Requests for clarification and amendment

Initiated by TheDarkLordSeth (talk) at 20:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• TheDarkLordSeth (talk · contribs)

Statement by TheDarkLordSeth

More than two years ago, I made a minor edit on the Armenian Genocide article (my editing history was quite minor to nonexistent before this one) and it was reverted pretty quickly without any discussion. I reverted it back. Various members kept on reverting it without any input in the discussion as well(at least till a few reverts went back and forth after which I myself opened the discussion though people kept reverting without any input). In the end I ended up reverting 9 times. Back then I was not aware of the 3RR rule. Anyways, I received a warning at 16:00, 6 April 2010 [1] which I stopped reverting afterwards. My last revert was at 14:58, 6 April 2010. I received a block for 31 hours at 23:23, 6 April 2010 [2]. I was not happy about the way my edit was treated and I took the reverts as few members ganging up on me. It was the first time I faced such a treatment. Some of my not so bright moments that were used for evidence in the ban were pointing out that Armenians were trying to force a POV in the article, calling an attempt to label my criticism as insult as "pathetic", pointing out that a lot of edits are reverted with no discussion right away because it goes against the POV of Greek and Armenian editors, or calling the block decision "retarded".

Four days later I received an indefinite topic ban for the same violation at 05:14, 10 April 2010 [3] [4]. Needless to say I was a bit upset about receiving a second penalty for a violation that I've committed just once in ignorance. What was frustrating is that I felt like a target due to certain comments and the way my appeals were handled. My language was given as a supporting role for the ban, mostly in line with what I listed above. When I tried to explain my choice of wording and arguments to the admins I was accused of trying to blame others. If I knew back then how to deal with a hostile environment I wouldn't feel the need to defend myself and get into a cat fight with other editors. I'd simply report uncivil activity.

The appeal [5] was prematurely shut down while an admin who did not have the same opinion as the others was asking for diffs of my claimed disruptive edits. He received none. I was accused of causing revert wars even though before this incident I had only reverted once and edited about 8 to 10 times including every minor edit. When I put a proposal to make the article fully-protected one of the admins was quick to note under it that I was about the get banned (this was posted before the punishment was given) as if it had anything to do with the article itself [6]. I was accused of claiming that one of the admins is a liar because I said to him that he wasn't there to help me. I was also insulted for lack of comprehension and harassed using my past posts.

I know I'm probably missing some stuff as it's been 2 years and I don't have the best memory so if you see anything that I miss don't please ask me to clarify. It's been two years now and I don't know whether the ban is still on. I don't see my name on the Wikipedia:List of banned users. The reason why I find this topic ban unfair is per Wikipedia:Topic_ban#Community_bans_and_restrictions where it says "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia..." which I don't believe that it applies to me as my case is about a single incident.

In short, was it wrong to revert 9 times? Yes. Was it wrong to refer to others using their ethnicity or nationalities? Yes. Was it wrong to use uncivil language? Yes. Is a topic ban due to a single incident fair and justified? I don't think so.

• Is there also a template for notifying involved admins? Or anything would be fine? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there was no need. Thanks for the clean-up NuclearWarfare. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @SilkTork - I'm a little confused but I think I understand what you're saying to some degree. I did actually appealed this [7] but it was prematurely closed while an other admin was asking more input from enforcing admins. At this point I don't know if this ban is in effect though I've been staying away from "Armenian Genocide" topic to avoid any conflict. So, how did I come to this place? Let me tell you that so that you know how and why I'm here so that you can give the proper advice to me or those who supervise the wording of those pages you've mentioned. First of all, I clicked on the Help under Interaction and searched for "Topic Ban". I came to this page where it explains the Wikipedia:Topic_ban#Topic_ban. I went down the page and checked the Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users page to see if I was on there. I wasn't. After reading the Wikipedia:Topic_ban#Review_and_reversal_of_bans section I came here which was one of the linked places where a person with topic ban could go to: "Editors who are banned from a topic area or certain pages but can otherwise edit, may appeal (and comment in a discussion) on-wiki, either at the administrators' noticeboard or at requests for arbitration." That's the story. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oopps, I forgot to add the part after I said "I wasn't" where I wanted to say that I looked for a place to appeal the ban and clarify my confusion about the ban. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork - Well, I would agree that my behavior was hostile but I wouldn't say that it followed a battleground mentality as I'm of the opinion that such a mentality requires an history of hostile behavior towards others. As at the time of that case I was fairly new and oblivious to Wikipedia policies I'm not of the opinion that my behavior can be described as battleground mentality. That could simply be a semantics problem though. That said, I believe that the appeal was closed prematurely because AGK's input was ignored. Though, I now see that he was at least responded to. I did not see that when I wrote this appeal so I'll retract that point.

I'm be ok with it if it goes glacier level slow. I would actually prefer it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork - In the appeal I tried to explain what I felt rather than post claims about what was. I do believe I was a victim in the sense that my punishment didn't fit my crime as per the Wikipedia rules I've posted above that says "repeatedly disruptive". One part I got confused here is that you said "...than in showing awareness of where he went wrong, and the steps he will take to avoid conflict in future. Such an attitude is unhelpful..." TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Blade of the Northern Lights - The edit of mine that led to the edit war is: [8]. In one I part I add the "claim of" to the introduction section (due to reputable historians like Bernard Lewis, Guenter Lewy, Michael M. Gunter, etc.) which I can see why it can be taken as disruptive. The other part is where I simply correct what a BBC article says (the article said "Armenia says Ottoman Turks killed 1.5 million people systematically in 1915 - a claim strongly denied by Turkey" but the article was used to source the 1.5 million number on the article as "per Western scholars") which I could stand by any day as it was a purely technical edit. I'd hardly call this "attempting to foist Holocaust denial" or "attempted to push Turkish government propaganda into articles on this topic as fact". We could have a discussion on my views on the genocide topic but I don't think that should be part of this appeal at all. I'm of the opinion that I should be able to express any view if I source it from reliable sources. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also tell me what's distorted about my version above so that I can fix it? As I said, it's been two years. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @Timotheus Canens - I've initially wanted to notify all admins that took part in the decision process of the previous appeals and asked for a template in doing that but the section for admin notifications was removed by an other admin. I did not have the intention of hiding this from anyone. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @Newyorkbrad - I would refrain from doing any edits on these article, save fixing simple grammar or link stuff. If I wanted to edit something I would use the edit request only. I personally think all of such articles (Armenian genocide) do require full-protection with the edits made by non-involved admins. To give you an example, I would request an edit on the Armenian_genocide#Armenian_population.2C_deaths.2C_survivors.2C_1914_to_1918 section where the "1,500,000 (per Western scholars,[82]" line can be read. The link is a BBC article: [9]. The article says "Armenia says Ottoman Turks killed 1.5 million people systematically in 1915 - a claim strongly denied by Turkey." The reference and the sentence are not in line with each other. I would request an appropriate source to be found for the figure or the "per Western scholars" changed to "per Armenia" as the article suggests. At the moment, I'm not sure about the extend of this topic ban as I couldn't find myself on the Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users. So, I can't give you an exact names of all the articles but Armenian genocide would be one of them. The nature of my edit requests would be limited to corrective edits or check of references. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @KillerChihuahua - I have a few technical problems with some of the things you said. 1) I didn't label a person retarded as you suggested. That would simply be an insult. I labeled the block move as retarded. That's use of hostile/uncivil language. The two are completely different things. 2) I never called my ethnic comments objectionable or my 3RR violation as actionable. I merely tried to explain my situation to you to get some understanding. 3) Could you please provide the diff where you suggest a second chance for me so that we're in the same page? I'd appreciate that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights

As one of the active AE admins, I'll say this in two parts. One, about the last thing we really need is more contentiousness surrounding the Caucasus countries. We've only recently gotten a lid on the shenanigans at Nagorno-Karabakh, and even that's tenuous at best right now. More generally, I've been dealing with a lot of threads surrounding Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan in various capacities, and they're all very thorny problems that take a good working knowledge of the subjects involved to get to the right solution; said knowledge is something very few people on the English Wikipedia have, and fewer still are willing to use it to resolve these disputes. Adding more problematic editing to this area would be exceptionally unhelpful.

Secondly, in what's likely the most congruous topic area, the Holocaust, we don't give people topic bans for openly attempting to foist Holocaust denial onto articles; we block them, sometimes with direction to go find friends at Stormfront instead. I see little reason why we should do anything different here, but in the absence of that there's no reason to allow people who've attempted to push Turkish government propaganda into articles on this topic as fact (which is more or less what TheDarkLordSeth tried to do) any access to said articles. Setting aside (with great difficulty) my personal distaste for said attempts, while the Turkish government's denials are certainly worth mentioning, they're clearly not based in reality and shouldn't be treated in any capacity as if it is; that it occurred is undisputed fact, and any reputable historian, or frankly anyone who's ever read a book on the subject, knows this. Presenting it as anything else is disruptive and should (as it rightly did in this case) lead to sanctions.

Taking those two points, combined with the distorted version of events given above, I see no reason to remove the topic ban in place. If this was at AE I'd probably push for an indefinite block, but I also recognize the current topic ban is accomplishing much the same effect. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Timotheus Canens

It's a bit surprising that no one bothered to notify me of this request...

The situation was a bit weird, if I recall correctly. TheDarkLordSeth was reported to both AE and AN3 for hitting 9RR on the article. While the AE discussion was ongoing, I blocked TDLS for 31 hours based on the AN3 report, not knowing about the AE report. In the mean time, an indefinite topic ban was proposed by NW. KC initially suggested another chance, but when, even after the block expired, TDLS continued his battleground conduct, it totally exhausted the patience of AE admins and led swiftly to a consensus to indefinitely topic ban, which I then implemented.

I see no reason why this could not have been appealed at AE, but judging from the request, I suspect that AE would have declined it anyway, so I guess going directly to arbcom is OK too.

On the merits of this appeal, I essentially agree with SilkTork, below, and recommend that the committee decline this appeal. T. Canens (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KillerChihuahua

As one of the admins involved with the original case, I initially suggested we give a second chance to TheDarkLordSeth, but when I tried to reach out and explain why his approach was probelmatic,[10] his lengthy response[11] was all excuses and exceptions - why his ethnic comments weren't objectionable, why his 3RR violation wasn't actionable, and why his use of the word "retarded" (labeling a fellow editor) was justified. He stated the fact that he hadn't tried to get the article deleted was proof he was NPOV. When I attempted to again to explain the issues with his approach, he responded poorly[12] and rejected the information given. I do not see any positive results coming from removing the topic ban. As for sending this to AE; if that is the decision, then so be it, but I don't see any potential for TheDarkLordSeth to have the ban reversed there. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• TDLS: Link of my suggestion of another chance is here KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm not looking to make this whole process more bureaucratic than it already is, but I'm not certain whether this request should be addressed here by the arbitrators, or whether it should be raised as an Arbitration Enforcement appeal. In either event, input from the administrators active on AE would certainly be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm now tentatively leaning toward a decline (without worrying further about the procedural aspects) based on the input thus far. But before finally deciding, I ask TheDarkLordSeth to explain what articles he would like to edit, and how he would like to edit them, if his request were to be granted in whole or part. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The case is here. The appeal procedure is unclear as to when a user should use Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement or here, though the wording at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement ("Arbitration decisions may provide that appeals against sanctions imposed under the decision are to be appealed to this noticeboard or to another community forum") which comes with a template for such appeals, does suggest that AE is the standard route. I think that AE would be a better forum as it would be quicker, and be decided directly by those more familiar with the situation. Perhaps the procedure could be worded to advise users to apply to AE or other community forum first, and only come here when there are concerns regarding the AE/community process. Anyway, I think this is better at AE, so decline here, and advise appellant to open appeal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to TheDarkLordSeth: The appeal you link to was over two years ago. Your summary of it is not quite accurate. You say it was prematurely closed: you opened the appeal on 28 May 2010, and it was closed on 3 June 2010 after seven people had commented, and discussion had effectively stopped as all those participating agreed that lifting the topic ban would not be a good idea. The only dissenting voice was AGK, who suggested closing the appeal by giving you a second chance - a suggestion rejected by two of those participating. The main concern raised was that you had a battleground mentality; curiously, I got that impression from reading your appeal, and before looking into the case. It's worth looking at WP:BATTLEGROUND.

I think we're in agreement that there is some confusion regarding which is the appropriate venue. My suggestion is that we should be making that clearer. Interestingly, after your appeal two years ago, it was suggested that your next step would be to appeal to ArbCom, so technically this might be the right venue. However, I still feel that AE would be quicker - you'd get a decision there within a few days, rather than here where it may take a few weeks! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to decide it here, then from what I have seen so far, looking at the original incident that led to the topic block, and the appeals, two years ago, and here now, I don't see any advantage to lifting the topic ban. TheDarkLordSeth appears more concerned in this appeal with explaining how he is a victim, and other editors are to blame, than in showing awareness of where he went wrong, and the steps he will take to avoid conflict in future. Such an attitude is unhelpful when editing on a collaborative project and is generally what leads to disruption; such an attitude is particularly unhelpful when editing in sensitive areas. Until I can see convincing arguments as to why the block should be lifted, my view is to decline the request. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Recuse. If I had re-visited that AE appeal after the many commentators had weighed in, I would have declined the appeal. Also, I believe it was correct to close the June 2010 appeal as unsuccessful. I make no comment (due to my recusal) as to whether this appeal should be accepted. In terms of the current appeal's venue, I believe it is acceptable for this to have been appealed here, rather than at AE. AGK [•] 13:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse - although my involvement in the WP:AE discussion was minimal, I think it's best that I recuse. PhilKnight (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Andries Andries. (I had filed this request earlier in July but it was removed with my consent because I could not find time to provide diffs. Reformatted on 24 August with two sentences in italics added.) Andries (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Andries (talk) at 17:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Principle 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Conflict_of_interest
2. Principle 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#NPOV_and_sources
3. Finding 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Sathya_Sai_Baba_is_weakly_sourced
4. Finding 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Editing_by_Andries
5. Finding 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_runs_an_attack_web_site
6. Remedy 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_banned
7. Remedy 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Open_remedy

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• not necessary

Information about amendment request

• Remedy 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_banned
• Regain write rights for Sathya Sai Baba movement

Statement user:Andries

I request to re-edit Sathya Sai Baba movement. I lost the rights to edit the article in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2. I lost to a great extent interest in the subject and have little time. But I still have a lot of good sources on the subject on the shelf. I bought them because they were recommended in arbcom case Sathya Sai Baba nr 1. I think it is a waste for Wikipedia and of other people's time and money when they are on my book shelf and only very few people have access to the contents. The article was never controversial, unlike Sathya Sai Baba. But after I stopped editing the Sathya Sai Central Trust, an organization that is part of the movement, has received much criticism. I was the only substantial contributor. I promise that I will revert max. once per week. I will not get involved in lengthy discussions or extensive, repeated dispute resolution, because I do not have time. One of the reasons why I request to re-edit is that nobody seriously tried to improve the article after I was forced to stop editing. I also compiled excerpts from sources and nobody every used them. See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources.

To summarize, the reason why I was topic banned for the set of Sathya Sai Baba related article were.

1. perceived inappropriate linking in the article Robert Priddy. The dispute was about linking to one of the home pages of the subject.

2. alleged conflict of interest. I personally think that there was never a conflict of interest in the strict sense of the word, but I admit that I was, as a critical former member of the movement, emotionally involved. This has waned in the course of years. The fraction of my edits related to Sathya Sai Baba has become much smaller as my edit history shows. I did not receive an e-mail or phone call for years via the exbaba website. I was never involved in updating or maintaining this website.

3. very frequent use of the conflict resolution procedures without coming any closer to agreements.

The arbcom considered my edits to the article Sathya Sai Baba as responsible. The arbcom did not scrutinize my edits at Sathya Sai Baba movement, because, as stated, the article was never controversial.

The article Sathya Sai Baba movement suffers from neglect. Look for example, at the following sentence without good reputable source that was inserted there on 11 May 2011] and remains there until now.

"When he died at the age of 84, it was revealed that he meant 96 lunar years, in keeping with the Hindu calendar."

The article Sathya Sai Baba will always remain problematic due to the lack of reputable sources for a good biography. This lack of reputable sources is explicitly described in reputable sources e.g. by anthropologist Lawrence Babb.

List of all diffs to talk page of Sathya Sai Baba, maximum one year back from 17 Aug. 2012

• 19 Aug. 2012
• 19 Aug. 2012
• 19 Aug. 2012
• 8 Oct. 2011
• 6 Oct. 2011
• 25 Sep. 2011
• 25 Sep. 2011
• 25 Sep. 2011
• 24 Sep. 2011
• 24 Sep. 2011
• 21 Sep 2011
• 21 Sep. 2011
• 21 Sep. 2011
• 20 Sep. 2011
• 29 Aug. 2011
• 28 Aug. 2011
• 28 Aug. 2011

List of all diffs to talk page of Sathya Sai Baba movement, maximum one year back from 17 Aug.2012

• 28 May 2011
• 28 May 2011

List of books or article copies that I have on the shelf and intend to use as sources. See here for a discussion of some of these sources Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2

• Babb, Lawrence A. "Sathya Sai Baba's Saintly Play", in Hawley, John Stratton, ed. Saints and Virtues Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.
• Babb, Lawrence, A., Redemptive Encounters, (University of California Press, 1986)
• Bowen, David The Sathya Sai Baba Community in Bradford: Its origins and development, religious beliefs and practices. Leeds: University Press.
• Kent, Alexandra Divinity and Diversity: a Hindu revitalization movement in Malaysia, Copenhagen Nias Press, first published in 2005, ISBN 87-91114-40-3
• Knott, Kim Dr. South Asian Religions in Britain in the Handbook of Living Religions edited by John R. Hinnels (1997), second edition, ISBN 0-14-051480-5
• Kelly, John D. Dr. Bhakti and Postcolonial Politics: Hindu Missions to Fiji in Nation and Migration in The Politics of Space in the South Asian Diaspora
• Poggendorf-Kakar, Katharina German language Der Gottmensch aus Puttaparthi. Eine Analyse der Sathya-Sai-Baba-Bewegung und ihrer westlichen Anhänger. de:Verlag Dr. Kovac, Hamburg 1999. ISBN 3-8300-0060-X

Thanks for your time. Andries (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayen466

Support. I had thought of proposing this myself a while back. Enough time has passed. Andries has access to good sources, and I trust him not to abuse the editing privilege. JN466 07:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Tjfo098's concerns. Discretionary sanctions in the topic area seem like a good idea to me. --JN466 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tijfo098

Given the inability of Wikipedia to actually contain the edits of self-declared returning editors such as [13], it's probably better to allow everyone to edit it. (Also the number of registered SPAs with obvious prior knowledge of wiki syntax editing there is not surprising; those are easy to find too.) The article should put under discretionary sanctions instead, so that any new flaring of edit warring can be easily dealt with, instead of vainly hoping that every nick banned in the ancient ArbCom case is going to do what Andries did, i.e. asking permission before returning to editing. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Exchanges such as this one and this one indicate to me that discretionary sanctions are quite necessary in this topic area. Also, the remedy against Andries (mainly for COI and linking to Priddy's site as I read it) is rather hollow when two other more prominent critics (and former devotees) of SSB, one of whom was Priddy himself, continued to edit the SSB articles directly; see those two thread links. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NuclearWarfare

@Silktork: The list of topics that under discretionary sanctions is getting too large, in my opinion. Instead, I would recommend that if you are not comfortable letting the appellant back unconditionally, perhaps you could lift the topic ban and add a editor probation that expires in 1 year if not invoked? NW (Talk) 19:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Decline appeal. In my view, the case for overturning the sanctions is not compelling enough to justify the risk. AGK [•] 11:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will somebody move to vacate R1.1 of Sathya Sai Baba 2? AGK [•] 13:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Would be willing to consider this. No blocks since 2006, user talk page looks fine, reduced but continued editing history, no apparent issues with his few comments to the relevant talk pages (a restriction that was lifted back in 2008). This case is 5 years old; I think we can probably find a way to give it a try. Risker (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I could go for lifting this topic ban, and giving consideration to either invoking remedy 5 to impose standard discretionary sanctions on the topic (Which would almost surely be the case already if this were a 2009, and not a 2006, case.) or granting AE authority to reimpose the topic ban on this single editor if problems arise. Courcelles 17:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's worth considering lifting the user topic ban, and putting discretionary sanctions on the topic itself. This would allow work to be done by someone interested in the topic and apparently with access to sources, while protecting the article against potential instability which may arise from his involvement. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by 2 lines of K₃₀₃ at 12:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Cailil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) notified

Statement by One Night In Hackney

I wish to appeal against a frankly bizarre decision where a "consensus of uninvolved administrators" in this discussion has topic banned me while providing virtually no evidence to support the decision.

The 3 month topic ban was proposed here detailing a series of edits to Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997. See User:One Night In Hackney/Appeal for analysis of that series:

The ban was proposed at the end of that series. So FergusM1970 made some bold changes, was reverted, then Portugalpete and SonofSetanta edit war to try and force those changes through without any attempt at discussion. And that's my fault how exactly? If I make one revert and other editors edit war after that, is that somehow my fault? Can I be held responsible for the actions of other editors? I asked for an explanation as to how making one edit to an article is somehow worthy of a 3 month topic ban, I never got a direct reply to that question. Make one revert to enforce content policy and get topic banned, makes no sense to me.

The history of 7 July 2005 London bombings is mentioned as evidence here. I'll be the first to admit my behaviour can be seen as less than stellar on that article, but there's others who are far worse. See User:One Night In Hackney/Appeal for analysis of that article.

Somewhat bizarrely, Flexdream's attempts to edit war OR into an article with unproductive talk page discussion get him just a final warning yet I get a topic ban. I can't really understand the logic of banning the person attempting to enforce content policy while giving the person attempting to violate it a slap on the wrist, anyone?

There's various comments falsely alleging I refused to take part in dispute resolution. The case was filed at 22:24, 3 August 2012 (that's a Friday night for the record). It was archived at 22:44, 4 August 2012, just over 24 hours later. My removal of the notice from my talk page has been falsely interpreted as a refusal to take part. I know where the page is without a link since I've posted there before (and I don't remove noticeboards from my watchlist), and me removing all comments from my talk page is something done repeatedly prior to that. It was a Saturday. During the Olympics. I was too busy to respond straight away since it required a bit of thought. Maybe I should have posted something to that effect, but the DRN volunteer could easily have asked if I was planning to respond, but he chose not to and just closed it assuming bad faith.

Rather than actually deal with the editors persistently violating policy, the admins have decided "sod it, we'll just ban everyone" without taking into account that some editors are simply trying to enforce content policy in the face of disruptive editors adding transparent violations of policy, and that removing the disruptive editors from the situation is all that's needed. I can't see how this topic ban is remotely justified by the "evidence" unless attempting to enforce content policy is now topic ban worthy? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil , the analysis of the evidence at User:One Night In Hackney/Appeal practically demolishes any "tag teaming" accusations (since the majority of the changes I reverted were new changes that had not been reverted by any other editor), and in fact that has never been mentioned before. The only mentions of tag-teaming in the "Result concerning FergusM1970" subsection are "While bright-line violations of restrictions like 1RR are easy to address, they are generally a symptom rather than a root cause, and we will in due course address patterns of misbehavior like stonewalling discussions, tag team reverting, or chronic incivility/sniping" (which doesn't refer to anyone, and in fact was made 3 days *before* you proposed a topic ban) and "Warn Flexdream that further "tag team" edit warring or any misconduct in the areas covered by WP:TROUBLES will result in sanction." (which doesn't refer to me). "perhaps ONiH doesn't see his edit was tag teaming 4 sysops disagreed", where? Where do 4 sysops say that edit was tag teaming in the discussion? You don't even say that when proposing a ban! That's an after the fact attempt to justify an unfair ban with equally poor (and I would argue non-existent) evidence, since your reasoning was "Per the consensus of uninvolved administrators" and the consensus makes no mention of "tag teaming" and neither does the discussion mention it once post-proposal except in relation to Flexdream. In addition your notification was in contravention of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions which states "Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed". Rather than invoke the cabal, it would be more sensible to see that more than one editor reverted the changes because they were wrong and violations of policy.

Finally "The crux of the sanction was due to the tag teaming at Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997 while the case was open. It is not acceptable for a party to bring a case to AE for stated misconduct and then engage in such misconduct themselves - that is the definition of unclean hands." sums up the whole problem here. Reverting once to enforce policy is not "misconduct" 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never called AE a cabal. What I said was that you're invoking the cabal by saying editors are tag-teaming, when it's more obvious that they are reverting because the edits were violations of policy. I didn't involve myself in any edit war. As the article history and the evidence page shows, a series of *brand new* edits were made by FergusM1970 on 7 August 2012‎. I reverted the changes I disagreed with, and for most of those changes I was the first person to revert them. What happens after that is nothing to do with me. What you appear to be saying is that FergusM1970 could make any changes he wants to (no matter if they violated policy or not), and that anyone who had the cheek to revert him gets topic banned. I hope everyone else can see how bizarre that is. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"in concert", there you go again invoking the cabal. Since you intend to keep mentioning the edits to Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997 that have already been refuted at at User:One Night In Hackney/Appeal let's just examine them here?

7 August.

• The use of insurgency is inappropriate, read the rest of the lead. "The British Army characterised this period as the 'insurgency phase' of the IRA's campaign" and "The British Army called this the 'terrorist phase' of the IRA's campaign". Two different distinct phases in the British Army's assessment, so why use one of those labels for the entire campaign?
• Use of 2009 opinion poll about a tangentially releated subject to try and show lack of support for a campaign that was from 1969 to 1997 - self evident WP:NOR violation but explained at User:One Night In Hackney/Appeal in even more depth.
• Removal of "specifically" - commentary added by FergusM1970 not in the source
• Change of "IEDs" back to "bombs" - WP:ACRONYM. And if you want an anecdote about the use of [I]EDs versus bombs "At a press conference, he explained that the Cole blast was the result of 'an explosive device on a water-borne delivery vehicle.' One of the assembled hacks shouted out: 'You mean - a bomb on a boat,' to general hilarity."

14 August are repeating the same previously disputed changes for the same reasons. The fact SonofSetanta had chosen to edit war those disputed changes (including the blatant OR, which was removed several days before my second edit while only "contributing" this to the talk page discussion is the root of the problem here. I'm the poor sod who's vainly attempting to enforce policy in the face of this....

You bring up 7 July 2005 London bombings again, if I'm not being "singled out" then you might want to try and explain how my edits (to remove OR) are worthy of a topic ban yet Flexdream's edits (to add OR) are worthy of a slap on the wrist not a topic ban? If you deal with the real problem (the editors who add OR claiming a "Wikipedia link" justifies the inclusion) then everything else disappears, there is no edit warring without them. You're thinking a symptom is the problem, it isn't. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@BHG, there's also the fact that 4 out of the 7 articles at Category:GA-Class Irish Republicanism articles were taken there by me, and in fact 3 of those were created at pretty much GA status by me. I don't have as much time to write as I'd like right now due to ongoing difficulties in my family hence my lack of recent substantial content edits, since various involved editors made the accusation I contribute nothing. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@NYB, I'd second that request. I'm sure it shouldn't be too difficult for someone to provide the exact diffs in a short, concise post. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Slp1. You do realise by introducing evidence not mentioned at the AE you're making the result more like one you'd get from a Star Chamber right? Nonetheless, I'll refute it:

You bring up the history of Bloody Friday (1972). Simple one that, an editor was attempting to use an unverifiable TV show as a source. Unverifiable since there's no evidence there's an archive copy that's accessible to the public, and copyright violating YouTube copies can't be used. Funny how once again that's being used as evidence of problems caused by me, yet Flexdream reverts twice to restore unverifiable material while not contributing to ongoing talk page discussion for another 4 hours. Remind me again why I got a 3 month topic ban yet Flexdream got a slap on the wrist could you?

"Another concern is the combative nature of many talkpage comments".

• The first diff is indeed in reply to an irrelevant question. "A summary execution is a variety of execution in which a person is accused of a crime" was Flexdream's reason for editing the article (and for the record they were, Peter Taylor Brits pages 294-295 "In a statement that evening, the IRA claimed responsibility for the 'execution' of 'two SAS members who launched an attack on the funeral cortège of our comrade". Whether the accusation was correct isn't relevant, except in pointing out that's why summary executions are a bad idea). However Flexdream then asks a totally different question on the talk page, "And the crime they were charged with was what?". There's a substantial difference between "accused" and "charged", thus making the question irrelevant. You don't need to be *charged* with a crime to be summarily executed
• The second diff is in reply to "An execution is a JUDICIAL KILLING". Is it really unreasonable for people failing to understand what a summary execution is to bother to read the article? Even if you just read the first sentence of the article "A summary execution is a variety of execution in which a person is accused of a crime and then immediately killed without benefit of a full and fair trial", does that sound like a judicial killing to you? Someone killed without benefit of a full and fair trial is not a judicial killing by any stretch of the imagination, it's the exact opposite in fact. Of course that's backed up by reliable sources too, including "The summary execution of unarmed persons who are under the power of their adversary (including collaborators) is punishable under domestic criminal law (murder) and international law (war crime)"
• The third diff is in reply to "An execution is a legal process carried out by a state. PIRA were not agents of a state, what with being an illegal organisation in both the UK and the Irish Republic. A summary execution is simply an execution carried out without a full trial, and if carried out by a state against captured soldiers it's a war crime. The use of "summary execution" in this article is blatantly POV" - that's the closest he ever got to using a correct definition of summary execution. However he went and spoiled it by ignoring he'd said that in almost every future post where he kept saying things like "An execution is a JUDICIAL KILLING". FergusM1970's idea that only agents of a state can carry out a summary execution is his own invention (he's never produced any sources to support the claim), and it's a simple enough task to provide an example that it isn't correct.

"related to this a lack of clear interest in the proposed dispute resolution". Already explained, your refusal to accept my reasonable explanation as valid only shows your own failure to assume good faith. Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Corporals killings has 25 edits from me, discounting a couple of edits fixing spelling or missing words. Is that "lack of clear interest in the proposed dispute resolution" too?

"and found that only one source (of questionable status)" - no. You don't need to be an expert on the intricacies of Northern Ireland to know whether the incident was a summary execution or not, it's a straightforward case of the killing being carried out without judicial process. Nothing questionable about it.

"ONIH argued on, suggesting that those with concerns about his preferred wording (which included a couple of AE administrators) only had them "because they believe the parrot-like comments of FergusM1970"" - quote right. There is FergusM1970's opening statement including "The use of the term "summary execution" for the abduction, beating, stabbing and murder of Howes and Woods is straightforward POV pushing. An execution is a killing carried out with legal sanction by the state which PIRA, itself an illegal group, most certainly did not have". He's repeating the same flawed argument as elsewhere that a summary execution is the same thing as an execution. EdJohnston said in reply to FergusM1970 "Do you believe that admins should rule on whether 'summary execution' can be used to describe killings by the IRA? I share your distaste for that language". Heimstern said "I'm a bit concerned about the use of "summary execution". Ed agrees with FergusM1970 as far as I can see, and Heimstern doesn't say why he's concerned but I'd say my assumption is a reasonable one. You'll note I didn't say definitively that was what happened, note my use of perhaps. However my broader point remains undisputed by anyone, if the case is that editors objection is that it's pro-IRA or confers legitimacy on the killings then the objections are invalid, since it does neither unless people deliberately garble the actual meaning of "summary execution" or "summarily executed". What that wording really does is make clear that those killings were in fact a special case, in that even if people accept the IRA (acting as the army of the Irish Republic) had the right to wage war on Britain, the killing of two soldiers who had been disarmed and captured is an illegal act and simply saying they were "killed" doesn't do that. If the problem is that I "argued on", you appear to be suggesting that as soon as anyone disagrees with me I'm supposed to turn round and say "ok, you're right after all sorry for wasting your time". The choice of "summarily executed" versus "killed" versus "murdered" isn't a NPOV issue as far as I'm concerned, since all three things amount to the same thing - "The IRA shot dead two soldiers".

"Similarly, while removing unverified original research and synthesis is good, it is inappropriate to revert "rv unsourced commentary"] which favours one side of the Troubles divide, while leaving in equally unsourced commentary which favours the other, most especially when an editor on "the other side" had already quite appropriately removed the latter material" - covered in detail at User:One Night In Hackney/Appeal, but I'll include a brief summary here. Flexdream attempted to remove an unsourced comparison with IRA bombings during the Troubles, Nick Cooper reverted his edit, then rather than attempt to discuss the inclusion of what he deemed to be irrelevant content, Flexdream added a bizarre comparison that you won't be able to find made by a reliable source. That's where I entered the picture. You appear to be suggesting that if I want to remove the content Flexdream added, I also have to join in an edit war on his behalf and make a different change already known to be disputed, that's ludicrous. I could take that argument even further and say that you're suggesting if I want to remove an unsourced addition from any article I have to remove every other single unsourced claim in the article, that shows how absurd your suggestion is. If Flexdream's first change hadn't been reverted by Nick Cooper I'd have been happy to remove the new comparison (but that's a moot point since the new comparison would never have got added in the first place) but I'm not joining in an edit war on his behalf. We don't deal with problematic content by adding even more problematic content to "balance" it out. At no time did I advocate for the inclusion of the existing material, quote the opposite in fact. Yet despite that Flexdream twice added back the new content after I said that. I've already said my conduct can be seen at less than stellar on that article, but the clear cause of the problem on that article got a slap on the wrist not a 3 month topic ban! And you'll note that every single article you cite as evidence of my poor conduct, Flexdream just happens to be edit warring on all of them...

"Huh? If there was a consensus, why was mediation in process?" - is that a serious question? "summarily executed" was the consensus wording, FergusM1970 wanted to get consensus to change that wording to something else. That's why he stared the DRN thread and made the mediation request. Why else do you think he did that? I could suggest he did both as a token gesture to counter the fact he was going to continue edit warring to remove the term anyway, which is exactly what he did at the history of the article shows. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the caveat was needed due to the number of inaccuracies in the request, and I wished to make it clear I had objections to those inaccuracies. Bear in mind there was nowhere for me to write my version of events unlike in say a request for arbitration, I simply added a caveat to make sure I disputed the accuracy of the request. What's the problem with that exactly?

"ONIH can't really complain about the detail now being given when it was he who asked for more specifics above" - yes I can. For example you introduce Bloody Friday into evidence, despite there being no mention of it before (and just for the sake of transparency, the related Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive119#Flexdream doesn't discuss any supposed wrongdoing on my part at all). The only time the word Friday is even mentioned in the AE request was, bizarrely, when FergusM1970 objected to the early close of the DRN thread stating "Hi Steven. I see your point, but seeing as I requested dispute resolution on a Friday night and it's now Saturday night, the editors in question may have social commitments that mean they don't have time to participate in WP beyond making a few more edits to their favourite articles. Maybe we could leave the DRN open for another day or two, just to give them a chance to take part". It was claimed I was topic banned by a"consensus of uninvolved administrators", I think my complaint is wholly valid that you are saying the decision was made based on "evidence" that was never mentioned at the time. If it was never mentioned, how can a consensus result from it? Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 129#Can a BBC documentary be cited as a reliable source? didn't result in a consensus for the programme being used as a source. The specific objections were that unless the programme is in the BBC archive and accessible to the general public then the source is unverifiable, and as shown by a reliable source the entire BBC archive isn't open to the public only a small part of it and per WP:BURDEN it's up to those wanting to use the source to prove it's verifiable. Those were never refuted properly.

"if ONIH had applied the same verifibiality and NOR criteria to both parts of the sentence, and had supported Flexdream's concerns about and deletion of problematic material by removing it himself, the edit war that followed might easily have been avoided" - I did the former, as the talk page proves. As already stated, I was not willing to edit war on his behalf to make an edit he'd already attempted to make which had been reverted. I find it a hilarious double standard that you're saying if I revert Flexdream's addition I'm edit warring, yet what am I doing if I revert Nick Cooper's edit? Is that not edit warring also? The sequence is bold-revert-discuss. Flexdream was bold in his removal, reverted, then didn't attempt to discuss but made a totally different bold edit. He was then reverted by me, and rather than discuss he started an edit war, then edit warred again, 27 minutes after starting a talk page "discussion" and 1 minute after claiming a "Wikipedia link" justified the inclusion of OR. So exactly who is causing the problem on that article? The editor adding OR, or the one removing it? It's a simple enough question, and while I'll accept some share of blame it's impossible to say my behaviour is worse than Flexdream's on that article, yet he gets a slap on the wrist compared to my 3 month topic ban. I've asked repeatedly how this is remotely justifiable, and pointed out that Flexdream's disruptive behaviour just happens to be on the the same articles you're using to justify my ban, yet I've never received a proper answer to the question. Perhaps someone could take the trouble to answer it? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade. "why have we a mediation if we have a consensus already" - addressed in the last paragaph of the most above. If the mediation wasn't to change consensus, then what do you think it was for?

"ONiH was participating in the edit warring, and AE isn't there to decide who's the "right" side of an edit war, but rather to determine whether someone was or wasn't a part of it" - you really ought to think about the message you're sending out here. FergusM1970 is nothing but a disruptive POV warrior in my opinion, and even Slp1 says was he/she "was appalled by FergusM1970's pointy editing about being "unarmed"". Although he didn't include this as an example, this where he changes "Three-year-old Johnathan Ball" to "Unarmed three-year-old Johnathan Ball" is as bad as it gets, how many armed three-year-olds have you ever heard of? Enough to warrant the addition of "unarmed" to this three-year-old? I doubt it! The message you are sending to any editor who is foolish enough to revert disruption of this nature is clear - dare to do it and we'll accuse you of edit warring and using Wikipedia as a battleground and topic ban you too. That's totally wrong. It boils down to - let the POV warrior make whatever edits they want or we'll topic ban you - is that really the message you think should be sent? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles and PhilKnight, have you actually looked at the backtracking and goalpost moving by the admins here? "Per the consensus of uninvolved administrators" is against Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed. So I break down the evidence actually cited in the original discussion. So what do the admins do? Cailil invents a reason that was never mentioned in the discussion among admins in relation to me, and Slp1 introduces evidence that wasn't discussed either. This is positively Kafkaesque. A ban is proposed based on one edit, I ask for an explanation as to why that edit merits a three month ban, never get a reply. I get banned, for unknown reasons, then told I am banned, again without the reasons being explained. So now we get here, and I'm told I'm banned for a reason that was never mentioned in relation to me and based on evidence that was never even mentioned. And it's within admin discretion to make decisions like that? The mind boggles, it really does.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad. As can be seen from the discussion, the 3 month topic ban was suggested to apply to everyone supposedly involved, regardless of previous history. For example SonofSetanta (talk · contribs) has two previous Troubles sanctions on his current account, as well as 5 previous blocks on Troubles related articles on his previous account The Thunderer (talk · contribs) (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Thunderer/Archive for details). So to give me the same length topic ban as SonofSetanta is perverse, when I have never even been blocked on Troubles related articles, save one erroneous block quickly overturned. I find myself in a bizarre situation where I have been topic banned for reasons that have not been explained based on "evidence" that hasn't even been fully divulged to me. How am I supposed to edit again under those circumstances? I'll only get topic banned again based on the whim of some admin who refuses to answer questions, as has happened here. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK, I'm really struggling to understand this now. SonofSetanta twice tries to force through incorrect or policy violating changes made by FergusM1970. I revert the changes a full 7 days after Domer48 had edited them out, and that's somehow worthy of a 3 (or even 6!!) month topic ban? Seriously, can I have an explanation as to this thinking please? The message is still clear to me, don't bother trying to stop people forcing through disputed changes or you'll get topic banned. So what's the alternative? Let their disruptive, incorrect and/or policy violating changes stand while we go through dispute resolution and they refuse to compromise and insist their edits stand? Does the reader benefit from allowing those changes to stand while all this goes on? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Various people. If the decision is "harsh", then why is a harsh decision being allowed to stand? I'm not simply asking for the ban to be overturned, reducing the length is a second option. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Flexdream. I don't have the time or energy to pick apart your latest attempts to revise history, like when you claimed at editors previously blocked and topic banned "didn't realise at the time they were in breach of a rule" [1RR]. However your claim regarding RTÉ is incorrect, as you are well aware. At the time of the dispute there was no podcast copy of the show on the RTÉ website at all, that is an addition made since the edits in question. This is obvious to anyone reading the discussions about it. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Slp1. Totally irrelevant in my opinion, unless you're of the opinion that topic bans should be handed out at a minimum of three months regardless of the supposed level of misconduct? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cailil

On a personal note I have limited time for this particular thread after brining a request for clarification and making input on a RFAR and responding to 2 other declined AE appeals of the same ruling. I have no problem with ONiH appealing it, it's just I've answered for a group decision of 4 sysops 3 times now already - just as a suggestion there needs to be a better way of dealing with AE closers than singling them out when a group decision has been made.
ONiH was one of a series of editors topic banned for misconduct both in the WP:Troubles topic area (specifically tag teaming editwarring at Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997, but also issues relating to 7 July 2005 London bombings and at AE itself). The ruling took into account the apparent use of AE to "win" content disputes (by multiple parties ONiH being only one).
Initially I was of a mind that FergusM1970 was the only problematic user, other sysops disagreed and wanted to see where DRN discussion would go - they explicitly cautioned all articles to engage in a constructive fashion. After the DRN discussion failed Steven Zhang sent the case back to AE. At that point on examination I came round to other sysops POV that stonewalling and/or process gaming was occurring on both sides of the content issues. No constructive attempts at reaching/building consensus were being made by either side and the dispute originating at Corporals killings spilled over. Instead of following dispute resolution policies (ie disengaging for a start) multiple involved editors tried various brute force mechanisms: tag teaming edit warring; reversion without discussion; immediate reporting to AE; 'tit for tat' AE reports; 'tit for tat' reverts.
The crux of the sanction was due to the tag teaming at Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997 while the case was open. It is not acceptable for a party to bring a case to AE for stated misconduct and then engage in such misconduct themselves - that is the definition of unclean hands. Parties as well as previously uninvolved editors (e.g DagosNavy) jumped into an editwar in breach of WP:Editwar and circumventing the single revert restriction by tag teaming -this was noted at the AE thread, perhaps ONiH doesn't see his edit was tag teaming 4 sysops disagreed (if Arbs see it otherwise I'd appreciate a note on it so we don't make the same decision again elsewhere). At that point and in this context those involved in the worst of the issue were considered for topic bans.
FergusM1970 & SonofSetanta were given longer bans for recidivism and abuse of AE respectively. I did argue for Flexdream to be banned (after he had been formally notified of discretionary sanctions days previously) but other sysops disagreed. There was no 'lumping together of editors'.
I'll also note that contrary to policy ONiH has blanked the topic ban notification. I understand his wish not to have this on his talk page but how he treated it is against policy--Cailil ^talk 14:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think its good for ONiH to use this process to review this AE decision and for the official ability to appeal to ArbCom to be used and I have no problem at all with him doing so. I'd appreciate your eyes on this as frankly it was the worst case I've seen at AE for a long while--Cailil ^talk 14:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ONiH: I understand you're angry but it's going a bit far to describe AE as a cabal - and it's a bit unfair to target me when this is a group decision. Furthermore slow editwars and tag teaming should be obviously inappropriate behaviours and are and have been covered by WP:TROUBLES's rulings since the imposition of the 1rr & probation. In the midst of an edit war at the Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_campaign article where the same edit was contested multiple times[14][15][16][17][18] you involved yourself ONiH in that dispute[19][20] - yes your edits were days apart but the behaviour of you all was unacceptable. This kind of conduct uses the revert function to impose a group's preferred version without a constructive attempt at consensus, in a way that circumvents 1RR.
Furthermore Slp1 raised the issue of the 7 July 2005 London bombings of which your conduct was slow editwaring as she mentioned (no perhaps we didn't single you out by name but that should be obvious by the article history and your edits[21][22][23][24][25]) You were only 1 part of that issue and you were not singled out, others (ie OldJacobite) did the same thing[26][27][28][29]
The discretionary sanctions issue was raised within the AE discussion on foot of your question on my talk page - 4 *other* sysops disagreed with your interpretation (Seraphimblade at AE, Tim Canens, Ed Johnston and KillerChiuahua at Tim's page[30]). I belive Seraphimblade dealt with this in detail and an AE appeal by Domer48 was already closed on these grounds as declined. For this appeal to be completely upheld the Arbs would have to exhonerate your actions at both articles ONiH. If the Arbs feel that the discussion at AE was not explicit enough and that that is grounds for appeal, fine - we can learn from that, but the grounds for action seem clear to me and if Arbs disagree fine but I'd like a note on why so similar decisions are not made--Cailil ^talk 15:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the IRA campaign artile ONiH you reverted twice - your second revert is the current version made on April 14th. Your First revert was April 7. In the intervening period the same edit was reverted an re-added multiple times. You were all in breach. On the 7/7 bombings article you reverted the same edit 5 times in concert with others against a group of reverters. Again you were not singled out. If it had been down to me alone Flexdream WOULD have been banned too for his conduct there & that was my proposal--Cailil ^talk 15:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @BHG: many felt that mandated external review would be useful. If that passes as a AC/DS applicable sanction I'd have no quibbles with ONiH's ban being replaced by MER for 3 months in the Troubles area articles. Or if the Committee have a novel approach for this I think that would be fine. I'm also not opposed to reductions based on policy reasoning or if the Arb feel we've erred. However I feel that someone as experienced as ONiH should know that misconduct in an area under probation carries sanction--Cailil ^talk 15:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @NYBrad: ONiH's edit-warring identified above, with context. The use of AE was also an issue. General conduct around the dispute was considered by AE admins. Furthermore I've pinged 3 of the sysops involved--Cailil ^talk 15:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

I do not have time to analyse this case, but would like to note that User:One Night In Hackney is a long-term editor of articles relating to The Troubles, and one of the most scholarly content-creators in that field. His prolific contributions include the 1981 Irish hunger strike, which he massively expanded in 2007 and brought to featured article status.

It is a serious loss to Wikipedia that a contributor of this calibre should be banned from the topic where they have made such a significant contribution. I would ask all concerned to examine whether this can be avoided. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Slp1

• (edit conflict with SilkTork's comment) Arbitrators are familiar with lookinb at the overall pattern of a person's edits to see battleground tendentious editing style. Individual edits in themselves can seem innocuous and understandable, but it is the full pattern that reveals the problem. Here, in summary, is why I decided One Night in Hackney needed a break from this topic area; much of this was already noted in the multiple AE reports directly or indirectly. One Night in Hackney is to be commended for much excellent editing, but as an experienced editor, and one (of many) named to the original Troubles case back in 2007[31], he knows, or should know, how to avoid practices which exacerbate the systemic problems in the Troubles area and how to promote cooperation and consensus building.
• Within this appeal request are battleground statements that reinforce my concerns. For example, the repeated statements about how ONIH seeks to "enforce content policy". The comment "some editors are simply trying to enforce content policy in the face of disruptive editors adding transparent violations of policy" is deeply problematic. This is clearly ONIH's view of himself, but of course editors on the other "side" would say just the same about their own actions and motivations.
• One particular maintainer of this battleground mentality is the extensive use of the reverting and edit warring rather than seeking discussion or waiting till that discussion is resolved. A look at the article histories in dispute during the time the AE was open shows ONIH's participation in such problematic patterns Corporals killings; 7 July 2005 London_bombings Bloody Friday (1972) etc.
• Another concern is the combative nature of many talkpage comments[32][33][34]; related to this a lack of clear interest in the proposed dispute resolution. In the 24 hours between receiving notification of the DRN discussion‎ and the DRN closure [35] ONIH had time to file a sockpuppet investigation about FergusM1970 [36], respond regularly at AE e.g.[37][38], make multiple other edits including a revert to the article that was the very topic of the DRN[39] as well as delete the DRN notification - all without any hint that he was thinking about participating.
• My greatest concern, however, comes from the selective use of content policy "enforcement". There seems a clear attempt to have it "both ways" in ONIH's edits.

• During the various disputes, ONIH has quite rightly urged editors to provide sources for their edits and choice of wording.e.g.[40][41]. Yet during the "summarily executed/killed/murder" discussion, when another editor suggested using RSs to guide the decision, and found that only one source (of questionable status) used ONIH's preferred wording,[42], instead of accepting per V, NPOV etc), ONIH argued on, suggesting that those with concerns about his preferred wording (which included a couple of AE administrators) only had them "because they believe the parrot-like comments of FergusM1970" [43].
• Similarly, while removing unverified original research and synthesis is good, it is inappropriate to revert "rv unsourced commentary"] which favours one side of the Troubles divide, while leaving in equally unsourced commentary which favours the other, most especially when an editor on "the other side" had already quite appropriately removed the latter material[44](and been reverted-not by ONIH). Over a period of 6 days, ONIH continued to slow-motion edit war (along with other editors) to remove/reinsert the same part of the unverified original research [45] [46],[47] before he finally removed all the unverified material.[[48]], for which due credit should be given.
• A final example, this time about enforcing consensus. In this edit ONIH reverted to his preferred phrasing of "summarily executed" and "brandished" with an edit summary that simultaneously claimed consensus and offered an invitation to the Mediation discussion about the wording. Huh? If there was a consensus, why was mediation in process?

• Overall, I think there is plenty of evidence that, just like the other editors topic banned, ONIH needs a break from this topic, and the topic needs a break from him. This encyclopedia is not a battleground but a building site, and hopefully he and the others can come back with renewed commitment to work collaboratively to build these articles together. --Slp1 (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick and short response to ONIH. Concern about various editors' actions, including ONIH, on the articles during the time period in question were indeed mentioned, directly or indirectly, on one or the other AE threads, by me or others. ONIH can't really complain about the detail now being given when it was he who asked for more specifics above. And yes, ONIH contributed to the later Mediation, albeit initially with a caveat [49]; my links and comments referred to the prior failed DRN which ONIH referred to in his first post above.

AE enforcement looks at behaviour, not content. It examines at how editors apply the various policies and guidelines here, and in this case how they deal with disputed situations where the content is in dispute. I'd argue that the response above continues to indicate a battleground perspective in which ONIH provides evidence about the "rightness" of his edits. He states, for example, that on Bloody Friday he reverted because "an an editor was attempting to use an unverifiable TV show as a source". In fact, there was a lively debate about the topic at RSN, in which he participated, with experienced editors disagreeing about the issue[50]. Yet during that very discussion he reverted the content for a third time.[51]. As an another example on the 7 July 2005 London bombings ONIH asks "You appear to be suggesting that if I want to remove the content Flexdream added, I also have to join in an edit war on his behalf.". The edit war happened anyway, actually, but yes, if ONIH had applied the same verifibiality and NOR criteria to both parts of the sentence, and had supported Flexdream's concerns about and deletion of problematic material by removing it himself, the edit war that followed might easily have been avoided, and more importantly a small bridge could have been built between the factions.

I could make other points, but that's enough from me.Slp1 (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding to this; real life busy-ness and it took me a while to research the following. I wasn't the one who suggested three months, but I have done a survey of all the topic bans given out at AE in the last 6 months, and the 3 month length seems very typical. Note: I have not include the topic bans given out in this RFAE in the analysis.

• 15 were indefinite topic bans. Two were given out, as far as I could see, as the first and only sanction[52][53] but the bulk (13) were given to editors who had at least one previous topic bans, blocks etc, mostly in the topic area. [54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61] [62][63][64][65][66]
• 6 were given 6 month topic bans. All of these editors had a previous history of problems and sanctions in the area.[67][68][69] [70][71][72]
• 4 editors were given 3 month topic bans, 1 of whom had a previous history of sanctions [73], while the rest didn't [74][75][76].
• 1 editor, with a prior history, received a topic ban of 1 month[77]

All to say that a topic ban of 3 months for a first sanction at AE does not seem to be unusual at all; in fact it seems to be the typical first step for most AE admins.

As with the other AE admins who have responded here, I would be happy to accept any modifications ArbCom chooses to accept. I would be happier still if I felt that editing restrictions were not required at all; however, based on comments by ONIH here and elsewhere, I do not honestly see that ONIH has developed significant insight into the ways that his actions have contributed to the problems in topic area, and/or what he would do differently in the future. If Arbcom decides to have a trial of MER so be it, but my personal opinion is that given the fact that there are documented problems with talkpage discourse too, I'm not sure this is the best case to try it with. Just my 2 cents. Slp1 (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

I think Cailil and Slp1 have already said a good deal of what I would say, so I won't belabor those points other than to say I am in essential agreement with them. The issue here is not a single egregious edit or comment on the part of ONiH, nor a violation of a bright-line rule like 1RR. Rather, the issue is an overall pattern of conduct and battleground behavior. Some examples: "rv to last good version" (implying the others are, of course, a non-good version): [78], states that someone is attempting to "circumvent consensus" but invites them to join the mediation—why have we a mediation if we have a consensus already? [79], "good version" again [80], dismissive attitude in discussions ("Yawn"), [81], as some examples, as well as the number of reverts occurring. ONiH was participating in the edit warring, and AE isn't there to decide who's the "right" side of an edit war, but rather to determine whether someone was or wasn't a part of it.

That being said, if the ArbCom allows mandated external review as a discretionary sanction, as it seems likely will pass, ONiH is probably the one of the disputants here that I'd be most inclined toward moving to MER of the same length rather than an outright topic ban. But I would strongly disagree that there was no misconduct or action required at all, and I would also disagree that ONiH is a blameless victim caught up in a case of, as he said, "Sod it and ban them all". Of course ArbCom does have the final say as that goes. If ArbCom feels an error was made, I would echo those above who would like guidance on what could be done differently in the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: ONiH was participating in the tit-for-tat and the edit warring. Like I said above, there wasn't a single occurrence that was utterly egregious, but rather a pattern of substandard behavior that convinced me the area would be best off with ONiH out of it for a period of time. It is certainly my hope that ONiH, as well as the other editors involved, will return to the area after their topic bans expire with a more cooperative approach, or if they can't do that, will refrain from returning to it at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Flexdream

I don't know if I can post to this discussion? I hadn't been told about it, but I have just noticed it because I am named and misrepresented several times. Do the admins want my account here? I wont be able to supply it till Thursday. If one of the admins can let me know either way please by a comment here in my statement section, or a posting on my talk page. If it's not necessary then I wont needlessly add to what is already a very lengthy piece. However, if the decision on Hackney is to be revised, partly in response to these inaccurate accounts of my activity I think I have to respond. Thanks.--Flexdream (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad - sorry this couldn't be shorter. I have tried to restrict it. For clarity I have grouped comments under article headings.

Corporals killings

I change 'summarily executed' to 'killed' with the edit summary 'A summary execution is a variety of execution in which a person is accused of a crime' [[82]]. That summary was lifted verbatim from wikipedia. Less than 15 minutes later Hackney reverts it [[83]] with summary '..and that's what happened'. I then open a section on the talk page [[84]]. On the talk page Talk:Corporals_killings#Summary_Execution I ask what crime they were charged with. Hackney replies "Please don't ask irrelevant questions. Reference for summary execution added, good day to you." I tell Hackney I quoted the wikipedia definition and say " If they weren't charged with a crime they couldn't be summarily executed". Hackney replies "They couldn't?". Judge for yourself which of us is trying to have a discussion.

Hackney cites "Peter Taylor Brits pages 294-295 "In a statement that evening, the IRA claimed responsibility for the 'execution' of 'two SAS members who launched an attack on the funeral cortège of our comrade"." I have pointed out before - this sources puts 'execution' in quotes and that is deliberate. I could describe the AE as a 'court case'. You would know what I meant, but you wouldn't think I meant it was a court case. In addition, the source doesn't use the word 'summarily'. Hackney also added a source to the article which which uses the term 'summarily executed'[[85]]. It is a book on Yugolslavia, and is taken from the introduction. The source also described the funeral as being for three IRA gunmen, when it was actually for one. So the source seems flimsy support. Contrast that with [[86]] who as well as identifying that 'killed' was used for years in the article, shows that there are relatively few sources for 'summarily executed'. Hinckley's response is here [[87]]

Hackney states "However Flexdream then asks a totally different question on the talk page, "And the crime they were charged with was what?". There's a substantial difference between "accused" and "charged", thus making the question irrelevant. You don't need to be *charged* with a crime to be summarily executed" Totally different question from what? My summary states "A summary execution is a variety of execution in which a person is accused of a crime". My question is "And the crime they were charged with was what?" This he calls this a 'totally different question'? This is pedantry. Hackney still will not answer what crime they were accused of or charged with. And he maintains that 'executed' in quotes in a source equates to summarily executed?

Hackney states "summarily executed" was the consensus wording For years the word was 'killed'. It was changed to 'summarily executed' in March [[88]]. It was changed to 'murdered' in April [[89]] then changed back to 'summarily executed'. Then changed to 'killed' by me in August. I don't think 'summarily executed' has ever been the consensus wording.

Hackney states "There's various comments falsely alleging I refused to take part in dispute resolution." There's also comments like mine asking for you and others to be given more time [[90]]

Hackney states "Yes the caveat was needed due to the number of inaccuracies in the request, and I wished to make it clear I had objections to those inaccuracies. Bear in mind there was nowhere for me to write my version of events unlike in say a request for arbitration, I simply added a caveat to make sure I disputed the accuracy of the request. What's the problem with that exactly?" I think the problem is that it's the only contribution and it seems unnecessary.

Hackney states "removing the disruptive editors from the situation is all that's needed" I agree. the article now uses the term 'shot' [[91]]. I've no problem with that as it's accurate and straightforward. Since several editors were banned, no one seems to be wanting to change it to 'summarily executed'.

7 July 2005 London_bombings

Hackney states "Flexdream attempted to remove an unsourced comparison with IRA bombings during the Troubles, Nick Cooper reverted his edit, then rather than attempt to discuss the inclusion of what he deemed to be irrelevant content, Flexdream added a bizarre comparison that you won't be able to find made by a reliable source. That's where I entered the picture. You appear to be suggesting that if I want to remove the content Flexdream added, I also have to join in an edit war on his behalf" I made clear in my first edit here that it was because I thought it irrelevant [92], it had nothing to do with sourcing. Nick Cooper reverted it as relevant [[93]]. Accepting Nick's argument I added material [[94]]. I don't see any edit war there for Hackney to join in and I never undid Nick's reversion. Hackney then chooses to remove just my addition [[95]] as being unsourced even though I have a link to the wikipedia article. I then open a section on the talk page to discuss it [[96]](do you see a pattern here, I edit, Hackney reverts, I create a section on the talk page to discuss). Judge again how the discussion goes and how collegiate it is.

Hackney states "Somewhat bizarrely, Flexdream's attempts to edit war OR into an article with unproductive talk page discussion" I still don't see how it's OR when I link to a wikipedia article for reference. Is it really better I go to the wikipedia article, find a source that's used there, come back and put that as a link. How does it help the reader to have a link that takes them out of wikipedia to a single source, instead of taking them to a wikipedia article that has multiple sources? Which makes wikipedia a better encyclopedia?

Hackney quotes ""if ONIH had applied the same verifibiality and NOR criteria to both parts of the sentence, and had supported Flexdream's concerns about and deletion of problematic material by removing it himself, the edit war that followed might easily have been avoided" - I did the former, as the talk page proves. As already stated, I was not willing to edit war on his behalf to make an edit he'd already attempted to make which had been reverted." There was no edit war before Hackney intervened as I've shown. It would have been better if Hackney had concerns about sourcing for him to be clear on that from the start, and explain why he was removing one edit but not the other. Instead he goes straight in and removes one edit saying it's unsourced, and says nothing about the other edit. I think it was reasonable for me to see this as selective.

Hackney states "Flexdream was bold in his removal, reverted, then didn't attempt to discuss but made a totally different bold edit. He was then reverted by me, and rather than discuss he started an edit war" What was 'bold' about it? I didn't discuss Nick's reversion because I accepted the argument given for the reversion. My next edit was consistent with that, and wasn't reverted by Nick. It was reverted by Hackney. I then started the discussion.

Bloody Friday (1972)

"Flexdream reverts twice to restore unverifiable material while not contributing to ongoing talk page discussion for another 4 hours." I still think that a broadcast BBC programme is a reliable source. I know from previous that Hackney will try to remove even direct links to a copy of a broadcast program where he doesn't want them in the article.[[97]]. Again, judge for yourself how the discussion I started that time went[[98]] and the dispute resolution [[99]] .

Hackney states "FergusM1970 is nothing but a disruptive POV warrior in my opinion". I think there is a big contrast in Hackney's present action and Fergus' response to a ban [[100]]. Fergus acknowledges "my behaviour fell below the acceptable standard", whereas Hackney states "my behaviour can be seen as less than stellar". I think I was harshly treated, but I think the admins have a thankless task. I had probably got used to a level of behaviour among editors that is not typical, and I am encouraged that admins see it as appalling where tag-teaming is used to avoid the 1RR rule and edit-war. Where there is little effort to engage in discussion, which sometimes descends to little more than insult. My concern is that when blocks expire or are lifted some editors might revert to 'business as usual'. In meantime from what little I can see the Troubles articles are doing fine.--Flexdream (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@everyone

Hackney has now accused me of lying [[101]] claiming that what I wrote about RTE is incorrect and that I know that. Hackney claims that the podcast did not exist at the time of the dispute and that it has been added later. This is a serious allegation for Hackney to make here, especially as he makes it in the course of an appeal against his AE sanctions and again I am obliged to reply.

The Billy Fox article is Troubles related as IRA members were convicted of his murder. The RTE reference was added in 2007 [[102]] pointing to http://www.rte.ie/radio1/doconone/1099677.html. In 2011 Hackney removed the RTE reference as being a dead link [[103]]. I corrected the link to point to http://www.rte.ie/radio1/doconone/rumours.html [[104]]. I know the link worked and I listened to the recording. In what I now would recognise as an edit war, Hackney [105] supported by the Old Jacobite [[106]][[107]][108][109] edited amongst other things to remove the working RTE link. Being outnumbered I used dispute resolution [[110]] and with the assistance of mediators I put a compromise edit in the article including the RTE link. At no time in the talk I started [[111]] or in the dispute resolution I started did either of them claim the RTE link was not working, and I know it was. Instead they objected on the basis that it was an unnecessary addition. As the talk page discussion and the dispute resolution were about references it is inconceivable that any of the references included would have been broken or unexamined. Hackney disputed the content of the Bruton link [[112]] but never disputed the content of the RTE link.

I think in this AE that Hackney still thinks that he did nothing wrong at any time, and that he sees editors who disagree with him as those who make 'disruptive, incorrect and/or policy violating changes' [[113]] and that he has been sanctioned on a whim. [[114]]--Flexdream (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Domer48

The following report was filed by ONIH on 2 August and was considered at the time by two Admin’s EdJohnston and Cailil on 3 August to be fairly cut and dry with Cailil noting that “…content is not relevant to ArbCom enforcement.” It was Heimstern here who suggested they “hold off on sanctions, let's find a way to resolve the content dispute via actual consensus first." NuclearWarfare asked did Admin’s “see anything by any party that looks like it would be called poor editing (POV writing, misrepresenting sources, etc.) by any objective observer?” and Seraphimblade asked “if there's clear POV editing, baiting, nastiness during discussions...” Heimstern said “no, nothing is blatantly obvious.”

While Slp1 makes the point that ONIH had filed two reports in 9hrs which becomes irrelevant as Slp1 noted that Flexdream "acknowledged that they had broken 1RR" and "the report closed as a warning" however, with two Admins having already seen a clear cut violation, and accepting that "FergusM1970 has broken 1RR" Slp1 makes the bizarre statement that "the 1RR rule as written and applied rewards editors who have a big gang to revert and who use battleground approaches to get their way in a topic area." Apart from the massive assumption of bad faith both these editors had violated 1RR and have been found by AE to have done so. Simple rule, don't edit war on a 1RR article, "they made me do it" is not a defense. Even Cailil noted what Slp1 was saying vis-a-vis gaming but don't see it here, and correctly pointing out that "FergusM1970 has already been topic-banned a breach of WP:TROUBLES is recidivism." and that the "openning of a DRN thread may have had the aim of forestalling this thread - if that were the case that would be a gaming issue."

It was EdJohnston at 16:35, 4 August who suggested holding off on closing while the DRN thread was open. With a number of Admin's agreeing Seraphimblade at 16:39, 4 AugustHeimstern at 20:40, 4 AugustThe Blade of the Northern Lights at 20:46, 4 AugustSlp1 at 22:01, 4 August. The times and dates are important because at 22:35, 4 August, Steven Zhang actually closed the DNR. This makes these comments by Cailil all the more bizarre along with the agreement of John Carter. The DNR was over before it began and the claims of "stonewalling" are without foundation. You cannot find a "source based consensus" if the editor will not provide the required sources.

It is now that the editing history of editors is called into question. We still have a group of editors who insist on violating the 1RR even with threads already open on them [115][116][117][118], and continuing to add un-sourced POV laden text and nothing is done. I do agree with the comments by AGK, "Topics subject to AE are demonstrably problematic areas of the encyclopedia, so misconduct reported here needs to be dealt with swiftly and effectively." In this case it was not! Admin's failed to act on this, and exasperated the situation by sitting on their hands failing in the one task they were assigned to do and have shifted this mess onto editors who have to deal with these editors. ONIH has ably demonstrated this with diff's and I've attempted to do the same. The more one looks at this, the more I question the fact that I have, along with ONIH been topic banned? I'll put up some diff's on my edits and request that Admins point to the ones that justify such a decision. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 86.25.25.204

The real problem here is 1RR itself. Its application to The Troubles has allowed an informal grouping of editors (of which you are one, Domer) to effectively 'lock down' all Troubles articles, i.e. virtually all articles to do with Ireland or Northern Ireland, to the extent that any other editor now requires permission from this group before they can add, change or delete content. Needless to say, 'permission' is rarely granted, unless the proposal meets current republican thinking. This is a quite deplorable situation. Instead of pratting around with all this shite, as per the above 'debate' (term used loosely), the admins should be sorting out this 1RR travesty. 86.25.25.204 (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mabuska

I was not intending to post in this discussion, however due to the fact One Night In Hackney was topic-banned for behavioural issues I feel that it needs to be mentioned that I have recently had to file a complaint in regards to uncivil comments by ONIH on a non-Troubles article. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recused, although I do think the filer has a pretty good point here. SirFozzie (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Awaiting further input, including from any other AE administrators who participated in the decision and may wish to comment. (For the benefit of Cailil and others, while we appreciate and need the input of the AE admins when there is an appeal, I do not consider that the AE admins are parties to the dispute.) In particular, it would be helpful if someone could identify the specific edits by One Night in Hackney that led to the sanction, and any prior sanctions history involving him that might be relevant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still reviewing; will comment further in the next day or so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Flexdream: Yes, a (reasonably brief) statement from you would be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having now reviewed the submissions, I understand the reasons that the AE administrators decided that One Night in Hackney was editing unhelpfully on the articles in question. I do not agree that every single diff that's been mentioned constituted misconduct, and his conduct was less aggravated than that of some of the other sanctioned editors, but there are just enough issues in the context of the overall picture that the decision to sanction One Night in Hackney is defensible. That being said, One Night in Hackney also has a record of positive contributions in this topic-area and, as far as I can tell, has not been subject to any sanctions under the decision in the past. Given that, a three-month topic-ban strikes me as arguably on the severe side. I recognize that deciding on the severity of a sanction by its nature can never be an exact science, and I also recognize the need to create a healthier editing environment on this topic area in general, so I'm not going to vote to modify an AE sanction lightly, so this may well fall into the "within the range of reasonable discretion, therefore appeal denied" category. Nonetheless, I'd appreciate any additional input from the AE administrators on how they chose the length of the topic-ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I accept that the consensus here is in favor of upholding the sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm also waiting more details. Having looked at the discussion, the admins involved appear to have looked into the matter and grown concerned at the approach adopted by the subsequently topic banned users of using the revert button as an editing tool, and that reverting was still happening while their conduct was being discussed. While Hackney's point is taken that the DRN was quickly closed, he does give the appearance of someone unwilling to cooperate by removing the notice, and then continuing to engage in arguments about the article in question, and reverting in related articles until he logs off for the night. Looking at Hackney's contribution history to the article in question, it appears that he is is working to keep the article neutral, though some of the reverts are dubious (is "brandished" really more NPOV than "drew his service pistol" - I don't see "brandished" used in the sources), and some appear to be inhibiting involvement of other good faith editors by removing everything they have contributed in one click back. I also note the unhelpful at times aggressive tone adopted by Hackney when discussing the matter on the talkpage - comments like "And try learning the difference between an execution and a summary execution, it isn't difficult..." will inflame situations rather than calm them down. And difficult not to stray into discussion of content here, but that a source can be found for a term (such as "summarily executed") does not necessarily make that term neutral. Sources can also be found for murdered, and no doubt other loaded or emotive terms. The neutral term, and the one used by most reliable sources appears to be "killed". As such, it appears valid to raise the question, so dismissing it as "irrelevant" is perhaps not in the right spirit of cooperative and collegiate behaviour we wish of our users. I'm interested in what others have to say, and a three month ban may be harsh if there has been no previous sanctions or poor conduct, but I'm not sure at the moment I'm seeing that the admins are that far wrong as to warrant ArbCom overturning their decision. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline. I essentially agree with SilkTork's last sentence: this could possibly be a slightly harsh decision, but on balance, I think it is within admin discretion. PhilKnight (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline appeal, per PhilKnight. Courcelles 15:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. This decision was justified (in that, e.g., ONIH reverted Domer48). Unlike Newyorkbrad, I think the 3-month topic ban is this case's 'goldilocks sanction'. A longer sanction could have been severe (though 6 month would seem preferable to 3, in my view), but a lesser sanction would have been ineffective and lenient. AGK [•] 12:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• All that said above, I wouldn't be opposed to making this one a MER sanction rather than a straight topic ban, or even allowing talk page comments (but not reverts). The AE result is justified, but we do have other options if there is any momentum that way. Courcelles 18:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} at 21:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

The Troubles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 5

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

N/A

Information about amendment request

• It is requested that the discretionary sanctions in the area of British baronets be lifted.

Statement by Seraphimblade

Following a recent appeal to arbitration enforcement [119] from a user who had been sanctioned under the Troubles discretionary sanctions, and objected to the portion of this which forbade editing of British baronets, a closer look was taken at this. Arbitrator Newyorkbrad confirmed that the Committee had not seen any issues arise from this area for at least a year and a half [120], and taking a check through the AE archives and case enforcement logs, I also can't find any trouble there recently. The administrators involved in the discussion regarding the appeal, including the one who closed the original request and placed the sanctions, agreed there was little purpose in the baronet portion of the ban and it ultimately was lifted for that editor. It's nice to see an area where sanctions have done their job and calmed things down, so I think it's time to give it a go without them. Accordingly, I'd propose something to this effect:

"Remedy 5 (Standard discretionary sanctions) of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles is amended as follows: The words "and British baronets" are stricken from this remedy. The Committee reserves the right to restore sanctions to this area by motion should a pattern of editing problems reemerge. Existing sanctions which were placed prior to this amendment remain in effect until they expire or are lifted via the normal appeals process." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I realize the sanctions can be tailored on a case by case basis, based upon the type and area of misconduct they're being applied in response to. That is overhead to remember and/or process AE appeals if someone forgets when originally applying them though, and I think in general it's a good idea to have as few areas as possible have sanctions applied to them. There are some areas where it's likely that won't happen for many years, but if there are others where the problem that led to them is no longer a problem, I think we ought to scale them back, remove the "big scary notices" on the article edit pages and talk pages, etc. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scolaire

This question arose because some of the editors involved in the Troubles case were people who largely edited articles on baronets, but who had made controversial edits to Troubles-related articles and AfDs, sometimes with inflammatory edit summaries, and there was some "revenge" editing of baronet articles. See in particular Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Statement by User:Vintagekits and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Statement by User:Kittybrewster. As far as I am aware, since the case concluded in October 2007, no editor in either area has strayed into the others' territory. There is no apparent need to continue to link them. Scolaire (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

I endorse Scolaire's summary, except that there a further incident after 2007.

There was a further flare-up of the Troubles-Baronets link in May 2009, involving me (BrownHairedGirl), Vintagekits and Kittybrewster. A request for abitration was opened, and dealt with by summary motion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=289861526#Baronets_naming_dispute

So far as I am aware, there has been no further Troubles-related disputes wrt Baronets since then.

All of the troubles-related disputes wrt baronets involved Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is currently indef-blocked (and I think also perma-banned) after a very long series of conflicts. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Notified various noticeboards and Wikiproject talk pages per Courcelles' request (link). Daniel (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

• This is potentially thorny enough that I would appreciate the clerks notifying various noticeboards/wikiprojects that would be reasonably interested. Might be worth letting AN know as well. Courcelles 03:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, lets get rid of this clause. Courcelles 20:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Awaiting further statements. PhilKnight (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on everything I am aware of, the disputes that formerly existed on the "baronets" articles were not directly related to "the Troubles"; they are mentioned in the remedy because those disputes, at that time, involved a handful of the same editors who were involved in the "the Troubles" disputes as well. If, as appears, there aren't any ongoing disputes concerning baronets, then editors restricted under "the Troubles" need not be restricted as to "baronets" editing. That being said, I don't believe a formal motion to amend is necessary to narrow the sanctions. Any administrator imposing a discretionary sanction has the authority to tailor the sanction to the specific misconduct warranting it. Thus, if the ArbCom decision says "discretionary sanctions are authorized in areas A, B, and C" and a user has breached policy only re A and B and has never had a problem with C, then it's quite in order for the admin to impose the sanction as to A and B and leave C out. So, a formal amendment isn't necessary, but I'm willing to propose an amendment motion anyway if there's a consensus of the AE administrators that it would be helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the comments, unless anything else comes up, I'll make a motion in the next day or so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removing "and British baronets" to avoid the unnecessary paperwork as witnessed in the FergusM1970 incident. As there has been no recent evidence of problems, and problems were mainly caused by one (currently indefinitely blocked) editor, I see no value in keeping this wide sanction. If there are problems in this topic area in future, it may be more appropriate to focus sanctions on those editors causing the problems rather than referring the topic back to The Troubles. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with both removing the no-longer-necessary sanctions, as well as with the option for administrators to NOT impose discretionary sanctions in irrelevant areas. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion (The Troubles)

"Remedy 5 (Standard discretionary sanctions) of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles is amended as follows: The words "and British baronets" are stricken from this remedy. The Committee reserves the right to restore sanctions to this area by motion, should a pattern of editing problems re-emerge. Existing sanctions which were placed prior to this amendment remain in effect (and unmodified) until they expire or are lifted via the normal appeals process."

For the purposes of this motions, there are 14 active arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.

Support

1. Courcelles 16:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fair enough. Kirill ^[talk] 00:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Template:Troubles restriction sets out a scope for this dispute of "The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland". If conduct while editing British baronets becomes problematic in future, item three of the scope ("British nationalism in relation to Ireland") will enable enforcement. (Fixed punctuation in this motion; feel free to revert.) AGK [•] 12:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Risker (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. PhilKnight (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Initiated by Cailil ^talk at 14:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

The Troubles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Statement by Cailil

Per the closure of this WP:ARE thread I'm seeking clarification regarding whether enforcing sysops can impose Mandated External Review (MER) under the currect provisions for discretionary sanctions?
The above thread saw significant disruption both from long term and newer editors and it was felt by the admins at AE that MER would significantly help the topic area under the WP:TROUBLES probation.
AGK already commented on this[121] but felt this request for clarification appropriate--Cailil ^talk 14:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Penwhale

I actually hold the belief that MER should not be randomly given out as a part of discretionary sanctions.

Putting an editor on MER requires other non-involved editors to look into those proposed edits. It takes much more time and effort for MER to work, and I believe that such declarations should not be left under discretionary sanctions.

I would like to propose an alternative that MER can be sanctioned either by ArbCom approval, or as a community opinion at the appropriate locations because this way more people will know that said user is under MER (and thus require more scrutiny regarding edits).

Also, I would like to propose that the list of users under MER should have its own subpage (instead of being grouped with other editing restrictions), because the editors in question is not under a topic ban (and a different page/section/etc would make it easier to track). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TC

I agree with Brad that any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project surely includes MER. I'm not sure, however, that formalizing MER right now with a motion is needed. Of the three editors placed on MER in ARBFLG2, two are currently topic-banned, and the remaining one (Colipon) hasn't edited much since the case closed. If we limit MER to the Falun Gong area only, it is unlikely that we'll have enough data to make an informed decision for a long, long time. I believe that it is best to allow AE admins to employ MER in other areas under the catchall provision for now, and reconsider whether to formalize MER as a discretionary sanction once we have enough data. T. Canens (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Motion 1 is unsuccessful. Motions 2 and 3 now both carry, so I have asked a clerk to action these motions then archive this clarification request, at the clerks' first convenience. AGK [•] 14:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I concur with AGK, Mandated External Review can be imposed under discretionary sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The original thought behind this would be that MER would have to be explicitly authorized for use in an area (that is, beyond "simple" discretionary sanctions). Further, we've yet to formalize the sanction for use in other areas. I'd meant to do this with the page you linked to after Falun Gong 2, but got tied up and forgotten about it (thanks for the reminder). So my thoughts would be "No, the Committee needs to explicitly say 'MER can be used in the Troubles area'" but am open to it being merged into the rest of discretionary sanctions. I'll open up a motion to formalize that user page once I get home, that should help here. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting for code to compile, so motions posted already. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• With respect to topic-areas under discretionary sanctions, Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions states that "the sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." (emphasis added). I think that "mandated external review" falls in a topic-area would fall within "any other means the imposing administrator believes are reasonable necessary"—or another way of looking at it is that the user in question is topic-banned from making edits in the topic-area unless they are cleared by MER first. So, as a formal matter, I think MER could be imposed on editors in "The Troubles" area or any others subject to DS. That doesn't mean, however, that admins should rush ahead into doing so in a wide variety of areas. It might make sense to begin with this new and creative approach to problematic topics and editors in a few areas (Falun Gong being the first) and develop some experience with whether it is a successful approach, before expanding it too widely. An RfC on the parameters, at some point, might also be useful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

For the purposes of these motions, there are 14 active arbitrators, so 8 votes is a majority.

Formalization of Mandated External Review as an independent sanction

Note: This motion is an alternative to motion 2.

1) Mandated External Review is formally adopted as an independent form of sanction which must be explicitly authorized for use by the Arbitration Committee within a given area of conflict. A page shall be created at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Mandated external review with the contents of this page, (Note: update the permalink as needed when changes are made to that page) excepting those portions highlighted in green, in order to provide further information and guidance on the use of this sanction.

Support

1. Second choice. While this was the original intent of MER (hence why it's still on the table), NYB makes a good point in that the rather broadly-sweeping language of discretionary sanctions would automatically include just about anything, including MER. Also the independent sanction wording is rather redundant to discretionary sanctions, which in hindsight seems a bit silly. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice to settle the question, but prefer the alternative, subject to my comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice; prefer 2). AGK [•] 14:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Prefer the other motion. PhilKnight (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nope, just creates more work and takes tools out of AE admins hands. Courcelles 22:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Courcelles,  Roger Davies ^talk 08:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Prefer 2. Kirill ^[talk] 11:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Prefer 2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Comments

• Passage of this motion would amount to a "no" answer to Cailil's original question. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formalization of Mandated External Review as a form of discretionary sanction

Note: This motion is an alternative to motion 1.

2) Mandated External Review is formally adopted as a form of discretionary sanction. A page shall be created at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Mandated external review with the contents of this page, (Note: update the permalink as needed when changes are made to that page) excepting those portions highlighted in blue, in order to provide further information and guidance on the use of this sanction.

Support

1. First choice per above. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. PhilKnight (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. This is, IMO, the status quo. Courcelles 22:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. But subject to my comments above, the gist of which is that we ought to proceed deliberately in introducing and evaluating this new remedy/sanction formulation, rather than just introducing in all DS topic-areas in a blunderbuss fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support this if there is a good review/evaluation of its usefulness scheduled in somewhere. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. First choice. I would like us to make this option available to AE administrators who are otherwise at the end of their tether with one topic area or another. Like Elen, I would however prefer that we evaluate the effectiveness of MER at some stage. I prefer that we unfold the MER documentation into a separate page, to make it clear we intend MER to be an elevated form of discretionary sanctions.

   Setting this specific case aside, I am rather uncomfortable with the idea of MER, and if I were a sysop staffing AE I would probably topic-ban a user instead of subjecting them to MER. Nevertheless, I am content for us to give it a shot: discretionary sanctions were probably once thought of as a novel and dangerous. AGK [•] 14:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

8. Kirill ^[talk] 11:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I don't think we are in a position to explicitly include this yet, given that we only have had it in place for about a month on one case, and have no data on whether or not it is effective or useful, or if it is ineffective and harmful. I think it is inherent in the existing discretionary sanctions, and I have no opposition to a separate page (although who exactly would be watching it is an interesting question). Risker (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
   • As we presently only have one editor subject to MER (the other two being topic-banned in the area), gaining such data is going to be prohibitively difficult unless we attempt it in other areas. If it turns out to not work, it only takes another motion to nullify all active MER sanctions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     • That seems to me to be exactly the reason why we should not be enshrining this into our formal processes at this time. Admins can already use creative solutions at AE, and have been allowed to do so for as long as AE has existed; Thatcher and later Tznkai applied some very effective but sometimes unorthodox sanctions. I would rather empower our administrators to apply appropriate if unusual sanctions — something they're already able to do, but seem hesitant to try — without creating an entire regulatory structure. They shouldn't have to come to us hat in hand to ask permission to use a "different" sanction, and we shouldn't have to vote on motions to determine if it's okay. Let's enable admins, not disenfranchise them. Risker (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
       • I don't understand your argument. How is this motion disenfranchising administrators? A user came to us with a legitimate question as to whether they could do something, and this motion says "yes, you can." It doesn't set a precedent for admins to request our permission for unusual sanctions, it simply makes it clear what is meant when an admin says "you're subject to MER now." Currently the sanctioned user - and others concerned about their behavior - would have to refer to the decision in a case completely unrelated to the topic area to figure out what all they must do under the restrictions. As I mentioned below, any amendments to that case will only serve to further confuse issues; is a user subject to MER as it was when they were placed on it, or as it's currently defined? What if that remedy is repealed in the future, are they still restricted by the same terms? This motion is intended to answer one question (confirming that admins are empowered as you describe) but answers a large number of future questions as well. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
         • The fact that we're doing a motion implies that administrators can only do those things that have been explicitly approved by vote of the Committee. I think we are disenfranchising the few administrators who carry out arbitration enforcement by behaving as though any sanction that is not blocking or topic banning requires the approval of the Committee. I don't understand the purpose of creating this impression. Risker (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
           • I believe you're misunderstanding the purpose of this motion. The purpose is to simply formalize the definition of MER; while this request for clarification does revolve around the issue of "can admins issue MER under discretionary sanctions?" I was planning on proposing these motions independently of any request for whatever shortly after the Falun Gong case. Unfortunately, I became occupied with matters at home and forgot about it. This request reminded me of the need for these motions, which admittedly do have the side effect of answering Cailil's question. The spirit behind this motion is not to create a de facto standard that any new forms of discretionary sanction must be approved by us first, nor do I feel the wording implies that; this is simply clarifying what one particular option available to administrators means. In any event, I believe the wording on WP:AC/DS remains clear: "The sanctions imposed may include [...various examples...] or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." The proposed MER page makes it clear that it is a form of discretionary sanctions, and thus WP:AC/DS would take precedence in the event of any contradictions or lack of clarity. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Risker,  Roger Davies ^talk 08:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Comments

• Passage of this motion would amount to a "yes" answer to Cailil's original question. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong 2 amended

Note: This motion is dependent upon either motion 1 or motion 2 passing.

3) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 is amended as follows:

1. Remedy 4, "Mandated external review", is stricken.
2. Remedies 5-7, "Homunculus subject to mandated external review", "Ohconfucius subject to mandated external review", and "Colipon subject to mandated external review", are amended to read: "<Editor's Name> is subject to mandated external review as outlined at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Mandated external review, with respect to articles relating to the Falun Gong movement and/or the persecution thereof, broadly construed. Application of mandated external review in this subject area may only be appealed directly to the Arbitration Committee via a request for amendment."

Support

1. Tying up loose ends. The added sentence at the end is to override the standard appeals process described at the discretionary sanctions page or MER page (whichever gets passed), which permits appeal via the AE noticeboard. In light of the fact MER was applied by remedy and not by a single administrator, it's probably unnecessary, but avoids the need to clarify later. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Hersford's point as to why this is needed is accurate. Courcelles 00:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Hersfold's reply to my question below. PhilKnight (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Housekeeping; not strictly necessary, but will clarify things at best, and be harmless at worst. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Hersfold's comment in response to Phil, this avoids having multiple sets of nearly-identical remedies. We all know from the standardised discretionary sanctions business that separate sets of sanctions is a logistical nightmare, and that it confuses our users. AGK [•] 14:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Housekeeping. Kirill ^[talk] 11:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support as housekeeping Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Per my oppose above. I'd rather see if this actually works before we institutionalize it. Risker (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Again, per Risker. Plus, as formulated, MER is work-intensive and we may not get enough uninvolved boots on the ground to make it work,  Roger Davies ^talk 08:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Comments

• I'm not entirely sure this is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I feel this is necessary is to ensure consistent enforcement of MER across all places where it's being applied. If, down the road, we make changes to the formalized version of MER, these editors would still be subject to the terms outlined in the Falun Gong 2 final decision, since presently the remedies applying MER to them specify "as outlined in remedy 4." Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What we need, and with only one user subject to MER at the moment, I have no idea how to get, is a hard cut-off where we have to gather the data and decide if this MER idea is actually worth continuing. With motion 2 passing, perhaps it would be wise to make a motion that in August 2013 (or whenever), we must hold an on-wiki look at all cases of MER and their utility and see if it is worth continuing... Courcelles 20:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by The Devil's Advocate (talk) at 22:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Race and intelligence arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Review remedies 6.1 and 7.1.
2. Review remedy 1.1.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SightWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• TrevelyanL85A2
• SightWatcher
• Mathsci

Amendment 1

• Review remedies 6.1 and 7.1 (standard language).
• Modification of ban to be a standard topic ban from Race and intelligence-related edits broadly construed and a route for appeal of the sanction clearly outlined.

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

My concerns mostly relate to the wording that bans "participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic." As read this ban would seem to prevent any discussion of the conduct of the 1,000+ editors who have contributed to the Race and intelligence article, even when it has nothing to do with the subject. However, from my reviewing of their contributions it seems the only time these editors have commented on the conduct of editors from the topic area has been when that conduct directly concerned the topic area in some way.

This wording greatly enables the kind of disruptive gaming sanctions should be looking to prevent and this appears to have already occurred. Following an amendment to the Review case regarding Mathsci, an IP sock of an editor apparently obsessed with Math left a comment on Trev's talk page. Math removed the comment and Trev restored it, politely asking that Math not edit his userspace. Math reverts, citing WP:BAN, and suggests Trev ask an Arb about it. Trev restores the comment and reiterates his desire that Math not do this. Another editor reverts him, an IP restores the comment, and the previous editor removes the comment again.

Following Math's suggestion Trev commented at the page of Jclemens to object to these actions in his userspace and asking for advice. Mathsci jumps into the discussion, calling Trev Ferahgo, claiming that Trev had made a "sudden miraculous return" and that he was engaging in conduct "indistinguishable" from "Ferahgo's other friend SightWatcher", knowing Trev's actions were actually prompted by the above situation. After expressing his frustration with Math's conduct towards him, Math seizes on Trev's mention of R&I to say "Someone could easily report him now at WP:AE" and a report was filed mere minutes later.

A few days later Math created an ANI discussion to object to other editors restoring comments from that same sockmaster. He references Trev's conduct obliquely by talking of his "perseverance . . . in pursuing those operating proxy-editors." One day later Trev comments merely to say Math had also removed comments from his userspace against his wishes and that he should stop doing that. Math immediately suggests administrative action by stating "he is breaking the terms of that ban by commenting here when his name has not been mentioned", conveniently worded to disregard the allusion to Trev's conduct just a day before. Just as before an AE case is filed in response to Math's comments almost immediately with the filer responding to the ANI comment to note the case has been created, which results in a block.

During Trev's appeal, Math seemingly insinuates that he had nothing to do with that AE case. Not long after that Math once more goes in to remove comments from Trev's talk page, sparking another edit war in Trev's userspace that lead to Trev losing talk page privileges. After the block expired, Trev filed a request for arbitration regarding the circumstances of the block and the removal of comments from banned editors by Math and others, with Math immediately responding with an AE case, claiming falsely that Trev is forbidden from even mentioning Math's name.

This dispute with Math illustrates rather clearly how the sanction has proven ineffective as Math can directly provoke Trev into a block-worthy response without fear of Trev reporting him for it, essentially encouraging such disruption. I believe reducing the sanction to a normal topic ban will prevent this situation from repeating with Trev or Sight.

@Pen I do not think an interaction ban of any kind is necessary at this point, because the issue, from my perspective, is that Math knew his conduct could not be reported by Trev without Trev getting blocked for violating the ban. Allowing Trev the ability to comment on Math's conduct outside R&I means, I believe, that he will feel compelled to avoid interacting with Trev because there will be no incentive. Rather than having a restriction that presumes Trev or Sight will engage in bad behavior outside R&I, despite no evidence being presented to support that presumption, making it so that they have true freedom of movement outside R&I will more clearly signal whether they will or can edit constructively elsewhere on Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger It is not the removal of comments from banned editors itself that is the issue, but the edit-warring and resulting discussions about it being used to restrict Trev's activity on Wikipedia. Math could have done any number of things to prevent a situation where Trev gets blocked, but he chose to poke at Trev repeatedly until he said "Stop it!" and then Math basically responds with "BAN HIM!" Look at the discussion on Jclemens' talk page. Math suggested Trev talk to an Arb about the issue, and when Trev did, Math repeatedly accused Trev of talking to Jclemens at the behest of a banned editor, when he would know full well that Trev was talking to Jclemens at Math's own suggestion. After repeatedly referring to Ferahgo and the proxy-editing allegations (including a comment where he implies Trev is Ferahgo), Trev responded by saying Math's conduct keeps him from getting away from R&I drama and Math said "someone" could file an AE case against Trev because R&I was not mentioned in the discussion. He did the same thing at AN as Trev commented after Math clearly referred to the proxy-editing allegations against Trev, but Math said Trev was in violation of the ban because his name was not mentioned in the discussion. That kind of conduct is textbook gaming. The point of my request for these two amendments is partly to make it less likely that such gaming can occur.

I would also reiterate that the wording "worked in the topic" is so broad that any editor who has made a few edits to an R&I article would qualify, meaning the restriction as it stands effectively leaves Trev and Sight on edge about whether they can complain about the conduct of any user as that editor may have a few minor contributions to an R&I article. A restriction that effectively demands Trev and Sight memorize an exhaustive list of contributors to a topic area to know whose conduct they can comment about without fear of sanction is punitive to the extreme.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to reiterate that the banned editor comments are not the issue. Again, even if Math feels his actions were justified, Trev not being able to object to this conduct in his own userspace and Math seeming to exploit that restriction in discussions about the conduct to provoke Trev into a blockable action is the inherent problem being noted here. I believe how to handle the restoration of contributions from banned editors is the kind of issue that should be referred to the community, and not decided by the Arbs in even this limited sense as it would represent a rejection of a long-accepted standard.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, on several occasions now I have said that my argument is not based on some opinion about the legitimacy of removing comments from banned editors ([122] [123] [124] [125]). Continuing to say my request for amendment serves to "characterize Mathsci's reversion of harassment by a banned editor as gaming" seems rather inflammatory. Would you please address my concerns by taking my own stated reasons for the request into consideration, rather than making claims about my reasons that have been repeatedly rebuffed?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, Mathsci is certainly not a minor contributor to the topic area and his actions are what prompted my concerns. Your proposed change would not resolve those concerns by any measure. As long as editors such as Mathsci are able to force interactions with these editors while those with whom they are forcing interactions are unable to complain about those interactions, I do not see any reason to believe the issue with the restriction will be resolved.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will say concerning the comment from Jclemens, part of the reason I believe a simple topic ban is the most appropriate change is because making it a mutual interaction ban would be difficult to enact in a way that would not sanction editors who were not part of the issue. My belief is that interaction bans should only be used in lieu of a topic ban or for when problematic interactions extend beyond a single topic area. Combining a topic ban with an interaction ban, one-way or mutual, when the conduct issues only concern a specific topic area is restricting the editor more than is necessary to resolve the dispute, in my opinion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a tad concerned at the fact my actual suggestion is not being considered. Under the circumstances of this ban, Mathsci or other editors such as Johnuniq or Hipocrite, are free to confront Trev and Sight at any time and anywhere while, no matter what those editors do, Trev and Sight are not allowed to complain about it. Mathsci could make repeated scathing remarks towards Trev at a user talk page, which he did at Jclemens' talk page as noted in my evidence above, and Trev is not allowed to complain about it because it will be a violation of the ban. Do the Arbs really think this sort of indulgence should remain? These editors may simply remain inactive regardless, but I think there should be some consideration given to what should happen if one of them decides to dust off their account to do some article work outside the R&I topic area. What happens if that editor runs into one of these significant contributors to R&I?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hipocrite

What R&I needs more than anything is another proxy editor for the previous proxy editors. Hipocrite (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

The effect of Amendment 1 would be to enable SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 to discuss the conduct of editors connected with the topic. In practice, that means these two editors would be entitled to initiate discussions about Mathsci on a variety of talk pages and noticeboards. It is hard to see how that would help the encyclopedia, and I am unaware of any reason to believe that such monitoring is required. At any rate, the R&I cases have raised Mathsci's profile to an extent that plenty of established editors are available should Mathsci's conduct need comment.

Mathsci has two problems:

• Remedy 1.1. This appears to be satisfactorily resolved, and Mathsci's contributions show a lot of good article development and no battlefield conduct, possibly apart from the following problem.
• A long term abuser is known to harass Mathsci. The problems started long ago (disagreements were at Butcher group in June 2009, but started before that) and were not related to R&I in any way.

The banned user now has an easy method of attacking Mathsci. All they have to do is notify an R&I editor about some matter (that event was a case request that was removed 17 minutes later by Courcelles). The banned user has noticed that some editors will restore their comments after they have been removed per WP:DENY (diff, diff), and the community has divided opinions on the desirability of removing comments by banned users. That guarantees a pointless discussion which can be initiated by the banned user whenever they choose.

If Arbcom decides that editors should not remove unhelpful comments that were intended to harass a productive editor, the banned user can create permanent memorials to celebrate their achievement. That issue does not need input from R&I editors (and if it were vital, they could email Arbcom). Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rue Cardinale is a new sock and needs to be blocked. Clearly the banned user is trying to provoke conflict, and the only sensible procedure is to apply DENY by removing their junk. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Silverseren: Your comment at "03:08, 31 July 2012" asserts your right to restore comments from a banned user, but I do not see any explanation for how that helps the encyclopedia—why would you want to do that?

This clarification request has raised two unrelated issues: (1) what are appropriate responses relating to the R&I issue, and (2) what are appropriate responses relating to the banned user who has harassed Mathsci for over three years (the banned user has no interest in R&I and is merely using these discussions to poke Mathsci). Talk:Silverseren now has a completely superfluous "notification" signed by a sock with a username that matches the street where Mathsci lives—it is rare to see such a clear case of harassment.

I saw an early disagreement between the banned user and Mathsci (from a discussion at ANI in 2009), and the initial interaction showed a good editor (Mathsci) going out of their way to provide helpful answers to questions from the user (see here). That is after an ANI report by Mathsci against the user (ANI archive), which indicates that one source of friction involved a mistaken belief by the user regarding Mathsci's username. The best (and only) way of handling the banned user is by a strict application of WP:DENY (I hate having to provide all this material which will only excite more trouble).

We should assist good editors (see Mathsci's contributions), and should do all that is possible to prevent disruption by banned users. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Penwhale

I am sort of torn about this one. But I believe that MathSci and Trev needs to stay away from each other, as much as possible. Thus, if remedy is changed to topic ban, some sort of user-talk interaction ban (at the very least) needs to be present. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vecrumba

R&I would be much calmer if Mathsci stuck to content (on WP) and completely recused themselves from role of policeman/enforcer (anywhere on WP, not just R&I). It's time for his holier than thou to stop. Do we really all have time to keep reading through his enforcement-related litanies?VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (yet another user)

Amendment 2

• Review remedy 1.1.
• Include an explicit warning that further battleground conduct by Mathsci towards editors that is related to the topic will be cause for discretionary sanctions.

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

It seems that Mathsci does not understand that the standard regime of discretionary sanctions under Remedy 5.2, which replaced Remedy 5.1, would also apply to his activities. He has claimed that WP:AE can only be used to report edits related to R&I on articles and their talk pages, or edits that violate a sanction and that he can thus only be sanctioned through a request for amendment. The following are some instances where he has made this mistaken claim:

• [126]

• [127]

• [128]

• [129]

Making it clear to Math that his conduct related to R&I anywhere on Wikipedia could be cited at AE as the basis for sanctions would seemingly help, together with the above amendment, in preventing Math from continuing in this disruptive conduct and allow these editors some breathing room to try and be productive elsewhere.

@Math The request I am making is so fundamentally different from the requests for arbitration that your claim it is "not very different" is just bizarre. As to the predictable accusation of proxy-editing, if you also wish to be "in contact off-wiki" with me that would be fine. Got mountains of evidence you wish to share privately? Feel free. Door's open dude. Oh, and sorry for leaving a notification on your talk page. I was on auto-pilot and forgot about your prior request.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to keep this statement short and respect the privacy of the communication so I will give you the cliff's notes version of that rather anticlimactic e-mail. He feels the arbitration request was respecting what was said by the Arbs, he preferred on-wiki suggestions other than the one I previously made on-wiki and am making here, and said some inconsequential stuff about you that I have not alluded to here at all. All in all, I do what I want.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@John, I understand the desire to deny recognition, but there are more ways to deny recognition than RBI. Sometimes a much more concise and successful approach is if you remove the R. Certain things just aren't worth clicking undo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, I am not suggesting some sort of new remedy for Math. Effectively my suggestion with this second amendment is redundant as Remedy 5.2 already says any editor making any edits related to R&I anywhere on Wikipedia can be sanctioned if those edits violate policy. Basically my suggestion is to drive the point home by adding something like "and warned that continued battleground behavior anywhere on Wikipedia relating to R&I broadly construed could lead to sanctions under Remedy 5.2", or something to that effect, to his admonishment. That way he is not under the impression that his actions in userspace, or any other non-article space, are exempt from discretionary sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@CIreland I don't think that's a very good idea. Just like the current restriction against Trev and Sight it would be so broad as to be just another cause for useless drama. How does someone know the edit belongs to a specific sockmaster? If someone is unaware of the restriction how do we react? There is no conceivable way such a new restriction would do anything but create more problems.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive attempts to divert this into a discussion about a banned editor should not be indulged by the Arbs. I have only mentioned the issue here to help illustrate the inherent problem with the restriction against Trev and Sight. That they are not allowed to object to an individual directly engaging them in a combative manner is the problem here, regardless of whether one feels the combativeness is justified or not. Math's mistaken belief that he cannot be subject to discretionary sanctions as long as he avoids editing articles and talk pages relating to the topic area is another matter that needs to be addressed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger I am attempting to minimize disruption to this request. Getting more editors to comment here is not helping in that respect, considering the issue you are raising is not really relevant to the request I am making (Math and Trev could have been fighting over the color of Master Chief's armor for all that I care). Can you honestly say right now that Trev being unable to comment on Math's conduct, when Math can directly engage Trev in a combative manner without worrying about his conduct being reported by Trev, is really serving to prevent disruption? Regardless of what prompted the situation, the situation itself did not play out in a way that suggests the restriction is helping to minimize disruption. I believe the best way to prevent disruption to the project would be to consider my two amendment requests, and not support any unprecedented restriction that disregards a long-standing community consensus.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Math You can't just say "this person is definitely a sock" on their user page, or on your user page, without ever having an SPI filed that confirms your allegations. I know from reviewing the history that you do not have a perfect record when it comes to accusing people of being socks, so I don't think anyone should just take your word for it. However, this is not the place for that discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to add that I would have asked on Math's talk page for him to remove these allegations or file an SPI to substantiate them, but I am respecting his desire that I not comment on his talk page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Math, if you wish to discuss this matter with me, you can comment on my talk page. I am not going to debate the quality of a classical music article in a request for amending a case that pertains to Race and Intelligence. I will say that you should be mindful of a saying about glass houses.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@John, Trev clearly answered Roger's question at the very beginning of his initial statement.
@Math, the comment restored by the Echigo sock was a previous suggestion for a legitimate clean start and made no direct reference to you. Afterwards, Sinebot mistakenly added the new sock's signature and Trev removed that signature.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@John, did you read the rest of the discussion at Jclemens' talk page? Mathsci's comments there were not exactly about Echigo mole. As to your quote from Roger Davies, I should note that during the review case he touched on the issue of Mathsci removing comments by the very same banned editor from the talk pages of other editors and said:

While reverting posts by a banned user is an option, Mathsci shouldn't be doing so from user talk pages in the face of the user's opposition to him doing so. Accordingly, I don't think the latest revert yesterday was either wise or appropriate, especially as the post was neither extreme nor offensive nor a personal attack on Mathsci. This is provocative battleground behaviour.

Honestly, I have been a tad perplexed by Roger's comments below since they seem to be inconsistent with his comments on the review case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

I have already made several statements in private to the arbitration committee prior to this request being posted concerning the interactions between TrevelyanL85A2 and The Devil's Advocate. Apart from omitting all mention of MastCell, this request does not seem very different from TrevelyanL85A2's very recently rejected RfAr and also not very different from the RfAr of Keystone Crow that was removed almost immediately by Courcelles. The only thing that might be worth pointing out here is that The Devil's Advocate has been in contact off-wiki with TrevelyanL85A2. The Devil's Advocate is also himself under a 6 month topic ban under WP:ARB911. Mathsci (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My content edits are disjoint from the topic area covered by WP:ARBR&I and have been for two years. Nothing new has happened since the recent review apart from the reappearance on wikipedia of two of the parties that chose not to comment during the review. Arbitrators, in particular Casliber and Elen of the Roads, suggested that arbcom should be kept informed of any problems from the DeviantArt group of editors. The on-wiki and then off-wiki communications between The Devil's Advocate and TrevelyanL95A2 were of that kind.[130][131] At the moment The Devil's Advocate seems to be acting on behalf of TrevelyanL85A2, after communicating at least once in private. The banned wikihounder Echigo mole/A.K.Nole is a red herring, a red herring that appears to be on holiday at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Echigo mole/A.K.Nole was discussed at length during the review along with Mikemikev in response to one of the five questions of Roger Davies. There is no reason why the review should be revisited just because The Devil's Advoacate missed it first time round. He does not seem fully aware of the background and has preferred to take private advice on the review from TrevelyanL85A2 who, although undoubtedly aware of what was happening in the review, chose not to participate even after being added as a party. Like the DeviantArt group, including the two site-banned users Occam and Ferahgo, The Devil's Advocate has chosen to concentrate matters on the banned user Echigo mole/A.K.Nole, a long term wikihounder, with a whole sleeping sock farm created in 2009. Echigo mole is engaged in acts of deception, harassment and disruption. The responses above of the Devil's Advocate do not seem helpful. The Devil's Advocate made a conscious decision to engage in private discussions with a topic banned user on matters he knew could not be discussed on wikipedia. That private exchange unfortunately now connects The Devil's Advocate with other members of the DeviantArt group, including the site-banned editors Occam and Ferahgo. On the talk page of an arbitrator,[132][133] The Devil's Advocate has also pressed to see private evidence provided during the review (i.e. by Occam and Ferahgo). To my knowledge nobody except arbitrators has been shown that evidence. Apart from one exception fairly late on, I was not shown any submissions provided by Occam or Ferahgo. On-wikipedia and off-wikipedia (on Wikipediocracy) The Devil's Advocate has made a series of statements about parties involved in the review which show either confusion or a mireading of the review and the preceding request for amendment. That might be an accident on his part. For example during the review historic versions of the Fur Affinity attack pages were displayed (here, here. here) but The Devil's Advocate, from his statements on Wikipediocracy, only had access to later versions, after offensive comments had been removed. I am not aware of other circumstances where a single user has made a request for a review to be rerun after he missed it first time round. That would appear to be a waste of everybody's time. The Devil's Advocate has gone further by involving himself in private communications with part of the DeviantArt group and making a series of unjustifiable assertions. Perhaps that was not his intention, but his submission favours banned disruptive trolls, known to arbitators, other checkusers and administrators, over established editors engaged in improving this encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Echigo mole has unfortunately become active again as Rue Cardinale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Editors should be aware that the username Rue Cardinale was chosen because it is the road in which I live in Aix-en-Provence; in the past sockpuppets of Echigo mole, now blocked, have attempted to write hoax or undue content about that street on wikipedia. The edits of this particular sock troll, blocked indefinitely by FPaS, were removed from User talk:TrevelyanL85A2 by Hipocrite and then restored by TrevelyanL85A2 with a bizarre edit summary.[134] MastCell's analysis of TrevelyanL85A2's edits (vis-a-vis Echigo mole) hits the nail on the head. Why are people wasting time with this nonsense? Penwhale, you could easily have double checked with FPaS. Mathsci (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note also that TrevelyanL85A2 had already been informed about this RfAm by The Devil's Advocate (see above). Mathsci (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Examined individually, some might argue that all the edits of Rue Cardinale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were fine. Presumably they could say the same about the edits of Keystone Crow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). On the other hand those accounts were blocked indefinitely fairly quickly by administrators, per WP:CLUE and WP:DUCK. Going back on-topic, the only issue that has arisen here with any relevance to the arbcom review is the deliberate bypassing of a topic ban or a ban through a proxy-editor, through email or other off-wiki communication. Mathsci (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• AQFK has claimed elsewhere that I had edit-warred on User talk:TrevelyanL85A2.[135] The editing history of that page shows that not to be the case.[136] Note that AQFK comes to this page in response to the trolling edits of Echigo mole as Rue Cardinale. Good grief. Mathsci (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The Devil's Advocate left problematic comments on Newyorkbrad's talk page.[137] I reported those at WP:WQA where another report about TDA had recently been filed. Only in death heavily edited my comment there, without any justification. Prior to posting here Only in death posted twice on my talk page, once after being explicitly requested not to, because I was (and still am) busy adding quite tricky mathematical content spread over several articles. The edits of Only in death were unhelpful and discourteous on WP:WQA; he is now treating this arbcom page as if it were WP:ANI. Ah yes, ... that famous peanut gallery. Mathsci (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only in death, please do not remove editors' comments on wikipedia pages, whether you agree with them or not. Doing so is just disruptive and can result in blocks. You can remove them on your talk page, but not elsewhere, except in exceptional circumstance. Per WP:DENY, that includes malicious trolling by idenitified community banned editors. I removed all the fake RfAR notifications in June by Keystone Crow that had not already been removed by the recipients (e.g. MastCell). Mathsci (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Roger: I have never banned people from editing my user talk page. When there is a more appropriate place for them to edit or if their edits are unhelpful, I politely request that they do not comment there. I think that happened with Andriabenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who turned out be a sockpuppet of a banned user. My talk page has been semiprotected at various stages because of abusive edits by either Mikemikev or Echigo mole. Although my memory is fuzzy about wikipedia in March, I think the protection then happened because of the horrific youtube links added by Mikemikev after the death of Steven Rubenstein. Since you ask. Mathsci (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• QFAK: there was no edit war, but you have continued to make exaggerated claims. There were two edits on May 27 to remove a trolling comment by an ipsock of Echigo mole from his standard IP range (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole); and one edit on June 10 to remove the notification by Keystone Crow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of an abusive RfAR that was deleted instaneously by Courcelles who simultaneously blocked the Echigo mole sock. Similar messages were removed by me from about 10 other user pages. Here once more is the edit history for [[user talk:once again: [138] Johnuniq removed the fake RfAr notification two further times in June after TrevelyanL85A2 restored it twice (with no clear benefit to either himself or wikipedia, as Johnuniq has said). Mathsci (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither AQFK not TDA has heeded the warning from Newyorkbrad. Both have repeated false claims of edit warring (see above). Both these editors have been subject to several arbcom restrictions before (in AQFK's case 6 months for 911 and and two years for CC). Neither of them know me from Adam, yet base their exaggerated rants on 2 edits by me in late May and early June. The recent edits of Rue Cardinale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), were reverted by others. But no, they are only interested in those two minor edits, both justified by WP:DENY. If that isn't trolling on arbcom pages, what is? Mathsci (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• TrevelyanL85A2's response is almost indistinguishable from the statements of Ferahgo-the-Assassin that led to her site ban. It can be safely be presumed that it was prepared in collaboration with her and Captain Occam. The most shocking part of TrevelyanL85A2's statement is his blithe endorsement of Echigo mole's editing as Keystone Crow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Echigo mole is a community banned editor and TrevelyanL85A2 is not at liberty to give him the thumbs up. (Just before his site-ban, Occam behaved similarly acting as a proxy for Grundle2600.) The second problem is with TrevelyanL85A2's mentioning of a "dispute". There is no dispute. There is, however, an explicit topic ban which prohibits TrevelyanL85A2 from agitating against me in an Occamesque way on wikipedia. He is doing so now. Presumably he expressed himself in the same way in his private discussions with TDA which preceded this meritless request. Neither of them should have engaged in that activity.[139] TrevelyanL85A2 seems to think he can interpret the rules of wikipedia as it suits him: it's all a big WP:GAME. But that is not how wikipedia works. It is primarily about creating scholarly articles to build a high quality encyclopedia; it is not a role-playing war game. Possibly on the advice of others, TrevelyanL85A2 chose not to comment in the review, when he was free to make any statements he wished (within reasonable bounds). That is not the case now. Using Roger Davies' question as a loophole to launch a full-blown Ferahgian attack on me, with fatuous claims about me, is not a good sign. Instead of condemning Echigo mole's harrassment, he has chosen to use Keystone Crow's RfAr as evidence against me. The idea that 3 meritless arbcom requests, two of them due to him and the first to a pernicous banned troll, must indicate something. Does TrevelyanL85A2 really think he can use the actions of a banned editor to make negative statements about me. It is hard to see any redeeming features in TrevelyanL85A2's editing. His account looks like a disruption-only account at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The Devil's Advocate was asked to stop commenting here by Newyorkbrad. [140] Instead of heeding that warning, he wikilawyered on NYB's talk page [141] and continued his pro-Echigo mole campaign here.[142] Mathsci (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Newyorkbrad (and other arbitrators): Thank you very much for this clarification, which is a welcome relief to me as the victim of Echigo mole. During the arbcom review I was specifically asked about harassment on wikipedia and I gave a detailed response concerning both Echigo mole and Mikemikev. There was no corresponding finding. That has left matters open for continued disruption connected with Echigo mole's activities, in particular Echigo mole's fake Rfar, TrevelyanL85A2's declined Rfar and this joint RfAm of The Devil's Advocate (apparently prepared in consultation with TrevelyanL85A2). In the event that there is a motion concerning Echigo mole, please could it make an explicit statement about the history of long term harassment and the way in which this person has systematically tried to create problems? (In the review I indicated that he had even given evidence in the original 2010 R&I case as "IP from Sheffield".) Since the closure of the review, quite a lot of time on wikipedia has been consumed by the renewed activity of Echigo mole. It unfortuantely requires vigilance on my part because of his penchant for leaving clues as to my real life identity, which other users will not necessarily pick up on as quickly as me. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The Devil's Advocate was given a crystal clear warning by Newyorkbrad, as mentioned above. He has subsequently ignored that warning.[143] This problematic conduct is not very different from the disruption that precipitated his six month 911 topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• TrevelyanL85A2 seems to have broken his topic ban on his user talk page two more times now.[144][145] He appears to be breaking all the editing norms on wikipedia, including acting as a proxy for two site-banned users. He has written on his user talk page: " I don't know if I can get the arbitrators to understand the part of the problem for which Mathsci is responsible, but I want to try." That is a flagrant breach of his topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The Devil's Advocate's latest edits concerning Echigo mole/A.K.Nole: Please could arbitrators instruct The Devil's Advocate to stop interfering with matters related to sockpuppets of Echigo mole/A.K.Nole? He removed Junior Wrangler from a list of suspected sockpuppets in the userspace of a declared alternative account where a provisional LTA file is stored (mainly before I had access to the tools to do searcher over IP ranges). Junior Wrangler's first edit to Spirella matches early A.K.Nole hoaxes, he edited Talk:Château of Vauvenargues; and the choice of username followed by low-level mathematics editing are typical A.K.Nole.[146] He also removed the "suspected sockpuppet" tag on User:Penny Birch.[147] This also seems to be an occarionally used, partially discarded account operated by Echigo mole. The timing of the creation is right, the choice of user name, the first edits like those of A.K.Nole and his friends (Kenilworth Terrace and Groomtech, first editing together as The Wiki House) concerned the University of Gloucestershire in Cheltenham. The editing on Talk:Château of Vauvenargues matches that of Junior Wrangler. The activities of both have been sporadic enough not to be susceptible to checkuser (like the editors creating hoaxes earlier this year on articles related to Aix-en-Provence and Rue Cardinale). The Devil's Advocate has been told to stay well away from anything concerning Echigo mole/A.K.Nole on wikipedia. Often the banned user's edits refer to my real life identity, sometimes my own publications or lectures. I don't really want The Devil's Advocate now digging about for details in edits which have not been deleted, unduly causing me distress and anxiety. That ahows no consideration for the problems connected with abusive wikihounding; in fact quitr the comtrary, these actions are disruptive and deliberately provocative, designed to cause offense. (That was already true of the Request for Amendment itself.) The Devil's Advocate should also stay out of the userspace of my alternative accounts. The instructions from Newyorkbrad on his talk page were very clear: that he should leave matters concerning Echigo mole/A.K.Nole well alone. At this stage, he seems to be doing the exact opposite of what arbitrators have requested him to do. He has needlessly made edits in the userspace of one of my alternative declared accounts reserved for recording information about Echigo mole socks and ip socks (in one edit summary The Devil's Advocate added the words WP:POLEMIC when removing a listed suspected sock). If he cannot avoid making edits like this related to Echigo mole and suspected socks, please could he now be blocked to stop further disruption and provocation? This has gone on long enough and it's only getting worse as he continues doing exactly the opposite of what he's been told. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• More nonsense from The Devil's Advocate.[148] In that diff, he makes negative comments about Clavier-Übung III, which I understand is regarded as a well written article. I have no idea why The Devil's Advocate feels that he has to follow me around on wikipedia, making negative remarks like this. It's quite unhelpful. Perhaps he's trying to emulate Echigo mole as a wikihounder? One is quite enough. Mathsci (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Cla68's comments about my wikistalker seem unhelpful and clueless. I hope that Newyorkbrad's motion is now enacted so that there is no possibility that any form of this time-wasting RfAm can occur at a future date. Let sleeping dogs lie. Mathsci (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• TrevelyanL85A2's priorities seem misplaced as far as the interests of wikipedia are concerned. There is no reason to distinguish between different socks of the same banned user, e.g. the ipsock 94.197.162.237, the sock Keystone Crow or the sock Rue Cardinale. The two edits I made on May 27 and the one edit on June 10 are no longer under discussion. Two arbitrators have commented on how to handle Echigo mole's disruption. TrevelyanL85A2 appears not to have heeded their comments. Instead he has tried to reopen and prolong a discussion concerning Echigo mole and his other favourite topic. [149][150][151] Mathsci (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Any edits in the IP ranges 94.197.1.1/16 and 94.196.1.1/16 that vaguely concern me have been made exclusively by Echigo mole. That is easy enough to check using the usual tools.[152] Arbitrators and other checkusers have long been aware of that. The negative nature of the edits of this banned user is not open for debate. On the other hand, in what now appear to be a series of calculated bad faith edits, The Devil's Advocate has taken the opposite point of view.[153] The Devil's Advocate appears to be spending his time justifying or enabling the edits of a community banned sock troll. Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• TrevelyanL85A2 has requested that The Devil's Advocate lobby arbitrators because he is still unsatisfied.[154] After a two week wikibreak, Trevlyanl85A2 has stated, "I think maybe if you go to one of the arbitrators about this, it should be someone other than Roger Davies. I don't trust Roger Davies to know how to resolve the current situation, because I think he has some responsibility for why it exists. He was the one who proposed that SightWatcher and I be given interaction bans with everyone who's edited R&I articles, at a time when I hadn't edited them in four months and SightWatcher hadn't edited them in a year." Mathsci (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Jclemens recused from this request.[155] It's not quite clear why he is commenting now. Mathsci (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Jclemens has unrecused himself. Could he please now comment on the issues concerning Echigo mole socks that other arbitrators have raised? No other arbitrators have made any suggestion that I have been "gaming the system", so Jclemens seems to be alone on that. Mathsci (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Three users have initiated requests of this kind all related to the trolling of a banned user: Keystone Crow, TrevelyanL85A2 and The Devil's Advocate. All three of these editors are subject to restrictions of some type on their editing (e.g. the first is blocked as a sock of the banned user). If anybody has any bright ideas about how to stop Echigo mole and his socks creating disruption on wikipedia that would be welcome. Nobody has been able to so far. I don't edit in R&I nor did I start this request. My editing history is clear enough: mostly content edits in geometric function theory at the moment requiring a lot of effort. Vecrumba seems to have mistaken me for another user, I'm not quite sure who.Mathsci (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Newyorkbrad has suggested adding a second motion to AGK's motion. Since SightWatcher has now commented here in a highly problematic way, perhaps more is required. Previously SightWatcher was given this warning by an arbitrator [156] which at that stage apparently he took to heart.[157] Prior to that MBisanz and Ed Johnston gave SightWatcher unequivocal warnings that he would be given a lengthy block if his editing patterns did not change.[158] After a 6 week wikibreak he has ignored the warnings and made militating edits above that are indistingusihable from the project space edits of Captain Occam and Ferahgo-the-Assassin. With only 4 very minor content edits in the last 12 months, and now more evidence of proxy-editing and violations of his topic ban, even after mutiple warnings from administrators, what exactly is SightWatcher doing on this project apart from acting as a harassment-only account on behalf of site-banned users? Mathsci (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

Amendment 2 would provide R&I editors (and the banned user) with a tool to provoke Mathsci. Consideration of this amendment is not required now as there is no evidence of a problem (apart from the dilemma over whether WP:DENY should be applied to a banned user posting on the talk page of an R&I editor). If required, this matter can be addressed at some future time, if Mathsci becomes engaged in R&I topics with conduct that is believed to be unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@TrevelyanL85A2: How does it help the encyclopedia to keep a message from a banned user? TrevelyanL85A2's comment at "01:40, 5 August 2012" was made just before removing the Sinebot signature of the banned user's name (diff)—why not remove the message? Hipocrite removed the message (rv banned user) and that edit summary explains the situation. Yet, without seeking clarification, TrevelyanL85A2 restored the message (Please do not remove edits others have made to my talk page without my consent. I keep an open door policy on my page, please respect my wishes). Editors are supposed to use Wikipedia to help the encyclopedia, and encouraging a banned user due to an "open door policy" is not a good use of a talk page. The question posed by Roger Davies at "11:08, 27 July 2012" remains unanswered. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The word "gaming" has been used a number of times, but I am perplexed by the recent mention of gaming at 03:13, 16 August 2012 by Jclemens. It is very understandable that Mathsci would want DENY applied to a long term abuser who has been harassing Mathsci—indeed, that's something we all should want, and there would be no issue if TrevelyanL85A2 did not insist on a right to keep comments from the banned user. I think Roger Davies (at 16:51, 3 August 2012) summed up the situation well with "to characterise Mathsci's reversion of harassment by a banned editor as gaming is really appalling".

  Is it this comment by Mathsci (see thread here) that is regarded as "gaming"? That is just a plain description of what had occurred—TrevelyanL85A2 can easily avoid issues like that by not commenting on R&I: just stick to the question of whether there is a right to retain harassing comments. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Silver seren

I'm not sure about whether the Amendments should or should not be enacted, though bullet 2 of Amendment 2 makes logical sense to me, because it's quite clear that there is evidence of a problem. Mathsci has been clearly gaming the system in order to remove perceived opponents from the topic area, taking actions that are sure to provoke a desired response so an Enforcement request can then be filed against the person. Seriously, at this point, I think everyone needs to truly consider blocking Mathsci for some period of time for his rampant and obvious gaming and, to be honest, harassment of other users. Silverseren^C 10:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: Whether the user is a sock or not, it was indeed appropriate for me to be notified, considering my involvement in the prior discussion, and the notification itself was neutral. Silverseren^C 11:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci: I also restored the comment on my talk page, as did Penwhale on theirs. Any user is allowed to restore the edits of a banned user so long as they aren't a copyvio or attacking another user, per WP:BAN. Silverseren^C 22:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Extra comment: It appears that Mathsci is enacting the "attack and discredit all of your opponents to win" tactic. Silverseren^C 01:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Professor marginalia: You should take care not to only quote the parts of the policy you like and ignore the rest, as BAN clearly states that any user is allowed to reintroduce the edits of a banned user so long as the edits do not violate our policies, are copyvios, or are attacking another person. And the attacking part is only for direct attacks. There's no Wikilawyering of "any edit by this person is an attack on this person" either, that would just be ridiculous. Silverseren^C 06:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Professor marginalia: No, they shouldn't because that's not the point of that section of BAN. The point is that any editor is free to reinstate an edit by a banned user so long as the edit doesn't violate other policies. Therefore, anyone is allowed to reinstate comments on their talk page by a banned user if they want to, as I have done multiple times before, as have others. Silverseren^C 01:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: In short: No. Silverseren^C 01:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, please don't use bold print like that; it's unspeakably rude. Second, please explain why you object to Newyorkbrad's comment(s). Thanks, AGK [•] 13:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because what he is suggesting is directly in conflict with the community written policy of WP:BAN and Arbcom has absolutely no jurisdiction over such. Any user is allowed to reinstate the edits of a banned user so long as the edit itself isn't violating other policies (copyvio, attacks, NPOV to some extent). In this case, Trev, myself, and others were reinstating a neutral message informing us of a discussion, which is something we are completely allowed to do within policy. Silverseren^C 03:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Penwhale

Like I said above, MathSci probably needs to stay away from Trev's talk page. Beyound that, I am not sure what to do here.

And @Johnuniq: It was appropriate for me to be notified, considering my involvement in previous AE. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger: Trev has not posted on this thread because he was apparently requested to refrain from commenting. I trust that someone else should notify Trev in this case. (Also, he hasn't done much within the last week according to his contributions, so I am not sure what to take from it.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 13:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note @Roger: Ever since MBisanz posted this warning at WT:AC to SightWatcher, he's had no contributions, period. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

There is no conceivable way in which repeatedly restoring the user-talkpage edits of a banned harrassment sockpuppet helps the encyclopedia. Restoring such edits - or litigating their restoration - appears to be TrevelyanL85A2's sole focus on Wikipedia over the past 6 months.

Presumably, the previous ArbCom restriction was crafted in the hope that TrevelyanL85A2 would find something, anything to do on Wikipedia besides continue these old disputes. It's obvious that's not going to happen. Every further second spent on this is a second wasted, and frankly the sheer volume of vexatious litigation associated with this editor-or-group-of-affiliated-editors rivals anything I've seen in the post-Abd era. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A short statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

I concur with Penwhale that MathSci should stay away from TrevelyanL85A2's talk page. However, I also concur with MastCell's observation that TrevelyanL85A2 has not contributed to Wikipedia in any meaningful way for the last six months. Indeed, TrevelyanL85A2 has not edited a single article since January 13, 2012.[159] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci: As an editor completely uninvolved in R&I, I correctly pointed out that you participated in an edit-war. Your claim that I come to this page "in response to the trolling edits of Echigo mole as Rue Cardinale" is flatly wrong. This page is on my watchlist and has been for quite some time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci: I find it ironic that you would accuse me of continuing "to make exaggerated claims" when you were the one to bring up the edit-warring, not me. Anyway, back to what I was saying, I think you should stay away from TrevelyanL85A2's talk page. There's no need for you personally to remove these posts. Let someone else do it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@MathSci: I've made two points: 1) I agreed with Penwhale that MathSci should stay away from TrevelyanL85A2's talk page. 2) I agreed with MastCell's observation that TrevelyanL85A2 has not contributed to Wikipedia for the last six months. It was a very short statement. You're the one who keeps harping about edit-warring, not me. The battleground mentality that you're displaying for all the Arbs to see is highly disappointing, especially when you've already been admonished for this very same behavior. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@MathSci: Editors may participate within reason in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned. By my own admittedly crude count, TrevelyanL85A2 has been mentioned by name over 30 times in this discussion, and I think that it's pretty clear that that the discussion on his talk page is a good faith attempt at dispute resolution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK (as first proposer) and PhilKnight and Newyorkbrad (who voted in favor of this resolution), can you please explain why involved editors such as MathSci should be the only ones to enforce removal from TrevelyanL85A2's talk page? This seems to be the provervial 'elephant in the room.' Maybe this isn't your intent, but it is the result of the motion. Can you please explain further? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Professor marginalia

Games. Games. Games.

What's needed here is some serious introspection how the gaming (which is transparent, as I see it, and is frittering away frillions of hours of volunteer time here) can be curtailed. I don't have so much free time to give back to wikipedia lately but I'm here virtually every other day looking up something I want to know about. How does it seriously help this project to squander this much volunteer time in mindless, pointless bureaucratize over how and who to handle a site banned troll obviously stirring up crazy on another topic banned user's userpage? What difference does it make which editor removes those edits that which obviously don't belong here?

The last thing we need here is to give sanctioned troublemakers new avenues to disrupt. This has been a 2 years long clown circus already. Will restricting Mathsci from Trevelyan's talk page end this? How? Trevelyan's not the first - he's deliberately pressed those buttons to exploit the precedent when Ferahgo objected to Mathsci editing her talk page. And I'm half convinced she tacked that direction because she'd seen him chase editors off his own talk page. When others besides Mathsci removed the same comments, Trevelyan's objection persisted. Why except to escalate? Obviously Trevelyan'd read these comments already, and could return to them through edit history as we all appreciate as one of the strengths of this platform. So would it really result in less disruption to demand Mathsci appeal to a proxy to remove a banned troll's comments? How so? Off-site appeals, they won't like one bit and will decry as off-site collusion. On-site appeals they'll decry as "Mathsci who is restricted from such-and-such proxied the action be done by someone else".

To diagnose the games going on in R/I is difficult; blenderize reality TV, Tartuffe, Braveheart, Paddy Chayefsky, The Secret Agent, Scott Pilgrim and you'd get some sense of the aroma of the wikinutty that wafts in to wreak havoc with legit sourced content decision making. Mice at play. Then comes arbcom, and Bleak House gets tossed in the blender.

I think to curtail the gaming we need to stop rewarding it. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2012‎

Relevant policy position:

A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good [..] Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. (WP:BAN) Professor marginalia (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Silverseren: The sections I quote above make no reference to "attacks", expressed or implied. If an editor supports the message or content of an edit made by banned editor on a talk page they should sign their own name to it rather than further enable banned users to continue editing via socks. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad - Please make an motion to that effect. An unofficial statement from an arb won't be enough to deter disruption in these situations because key players are now using the trolling as openings. It's a ploy, much like we've seen over and over for more than 2 years. They aren't seeking constructive advice. It's all been about exploiting every opportunity. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Only in Death

I dont particularly want to be here as I have quite a bit of respect for Mathsci and his work, but his needling of his opponents is going to far. This [160] is particularly troubling for me as its basically taking potshots at TDA over a completely unrelated matter to himself (an issue with a GA review for gods sake) and he is using this request, and NYB's (and TDA's issue with them) comments below to do it. It contributes towards showing his relentless attack-mode mentality when he is pursuing a target and it needs to stop. Its got to the point where his actions are impacting on other editors, ones completely unrelated to his issues with his sockpuppet harrassers. And its totally un-necessary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wishes to look further, please check the history of WQA and Mathsci's talkpage. As he has requested I dont post to his talkpage because it 'disturbs his difficult content editing' I will not be taking his inapproprite spreading of his conflict further with him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional - if anyone wishes to take up my actions in removing part of Mathsci's comments at WQA (someone else has reverted his edits here - no idea why), feel free to ask via email or on my talkpage as I do not want to disrupt this further by agitating Mathsci any more. Suffice to say I think the above interactions demonstrate why R&I case needs amending/clarifying as per TDA has outlined. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger - Just FYI, I respect Mathsci's wish to not have people post on his talkpage if he so chooses. Unfortunately I didnt see the request until after my second post at which point I promptly self-reverted it, although I suspect the damage was done and his concentration already broken for a second time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CIreland

Echigo mole is an extremely pernicious banned sockpuppeteer who has long pursued a vendetta against Mathsci; the very length of this behaviour must itself be disturbing for Mathsci. Additionally, Echigo mole has repeatedly attempted to intimidate Mathsci with "We know where you live" style edits, referencing Mathsci's place of residence.

One of the favorite tactics of Echigo mole is to seek out editors with whom MathSci is in dispute precisely to make it difficult for Mathsci to remove edits to their User talk pages without creating tension. This very amendment request, so far as it concerns Mathsci, enables and extends this abuse even if such was not the intent of the filer.

What is needed in order to address this long-standing problem is not any form of restriction or sanction for Mathsci but rather a remedy that prohibits the restoration of edits by Echigo mole's sockpuppets. Although such is not permitted by the current policy, I would personally like to see Revision Deletion of such edits allowed in order to mitigate against the possibility of editors not wholly aware of the background restoring problematic edits in good faith. Such good faith restorations have occurred in the past and have only served to further Echigo mole's agenda by drawing Mathsci into conflict. CIreland (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TrevelyanL85A2

I was not planning to comment here, but Roger Davies is asking me a question so I'll answer it.

There are two reasons I don't want Echigo Mole's posts in my user talk to be removed. First, I care about having the the right to decide what I do and don't want in my user talk, even if it's from a sock, as long as it doesn't violate policies. Echigo Mole's conduct elsewhere might be objectionable, but his posts in my user talk were just notifications or civilly-worded advice. Keeping it there doesn't violate WP:POLEMIC or anything else.

Second, I object to which editors are removing it and what I think their reason is. I would object much less if it were done by an uninvolved admin. Mathsci has said a few times he regards his dispute with me as an extension of his dispute with Ferahgo, and refers to me as "unfinished business". [161] The other editors removing the posts, Johnuniq and Hipocrite, also are Ferahgo's and Captain Occam's old opponents. It feels like this group is trying to perpetuate their old dispute in my user talk, and I don't want that.

This began when I had been trying to avoid this group of editors since January. After avoiding them and the R&I topic for a few months, I realized I could not do anything to make them leave me alone. Part of how I realized this was that I saw at the same time Mathsci also was removing posts from SightWatcher's user talk, and making new accusations about him in arbitration discussions, at a time when SightWatcher had avoided this group and the R&I topic for the past year. How can I ever escape this conflict if Mathsci even pursues people who had nothing to do with him and his articles for the past year? There is nothing I can do.

If you count the arbitration request the sockpuppet made in June, this is the third time this issue has been brought before ArbCom in two months. And each time, the group of editors objecting to Mathsci's conduct is a little larger than it was before. If the arbitrators decline to act on this request, what do they hope will happen? The community clearly is not able to resolve it. If ArbCom rejects this request now, it probably will just continue to grow and end up on their plate again in another month.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies: I didn't realize when "Rue Cardinale" commented in my user talk that this name meant something.  However please note this was not one of the socks that Mathsci reverted.  All of Mathsci's reverts in my user talk were of comments from socks that had inoffensive names, or were posting from IPs.  As Mathsci never reverted this sock, it's inaccurate to say his reverts were justified because of its username.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by aprock

Short and sweet: Echingo Mole wins. A motion which clarifies his role in this soup stirring is about the only good that can come out of this mess. aprock (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enric Naval

Trev's excuses are noww bordering in ridiculous. He removes only the offending username[162] saying that the comment itself wasn't removed specifically by Mathsci [163]. But this was twice removed by mathsci, and reverted by Trev while asking Mathsci not to edit his talk page again[164][165], a petition that he repeated later.[166] That's why someone else removed it, because Trev didn't accept Mathsci's removals. Oh, wait, it's even more ridiculous that I thought. Trev is saying that community-banned harassing socks can post anything they like as long that specific edit doesn't make a harassment[167]. Please end this circus of excuses.

There are some obvious things that need to be made more obvious. Please make a motion saying explicitly and clearly that nobody should restore the edits of harassing socks, independently of who removes them. If Trev or anyone else restores any of those comments again, block them immediately and remove the comment. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a motion about people restoring the comments of harassing socks in their user pages? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

The only question worth answering here is if Mathsci (or anyone else) has the right to remove the comments of an abusive sockpuppeter per WP:DENY after having been restored and responcibility for them taken on by Trev.

if yes, Trev is to cease restoring the text when removed by someone (including Mathsci) citing WP:DENY.

if no, Mathsci (and others) are to cease removing restored edits and any harassment or incivility contained in the restored edits are Trevs to answer for as if he personally wrote them. If the restored edits breach Trev's topic ban, he is responcible for that too.

Everyone is just rehashing that question from different angles. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

"TDA's stage management activities even more inappropriate"? Are you all focusing on the big picture here? Please don't shoot the messenger. Address the concern. Are your rulings being played? If so, fix it and ban the editor who is doing so. If not, say so and explain why. Use some critical thinking, avoid myopia, and interpret this situation to the vision you had when you first ran for Arbcom. Stay focused. Cla68 (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do a banned editor's comments on some random usertalkpage necessarily constitute harassment? Cla68 (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where in this diff is Mathsci's home address? How many of the offending diffs contain Mathsci's home address, and were they in response to Mathsci's actions? Look at both sides, please. Cla68 (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, here in Japan in an automobile accident the authorities try to lay blame to both sides, because both sides usually deserve some blame. From reading the comments above, that is the situation here. I suggest using a sliding scale, what percentage to blame is the banned editor, and what percentage to blame is Mathsci and others? Assign a percentage, then give them an equivalent number of days vacation from Wikipedia. I guarantee you will see a change in their editing behavior. Cla68 (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SightWatcher

I just noticed what Arbcom is suggesting here. I know The Devil's Advocate asked me to not comment but I have something to say about AGK's proposed amendment.

TDA made this request to address the problem of how Mathsci can deliberately provoke me and Trevelyan, and we can't do anything about it because we aren't allowed to comment on his behavior. I don't see how the proposed amendment will address that problem. I assume Mathsci would be considered an editor who has "made significant contributions" to the R&I topic, so the amendment won't change anything meaningful about the situation that led to this request, and the situation will just continue until Arbcom has to deal with it again.

I'm very confused by Arbcom's reluctance to address what I see as the central issue, which is Mathsci's battleground behavior. In the recent request about Youreallycan, a few arbitrators said something that needs addressing about YRC's behavior is how he's trying to mount an offense against the editors criticizing him instead of addressing others' concerns about his behavior (see for example SirFozzie's comment here). AFAICT, the request was declined only because the RFC needs to finish first. How is Mathsci's recent behavior different from YRC's? In this thread seven other editors in addition to me and Trevelyan have taken issue with Mathsci's behavior: The Devil's Advocate, Penwhale, Silver Seren, A Quest for Knowledge, Only in Death, Vecrumba, and Cla68. Mathsci's response is several screens of text attacking these editors, including about things that have nothing to do with the requested amendment (such as The Devil's Advocate's topic ban from 9/11 articles). A few months ago Mathsci did the same thing in this thread and SilkTork warned him [168] that he was showing the same battleground attitude he'd just been admonished for. Mathsci dismissed SilkTork's warning as "trolling". [169] I expressed concern here that this meant Mathsci's behavior that SilkTork warned him about was going to continue, and I was right.

Arbcom knows that an admonishment and then an additional warning from an arbitrator wasn't enough to change Mathsci's battleground behavior, and they think this behavior needs addressing when someone else does it. The community also seems to be being very clear that they think Mathsci's behavior is a large part of the problem. Arbcom has a responsibility to serve the community, and they have a responsibility to be consistent about what type of behavior is allowed. It seems like they also should care about finding a solution that won't make them have to keep dealing with the same situation again and again. -SightWatcher (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse due to previous AE amongst other things. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have asked the clerks to delist the motion concerning Wording of Race & Intelligence Review topic-ban remedies, because it is unsuccessful. AGK [•] 10:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements. However, I would clarify that while Mathsci has e-mailed the committee regarding this matter, no private statement or evidence has been taken into consideration. Only under certain circumstances do we receive private evidence or hold proceedings in camera. AGK [•] 01:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In relation to Amendment 1, I have proposed a motion below. AGK [•] 23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• In relation to Amendment 2, I will say only that I do not think this issue needs to be re-examined, and at this time I will not be proposing (nor supporting) a motion that grants the request in Amendment 2. AGK [•] 23:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll recuse, even though I've only ever interacted with these editors and this topic as an uninvolved administrator, my efforts to keep all parties working constructively have been dismal failures of the bitten-hand variety, resulting in the recent attempt to name me as a party the last time this matter showed up here. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mathsci pointed out that I'd recused, which I'd forgotten. Since my recusal was elective in the first place, I appear to have de facto rescinded it by voting on the motion. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The editors who are already banned and topic-banned need to abide by the prior rulings, and editors who are proxying for them or carrying on on their behalf need to stop. While the banning policy contemplates that editors in good standing may, in effect, sponsor and adopt edits made by banned users, I strongly recommend (and we may want to adopt this in a decision) that people not do so with respect to this particular topic, because the behavior that led to some of these bans was egregious and the edits are generally not helpful. Mathsci should stay away from the talkpages of his adversaries (reverting edits from banned users on those pages can safely be left to others), but other than that, I don't see the need for any remedy against him at this time. Finally, the involvement of at least one of the passersby in this dispute has been unhelpful, and I hope those who have acted inconsistently with the preceding suggestions will stop doing so before we have to start calling out names. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • People continue to defend the practice of accepting and responding to posts from obvious sockpuppets of the banned users in this area, and reverting them back onto their userpages when they are deleted. Whether or not this practice might be acceptable under the banning policy in other contexts, given all the background here it is encouraging the banned users to continue their disruptive and harassing behavior, and therefore is not permissible. The editors who have commented in this discussion are therefore directed to refrain from any further on-wiki communication with the banned users on any page on Wikipedia (including their talkpages), and not to reinstate any comments by the banned users that may be removed by others, regardless of any claimed justification for doing so under any policy or guideline that, in less toxic contexts, might otherwise apply. At the moment, this is simply a friendly but firm suggestion from an individual arbitrator, but I'll be glad to offer a formal motion to this effect, enforceable by significant and increasing blocks, if that is what becomes necessary to put an end to this disruption. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Various questions:
  • @ Mathsci: I'm not seeing "banning" people from your talk page as being helpful. Why not simply remove the messages after you've read them?
  • @ The Devil's Advocate: Are you seriously suggesting Mathsci is gaming the system when he reverts the posts of a banned user who has long been harassing him and posting non-public information about him?
  • @ Trevelyan In the light of WP:UP#POLEMIC and WP:USERBIO, why do the named topic-banned editors believe such messages should be retained on their talk pages? (Could a clerk mention to them that I've asked this please and ask for their responses?)
  Otherwise, I reiterate what Brad has said.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify the core issues, the various guidelines (WP:UP#POLEMIC and WP:USERBIO) and essay (WP:DENY) discussed here simply reinforce the relevant policy:
    1. bans apply to all edits made by a banned editor;
    2. anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban;
    3. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content.

    Given the clear policy position, it is a mystery to me why any of the editors who restored the posts could possibly think they were doing the right thing, especially when by restoring they were validating and endorsing the banned editor's posts. As this is about the thirtieth process involving the original topic-banned editors, and their successors, I agree entirely with Brad that robust measures are becoming increasingly appropriate.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Penwhale: I know that SW's last edit was a month ago. It makes TDA's stage management activities even more inappropriate.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Silver Seren. You are misinformed:
    • ArbCom is explicitly authorised by policy to: "interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced". Obviously, that applies to your interpretation of banning policy.
    • The Banning policy does indeed provide an element of discretion over reversion when it says: "this does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert". However, it seems to me that the policy's context is "obviously helpful" article edits rather than clerking of ArbCom matters by a banned user. Furthermore, in this particular instance, it seems to me probable the "helpful messages" were simply a ruse to deliver a covert toxic payload at Mathsci's expense in a seemingly innocuous parcel.
    There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume good faith for anything this particular serial harasser/sockmaster posts.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: The Suspected Socks sideshow I know that Mathsci has been sorely harassed, and for a protracted period, and that the tags say "suspected sockpuppet" but I would have thought a SPI report/CU check were probably the minima here. Can we completely drop this now?  Roger Davies ^talk 16:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: TrevelyanL85A2 He's mentioned here and elsewhere. How, as part of the broader discussion, is he breaching a topic ban? That said, to characterise Mathsci's reversion of harassment by a banned editor as gaming is really appalling.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CLA68. Yes, beyond doubt, when the username posting them is the street where their longterm victim lives.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Wording of Race & Intelligence Review topic-ban remedies

Motion failed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority. Majority reference Abstentions Support votes needed for majority 0–1 7 2–3 6 4–5 5 For reference, the two topic-ban remedies in question are worded as follows: 6.1) SightWatcher (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned. 7.1) TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned. Proposed: In remedies 6.1 and 7.1 of the Race and intelligence Review, SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 were banned from: "participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic" That sentence is replaced by: "participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have made significant contributions to the topic". Support Proposed. As usual, whether a specific user who falls within the grey area between minor editing and long-term editing is a "significant contributor" will be a decision for the community's administrators (at WP:AE). With context and common sense, those administrators are able to make a sensible decision, and so reduce the gaming of the catch-all wording of these remedies. AGK [•] 23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Risker, this removes an opportunity to game the system. Currently, an enforcement action would be taken on request if these two users comment in any thread about any editor who has at any time edited a page about race and intelligence. AGK [•] 21:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Roger, Kirill: Greater discretion for AE administrators is a reasonable objective. Handing them carte blanche and the obligation to grant frivolous requests for enforcement in cases where "sanctioned user X posted in ANI thread about user Y when Y made an edit to R&I article Z some two years ago". Bearing in mind the frequency of wikilawyering at AE (of which I'm sure you're aware), Worked in the topic is unduly sweeping. I do not believe you are not improving the ability of AE sysops to act in the way you think you are. AGK [•] 15:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Per AGK. PhilKnight (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] I think this will be helpful, although I don't think it is sufficient to resolve the issue, and anticipate that another motion will also be made. I am not convinced by Jclemens' comment regarding Mathsci. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Not convinced that this is the right direction to go, given Mathsci's gaming of the one-way interaction ban. If we upgraded the existing interaction bans to two-way, I would probably support. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] As far as I can tell, this will have no effect on the application of sanctions in this area. Risker (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'm not convinced this is helpful. Given the convoluted history of the topic, and the collusion/shenanigans that have gone on for so long in the background, the AE admins need broad discretion to act if they decide sanctions are reasonable and appropriate.  Roger Davies talk 08:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Per Roger. Kirill [talk] 11:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Per above, changes nothing, but creates a hole for wikilawyering. Courcelles 20:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Abstain SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comments by arbitrators

---