Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Recently archived caste-related proposal was not closed

What do we do about this proposal? It has been auto-archived without being closed, although the consensus seemed firmly in favour of accepting it. - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

In the past I'm sure I've seen unclosed requests unarchived where there was unfinished business, such as here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I've unarchived the discussion, I know I'm the proposer but I don't think anyone meant to leave this to be archived without closure. —SpacemanSpiff 13:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Ashtul indeffed

I have indef-blocked Ashtul in the SPI case against him because I find that he is in violation of his AE topic ban. I didn't know if I should file a report here for posterity's sake. I will leave this for a clerk's discretion.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No, but you should add a note on the user's talk page to annotate the topic ban violation in addition to the sockpuppet block. NE Ent 16:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I had written it in the conclusion of the case but went ahead and left the comment as you have suggested.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Request concerning EMG

The request has been open for quite a while, but only one admin has commented. Can others at least comment on whether they think there is something to the request or not? I will then pursue the matter through other channels like AfD, if it is deemed here that the creation of a bunch of articles like this is OK. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Archive link needs fixin

The setup for the page is such that the "One click archive" (for editors who have it installed) is archiving to the wrong place. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Archive 1 instead of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive 3, and I don't have time to figure it out right now. NE Ent 17:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Since this is an arb page a clerk should fix it. Putting in a standard MiszaBot header might be sufficient (even with a very long timeout). The OneClickArchiver respects the archive counter shown in the archive bot header. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Dicklyon and Darkfrog24 request

Would someone please stop a certain two editors from editing sections they are not supposed to edit? Involved parties are placing a "note" in the "uninvolved administrators" section, and this is clearly gaming of the page guidelines here. This note should be removed. RGloucester — ☎ 20:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30

Do for applying the minimum 500 edits rule only count edits in the main space, or also edits like these? --Qualitatis (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This is essentially a topic ban under another name. Any thing related anywhere s covered especially if it is disruptive if what I would say.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Procedural question--what constitutes appropriate notification?

What is appropriate notification for AE processes? Last time, I did two rounds of notification, one in which I was explicitly seeking witnesses[1] and another in which I posted a neutral message informing editors that a conversation in which they were involved had been cited (and notified all participants in the discussion) [2]. I was accused of canvassing (and so did not continue either type of alert) but I do not know if it applied to the first round or to both.

I see that most open requests have not only the accuser, accused and admins but many involved editors as well. How are they finding out about the process? This isn't a heavily watchlisted page. I feel that my accuser is presenting an extremely skewed version of events and that contributions from editors who've worked with both of us would even out the perspective. What constitutes a friendly and appropriate notice? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

AE is not a vote, it's to determine whether or not an arbitration sanction has been violated and if so what should result from that. If you think that someone is presenting something out of context or otherwise disagree with what they have to say, you're welcome to state and support that as an addendum to your own statement. If you did violate a sanction, on the other hand, then no number of "me too" supporters is going to change that fact. So all you'd be doing is lengthening the discussion to no purpose. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Then what are the comments from other editors for?

I did show how he's presenting things out of context and even provided proof of a few outright lies (and I do not use the term lightly), but I don't think anyone's taking it seriously. I feel that other voices coming in and saying, "Yes, so-and-so has exaggerated in this way before" or "If you look at X, you can see that DF did Y because of Z and not because of Q" might change that. Take this for example: [3]

Two other editors have been mentioned during this process, one substantively. Would it be inappropriate to alert this person? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm both surprised and unsurprised that you've located yet another venue in which to spill your issues with SMcCandlish, but I assure you that everyone who needs to be notified of your AE request has been amply notified. You've pinged Curly Turkey at least two times that I can see in your own comments. They've been notified. If they've chosen not to make comments, then that's all there is to say about it. As Seraphimblade said, comments specific to your case belong in your case, not here. --Laser brain (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

DF24 argues that "This isn't a heavily-watchlisted page". But a click on the history tab shows that AE has 1,307 page watchers and is viewed 250 times per day. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That's odd. I wouldn't have thought so. I still have to wonder how all the involved editors on other cases are getting here, though. I don't see them pinged in the conversations. But I disagree that everyone who needs to be notified has been. Since Thryduulf has cited whether or not I am a net gain for WP:MOS in the reasoning, consulting MoS regulars other than one who has a huge personal problem with me is probably a good idea. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You know what? I'll just ask. Hey @Nomoskedasticity:@Torven:@Sir Joseph:@Serialjoepsycho:@The Blade of the Northern Lights:@Kingofaces43:@David Tornheim:@Aircorn:@TracyMcClark: @S Marshall: @Tiptoethrutheminefield: @AlbinoFerret: @Only in death: @MarkBernstein: @DHeyward: @Beyond My Ken: Pardon me, but I'm curious about how everyone got here. Some of you look like you were involved in or at least witnessed the disputes that led to the AE complaints for which you've supplied comments. Do you guys watchlist the page? Were you notified in some way? Context: I've seen more than one person (full disclosure: including myself) ask if they were allowed to call witnesses for AE proceedings. It's pretty clear that WP:CANVASSING rules would apply to this, but the page in question is designed for disputes about articles, not disputes about people. Maybe we could build some kind of FAQ giving guidelines for acceptable AE notification and other non-obvious AE issues. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't answer for the editors you pinged but I regularly visited AE when I was an editor because I found the discussions, involving resolving disputes about old arbitration cases, interesting. Now that I'm an admin, I drop by, probably not as frequently, to see if I have anything to contribute. Usually the cases are so involved that I don't have the time or patience to read all of the past arguments, check diffs, weigh statements. And I think other editors who visit noticeboards or dispute resolution probably also regularly check in here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, I've commented on two other cases since I've been here. Very interesting. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Similar to what Liz said. I've been lurking around the notice boards a while for my own interest and entertainment and, now that I'm finally registered, generally just blundered in on my own.Torven (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• I wasn't notified of this discussion by anyone. If someone is accusing someone of canvassing it really at the end of the day depends on the situation. There are proper notifications that are not a violation of that policy and there are improper ways.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• I wasn't notified. When I comment on an article the option to watch the page it's usually selected by default. Every so often I browse the page if it's for something that I find interests me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• This page has been on my watchlist shortly after the ArbCom decision on GMOs. I also watch a number of editors' talk pages who were involved in the GMO articles past and present and sometimes they send warnings to each other that there is going to be a hearing here. I am not even a little bit surprised there are so many editors who watchlisted this page. As for calling witnesses, I don't know. I use the ping if I am replying to someone or mention something that someone else has said or talk about their behavior, etc. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• DF, you might want to ask someone whether your ping worked. I think that pinging more than 7 at once does not, at least under some conditions that I've forgotten. Anyway, before I was watching this page I sometimes heard about AE cases because I was watching the user talk pages of people involved, who got notified. Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that with pings, especially if it's a repair job. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• I was pinged. Otherwise I'd have had no idea about the discussion at all.—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Which party pinged you? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The complainant.—S Marshall T/C 13:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually it was one of the responders who pinged you first S Marshall.[4] AlbinoFerret 23:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• I watch the page having been involved in a recent Arbcom case and having brought other editors here concerning another Arbcom case on a topic I edit. AlbinoFerret 23:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So if I were to, say, write an AE FAQ including this, what other issues do you think it should cover? BMK has pointed out that not everyone is reading "broadly construed" the same way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You cannot write an AE FAQ. AE is under ArbCom jurisdiction, and only they and their clerks can edit such pages. I would suggest that you take such matters up with the committee, but I do not think that will benefit you in any way. RGloucester — ☎ 23:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Well then I'd draft one and present it to them for approval and modification. If it so much as saves people the time it takes to send a canvassing warning, then it's a benefit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

AE is neither a debate nor a court. There are no witnesses. It is up to the uninvolved administrators to assess the situation and take action as they see fit. You need to have faith in their powers of discerning as to whether a complaint is phoney or genuine, instead of thinking up ways to game the system by packing the page with "character witnesses", as you said before. RGloucester — ☎ 02:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That being the case, it would be nice for people to know about that rule before the thread's halfway over. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Have you read WP:AC/DS? It describes the DS system. AE is not a forum in the conventional sense, merely a place to bring evidence of a violation of an ArbCom remedy to the attention of uninvolved administrators. However, said administrators are able to impose sanctions without an AE report, as they are acting under their own "discretion" in enforcing the relevant remedies. Essentially, the burden lies with the enforcing administrator. He must do his own research into the relevant matter, and come to a decision on that basis. Plenty of AE cases are thrown out as rubbish, so don't think that administrators shy away from doing such. One can presume that if multiple sysops are telling one that there is a problem, there is indeed a problem, regardless of the personalised dispute with the filer. The best way to resolve this is by ceasing the disruptive behaviour, acknowledging one's disruption, and accepting the sanctions as they are imposed. I've learnt this the hard way, and would suggest that you do the same. RGloucester — ☎ 04:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I've read it. It does not cover what the accused is and is not allowed to do.

Admins are as subject to bias and suggestion as anyone else. "This person is prone to exaggerate" and "that's not exactly what happened" or "these diffs are cherry-picked" are more likely to hold weight when coming from a third party, ideally a neutral third party, than from the accused him or herself.

You'll understand if I don't consider you an unbiased source in my particular case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Drafting a FAQ, participation welcome

I am currently drafting an AE procedure FAQ at User:Darkfrog24/sandbox/AEFAQ. I plan to spend at least a few months here at AE and on similar pages to identify frequently occurring issues and develop solutions. If all goes well, I'd submit it to the committee for approval. I would like to invite the regulars here to offer comments and participate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Still dragging that old cow out of the ditch? Dicklyon (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

There's an etiquette to this page and it's not immediately obvious what it is. And how is something an old cow if I didn't know it existed until last month? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Its still not too late to impose an IBAN. Knock it off. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Increase 500 word limit

It would be helpful if the limit for a reported editor is greatly increased as it's not realistic to offer a response to all other editors participating who are allocated the same space. Chesdovi (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I strongly support this. Actually I think it is a denial of fair process for an accused person to be limited to the same space as each one of his accusers. There has to be a limit, but giving an accused person space to properly defend him/herself should have a very high priority. I propose that the limit for accused persons be raised to 1000 words. An alternative would be a limit on how many words can be written in reply to each other participant. It should be clear that the accused person has a right to reply to all accusations, as well as to answer all reasonable questions. Zero^talk 08:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable and Zero's "fair process" argument holds ground. On the other hand, this is not a trial. When we are at enforcement, as opposed to ArbCom, an editor's edits speak for themselves, as in the case of Chesdovi. Still, I think, the limit should be only for the initial statement, while allowing an appropriate response to all subsequent posts. Debresser (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

A ratio would be an interesting approach -- especially if we could automate it, with code that indicates what is available to the respondent, as a function of how much text has already been entered by others. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I support the extension to 1,000 words (at least), for the reasons given by User:Zero0000.Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Changing this word limit would require an RfC if you'd like to get one started. If you set one up, consider whether you would want an increase in diffs as those are limited in the current page guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'd prefer to see less off topic claim and counter claim. if anything we need to reduce the level of side chat so I oppose this. 500 is fine and can (and had) been extended as necessary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This link[5] is to the old discussion that led to the current word limits. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think something has to change. It is inherently not fair to basically have one person with a limit against a potentially entire Wikipedia able to post without a limit. But I then see the other side that AE will then clog up and we don't want that either. We also don't want to add more work for clerks, which my suggestion would be to have a gateway of sorts, where questions/claims are filtered through a gateway and then posted by the clerk. But regardless, as I've felt and as I'm sure others feel when all you have is 500 words, it is extremely unfair. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, you bluntly accused me of not "caring about rules" in this regard ("you are already well past your limit, even if you don't care about rules"), yet as the original complainant in the case you brought against me, you yourself have exceeded your 500 limit to over 1,000 words. I don't suppose you also feel the original complainant's limit be increased aswell? Chesdovi (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Following up now I have more time. AE is dying on its arse because there are not enough engaged admins who have the time and inclination to study the evidence. Extending the opportunity to add more text will kill AE. That will lead to arbitration having to be more harsh because intermediate options will have no follow up. I would suggest that people mired in the midst of an AE case are not well placed to see this wider picture as they are perhaps too closely entwined in their own cases to be objective about how AE works. We do have a major problem with noise to data ratio and this will get worse if we let people run off at the mouth more.
• It is possible to contain all the necessary data in a short paragraph. I recently reduced a 700 word wall of text of 250 for a job application without a significant problem and I don't believe I am a particularly talented draftsman. So it is possible to be brief and this encourages editors to focus on the salient points. Sorry to repeal myself but the word limit is not for the sake of those enmeshed in editing disputes but for the admins who are trying to unravel them. Hard cases make a shit basis for rewriting a policy. Sorry, but that is where it is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The argument you bring is a dubious one. If there are not enough judges, that is not the fault of the accused. Debresser (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I totally understand where Spartaz is coming from and I accept the advantage of being concise. The only problem I have is will people in my situation get a "fair hearing"? Will the reviewing Admin simply accept my version of events without me being able to provide a detailed account and reply to all accusations. Will accusations left unanswered be seen as an admission of guilt? The report filed here accused me of violating my TB, yet editors have gone off topic referring to my "conduct" and "POV editing" in completely other areas. But that is not what this AE was about? Behavioural issues and POV problems are dealt with elsewhere. Did I violate my TB, yes or no? If the discussion is to be expanded to include an editors wider editing patterns, then yes, more space should be available. Chesdovi (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Behavioral issues and POV pushing are absolutely within the remit of AE. NW (Talk) 10:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• I could see an argument for reducing all non-involved parties to 250-300 words. Spartaz is very much correct. I see a wall of text in a topic area I know nothing about and I'm only too happy to ignore it. NW (Talk) 10:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That can be mended by demanding that posts should restrict themselves to violation and enforcement, and not go into content issues. That in itself is no reason to restrict the length of posts. Debresser (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

What's the sanction for violating that rule? Because it's pretty freely ignored at present. NW (Talk) 12:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The same sanction as for writing to much: the treat that the post will be removed, and removal if the problem is not mended within a reasonable time. Debresser (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The real sanction is that when you write too much people ignore it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That is only if you really overdo things. Although the same would probably be true for removal. Debresser (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• So I'm looking, there's a 500 word limit but it can be increased by a reviewing admin. In the case Spartaz reviewed it and asked it be be trimmed. They had allowed an increase of it from 500 to 750. The folly in the argument is that you are only 500 words and then that there is some denial of fair process. This is not a court. You do not need to respond to your accusers, you need to respond to their accusations. Now how their wrong makes your wrong right. How instead that either you had done no wrong or how you plan to address the wrong so it's no longer an issue. TLDR: If you desire a pissing contest this may not be the best location, they will extend the word limit both when and if necessary. When and if necessary is left to the judgement of uninvolved admins.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• One approach to this problem might be to use word-limiting software. This exists on many sites where you are asked to type in a question or comment in x words/characters or less. If you try to type in more than x words/characters, they simply do not appear on the screen and are not saved. This would be totally objective, without bias, and eliminate the need for admins or others to do word-counts. Each contributor could be asked to write in their own section only (as in ArbCom). If there was a request for a greater word allowance, this could be granted for the user making the request by increasing the automatic word/character count, or for all contributors to that thread. Just an idea. DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There's the simpler solution. They could see that it's over the limit and notice theres no reason for it to be over the limit and ask them to cut it. Hmm, that's what is being done now and it is working.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is to simplify the process. By automatically preventing editors going over the word limit, it means nobody has to count the words, send out a message, then recount to see if they have adhered. I think it would also tidy discussions up a bit. At the moment, when editors are asked to shorten their contributions, those involved in the thread need to re-read the contribution to see which points the contributor now considers salient. By automatically limiting the words at the start, it is likely the contributor will make only the most salient points in their very first contribution. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The idea that a single person is expected to refute claims by (say) eight other editors who have agreed to make separate sets of evidence in a total allowance 500 words is absurd. To have them be required to do so when complaints may still be added or changed is worse than absurd. I suggest that the sum of all evidence against a person should be the limit of his refutation space - else the whole system becomes an exercise in lynch mentality. And the person should be allowed sufficient time and space to address each and every complaint after the time for such complaints being added or altered has expired. Collect (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with the premise. The proposed solution sounds reasonable at first, if it's limited to responding directly to evidence presented in the request. But I can see it get out of hand quickly, based on recent experience:

• If not limited to in-AE evidence: In a recent-ish request lodged by someone else, I linked to evidence from three previous noticeboards, and a bunch more not really sorted all that well yet, all in one page. I didn't expect it to be taken very seriously at all, being informal and messy, but the pattern of disruptiveness it documented was compelling to several AE admins. The "defendant" wanted – at AE four times and then at ARCA – to refute every piece of evidence in it, item by item, to show that I was "lying", when what they should have been doing was addressing why the community was concerned about this behavior to begin with, and how they were going to do better.
• Even when addressing in-AE evidence, it might be practical to set some kind of limit, or the same confused game-playing may result. If 15 people post evidentiary diffs, they might add up to the "defendant" wanting to post 8,000 words of response, without actually addressing anything AE cares about.
• Compromise? I'm not sure how to balance the genuine need for a longer response limit with the countervailing need for AE to not be text-walled into the next dimension, other than a larger arbitrary cut-off with a sliding scale, like 500 words plus plus 250 words per additional evidence presenter, up to a maximum of 2000 words.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Should another editor delete an ARBPIA talk-page notice?

I added an ARBPIA notice [6] to the talk page of Palestinian minhag, on the basis that there was a discussion (with participation from the usual quarters) to rename the page to "Israeli minhag". Another editor has now twice deleted that notice [7]. It's not the sort of thing that needs an "enforcement" report, but I figure it could use some further/external consideration. Perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick somehow myself (I don't plan to re-add it a second time)... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a difficult call, because this practice precedes the historical conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. One the other hand, it is obvious that the edit conflict reflects contemporary strains between Israelis and Palestinians, with one editor wanting to change a customary piece of well-attested historical usage ('Palestinian minhag') because of an apparent allergy to the adjective, to Israeli, which is, for an historic practice, anachronistic. Jerusalem Talmud is also widely known as the Palestinian Talmud, and scholars have no problem with that designation. It was written in Palestine, not Jerusalem, but its received name in Jewish tradition favours 'Jerusalem' and therefore the choice of the latter is not simply a political preference (a rough ghit examination at Google Books also favours it), as Sir Joseph's desire for 'Israeli minhag' obviously is. Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"obviously is?" This is more of your condescending attitude to every other editor on Wikipedia. You really do need to stop, it has gotten out of hand how you just cast aspersions on other editors. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani's phrase is apt: "apparent allergy to the adjective". With regard to Palestinian minhag, it is probably correct to have the ARBPIA banner on the talk page, but people can be sanctioned for I-P warring on such a page even if the template isn't there. Reverting back and forth between 'Palestinian' and 'Israeli' would probably fall under the ARBPIA sanctions. A decision on the template would be needed if someone showed up wanting to edit this article who was under a topic ban from ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ummmm....

I almost hesitate to ask this because I'm either completely missing something, or it's actually a sort of a funny joke, but why exactly does it say at the top of the page "For the real world equivalent, see Chinese water torture."? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Leftover April fool's joke ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Actually sort of funny.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

And very true. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Can someone look at the AE request for No More Mr Nice Guy?

I appreciate that it is a topic that nobody wants to touch, but it's been more than 10 days without any admin even commenting. Either take some action or close it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

New user Essay

Wikipedia:Effective Arbitration Enforcement. My impressions of how I think AE considers complaints. Perhaps some of the regulars might be able to spend a few minutes fixing my mistakes and adding their own perspectives. Far too many poorly constructed complaints around that might benefit from better understanding what we are looking for. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You forgot the most important one - work in a topic area the admins have not abandoned. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Motions regarding Extended confirmed protection and arbitration enforcement

The Arbitration Committee is considering a series of motions regarding the 'extendedconfirmed' user group and associated protection levels seeking to determine logistical and administrative issues arising from the implementation of the new usergroup. Your comments would be appreciated at the below link. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Extended confirmed protection and arbitration enforcement

"Just ban them all"

Plip!

Plip!

@Gamaliel and The Wordsmith: A trout for you both. Re: "Can we ban them all and start over?", "Endorse this sanction. Indefinite topic ban on anyone who has, in the last six months, edited any page related to GamerGate, broadly construed" – I hope you realize that this "burn them all at the stake, and whoever screams loudest was the real witch" approach is precisely why more and more editors scorn ArbCom, think AE is a kangaroo court, and distrust admins in general. This is one of the most daft proposals I've seen in my 10+ years here, and would slap hundreds of editors with undeserved sanctions. I know for certain I've made at least one gnome edit of some sort at one of those articles, without ever participating in a discussion or a content-shifting edit at any of them.

Second, editors who are doing the right thing in almost every way sometimes briefly lose their tempers when dealing with editors tendentiously doing the wrong thing day after day after day. The community understands and deals with this, at ANI and other noticeboards. While they can sometime devolve to kangaroo courts, on bad days, it's still rare for them to take this "nuke the entire region and pave it into a big parking lot for the rest of the world" approach. It is not necessary, and is in fact extremely undesirable, to treat every transgression as equivalent. What matters is long-term (or short term but highly destructive) patterns of behavior that are inimical to the purposes of the project; not hunting down everyone who ever pops off with a frustrated not-so-bon mot.

Third, topic bans and other major disciplinary actions cost us editors, especially the good ones. People who really deserve them generally just serve their time until they can get back in the fight. People who get slapped with them unjustly very often quit for good, feeling their hard word and good faith has been shat on. AE "Judge Dredd" behavior in particular is directly responsible for a number of departures that I badly would like to undo if that were possible.

Fourth, indef-anything is for hard cases who have exhausted the community's patience, not for "I'm tired of the noise over there want things to be calmer". Contentious topics will always be contentious. A blanket ban will just chase away good editors, while the bad ones will continue as socks. I know you know this. All of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse this position Just as I have every time such proposals have been floated, to the best of my ability. Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. is something which indicates a very strange ideal at best, and the inverse of any ideals at worst. I do like the Judge Dredd reference, though. But why not mention the Daleks? Collect (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• I thought I made it clear that I was not being serious when I said that, and I don't believe Gamaliel was either. It was merely frustration that the atmosphere is so polluted and toxic that the Carthage treatment is appealing. Obviously is isn't going to happen; something like that is completely unprecedented here, and it would go against the Discretionary Sanctions provisions and the spirit of Wikipedia itself. Apologies if I didn't make that quite clear. Trout accepted. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Admin supervision

Dear admins, Spartaz, who was looking after this page, is taking a short break, according to his talk page. Can somebody supervise it in the meanwhile? There was a new case filed yesterday, which went a bit haywire it seems. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Appeals - Threaded discussion among uninvolved editors

Fellow editors, The template for WP:AE appeals currently includes a Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by X section. Threaded discussion appears to be causing some concerns. Should we change this to the same sectioned comments; comment only in own section format as the comments by involved editors? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey Support - move to sectioned comments; Oppose - retain theaded discussion

• Neutral - I see advantages in both formats. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

My concern was purely predicated on the mistake that you were Rhoark, instead of Ryk72. My bad! That is: If you were Rhoark, you would have been posting in both the 'involved editors' and 'uninvolved editors' sections. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Troubles Restriction

Could an admin clear up this discussion here an editor who has breached the 1RR sanction on Mary Lou McDonald and is of the opinion that the Deputy leader of Sinn Fein isn't covered by said sanctions and who then also edit warred to remove the Troubles Restrictions template from the talk page. Mo ainm~Talk 16:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mo ainm: If you'd like to request enforcement of a restriction, please do that on the main page here, using the standard template for it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

How can one breach a 1RR sanction when it wasn't even there to begin with? You can't just place the troubles restriction template on the talk page and then retrospectively accuse editors of breaching a rule which wasn't there in the first place. Furthermore, there was no edit war, there is a discussion on the talk page. I am seriously concerned about the behaviour of @Mo ainm: of late. IrishSpook (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: I'm not looking for arb enforcement I just want an admin to clarify that if the troubles restriction template is not on the article page then it isn't covered which is what IrishSpook is claiming. Mo ainm~Talk 19:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The lack of a template on the article talk page does not mean the article isn't covered. For broad areas, it would be impossible to template every page conceivably related. If an editor has already been made aware that the area is covered by DS, they are expected to abide by them on every covered page, whether or not it's been explicitly marked, and may be sanctioned for failing to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Mo ainm~Talk 20:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Categorization in to Category:Wikipedia pages under discretionary sanctions

Please note, automatic categorization in to Category:Wikipedia pages under discretionary sanctions has been removed from the use of {{Template:Pp-30-500}}, as this protection has some current usages not related to DS. If this categorization is important, it may need to be re-added to some pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

For clarity, the template in question is Template:Pp-30-500. The link from Xaosflux broke for some reason. Mz7 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 (2)

Hi all, I've run into a few accounts that made exactly 500 edits over 30 days, then on day 31 they suddenly start making very controversial edits in the ARBPIA area. Before hitting 500 edits these accounts make vast number of minor edits to single articles such as User:Epson Salts at America's Greatest Makers or User:Kamel Tebaast at User:Kamel Tebaast/sandbox and numerous other articles then edit summaries like Thank you; 30th day; 500th edit!!!. I want to know if anyone is willing to do anything about this behaviour. Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

What is to be done? That is the nature of the beast. ARBCOM setup an arbitrary ruling and this is the fruits. They can clarify that the 500 edits need to be non-minor, but that won't work either. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I feel like I should disclose some emails me and Kamel have exchanged about this, but I don't know if that would be considered outing. They weren't personal, but they were still emails. He came to me for advice about how to proceed, though he didn't say it was about this dispute. I figured that out pretty quickly, though, since I watch his talk page. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe here's another way of looking at it. A person is deeply attracted to contributing to Wikipedia (like the other 28,654,983 users). He gets a user name and begins exploring. Maybe he'll contribute something to Alan Dershowitz's article because he's reading his book. Sorry! You must have 30 days and 500 edits before you can edit there. Okay, maybe he will write about Kibbutz Beit Alpha where he lived for many years, he saw some things that were wrong with the the article. Sorry, you can't touch it because it falls under the umbrella of the Arab-Israeli conflict; you must have 30 days and 500 edits before editing there. Or maybe he can contribute to an article about the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement that is in so many universities in the U.S. No, sorry, that, too, now falls under the Arab-Israeli conflict and the 500 edits/30 days. So he now sets a goal that Wikipedia encouraged: 500 edits in 30 days!

So, per the requirements, he must get experienced enough on Wikipedia to earn the right to edit such out-of-bound pages. He goes off and explores, learns, and enjoys (his highlight, getting an edit from Koavf). Finally, he succeeds. He reaches 30 days and 500 edits, and then makes some good faith edits in controversial areas. And what happens? One user (without a bone in the fight) offers to mentor and help guide. Another user, Sepsis II, accuses me on my Talk page of making this account to "game 30/500". Then Sepsis II complains here that I and other editors are too quickly editing in pages that were off limits just weeks or days earlier.

My only question is how many times has Sepsis II complained about users who agreed with his/her seemingly pro-Palestinian nationalist position?

I guess the next solution would be to make the rule 1,000 edits and 60 days, but won't the same thing happen on the 60th day?

KamelTebaast 01:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

There is an RFC about extended confirmed protection in which I mentioned this topic and your predicaments, I thought it only fair to alert. Darwinian Ape ^talk 02:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't really know what to say here, except to point out that Sepsis II is lying about my editing. I had been editing for about 4 months before I got anywhere near 500 edits, I edited articles about the Arab - israeli conflict long before I reached 500 edits as I was not aware of any restriction, I did not make "minor edits" to America's Greatest Makers - i created that article, from scratch, and updated it with every new episode,etc... What exactly is the problem? Epson Salts (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I have to say at the outset that I didn't know anything about either User:Epson Salts or User:Kamel Tebaast before tonight.

At the extreme of bad faith compliance with WP:ARBPIA#500/30, I offer User:HistoryWrite, who made 500 nonsense edits to his user page in an attempt to satisfy the requirement. And then crowed about it. I believe each editor's contributions to the encyclopedia have to be judged on their own merits. While making 96 edits at America's Greatest Makers over a period of two months may seem excessive to some, it seems like a productive effort to me. Likewise, making 132 edits to one's sandbox over the course of a month may or may not be an exercise in gaming the system, but User:Kamel Tebaast/sandbox looks to me like a new editor's draft of an article. I fail to see what the problem is with these two new editors. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Well that is a good example of the flaw inherent to the 30/500 system. BorkBorkGoesTheCode (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

First off, my estimated 132 sandbox edits previously stated were mostly to design an article. That not withstanding, I appreciate Malik Shabazz's vote of confidence. However, as I understand, this page "should only be used for discussion about the way arbitration enforcement operates: how to use the enforcement noticeboard, who can post and why, etc. All discussion about specific enforcement requests should be routed through the main noticeboard or other relevant pages for discussion." Therefore, why have Epson and I become a topic of discussion? Lastly, if you want to add up ridiculous edits, go ahead and count these... wasting time defending ourselves about a policy that we followed diligently on a page where it shouldn't be discussed in the first place. KamelTebaast 05:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Nobody would argue that 500/30 is a great idea. But it was a necessary measure, and we have to bear with it. Any rule is open to gaming, and this is no exception. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Woah. This is pretty bad. Not only is it a textbook case of WP:GAME and WP:LAWYER, but ... who the heck are these accounts? Why are they aware of ARBPIA restrictions apparently before even creating their accounts? Are they all connected to each other? If not, are any of them connected to each other? Which ones? Which side of this dispute do they tend to fall down on? Has any of this been addressed in the past? This whole thing is super-fishy, but given that ArbCom has been involved I'm guessing there have been some routine CUs performed even if they haven't been requested, so ... yeah ... not even sure what to say about the whole thing other than that these accounts should probably be blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• I believe they are told of the ARBPIA restrictions once they try to edit an article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• There is no such thing as a "routine CU" - users are not checked on the off-chance they might be socking, there has to be a specific reason for every check and that reason is logged. It's true that not every check has to be requested at SPI, but the majority are. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes they are. I was. I posted on ANI under an alternate account (and admitted to such) and got an email from Salvio a few hours later telling me that he had done a CU on me, apparently because it is standard procedure to CU editors who appear like they might be socking, even if there is no SPI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• On the actual topic of this section, each user needs to be evaluated to see whether they are contributing in good faith or gaming the system. If the latter then bring a case at AE (if they are as blatant as HistoryWrite they can just be blocked, but that's very rare), but the 500/30 restriction is not about removing good faith contributors to the topic area. I haven't looked at the contribution history of the users mentioned, so I am not offering an opinion about whether they are good faith editors or not. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• In any case, this discussion should be taking place on the main page, not this talk page, as the notice at the top of this page says. If we want any enforcement done, we need to go there. -- Gestrid (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• It's a possible concern, but only that. Such behavior isn't a red-flag by itself, but if the editor has problematic edits in the ARBPIA area this behavior could (and should) be examined in an enforcement request. If the behavior is obvious gaming or the editor cannot offer a reasonable explanation, consideration should be given to increasing any sanctions. If they want to game the system, smack 'em down. If they do have a reasonable explanation (and I think both examples given meet that criteria), no big deal, it's just an editor acting in good faith to meet the criteria given to edit in the ARBPIA area. Ravensfire (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

As per Malik. There's no real problem so far. The 500/30 rule has been a merciful relief to the area, and works well. Of course, there are dodges to get round it, but they show up in the record. If editors like some mentioned here fudge on 500 contributions, they should still be allowed to edit there, but are on notice that the quick method used to gain editing access will count if their subsequent behaviour becomes problematical and is brought to report.Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Chutzpah best describes this discussion in general, and Sepsis II's action in particular. Sepsis II's 10th edit on Wikipedia was in the Arab-Israeli conflict. In 2012, when Sepsis II began editing in Wikipedia, s/he waited exactly seven days before editing in the Arab-Israeli conflict. In just more than 1900 total edits, nearly ALL edits of Sepsis II are in the "ARBPIA area". Yet Sepsis II is leading the charge about editors too quickly delving in to the ARBPIA area after completing the 30/500 (which Sepsis II never did).

I'm only a rookie, so can someone please explain to me why Sepsis II, who started this discussion about editors gaming 30/500, hasn't been sanctioned per WP:ARBPIA#500/30, and why we are now discussing two editors who diligently followed Wikipedia policy? This seems like a which hunt, possibly based more on political/religious/nationalistic-leanings rather than on Wikipedia policy. Thank you. KamelTebaast 17:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

For the record, it was nine days (first edit is on November 2, 2012, according to user contributions). Also, the reason they were allowed to edit those articles then is because 30/500 protection (including the policy) didn't exist back then. It's still pretty new. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Kamel brings up an extremely valid and ignored point: While 30/500 was not in effect when Sepsis II started editing (or rather, when she started editing under that particular account name. It is obvious she had used other account(s) previously), the 4/10 limitation (4 days, 10 edits) was in place for articles semi-protected and limited to 'autoconfirmed' users. As is evident from Sepsis II's record, she clearly gamed that restriction - making a handful of trivial edits (adding whitespace- [8], removing stray punctuation [9] or removing invisible wiki markup [10]) ,and as soon as she accumulated the requisite 10 edits - hopped straight into editing restricted articles in the I-P area like Israeli–Palestinian conflict , which was and still is, semi-protected, with her 11th edit [11], and never looked back. I have a pretty good idea whose sock Sepsis II is - is any admin willing to take a look at the evidence? Comment, please (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

See, the old sockmasters are still here, and if they are no longer making hundreds of accounts like the one above, they must be doing something else, like making new accounts that burn through 30/500 to once again disrupt the topic area. Sepsis II (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

A sock calling someone else a sock - shocking. WP:SPI is the place but under your actual account, assuming you aren't blocked, which would make this block evasion. Ravensfire (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

As the saying goes, it takes one to know one. I take it you're not interested in the obvious socking by Sepsis? Comment, please (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I supported the idea of 30/500 in the very early stages but then I and others were banned for edit-warring with socks and calling socks socks before 30/500 became a reality. Sepsis II (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

My 10th edit was also in the I/P area. I think the majority of my 500 first edits were in the I/P area, but me and Sepsis both made our first edits before the 500/30 rule was made, Sepsis actually made he first edits 4 years before the 500/30 rule was made. So please defend yourself insteed of mocking those who critisize you and blaming them for insolenece or hypocracy.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Add me to the list of those who fail to see the problem here. ArbCom set a requirement, these accounts complied with it. Why are we here? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Because I want to know if gaming 30/500 is acceptable or not, seems like most people don't think it's a blockable offense but that it does show ill-intentions. Sepsis II (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

How else is an editor supposed to get more than 500 edits if they can't edit? You can clearly see what is an obvious gaming of the system and what is just posting good edits. Keep in mind those good edits will get them experience in dealing with Wiki and in dealing with the policies and environment. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is nobody speaking to the absurdity that Sepsis II had virtually NO edits outside of the Arab-Israeli conflict, yet he is leading this crusade? [See Bizarro World]. KamelTebaast 18:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably because they have taken note of the intention behind the declaration on your page that Wikipedia wikiwashes the truth of Israel out of I/P articles, and you're on a mission.Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Your own user page is a collection of rambling critiques of Zionism and Israel. Are you on a mission? That said, I would like to draw attention to the fact that for years Sepsis II's user page was a collection of aspersions cast against various apparently Israeli or Jewish editors whom he suspected of being employees of various Israeli or Jewish organizations. Most of those editors had only a handful of edits; many had not edited for literally years. What sort of obsessive loon would go looking for COI editing from a Jewish editor from 2006?

I think Kamel's userpage is is totally unnecessary and unhelpful (and if he wishes to delete it, which I strongly recommend, he can replace the content with {{Db-u1}} and an admin will do so), but as we see with Sepsis II's own clear MfD candidate, bad faith user pages are hardly unique to this user.

Meanwhile, I think it can be taken as read that Kamel Tebaast is a pro-Israel editor. I sincerely hope he takes Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to heart - unlike Sepsis II, doesn't become a difficult SPA and instead continues to improve the other parts of the encyclopedia - unlike Sepsis II, and leaves his POV elsewhere - unlike Sepsis II. Quite frankly, Kamel has so far contributed more to the encyclopedia in thirty days and 500 edits than Sepsis II has contributed in four years and thousands of edits. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sepsis II: Gaming the system is blockable in extreme cases, and topic-bannable in less extreme cases, but only when the user in question has actually gamed the system. There seems to be consensus that the users mentioned in this section have not been gaming the system. 18:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary rules like this are made to be gamed. Not sure why we'd expect anything different. Arkon (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

People can get around any protection level with enough effort, folks. A particularly determined sockmaster could probably get around full protection given two years, competence, and a lack of significant other. Does 30/500 make it much, much harder for these accounts to get around protection? Definitely. That's what we're aiming for. If a sockmaster spends a month cultivating an account and we block it in five minutes, they'll eventually go away. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not see any egregious gaming here. There are plenty of good-faith and non-trivial edits. If this is about a specific user, it should be on ANI. If it is about 500/30 generally, it is of course open to be gamed, but egregious ones are detectable easily. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Sepsis, you should stop your obsession with pro-Israeli/anti-Palestinian editors. You seem to search for every single way you can imagine to try and make them all vanish. You thretened to report me twice, flashing the "topic-ban" in my face. You are trying to find ways to bend the 300/50 rule to prevent more editors you generally disagree with disappear. Such behavior might get you topic-banned or even worse. Please stop thinking everybody is disruptive except you and maybe Nishidani and the rest whom you generally agree with politically their edits.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

if anyone made out they agreed with me politically, they'd probably be in gaol or a lunatic asylum. There are many sane people, however, who find my actual edits perfectly acceptable.Nishidani (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I am seriously mulling referring Sepsis II's editing to ANI or AE, as he is clearly a tendentious editor and POV oozes out of nearly every edit he makes. Most of his mainspace edits are reverts on various grounds, and I question whether he's even here to build an encyclopedia as he seems to contribute nothing to it but reverts, edit-wars, subtle wording changes in articles to bolster his POV, talk page opining and soapboxing, bad faith use PAGs like WP:ARBPIA3#30/500 to either defend or censor material in line with his POV, use of forums like AE to harrass opponents, and constant unfounded accusations or sockpuppetry or bad faith on the part of other editors.

What I cannot find is any edit where he had actually materially improved the encyclopedia. As noted above it seems he himself "gamed" the semi-protection restrictions by his own standards by making nine obvious "waiting" edits (plus one talk page soapbox) to various random articles in order to be allowed to edit the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article, and now he's accusing other editors of gaming the system! AnotherNewAccount (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Bolter21's accusations of one-sided agenda-pushing on the part of Sepsis II are not borne out by Sepsis II's actions, at least in this thread. I for one had no idea looking at the evidence presented which side of the I/P dispute these obvious gaming SPAs are on, as I indicated in my first post above. The fact is that accounts that suddenly appear and immediately start gaming the system in order to get around ArbCom-imposed restrictions on new editors editing in a controversial topic area are suspicious as hell and something should be done to deal with them, regardless of which side of the dispute they are on. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think EpsonSalts is gaming the system. As for Kamel, gaming the system is the least problematic thing he does. He is edit warring while completely ignoring WP:BRD. He is obviously using socks, demonstrated in this spesific discussion and also uncivil to other users. My comment to Sepsis was regarding his own behavior, which already include enough problematic comments to topic ban him.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• My take on the subject is that there are editors who have long past the 500/30 and are still completely unreliable, POV editors. The opening editor of this thread is an example in case, as is the purpose of his posting here. Debresser (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)