To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Mooretwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Mooretwin (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite topic ban on articles, discussions, and other content related to The Troubles, the Ulster banner and British baronets, imposed at [[1]]. The decision was imposed on 10 February 2012, six months passed on 10 August 2012. I appealed on 9 October 2012. The appeal was not upheld, though was relaxed by the removal of the British baronets topic ban. Since then, I have not made any subsequent appeal until now, over two years since the previous appeal and some two years and ten months since the ban was imposed.

Administrator imposing the sanction

T. Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[2]

Statement by Mooretwin

I have abided by the topic ban for nearly three years now, and I would like it to be lifted. That is a long time during which to reflect and I think the period demonstrates my patience and acceptance of the sanction. I have not been involved in any disputes, edit wars, incivility or any other misdemeanours during that time. While in the period up to about five years ago I was involved in a number of such disputes, I had not been involved in any in the two years prior to the incident that led to this ban. That incident was in the "heat of the moment" and, I argued at the time and still do, was the result of extreme provocation. I should like to think, given the conduct in the two years previous and the nearly three years since, that it would be accepted that the incident does not represent a fair reflection of my contributions to Wikipedia, and thus that an indefinite ban is no longer a reasonable sanction.

At the time of my first appeal, editors sought evidence of collaborative editing. However, I made the point that my inability to edit articles in the only real area of my expertise (Northern Ireland) meant that I was unable to edit collaboratively. This remains the case, although recently, for example, I have engaged constructively at WP:CRICKET in relation to achieving consensus for a new notability criterion.

@EdJohnston: I'm afraid, as a result of the ban, I haven't been reading or following any very closely, so I'm not up to speed on what needs work. There is currently no particular article that I intend to work on immediately. I don't have a lot of time, to be honest, but I would still like the freedom to be able to participate as and when I think I can offer something useful. At one time, I was in the process of creating articles on historical members of the Northern Ireland Parliament missing from the encyclopaedia, adding categories for government ministers and so on, but that all had to stop. Eventually I'd like to complete that. A few random examples of articles I've created are: Basil Kelly, Colum Eastwood, David Graham Shillington, Edmund Warnock. I also won't pretend that I wouldn't wish to be able to add value to some of the more "controversial" articles on occasion without resorting to edit wars or confrontation: I've certainly learned my lesson on that, and would give an undertaking to tread carefully and respectfully. Mooretwin (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the comments by Cailil, I would like to make the following points:

• It is factually incorrect to say that I have made "only 2 talk page comments in 2014", as the talk page of WP:CRICKET, which I noted in my statement above, will testify.
• If there is a genuine desire to see me collaborate productively, why not lift the ban partially, say, for six month so that I may participate in talk page discussions but without being able to edit articles? As I have said consistently, I cannot demonstrate productive editing when I am banned from the only articles in relation to which I have any expertise to offer. Mooretwin (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the suggestion from Cailil is that I should deliberately seek out articles about which I have no particular expertise or interest, but about which there is some kind of dispute or issue - and thus an opportunity to intervene constructively - for the purpose merely of demonstrating that I can work collegially. This appears to be the only way I will convince Cailil that the ban should be relaxed, never mind lifted. I have already made the suggestion above that the ban be relaxed to allow me to edit Talk pages, while keeping the ban on editing articles in place. Surely this is the best (and obvious?) way of allowing me to demonstrate the ability to work collegially? Mooretwin (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by T. Canens

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Mooretwin

AFAIK, you've had no problems in other areas during the 2+ years, thus a demonstration of your new approach. IMHO, your topic-ban should be lifted. Afterall, it was placed as a preventative measure & since there's nothing to prevent anymore.....? :) GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Mooretwin's appeal is denied on the basis of his not having caused problems, because his sanctions worked. Would that not be like saying "we want you to proove you can behave without your handcuffs, but we want you to do this while wearing your handcuffs"? GoodDay (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very troubled by Cailil's comments below, especially the implication that because there has been no trouble from Mooretwin in the past couple of years, it means that the restriction must therefore be working, and that in itself is a reason for the restriction to stay in place. That is not the purpose of placing a restriction on any editor, and is an abuse of the restriction process in general. In good faith, an absence of comments on Talk pages might mean that Mooretwin recognizes that this is a potentially troublesome area for him and stays away and that is exactly the behaviour we should applaud. Enough time has passed in Mooretwin's case to lift the restrictions and let him, and everyone else, reassess his involvement with the project. If his behaviour should prove troublesome in the future, then we have lots of mechanisms and processes by which to take further action. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil, the question isn't whether Mooretwin can edit with collegiality across a wide range of articles. Even had Mooretwin edited other articles, the question the community needs to answer is "Has Mooretwin recognized his previous disruptive behaviour - and this is a crucial bit - in his proven area of expertise or interest, and - this is the critical bit - is now prepared to accept community standards of behaviour." To use your own analogy, Mooretwin shouldn't have to drink in every other pub in town before he can return to his favorite pub. That is not the purpose of sanctions, and is unfair, especially for editors that have a specific area of expertise and/or interest. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 02:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Mooretwin has the ability to reform his behaviour in the area he's restricted from. Give him the chance to proove himself. Should he mess up again? then merely re-instate his restriction. What's the harm in placing him on probation? PS: Anyways, that's all I've left to say, here. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it might be possible, probably with the consent of T. Canens and the applicant, to institute some sort of discretionary sanctions on the editor in the relevant fields for at least a given period of time instead? Such discretionary sanctions might be able to expire after a given period of time if there are no substantive issues during a predetermined time period, and might, at least potentially, allow for the replacement of the topic ban if during that period of time the concerns seem to resurface. John Carter (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is a more sensible approach. Putting in place a process whereby Mooretwin can engage once again with the community in the relevant fields and can be monitored for a period of time is far more likely to result in an opportunity whereby Mooretwin can demonstrate he can collegially engage towards a consensus. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 02:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Cailil, his analogy with the pubs is kind of like suggesting that someone who's been barred from a pub should head off and prove that they can behave in a knitting circle, even though they've no interest in the latter. Mooretwin has edited other pages, mostly on sports, without any obvious issues. The vast majority of editors on this project will have specialist areas which interest them. Besides sports, Mooretwin's is obviously Northern Ireland related, so they do seem to be in a bit of a Catch-22. There has to be a more practical way of doing this. Putting Mooretwin on probation and only allowing them to edit talk pages at first, followed by a 0RR on articles, would be a more practical way of dealing with this. Valenciano (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Mooretwin

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

• Mooretwin, can you give an example of a TROUBLES-related article you would work on if this ban was lifted? What kind of material would you add? EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody has advocated keeping the ban, so I am planning to lift it. Be aware that, if there is further trouble, any single admin has authority under Discretionary sanctions to reimpose the ban. So please be careful. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Striking my comment after reading Cailil's observation below. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that it can be lifted per EdJohnston, though I'd prefer a comment by @Timotheus Canens: or a few more comments from admins (to meet the WP:AC/DS requirement for a "substantial" consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I would hope that ArbCom and the community would accept unanimity as sufficient for a substantial consensus, even when the numbers are relatively. There's just no way to read the will of the silent majority. But just to help out a bit: my reading is the Mooretwin has been abiding by his topic ban and continuing to edit in non-disruptive ways (not just trying to "wait it out", as some have done, and which just doesn't work). Given that a substantial amount of time has passed, I would agree to lift this ban. Though I also agree with EdJohnston's reminder that the ban can be reimposed and agree that Mooretwin should approach this area with caution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that the whole substance of this ban is to do with interaction with others in the Troubles area I am far more skeptical than my colleagues above. It was this diff at the original AE (one filed by Mooretwin against another user) that resulted in his ban.
  The whole problem here is Mooretwin's history of not being able to work with others (not any bad editing in articles per se) and using the DR system to attack others. Despite the reformed gnomish edits to various articles Mooretwin has made only 2 talk page comments in 2014 (1 in February and 1 in May). The last one before that was July 2013[3]. In more than 2 years the last substantial interaction/converstaion this user had was with anyone on WP was with a bot that they swore at & Cloudz679 who was biten for reminding Mooretwin not to WP:BITE [4] in April 2013.
  I would suggest that lifting in these circumstances is looking for trouble. A clear road map was given to Mooretwin at the last AE[5] (which was in 2013 not in 2012 as Mooretwin says above, the 2012 AE appeal relaxed the ban from the Baronets[6]). That road-map was not followed.
  To my mind if this user can edit productively with the topic ban in place and has no compelling reason to edit in the area and has shown no movement on the roadmap then there's no reason to lift it. Simply put the ban is working - for everyone (Mooretwin included he hasn't been blocked or sanctioned in years), thus in light of this I cannot endorse lifting this ban--Cailil ^talk 17:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @GoodDay - until recently the big red box at the top of the bag explained that ArbCom rulings and their enforcement are coercive rather than punitive. Nevertheless ArbCom remedies are not preventative in the same way blocks are under the normal rules. Hence, AE decisions take so much time, consideration, and have so many rules attached--Cailil ^talk 18:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mooretwin - I'm sorry I missed those edits Mooretwin. Yes you did make 4 comments to that page in November 2014 (all related to the 1 topic or "Irish cricket clubs: notability"[7]) (3 of which are very short). All of which look very positive however I can't find any others before that (up to April 2013), have I missed them? If I haven't missed anything then this evidence is unfortunately too slim for an appeal of a ban about interpersonal conduct. The problem for me is quite simple, *you* don't need to edit in WP:TROUBLES articles to demonstrate reform - it actually might encourage old behaviour. If you can show change by continuing to collaborate and to do so consistently then your ban will be lifted, however coming back to AE every so often but avoiding engagement with others outside this topic area is the definition of "waiting a ban out" - which wont work with an indefinite sanction (it has nothing to do with time and everything to do with behaviour)--Cailil ^talk 19:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @GoodDay & HighKing - If Mooretwin's appeal is denied on the basis of his not having caused problems, because his sanctions worked and the implication that because there has been no trouble from Mooretwin in the past couple of years, it means that the restriction must therefore be working.
  Don't misrepresent what I wrote here[8]. My reason for declining is that: "if this user can edit productively with the topic ban in place and has no compelling reason to edit in the area and has shown no movement on the roadmap then there's no reason to lift it".
  The handcuffs analogy is a specious. The actual situation here is like telling someone: "you're barred from Barney Kiernan's pub in Dublin for causing trouble and we wont let you back in until you show you can behave yourself in other pubs in the City, of which there are over 1,000". Except here on wikipedia there are millions of places MooreTwin can go and can demonstrate reform. The constant refrain from single purpose nationalist accounts that: "I need to edit in the ***enter whatever Nationalist dispute area here*** topic, these are the only articles I care/know about!!" is in fact a clear articulation of their problem - an obsession with one topic area, and a refusal to substantially edit anything else.
  FYI hyperbolic comments like these are among the least convincing ways to get anyone to change their opinion--Cailil ^talk 19:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mooretwin - No I am not saying to seek out other articles "where there is a dispute", I'm suggesting you edit generally and collaborate generally. The idea that a topic banned editor edit other areas is the only thing they can do. Also if you have "no particular article that [you] intend to work on immediately", then what exactly is the hurry? Why not work on the cricket articles or football articles more and bring one to a higher quality. That kind of concrete evidence is convincing. Also I take it from your lack of reply to my question that I didn't miss any further edits?

  @John Carter - I see your point but if the problem here is a single purpose mentality then what purpose does feeding that focus on one area of WP achieve - is it not counter productive? For me this was would have to be limited to 1 page in WP:TROUBLES first and then if Mooretwin were able to help improve it substantially and collaborate substantially at that stage my mind would be changed (but I remain unconvinced that this is a good idea until a more diverse editing pattern emerges)--Cailil ^talk 12:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: This appeal was opened on 27 November and Mooretwin deserves a decision. Regrettably we didn't hear back from the banning admin, User:Timotheus Canens. Two supporters of lifting, User:Callanecc and User:Heimstern Läufer, may not have seen the later discussion, especially User:Cailil's arguments. Per WP:AC/DS the success of an appeal depends on "(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN.." So per Arbcom when we are at AE we now count only the admin votes. The reading of the discussion most favorable to Mooretwin still gives us a tie on admin votes (since I oppose the appeal) so evidently we don't have consensus to lift. Mooretwin is advised to show that he can contribute on other (non-Troubles) controversial articles and negotiate with others on difficult subjects before applying again to have the ban lifted. Please study the result section of the 2013 AE appeal and try to follow the advice there. This appeal is denied. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning BoboMeowCat

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Discretionary sanctions :

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

This request concerns tendentious editing by BoboMeowCat at Becky Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article about a teenager "who died in 1988 from a botched abortion because she was afraid to get her parents' consent, as the state law required." Bell's parents subsequently became highly visible critics of parental-notification laws.

1. BoboMeowCat has a history of tendentious editing on abortion-related topics, and has previously been blocked for edit-warring on the Becky Bell article.
2. BoboMeowCat removes 6 reliable sources attesting to the fact that Bell died of complications of an illegal abortion.
3. On the talk page, BoboMeowCat claims "it's not a forgone conclusion that Becky Bell had an illegal unsafe back alley abortion" and that she may have instead died from a naturally occurring miscarriage.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Previously blocked for violating 1RR on abortion-related articles.

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

• Notified of discretionary sanctions by User:EdJohnston on 20 April 2014.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In a nutshell, this editor a) denies that Bell had an illegal abortion after b) conveniently removing a huge number of reliable sources attesting that she had an illegal abortion. This is both poor editing (in that there is no justification given for removing numerous reliable sources) and cynically tendentious gamesmanship, in that she's removing sources in order to advance her personal viewpoint more easily. In light of this editor's prior history of edit-warring in this topic area, I am requesting a topic ban for tendentious editing.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning BoboMeowCat

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

Statement by BoboMeowCat

I don’t have a lot of time to respond right now, but would appreciate any advice and any input from uninvolved admins/editors on how or where I have made error editing this article and any input on what would be a better editing approach in future. I'm a little confused by this complaint, because I’ve only edited Becky Bell one time in the past 7 months. That one edit was to revert to an earlier version by editor GodBlessYou2, who the complaining editor, MastCell, appears to be involved in a slow longterm edit war with. I found GodBlessYou2’s arguments regarding the neutrality of his version convincing on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Becky_Bell#More_Neutral_Introduction and it appeared to me GodBlessYou2 had talk page support for his version being supported on talk page by 131.109.225.24. Regarding removal of sources, for that revert, I actually used the undo button to restore to the version by GodBlessYou2, and was doing so based on the neutrality of the text. I had no intention to remove any sources. I can understand a complaint regarding unintentional removal of sources, and will certainly be more careful to look at references, as well as text, when using the undo button in future.

Regarding my block on Becky Bell 7 months ago, that was the result of a content dispute with MastCell on that same article. I was blocked for violating 1RR. I was a new editor at the time, and I honestly did not understand that when content is being disputed, and you are leaving that disputed content completely alone, and there is other dubious content (regarding allegations of attempted murder which does not seem properly referenced) [9], that you have to wait 24 hours to delete that different content, if the article is under 1RR sanctions. MastCell reported me to the edit warring noticeboard for this, and I was blocked. I was actually very confused by this block and the revert rules in general and sought out advice and clarification at the teahouse as a new editor and on EdJohnston’s talk page was educated on what counts as a revert and have not since made the same mistake on abortion related or any other articles. [10]

Additional statement by MastCell

Your justification seems to be that you didn't look at the content of the edit you were reverting, and didn't realize you were removing a bunch of reliable sources (all of which happened to contradict the argument you were making on the talkpage). Even if true, that seems like an aggravating rather than mitigating factor, because it suggests that you're reverting just for the sake of reverting, without actually considering the content or sources. Your responsibility for your edits is just as great, if not greater, when reverting another editor as when making a de novo edit. You don't get a free pass on the substance of your edit just because you used the "undo" button. MastCell ^Talk 17:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional statement by BoboMeowCat

The version I reverted to one time by GodBlessYou2 contained reliable sources saying that Bell died of an illegal abortion. It's not true that I removed all of the sources that state Bell had illegal abortion, although I readily admit that removing any RS references was a careless error on my part, which I will be vigilant to avoid making in the future. I reverted based on the article text comparison between the two versions, with GodBlessYou2's text seeming more neutral and also based on what seemed to me to be compelling talk page arguments by GodBlessYou2 and what appeared to me to be talk page consensus, which MastCell seemed to be reverting against. I have previously asked uninvolved editors to advise above on a better courses of action for future editing, and would like to ask again here. Please refer to talk page discussion here: [11]. Also, please note that MastCell’s comment about adding additional references was made after my one and only edit during this content dispute. To further clarify what occurred, I've had this page on my watch list for several months and have noticed a slow back and forth edit war between GodBlessYou2 and MastCell on the Becky Bell article. Talk page indicated GodBlessYou2 said he was trying to make article more neutral and had concerns that reliable sourcing that argued it was possible that Bell had a natural miscarriage were not being neutrally represented and that there remains debate that parental consent laws caused Bell’s death. I found these arguments by GodBlessYou2 particularly compelling [12] [13] [14] Additionally, I noticed that 131.109.225.24 indicated agreement with GodBlessYou2 and that he was concerned that MastCell was purposely adding misleading information to the article. [15] [16] [17]

I then contacted GodBlesYou2 on his talk page to provide him with an additional reference for this article. [18] For a bit of back story, several months ago, Auric pinged me regarding a reference for an additional reliable source on case from the Cleveland Plain Dealer which apparently reported Bell's best friend, Heather Clark, indicated Bell did not have an illegal abortion, saying the two of them had actually made plans to obtain a legal abortion in Kentucky (where no parental consent was needed) but Bell became ill and died before that occurred. Auric provided me with the full reference for this article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer by referring me to this website [19](relevant content about 1/4 of the way down). The article in question is old (1990) and not available online and would require trip to library and I haven't gotten around to getting it as I said I would, so I left a note on GodBlessYou2's talk page, passing on the information regarding the Cleveland Plain Dealer article, in case he had time or interest in pursuing it. GodBlessYou2 replied that his concern mainly was that the 60 minutes reference was not being adequately represented. [20] I then carefully read the talk page and the text of the two versions and reverted one time and one time only, which I admit carelessly resulted in removal of references. I have no intention to continue to remove references, I am committed to editing more carefully when using undo button and would like advice on how best to proceed from here as there is currently a content dispute on that article. I have previously brought content dispute concerns from other articles to the NPOV noticeboard, but have had limited luck because of limited outside input (seems involved parties often just follow to noticeboard with little to no outside input) I’ve never used formal dispute resolution and am not entirely clear how it works and if it would be a good avenue in this case. Any outside advice would be appreciated.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 131.109.225.24

This is an example of the arrogant bullying and intimidation of a relatively new editor by a cliquish and highly biased, but well-connected administrator. If any participant in this article should be a candidate for punishment by discretionary sanctions it should be MastCell. Here on the Talk page [21] she made a far from comprehensive response to points brought up in the discussion. Eleven minutes later [22] she substantially changed the articles wording (to the "stable" earlier version) "per talk" as if her preferred version had been reached by consensus. She then has the monumental chutzpah to recommend BoboMeowCat for punitive sanctions because he had the common sense to revert her massive changes pending further discussion. Bobo should get one of those barnstars I see, instead. As for MastCell, at the very least, a well earned rest from administrative duties. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ArtifexMayhem

The editor does not seem to understand (or possibly doesn't agree with) our policies on reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability (film). For example,

April

• Edits, beginning here, to the Becky Bell article that place undue emphasis on a Baltimore Sun op-ed by James A. Miller, then director of research for Human Life International, and an article on LifeNews.com by the founder and Editor of LifeNews, Steven Ertelt[23].
• In response to the Becky Bell article being tagged for the use of unreliable sources the editor either failed or refused to understand the policy based explanations provided on the talk page.[24]

November

• Creation[25] of 22 Weeks which relies excessively on unreliable or partisan sources (e.g., The Christian Post, WorldNetDaily, LifeSiteNews). [26]
• In response to the 22 weeks article being tagged for notability and the use of unreliable as well as partisan sources the editor, once again, fails or refused to understand the policy based explanations provided on the talk page.[27]
• On the Becky Bell talk page, the editor claims that, "According to the references currently in article, some medical experts believe Becky Bell's septic abortion was the result of this sort of natural miscarriage."[28], when in fact we have no reliable sources that support such a claim (at least not without violating WP:GEVAL).

This is very similar to the type of conduct[29][30] that led to topic bans[31][32] in the ARBCOM case. I second MastCell's request for a topic ban per the above, and based on the intent of the principles, findings, and remedies given in the original case. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maunus

I am in the mood to make a statement so I will: I have absolutely no knowledge about this case, but would like to add that I just watched a 1971 debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault and it seems to me that FOucault was right in arguing that there is no basis for claims about a universal morality. Nonetheless, morality is contingent on social forces and power relations, which means that a consensus on wikipedia does have its own moral force that it can bring to bear on any wikipedia user. So this means that this online kangaroo court can validly claim jurisdiction over any matters related to wikipedia editing, including the antics of users by the name of BoboMeowCat.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent

BoboMeowCat asked Drmies for protocol regarding AE filings [33]. Drmies pinged me. Reviewing the editor's contribution history I'm seeing a green editor perhaps a little too eager to work in controversial areas given their experience level. I followed up on their talk page [34]. They've agreed not to edit the article talk but confine their activities to the talk page. This hopefully adequately address MastCell's concerns and will allow Wikipedia to further develop a new editor without requiring formal action on part of reviewing administrators. NE Ent 02:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston: given that the purpose of all dispute resolution mechanisms is to minimize disruption to mainspace, how will a formal ban be any more efficacious than BoboMeowCat simply not editing the article? NE Ent 20:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GodBlessYou2

I'm only commenting because I saw a notification/alert/red flag at the top of my page stating my username had been mentioned in an Arbitration incident.

When I checked into it, I see that MastCell is trying to get BoboMeowCat sanctioned?? As far as I know, BoboMeowCat has not even been editing the Becky Bell article . . . at least not lately. I tried to correct some information a bit ago, but I ran into MastCell declaring that his slant on the article was more accurate than the facts represented in the sources. (See for example his insistence on using "unsafe abortion" in the lead though the medical term used in the autopsy was "septic abortion." He does not dispute that the official cause of death was septic abortion but he continues to revert my correction of the lead, bringing into conformity with the official cause of death, simply because he prefers the term unsafe abortion...or, possibly, because he may prefer to drive readers to the unsafe abortion link rather than the septic abortion link.)

It is my experience that MastCell has been uncooperative and has been policing this article to preserve his preferred slant.

Actually, I was surprised to see a comment from BoboMeowCat "congratulating" me after I made my first attempt to clarify the article. Perhaps he should instead have warned me that this was a contentious article which was being policed to enforce certain editor(s) slant.

After respectfully making my edits and moving to the talk page to discuss, MastCell said he wanted to bring in outside opinions. Fine.

But now I see he's trying to actually exclude an outside opinion, BoboMeowCat, precisely because that editor agrees with my recommendations for improving the article.

Talk about protectionism!

I don't know any details about BoboMeowCat's other activities or past activities, but he has not been a problem on the Becky Bell page since I tried to contribute to it. In my view, MastCell is the one trying to dominate the page rather than work toward edits which are clearly supported by the sources -- and one which properly identifies the persons whose opinions are being stated, rather than elevating opinions to factual statements. That isn't too much to ask. GodBlessYou2 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading MastCell's original charge, he states that BobMeowCat's #1 offense is "In a nutshell, this editor a) denies that Bell had an illegal abortion . . ." I don't think anyone is denying that Bell may have had an illegal abortion, but a careful reading of all the sources shows that while her parents argued definitively that she had died of an illegal abortion, the autopsy found no signs of instruments being used for an illegal abortion and did not exclude either a self-abortion or a miscarriage as possible causes of the septic abortion. That's three possible causes of the septic abortion. See the recent reference info provided by Ca2James,on the talk page reporting that the pathologist believed an illegal abortion was the most likely cause, but lacking any physical evidence to support that conclusion, he could not rule out a self abortion or miscarriage. He even states, no one knows because "the answers went to the grave with the little girl. Given this irrefutable "agnosticism" of the pathologist (and many others) regarding the "actual cause" of death, it is hardly unfair of BoboMeowCat or any other editor to insist that the lead and content of the article should clarify that all three causes of death were postulated and supported by various parties. What is undisputed, by all but MassCall, is that the official cause of death was septic abortion. I really don't see how MastCall has an argument against these clarifications which are entirely supported by reliable sources -- within the 60 minutes piece alone, this is all clear. If anyone should be sanctioned for being "tendentious" it is MastCall. He should also be sanctioned for going after BobMeowCat when his real target was me, since I am the one trying to make these edits which have led to this flurry of recent changes and reverts.GodBlessYou2 (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional statement by BoboMeowCat

In a conversation with NE Ent, I have stated that I would willingly not edit the Becky Bell article for six months. The removal of sources was a one time accident, that I am committed to not repeating. I have a history of learning from and not repeating mistakes. I have not repeated my previous new editor error of violating 1RR, due to not understanding what counts as a revert, which I made 7 months ago. I do not feel that I require a formal ban, and would like to continue to participate on the talk page. I edit a wide variety of articles on WP, but I am particularly interested in the challenge of presenting complicated issues in a neutral and encyclopedic way. I agree with NE Ent that participating on the Becky Bell talk page would be a valuable experience to help further my skills as a new editor.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning BoboMeowCat

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

• This article risks becoming a football in the abortion controversy. User:BoboMeowCat was blocked for a 1RR violation last April on the Becky Bell article. In terms of what's new in this report, the most significant edit is one that removes six references from the article. On her own talk page BoboMeowCat has suggested that she voluntarily stop editing the Bell article until 1 May 2015, which would be a six-month break. I would go along with the six months but it should be a formal ban, logged in WP:ARBAB, that covers the topic of Becky Bell on both articles and talk pages across all of Wikipedia. The log of WP:ARBAB shows there has not been much activity so far in 2014, which is probably good, but it also means that AE has got out of the habit of evaluating abortion disputes. If it appears that groups of advocates or opponents of abortion are editing systematically to change the slant of articles in favor of their preferred side we may need to consider wider admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Since BoboMeowCat asserts that the removal of six sources was not intentional, I would favor closing this request with a logged ban from the article itself (though not the talk page) until 1 May, 2015. It's usually better if more than one admin comments in this section, so I'll wait a bit before closing. In the future, if it turns out that there is any further warring on the Becky Bell article then further bans should be considered. I'll ping User:MastCell to see if he has anything to add. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing: The offer by User:BoboMeowCat to make no article edits at Becky Bell until 1 May, 2015 is accepted. You may still participate on the talk page and discuss the topic elsewhere on Wikipedia. This agreement will be logged in WP:ARBAB and you are subject to being blocked if it is violated. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]