutrally listed, covering all incidents reported in the mainstream press (List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2015 and List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015). That aspires, precisely, to meet encyclopedic balance per WP:NPOV, as opposed to the numerous (13) articles we have on Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel where one side's violence is listed, without any mention whatsoever of the violence related to these events from the other side. When I did that, what was the reaction. No collaborative effort to improve the balance, which fell to me, but merely insistent drive by POV tagging! This may not be an AE problem but it is certainly an issue ARBPIA ought to look at, perhaps by clarifying for us peons whether we can ignore the other version in any article, or whether WP:NPOV does impose on us a non-negotiable policy of covering both sides in this endless, stupid conflict.Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

E. M. Gregory. Your 'editing record' bears out many things. Generally it is excellent outside the I/P area, but there you intrude on what was a remark by me on a 3rd editor's page suggesting he has compledely misread and reverted one of my edits, and the intrusion was simply to make the usual personal attack and egg on admiringly the other editor's 'taking me on' or 'facing me down'. That is a battlefield attitude where allies are encouraged and the common enemy identified.I.e.

• decent people are driven away by intense ideologues pushing their monomaniacal POV by fair means and foul.
• I do admire the aplomb with which you deal with User:Nishdani's incessant WIKIHOUNDING and his bad, POV editing

Now you are quite entitled to these views about me. I get them too regularly to worry about them. What you should not be doing is interrupting an attempt at clarification on a user's page between me and that person, regarding editing issues, to attack me, with no consideration of the merits of the contended edit. Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Gaijin42

This appears to be a cross-article content dispute, where the complaintants do not like the articles being created. There is little to no behavioral evidence of a problem, and the community can adequately handle article creation issues unless they are massive and frequent disruption. Indeed, per Nishidani's statement, the articles are being KEPT at AFD. NPOV across articles (tit for tat) is not required, and would any case be WP:FALSEBALANCE Suggest this be declined, with a boomerang trout. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani - if you want to claim NPOV violations that are actionable, then you would need to show concrete examples of them to be evaluated. But in general articles are edited under WP:EVENTUALISM. That he puts in some information, and you put in other, is the way things are supposed to work. It only becomes an (actionable) NPOV issue if he is somehow preventing your ability to provide balance, or if he is grossly misrepresenting sources Gaijin42 (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Samtar

To further Gaijin42's above comments, I believe that while E.M.Gregory can be seen as a little abrasive at times, he is acting in good faith. samtar 19:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning E.M.Gregory

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

BenMcLean