Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 37

This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130

Request for clarification: Lyndon LaRouche, Lyndon LaRouche 2, and C68-FM-SV (December 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by SlimVirgin 09:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

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

SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by SlimVirgin

This is part request for clarification, part request for help, and part expression of bewilderment. It's an issue I'm not keen to be involved in, because of the ArbCom ruling that Cla68 and I avoid each other. I'm therefore going to post this, and hope that it ends my involvement.

Cla68 and I were asked some time ago to avoid unnecessary contact with one another. This followed an ArbCom case in May 2008. I made a statement there [1] that Cla68 was following me to articles I edited and he never had, to strike up positions that opposed me, and was generally making very negative comments about me on and offwiki, and doing so frequently, a situation that started in 2006. I have not sought to enforce the ruling that we avoid each other, because his onwiki comments about me mostly stopped after the case, though his offwiki remarks continued. When Will Beback wrote to Cla recently to say that his onwiki remarks about me seemed to be starting again, I did ask Cla if we could please both adhere to the spirit of the ruling. [2]

Cla has now restored the article, and has added LaRouche to the lead and given him his own section in it. The Eurasian Land Bridge is a project that Lyndon LaRouche has claimed at various points to be behind or somehow involved in, though there has never been any independent evidence of his involvement. HK's creation of the article in 2004 can be seen here. It reads: "The Eurasian Land-Bridge was first formally proposed in 1991 by the American economist, politician and philosopher, Lyndon LaRouche." This is similar to LaRouche claiming, as he did, that he was behind the idea for Star Wars.

As I see it, Cla68's restoration of this article with the LaRouche material in it is a violation of the ArbCom ruling that he and I avoid each other (Cla knew that this was an article I had been involved in opposing); a violation of the LaRouche ArbCom rulings that say material stemming from the LaRouche movement should not be added to articles that aren't about the movement; possibly a violation of WP:BAN, because he's arguably acting as a proxy for a banned user; and most importantly a violation of WP:UNDUE, because LaRouche is a tiny-minority, fringe source. We shouldn't add LaRouche's views to an article about the land-bridge, just as we don't add to Queen Elizabeth II that LaRouche thinks she's a drug dealer (though the BBC has reported he claims this), or add to Autism that Scientologists say autism doesn't exist (though reliable sources have reported that Scientologists claim this). UNDUE is one of the most basic principles of the NPOV policy. There are only two English-language sources that mention LaRouche and the bridge that are used in the article. Both are articles mentioning LaRouche's campaigning, not articles about the bridge. Both are relying entirely on LaRouche. Neither of the texts has been linked to in the article so we can't even see exactly what the sourcing consists of.

My opinion is that Cla68 is doing this to continue his campaign of baiting me, and perhaps I am rising to the bait by filing this request for clarification, but I don't know what else to do. If I ignore it, I have no doubt that something else will be round the corner, because that has been the pattern so far. I would like it to stop.

I tried to remove the LaRouche material from the article, [5] but was reverted by Lar and Cla. [6] [7] I therefore opened an article RfC [8] and hope not to have to comment on the article again. I have also opposed Cla's attempt to get GA status for it while the LaRouche issue remains in it. [9] My purpose in posting here is to ask the ArbCom to look at the situation, and decide whether any previous rulings have been violated. I also want to get it on the record that Cla is continuing to do this kind of thing. I have not tried to do anything formally about his offwiki remarks about me (though I've emailed Brad a couple of times about them), even though they've caused considerable distress, but I'm upset that this continues after three years of similar issues. I find the obsessionality worrying.

My specific question is whether the rulings below apply, and whether the ruling in Cla68/SV that the parties avoid, "Uncivil comments to or regarding other editors, personal attacks, and unsupported allegations of bad faith" applies to remarks on other websites.

1. LaRouche 1:

"Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles."

2. LaRouche 2:

"Administrators may use their discretion in determining what constitutes a LaRouche-related article. The prohibition against inserting La Rouche material into other articles remains in effect."

3. Cla68/SV:

"[T]he parties are admonished and instructed to avoid the following ... Unnecessary interaction between Cla68 and SlimVirgin ... provided that this does not preclude legitimate involvement in formal dispute resolution procedures where necessary."

SlimVirgin 09:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cla68's claim below that he is "caught in a personal feud between two reportedly longtime editors" doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny (and HK is not a longtime editor), but it's exactly the kind of disingenuous, injured-innocence type of comment he's been posting for three years. He has strongly supported User:Herschelkrustofsky, a staff member of WR who has been out to get me for years because he was blocked many moons ago after several editors, myself included, took him to the ArbCom. Please don't let Cla get away with this anymore. His pursuit of me needs to end, as does his willingness to use mainspace to keep it going. SlimVirgin 10:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Carcharoth

What looks like a content dispute isn't really. As Will says, Cla created this article explicitly as part of his involving himself on Wikipedia Review with the LaRouche issue. He did that only because of me. It has been quite clearly discussed in those terms on Wikipedia Review. The article is just a vehicle for making the claims about LaRouche—were those claims to be removed, I believe he'd have no further interest in the topic.

Regarding your questions, I have made a couple of attempts to reach out to Cla68 by e-mail, and I once asked Giano to mediate between us, but it makes no difference. He seems obsessed with me, and I use that word advisedly because no other word would seem to describe what has gone on. He started it around the end of 2006/beginning of 2007, and has continued unabated, either on WP, or WR, or both. He has posted regularly about me on Wikipedia Review, sometimes naming me, sometimes only referring to me obliquely. It lessened somewhat after the 2008 ArbCom ruling, but only somewhat. The main change is that he would try to get other people to do things for him, instead of doing it himself. For example, he posted recently on Wikipedia Review, effectively looking for someone to cause me to be "put through the wringer":

"QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 1st November 2009, 1:24am) *

"If someone wishes to dispute SV's removal of Chinese sources at the reliable sources noticeboard, and leaves a message at the WP:China talk page asking for interested editors to comment, I suspect that she'll be put through the wringer. I can't do it, however, because I've been asked not to enter into disputes with her." (my bold)

This has been going on for so long now that the length of time alone worries me. I can understand people falling out on WP, but to keep something going for three years, when the other party isn't responding, crosses all kind of lines. I see no reason that I should have to tolerate it anymore, to be honest, given how stressful and damaging it is. SlimVirgin 14:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

I seeem to be caught in a personal feud between two reportedly longtime editors of Wikipedia with a strong interest in the same topic. I'll explain the background of my involvement in full within the next day or so. For right now, though, I simply suggest checking the article history, the article talk page, and the article itself. The article's topic is valid, the treatement is within policy, the sources are solid, helpful community involvement was ongoing and productive (until today), and SlimVirgin (SV) was not an active editor with this topic. I think the quality of the article speaks for itself. More to follow... Cla68 (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Some months ago (I'll find the exact date) I was involved in a discussion with several others and User:Herschelkrustofksy (HK) on Wikipedia Review. SlimVirgin is also a member and has interacted with HK in that forum, but not in that particular discussion. The discussion concerned HK's description of the LaRouche movement's involvement in the Bering Strait crossing and Eurasian Land Bridge projects. I and several others were giving HK a fairly hard time about it, because he couldn't back up what he was saying with any sources or evidence.

As the discussion was ongoing, I received an unexpected email from SV which congratulated me on the hard time that we were giving HK. I didn't respond to the email, because it made me uncomfortable. In the email, SV appeared to take personal delight and gloat in HK's discomfort. In contrast to her attitude, I saw the discussion as simply a debate about a mildly interesting topic. If I still have the email, I am willing to share it with ArbCom if requested.

Around the beginning of November, a coworker of mine, for unrelated reasons, emailed me this article. After reading the article, I realized that the Eurasian Land Bridge was an actual, real thing. I became interested in the subject, so I decided to write an article on it, which I started in userspace [10]. The article's history did not show that the topic belonged to SV. Since it had been a subject of discussion before in WR, I started a thread there about what I had found. Later, as I worked on the article, I noted that I had not found any reliable sources mentioning LaRouche's involvement. I later did, however, find three sources, which, along with the high number of Google hits on the "Eurasian Land Bridge" search term, meant to me that the association was notable enough to include in the article, which I did. The sources are not linked to the LaRouche organization, so no violation of the ArbCom ruling occurred.

Since posting the article, I believe it has been a model of community collaboration. Editors from the Rail and Russian wikiprojects have added content, disagreements have been amicably resolved, including about the mention of LaRouche in the article, and the page was progressing towards what I hope to be FA status.

All of this changed suddenly two days ago. SlimVirgin went against the current consensus by removing the LaRouche content. She was reverted by another editor.

What followed was an onslaught of hostility and obstruction. All SV needed to do was open a content RfC, which she did after I suggested that course of action. The discussion in the RfC so far seems to be leaning towards SV's opinion [11], which is fine and is the way that we like to do things when it comes to content dispute resolution. So why did SV initiate so much drama surrounding this issue? I think the reason is that she carries intense personal feelings with regard to the LaRouche topic and sees Wikipedia and LaRouche as a battleground between her and banned "LaRouche editor" HK. I'll show why this is evident below.

SV vs HK. The long-time, intense, bad blood between SV and HK is obvious. In fact, it seems that a significant aspect of SV's involvement with the LaRouche articles is geared solely to a mission to prevent HK from somehow editing it, even to the point of maintaining an investigation page in her userspace. Will BeBack appears to share this hostility judging from the barbed questions he put to me in that forum. Note that although Leatherstocking was blocked for being linked to the LaRouche organization and POV editing, SV and Will BeBack have started referring to the editor as a "sock" of HK, indicating the intense personal animosity the two feel towards HK which is clouding their objectivity. SV has been very open in expressing this opinion, both on and off wiki.

Thus, I believe that SV's hostility related to the mention of LaRouche in that article is because she sees it as a battle between herself and HK, which HK cannot be allowed to win. Unfortunately, as evidenced above, her intense hostility is disrupting what otherwise was a fine example of community collaboration working to build a quality article.

The allegation that I'm to blame or in violation of ArbCom sanctions is disingenuous. I and SV have interacted or communicated numerous times since our ArbCom case closed. See, for example, [12] [13] [14] [15]. Also, SV has emailed me on a number occasions, including trying to ask for my assistance in hounding FT2 from the Committee, which I declined to provide (she did not use the word "hounding", but that's how I interpret what she was asking me to do. Again, if I still have the emails, I'm willing to provide them). In the Jeremiah Duggan article, I took her side. Note that SV and Will BeBack did not quote the ArbCom sanction and ask me to vamoose at that time, but waited until just before they moved on Leatherstocking, whom they evidently believe to be a sock of HK. No, this is not about me, this about the ongoing war between SV and HK.

I believe that it is now evident that the issue of mentioning LaRouche in the Eurasian Land Bridge article was not a problematic issue, as far as content disputes go, that was not being resolved by the community. It was and is being resolved by the normal dispute resolution process. The problem here is SV's and Will BeBack's overly emotional response, disruption, and what could be interpreted as harrassment. The impetus for their behavior appears to be an uncontrolled animosity for a banned editor and SV's and Will's willingness and, unfortunately, ability to turn Wikipedia into a battleground over it.

In order to prevent this from happening again, I suggest that SV and Will BeBack be topic banned from the LaRouche topic, interpreted broadly. If the Committee agrees I hope they will simply prefer a vote on it, or else ask someone to propose it at the ArbCom enforcement board. Such an action should resolve this situation for the long term.

Thank you for your attention on the matter and I'm sorry that this had to be brought to your attention in this way. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Will Beback

Will states that as far as he remembers he has never, "expressed any animosity nor used disrespectful language when referring to HK." To help refresh his memory, here, he calls HK a "lying zealot." Anyway, the article was just promoted to Good Article. Effective collaboration has resumed, including helpful input from Will. Cla68 (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback

Following Cla68's considerable involvement in October with the AfD on a topic edited by SlimVirgn, WP:AFD/Jeremiah Duggan in October, I posted a notice reminding him of the ArbCom's remedy in C68-FM-SV.[16] (After I posted that, and with no connection to Cla68, it was serendipitously discovered that Leatherstocking (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) was a sock/meat puppet of banned serial puppet master Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) WP:LTA/HK, and the account was blocked the same day it was discovered. Cla68 jumped to the conclusion that he was "chased away" ahead of time in order to prevent him from interfering with the block.[17] There is no truth and no evidence of that.)

The LaRouche movement has advocated a variety of proposals in its political platforms over the years. A reasonably inclusive list is now at Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement#Campaign platforms. It includes planks ranging from a return to the gold standard and the colonization of Mars. But the support of the LaRouche movement is not a significant factor in the promotion of the proposals, so LaRouche is not mentioned in those Wikipedia articles. The LaRouche movement is a small group holding what are generally described as fringe or extremist views. The only LaRouche proposal that has received significant coverage in secondary sources was a 1986 ballot proposition in California concerning AIDS patients. The 2009 Obama=Hitler campaign has been widely reported, but despite being mentioned in dozens of newspapers articles and hundreds of blogs, none of the sources I've seen have actually discussed LaRouche's health care proposal. The attention was just on the posters and the genocide accusation.

While the movement does publish articles on the Eurasian Land Bridge (ELB), they are ignored by mainstream writers writing about the topic. The view that the LaRouche movement is a significant advocate of ELB is held only by the LaRouche movement. No one else says that. There are many institutions that have actual, significant connections to the topic but which aren't mentioned by name. Sources that say it's a plank of the movement don't go into any greater depth. Devoting a named section partly to LaRouche's promotion is undue weight.

While the other aspects of the article appear to be of good quality, Cla68 says that its creation was due to the discussion on Wikipedia Review concerning LaRouche, Herschelkrustofsky, and SlimVirgin. The LaRouche material is not just a random paragraph inserted into a pre-existing article but rather it's the reason for the article. The inclusion of this content appears to be determined by factors beyond NPOV article writing on Wikipedia. Will Beback talk 12:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Cla68

Cla68 makes a number of charges against me without providing evidence, and misstates or misinterprets events.

To the best of my recollection, I have never expressed any animosity nor used disrespectful language when referring to HK or his numerous socks, nor to Lyndon LaRouche or the LaRouche movement.
Cla68 seems to question the block of Leatherstocking. The constant stream of HK's sock puppets has been frustrating. I've repeatedly gone above and beyond any reasonable assumption of good faith, only to find out in every case that the accounts were more of HK's socks. (Not to mention the bizarre Cognition issue). If anyone wants to start a serious discussion of whether Leatherstocking was blocked unfairly then I'd be happy to defend it in detail.
Cla68 continues to assume that my reminder to him of the ArbCom remedy was connected to Leatherstocking's block. Looking on my email archive, I see that I did not consult with SlimVirgin about issuing the reminder. My note to him followed his posting to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche, a page that Cla68 certainly knew was often edited by SV.[18] The following afternoon, while reviewing the contribution list of the mediation in which Leatherstocking (LS) and I were engaged,[19] I re-discovered LS's IP address. I'd seen it before, but it geo-located to a city far from HK so it appeared to be an "alibi". That's probably why he was cleared by at least one checkuser. However a different search revealed that it actually belonged to the LaRouche movement's office in the same city as HK. Once identified, it was easily confirmable and showed LS's mendacity. The account was blocked within hours of the discovery. So here was an editor pushing the identical fringe POV as HK, generally behaving the same as HK, vehemently denying his connection to the movement (as is typical for HK's socks), and who we now know was lying from his first edits (even assuming he's a different person from HK). Recall that HK was found to have used socks from the beginning of his editing on Wikipedia, and was only discovered by a small mistake that was revealed in a careful checkuser analysis. He was a sophisticated puppet master from the start. Evidence and contemporary accusations indicate that HK used socks back on the Usenet before he arrived at Wikipedia. HK's use of socks to promote a fringe group makes this history reminiscent of a one-man COFS case.
The basic question that SlimVirgin presumably wants answered by the committee in this clarification request is whether the prohibition on unnecessary contact between she and Cla68 includes editing LaRouche-related articles. Given that SlimVirgin has had extensive involvement in the topic going back many years, and given that Cla68 usually edits article totally unrelated to the LaRouche movement, it would seem that he could easily avoid unnecessary contact by not editing pages related to the LaRouche movement. That doesn't mean SV "owns" the topic, but it does mean she got there the "firstest with the mostest". If these kinds of restraining orders have any applicability then I'd think the remedy would apply to this topic.

Reply to Lar

Lar's request that I be topic-banned is not accompanied by any evidence of misbehavior.

Reply to Cla68, #2

Thanks to Cla68 for researching that. As I wrote above, dealing with a serial sock puppet master has been frustrating. When I wrote that, in September 2008, 29 socks of HK had already been blocked, along with various IPs. In the 14 months since then, at least 30 more have appeared and been blocked. The last major account, Leatherstocking, repeatedly lied about his involvement in the LaRouche movement. User talk:Leatherstocking#"What a bizarre fantasy!". That's on top of the lies inherent in using multiple socks at the same time, and other specific lies along the way. Given the effort HK has devoted to promoting this fringe view, and that he apparently closely monitors the activities here even though he's been banned for years, I think that he it's accurate to view his participation here as zealous. "Someone who is zealous spends a lot of time or energy in supporting something that they believe in very strongly, especially a political or religious ideal."[20] Will Beback talk 05:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

I think the real violation of sanctions here is by SlimVirgin and WillBeback. Their (coordinated?) thesis that this is "her" article and therefore Cla68 has to stay away beggars belief. They seem to be bent on harassing Cla68, and anyone who has the temerity to get involved in anything related to LaRouche. I ask ArbCom for a summary judgment banning SlimVirgin and WillBeback from all LaRouche related articles, broadly construed. Including this one, which is a fine article... might be an FA someday if it's just allowed to be worked on peaceably, instead of being interfered with as these two seem determined to do.

I may have more to say later. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Will

Cla's evidence is sufficient to make the case. No offense, Will, but you have a blind spot with respect to this area. ++Lar: t/c 18:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

I may be missing something here, but the only possibly sound approaches SlimVirgin seems to want to pursue are:

An accusation that Cla68 is editing the article as an indirect attack on SlimVirgin;
The suggestion that SlimVirgin's virtual presence is somehow so strongly associated with Eurasian Land Bridge Cla68 should not be involved; and
Its within (SlimVirgin's?) administrative discretion to handle the LaRouche aspect of the article.

I'm going to skip over analysis of whether SlimVirgin exercising administrative discretion in this situation is proper (it isn't) and just suggest it would be an incredibly bad idea to use a content related remedy position in the midst of what appears to be actually fruitful discussion.

As for the Cla68-SlimVirgin interaction angle, if I was actioning this request on WP:AE (where Arbitration enforcement usually goes), I'd say SlimVirgin has to meet a high burden of proof to convince me that Cla68 is acting (in bad faith) to attack SlimVirgin, or that creating an article for even allegedly dubious content positions on the significance of the LaRouche movement is relevant to SlimVirgin or any other policy.--Tznkai (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mattisse

I worked with Will Beback (talk · contribs) on LaRouche criminal trials in a successful effort for it to become a FAC and found him to be reasonable on all accounts and without an agenda regarding the facts. I do not believe SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) was involved at all in that article, so I have no statement regarding her involvement in the issues at stake. —mattisse (Talk) 23:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias

The concept that merely creating or editing an article on a particular subject is somehow inherently "harassment" of SlimVirgin is the sort of ridiculous stretch of the concept of harassment that cheapens actual harassment; crying wolf too many times about this sort of thing will result in people ignoring you if and when you actually do get harassed.

However, I do share with Slim some skepticism about whether the involvement of LaRouche and his movement in the concept of a Eurasian land bridge is truly notable; is that really what the reliable sources show? *Dan T.* (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Slim, just a reminder to notify Cla of the request. Also, I don't see a User:Herschelkrustofksy registered. Assuming there is a typo in there somewhere, could you notify him as well. Assuming his talk page is unlocked, he could post a statement and have it transferred here or email it to arbcom. MBisanz ^talk 09:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Cla. I'll check the typing of HK's name, but he is not an involved party; he has been banned for some time. Apologies if this is in the wrong place; please feel free to move it. SlimVirgin 09:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note User:Herschelkrustofsky (or at least the individual on Wikipedia Review claiming to be him) requested the Arbcom email, which I have provided, so the Arbitrators will want to be aware that an email may be sent in this matter from him. MBisanz ^talk 22:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

Comment - this appears to conflate a content dispute and a ruling about the interaction of two editors. As regards the content dispute, might I suggest that other parts of the article are expanded before returning to that dispute? As far as the "avoiding unnecessary contact" bit goes, can I ask the two parties involved if they have been able to interact amicably outside of Wikipedia or not? The other question is whether they (and any others here) are engaged in disputes outside of Wikipedia that they are bringing onto Wikipedia? I take a very dim view of editors who argue about something outside of Wikipedia, and then continue that argument here on Wikipedia. You need to be able to leave baggage at the door when you come to edit Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai summarises the situation well. I don't think it has been made out that Cla68 does not have a genuine desire to contribute to the article, nor that the bare fact of Cla68 editing the article constitutes "unnecessary interaction". As can be seen from the portion of the remedy SlimVirgin quoted, the relevant parties are not prevented by the remedy from legitimately participating in dispute resolution processes, such as this request for comments on the article. As for the potential applicability of remedy 1 in Lyndon LaRouche, that is, at the end of the day, a content question and the request for comments currently underway is capable of answering that. --bainer (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Concur with bainer. Vassyana (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that this dispute can be resolve strictly within the confines of the RfC, and that the participation of the parties in that RfC is appropriate and not barred by remedies. — Coren ^(talk) 04:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree in general with the views expressed by the other arbitrators. I do not see sufficient evidence that Cla68's work on the Eurasian Land Bridge article was intended to harass or provoke SlimVirgin, which I take to be the essence of her concern here. I do think it could be helpful given the history if Cla68 would try to avoid focusing comments unnecessarily on SlimVirgin, even where the comments are made on another website. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Per above, no intended harassment. Wizardman 17:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Concur with the above, and the RfC should address the content issue. Risker (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Lapsed Pacifist 2 (December 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} at 11:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Case affected: Lapsed Pacifist 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedies

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Steven Zhang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Editor notified by initiator and me separately; mine was here (diff) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(all listed users notified)

Amendments

That the following additional remedy be implemented;

Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Statement by Steven Zhang

In a nutshell, the previous RFAR's remedies have done little to resolve the situation, if anything else, it has proved to be nothing but an obstacle that Lapsed Pacifist has done everything to avoid. They have been blocked twice since the RFAR [21], have had two AE threads [22][23], an ANI thread as well as several issues on their talk page. Others could detail other activities, but I am aware they have often reverted material without discussion (violation of remedy 5), has campaigned for POV material to be inserted into articles on talk pages (other editors will have the diffs). Now, I'd urge the committee to vote on a motion to implement this remedy. I'm not going to go out and say "I told you so", but you get the point. So please, think it over, and consider what the best decision would be here. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by GainLine

I fully support what Steve has brought up. The evidence presented is just barely a representative sample. Further examination of the RfE and ANI threads will show plenty more examples of poor behaviour. If anything some of the sanctions such as the the reverting discusion have only served to intensify poor behaviour as LP becomes more confrontational on talk pages. User:Snappy has fallen victim in particular to this but LP seems to have reignited past confrontations such as with Steve, Falcon9x5, YNHockey to name but a few. This makes for an unpleasant editing environment and is an overall negative on the project G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 12:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned at RfE, I also would like to echo ONIHs sentiments, an indef block as well as SPI/Meat Puppet investigation may be necessary G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 15:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to ONIH ONIH makes a very good point. The problem isn't with the small number of edits made at the last RfE but more about LPs general approach to Wikipedia. One only has to look at the way in which LP dealt with their Conflict of Interest in relation to the Shell to Sea suite of articles as an example. Instead of editing with great caution LP, soapboxed and edit warred to the point where they were topic banned despite many appeals to stop and warnings. This is a very good example of how LP operates in a sensitive area and what they think of WP policy. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 14:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by One Night In Hackney

While not opposed to a one year ban, I really don't think it's going to deal with the problem only delay the inevitable. Realistically, there's been 3 AE threads since Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive51#Lapsed Pacifist deals with one block, then further violations of sanctions after that block expired, to wit violating his topic ban and failing to discuss a revert less than 18 hours after his previous block expired. LP is tendentious in virtually every area where he contributes, despite being topic banned from two areas due to tendentious editing. A topic ban is supposed to be a wake up call, saying stop being disruptive. Instead LP just ignores the wake up call, and the topic bans quite often, and just finds another area to be disruptive. He's been encouraged to use edit summaries in volatile areas, and a request was also made here. Does LP use edit summaries? Extremely rarely, as his contribs show.

I would advise everyone to look at this edit and the additional of "vassals" and also the problems with the edit to Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory detailed here, coming from an editor with a history of POV editing, two arbitration cases, two topic bans and a lengthy block log. LP cannot be reformed, he will not comply with any restriction, recommendation or even basic Wikipedia policies. It is more than past time he was indefinitely blocked in my opinion. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to John Vandenberg. The problem with LP isn't really any one single incident, but a persistent failure to get the point and abide by Wikipedia policies and his topic bans and other restrictions. LP has a major problem with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, for example where he wikilawyers in his unblock request that Fenian Rising is not covered by his topic ban, despite earlier being advised here that the topic ban be taken to mean the "Irish/British conflict over independence". It's hardly a huge leap of logic to realise that if someone is editing in a highly POV way in articles relating to the events in Northern Ireland post-1969, then it's obvious then they are going to be just as problematic on articles such as Easter Rising, Irish Republican Army and Irish War of Independence.

LP's flouting of his topic bans and other restrictions just never seem to stop, it's been one AE thread after another. If there's a way this can be resolved without "going nuclear" I'd support it, but I don't see a motion requiring him to use edit summaries as being sufficient to solve the underlying problems. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

I don't see any reason for Arbcom to go nuclear on Lapsed Pacifist. If Arbcom is bored, please amend the case to require LP to provide edit summaries for each edit. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by an univolved IP

I don't have the time or the patience to do a careful analysis, but it's pretty clear that LP is being targetyted for sanctions based on content disputes rather than conduct. GainLines contributions are biased, covering for real culprits such as Okedem. 86.180.59.163 (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Awaiting statement by Lapsed Pacifist. He is currently blocked, but if he posts an appropriate statement to his talkpage, any user may create an appropriate subsection in this thread and crosspost it, or of course Lapsed Pacifist may do so when the block expires. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Even where we have prior jurisdiction due to an arbitration case, community options still take precedence and must be utilized before seeking ArbCom's intervention. Absent some compelling reason that a community ban is not feasible, I am inclined to deny a request for further ArbCom involvement at this juncture. Vassyana (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Per Vassyana. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Not seeing reason to go this route, and I agree with Vassyana that this could be reviewed at the community level before coming here. Propose this be closed. Risker (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: The Troubles (December 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by El on ka at 04:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Case affected: The Troubles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Amendment 1: New remedy: Discretionary Sanctions

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, or any expected standards of behavior or decorum. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; temporary bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; temporary bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; temporary 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.

The scope of these sanctions may include any article in conflict that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, or British nationalism. When there is doubt as to whether or not an article falls within the scope of this case, assume it is related.

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question must be given a warning with a link to this case; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This notification must be logged at the case page, as must any sanctions that are later imposed on the editor.

Statement by Elonka

Discretionary sanctions have been routinely authorized in other nationalist topic areas, such as Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Eastern Europe, Macedonia, and so forth. However, they were never specifically authorized in the Troubles topic area, possibly because the Troubles case is such an old one (from 2007, when ArbCom did not start routinely authorizing discretionary sanctions until 2008). This means that there is very little that administrators can do to reduce disruption in this topic area, other than enforcing 1RR or entirely blocking an editor from Wikipedia. However, if discretionary sanctions were authorized, uninvolved administrators could craft much more precisely targeted solutions, such as to simply remove a disruptive editor from one or more articles where they were causing problems. This would serve the project well, as with a discretionary sanction in place, a targeted editor would still be allowed and encouraged to edit constructively in other areas of the project.

I have personally used discretionary sanctions to good effect in multiple other topic areas, and can vouch for their effectiveness. A complete list of every formal warning or sanction I have placed is at User:Elonka/ArbCom log, but a few examples of creative sanctions include:

Banning one editor from one article and its talkpage for one week.[24]
Banning one editor from making Samaria-related reverts, or removing reliable citations, for 90 days.[25]
Banning one editor from editing the lead section of one article for one month.[26]

I should point out though, that in actual practice, specific sanctions were rarely needed. Mainly it was the possibility of sanctions that was useful. In most cases, simply warning an editor that they were at risk of being placed under discretionary sanctions, was all that was needed to encourage them to voluntarily moderate their own behavior.

To see examples of sanctions which other administrators have used, see:

The Armenia-Azerbaijan situation is a good case study for this. I have never personally implemented sanctions in this topic area, but I did note that the first case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, in April 2007, did not include discretionary sanctions. The conflict in the topic area continued, and resulted in a second case a few months later, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. In the second case, discretionary sanctions were authorized, and with administrators empowered to use creative sanctions (example), a third Arbitration case has not been needed.

The Troubles case has been amended before via community discussion, such as in October 2008[27] and October-November 2009.[28] A recent (November 2009) attempt was made to authorize discretionary sanctions via community discussion at ANI, but though a majority of uninvolved editors were in support of the idea, there was not a clear consensus. So I'm bringing this here, for a formal determination by ArbCom. It is my hope that if discretionary sanctions can be authorized in the topic area of Irish and British nationalism, we can avoid a case with a name such as "The Troubles 2". --El on ka 04:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka's reply to Vassyana

The articles within the topic area of Irish and British nationalism are subject to large quantities of tag team edit-warring. The articles are technically under 1RR (one revert per editor per article per day), but when teams of editors on each side engage in the battle, 1RR means very little, since we'll just get a stream of different editors coming through, all reverting each other. For example at Sinn Féin, there has been a longterm edit war about whether the infobox should state that the founding date of the organization was 1905 or 1970.[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] Other disputes overflow to articles that have a more tenuous connection to the topic area, but are still clearly the same editors battling over issues of nationalism. For example, Mooretwin (talk · contribs) created articles about soccer players from Northern Ireland, such as Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer) and Bobby Campbell (Northern Irish footballer), and move wars erupted as to whether the articles should be disambiguated as "(Northern Irish footballer)" or "(Northern Ireland footballer)". The dispute has also overflowed to the Scotland article, with an edit war over Scotland's national anthem.[46][47][48][49][50][51] Another overflow article is at British National Party, about an extremist political group which has policies related to Northern Ireland. Though not directly related to "The Troubles", it is still an article in the British/Irish nationalism topic area,[52] and is a location where established editors continue to revert each other.[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61]

Any action taken by an administrator in this topic area, no matter how minor or how clearly supported by policy, is usually immediately challenged by one side or the other of these battling editors. Challenges range from well-coordinated wiki-lawyering[62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71] and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments,[72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80] to accusations of bias and incompetence, and sometimes out and out personal attacks.[81][82][83][84][85][86][87] It takes considerable fortitude for an administrator to deal with this, and the frustration is enhanced by the fact that administrators have very few tools at their disposal in this topic area. We can remind people of 1RR (1 revert per article per day) or put them on probation (1 revert per article per week), but with the coordinated tag team efforts, the edit-warring at the articles continues. If discretionary sanctions were authorized though, uninvolved administrators could implement more specific sanctions. For possible examples:

Implementing 0RR on an article's infobox
Banning an editor from reverting any good faith edits, unless they are already engaged in discussion at the article's talkpage (this in particular would help in eliminating "drive-by" reverts)
Banning a particular editor from editing one or more articles, but still allowing them to participate at the talkpages.
Banning an editor from creating new articles that use titles not supported by previous consensus
Banning editors from removing reliable sources from an article

These kinds of sanctions would force the battling parties to cease their coordinated edit wars. This would (hopefully) encourage them to find other methods of dealing with disputes, such as to work through the steps of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and work on crafting an actual consensus version of each article. --El on ka 21:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statement by GoodDay

The proposed amendment is acceptable. Afterall, my proposal of barring self-proclaimed British & Irish editors from those articles, hasn't been endorsed. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MickMacNee

Discretionary sanctions are more than needed for ongoing disputes in the area of British - Irish relations, broadly construed, primarily because of the ongoing poor behaviour of the editors involved, rather than any inherent problem with the topic. However, I have extreme concerns over the potential scope of this, and the wording needs to be extremely precise. The committee should read User_talk:Elonka#Placing_British_National_Party_under_1RR for an example of where the scope of the term "...British nationalism in relation to Ireland" has already been taken way too far, to chilling effect, to impose a Troubles case restriction on an article which has barely anything to do with British - Irish relations, in order to deal with an ongoing dispute that didn't even encompass British-Irish relations in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would actually appereciate it if as part of these new remedies, the numerous instances of unsubstantiated soapboxing commentary were addressed by admins as and when they see it. Highking has been asked time and again to put up or shut up with regards to his pet theories over the result of the Ireland naming poll, and he has been reminded time and again who the authority is to which he needs to appeal if he thinks the result was an abuse or does not reflect the NPOV, so far he has done nothing except continue to make these unsubstantiated allegations, poisoning the atmosphere, presumably on the 'say it enought times and it becomes true' principle. MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As with the BNP example, the Scotland example is another dispute that had nothing to do with British - Irish relations, on an article that had nothing to do with British - Irish relations. The common thread here is apparently editors, not article topics, so why are topic based sanctions such as placing articles on 1RR being used here? If a full case is needed to deal with editors so that we don't have to start labelling everything and anything they might ever touch as under Troubles restrictions, then lets have it. MickMacNee (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I suppose that I am one of the "fly in the ointment" opinion providers in the recent discretionary sanctions/Irish (anti)nationalism discussion. It was my suggestion that defining an uninvolved administrator within the English language Wikipedia is problematic - unlike the cultural or nationalism views of other cultures (the Baltic States issues, for example) it is both difficult to find admins that have not been exposed to (anti)establishment views regarding recent Irish history, and to have those unexposed sysops engage within the debate (because the first action appears to taint how they are perceived thereafter). Most of the resistance to the consensus noted by Elonka was that of those editors generally considered as being sympathetic to Irish nationalism sentiment, plus a few others including myself, who were concerned that one side of the process of dispute resolution were likely to attract a far greater fraction of such sanctions than another. What I am referring to is a potential application of Wikipedia:Systemic bias; where the status quo might be presented as the neutral pov, where in fact it may be the result of cultural conditioning for the last few centuries, and should be permitted to incorporate other viewpoints. Having said that, it does not seem to me to be an area in which ArbCom can definitively rule. Vandalism is vandalism, and can be dealt with as such, whereas the judgement of what may be considered good faith efforts to move the definition of "neutral viewpoint" is far more difficult. Efforts by the community, as noted by Elonka, to address these issues is riven by the same bias' and prejudices that is being sought to resolve. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

The Troubles case currently points to WP:Probation, apparently referencing this version. We have moved well beyond that, and we need some sort of update. As for "the community discussing this" you can urge as much as you want, but from where I am sitting, the community at large is not interested in the issue, although they are occasionally interested in the abstract topic of admin power. I appreciate the concerns that LessHeard vanU and those less eloquent but still in agreement with him have. I can only respond "tough." The intense partisanship in the topic area, combined with the already unpleasant topic (partisan bloodshed over the course of many years), combined with editors quick to point fingers and accuse of bias have made it impossible for any sort of "reasonable" solution. New editors to the area (the lifeblood of solving these sorts of problems) are quickly run out or simply frustrated the hostility of the editing environment. The goal at the end of the day is a good quality encyclopedia - to reach that end, we need a normalized editing environment, or as close as we're going to get, and discretionary sanctions are the only tool we have that can do that.

The only alternative is the community stepping up and really making a real effort. If twenty, or even ten completely disinterested neutral editors showed up everyday to work on the topic are, that would fix pretty much everything. I would welcome the community's interaction with open arms, and gladly put my tools away and STFU, and let them on their merry way if so asked. If arbcom has any brilliant ideas on how to achieve that, awesome. I've made a couple not-so-brilliant suggestions myself on this neglected RfC. Until we get the collective balls to really take on these situations though, I insist that the poor sods who try to keep the peace or at least stop the pressure from boiling over be given tools that don't reference an extinct procedure.--Tznkai (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum:

I've been working on a model discretionary sanction remedy over here that others may want to comment on, but I bring it up here because of the comments I made concerning is construction. I repeat the juicy bit that I feel is most relevant: "This may seem like it is handing too much power to admins. That is a perfectly valid concern, but topic based discretionary sanctions are the nuclear option. It is to be used when the community at large has abandoned a topic area because of partisan behavior. Abandon all hope, ye who enter here level of disruption. The goals are (1) to contain the behavior to prevent the articles from a total slide into anarchy (2) quarantine the disruptive behavior into increasingly smaller areas and protect community resources from being expended and eventually (3) hopefully expunge partisan editors from the topic area enough so non-partisan editors will eventually return. Take, clear, hold. Lets hope it works better for us than it does for the military"

It is my strongest recommendation that the committee use my model provision or something similar to give the few admins who work the problem a green light to try creative sanctions that may bring about some stability to articles. This includes for example, taking a disputed article, banning all the warring parties from that article, (or protecting it outright because of edit warring), and shunting them all to a sandbox until they figure it out.

In the alternative, for those afraid of abusive admin power think of something else. I don't mean this as an attack, it is a genuine plea.

Statement by RashersTierney

I strongly oppose the extension of admin. powers in this area specifically because its terms of reference are so broad and are being interpreted in a way that was not intended. Special Restriction tags put off ordinary editors and will adversely affect the development of articles that may have been, for a limited time, the subject of disruption (for any number of reasons). Discussion on an article's Talk Page before this tag is applied might provide less draconian alternatives, with a similar process to have it removed. 'States of exception' on Wikipedia should be kept to an absolute minimum. RashersTierney (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by BritishWatcher

I also strongly oppose the extension of Admin powers on this case agreeing with many of the points raised in previous statements. The situation over at British National Party and the conversation that has taken place over at User_talk:Elonka#Placing_British_National_Party_under_1RR highlights the dangers of the current powers, the idea such power should be expanded is deeply concerning.

Here is the quote by Elonka on her talk page

"Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, and the subsequent community amendment in October 2008, the scope of the case is defined as, "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related." The article British National Party is clearly within that scope. Just search for the term "Ireland" in the article and read about the Party's policies."

That is basically saying that any article which mentions a policy on Ireland or mentions Ireland could fall foul of the troubles restrictions. I consider this a gross misinterpretation of the original ruling by Arbcom. This matter of the BNP article urgently needs to be addressed and could be considered here as its on this same topic. If the BNP is troubles related which is a political party in the UK but not related to Northern Ireland nationalism / loyalist groups then all UK and Ireland political parties must also have such restrictions.

Conservative Party (UK) - Mentions they support devolution for Northern Ireland. Labour Party (UK) - Mentions Northern Ireland on several occasions, including not allowing people in northern Ireland at one point to join the party. Liberal Democrats - Mentions the fact they do not contest elections in Northern Ireland.

These are just a couple of political parties. Every single political party in the UK and Ireland has a policy on Ireland. The idea we must apply restrictions to all those articles is simply a huge expansion of the current Arbcom ruling on the troubles issues. Again i strongly oppose the expansion of Admin powers on this matter as it has been proven current powers have been so clearly misused. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Today in this post [88] Elonka said..

"It doesn't have to be The Troubles-related to be within the scope of the case."

If that is currently the rules then god knows what will happen if the attempt to expand Admins powers is granted. How on earth can The troubles sanctions be applied to artciles that dont have anything to do with the troubles? This needs sorting out and clarifying to stop admins going around imposing martial law in such a way with threats that anyone can be banned or blocked without warning if they violate a 1RR. Authoritarian is too light a word to use.BritishWatcher (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by HighKing

I'm not a participant in this dispute although I have occasional reason to edit some of these articles. I oppose this amendment for the same reasons as outlined by LHvU, and also because I believe there is a simpler approach to encouraging article stabilization. It seems (and I've personally run foul of this) that any topic that touches on British-Irish relations can be unilaterally lumped into the broad topic of "The Troubles", even if the article has nothing to do with it. It is also apparent that British-majority editing can impose a British-POV onto many articles, even though it is incorrect, and all in the name of "consensus" (the recent discussion on the article name of the sovereign country "Ireland" is a great example). I suggest that the current 1RR restriction imposed on "The Troubles" is flawed and is different to the normal 1RR policy. If the objective is to stabilize articles and encourage discussion to reach consensus, then I believe that by imposing the normal 1RR policy of "No Revert of a Revert" will be much more effective. --HighKing (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

View by Giano

Certainly not. Admins more than enough power as it is; besides which there is nothing to prevent an Admin being any more biased than an ordinary editor. In my considerable experience as a very interested, non-editing observer of The Troubles' troubles I have seen some Admins that have indeed been prone to partisan bias on both sides. Many Admins have tried and failed to solve the problems here, and a super-empowered Elonka, or any other similarly ennobled Admin would merely be petrol on a fire. Giano 18:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Rockpocket

I don't object to this amendment. I think for it to be successful, we would have to have a rather strict interpretation of "uninvolved" (for example, I wouldn't dream of using these sanctions myself). I think many of the participants fear admins who they have a history with would use these unfairly. It may put some minds at rest for those of us admins who have been active in this area to make it clear they would have no intention of using these.

I also think judicious and creative use of such sanctions can and would have a strong positive effect. For example, removing a single disruptive presence from an article and talk page can do wonders for improving the editing atmosphere. Often just one individual can be the driving force behind divisiveness. Remove that editor specifically, even for a short time, and other editors from both sides may find a consensus on an acceptable middle ground. As a practical example, see the section at Talk:Dunmanway killings#Use of "informer" and the one below, and compare with the discussions in the sections above it. Note the difference in tone and, consequently, how sensible editors coming from many perspectives managed to have a civil and constructive discussion and apply that to the article. Its my interpretation that the absence of a single editor from both the talk page and article was the key difference. I think is amendment could permit this type of progress to occur more often. Rockpocket 20:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

View by Rannpháirtí anaithnid

Definitely no. On the face of it this may seem like a good idea and I in no way doubt Elonka's sincerity in respect of it. The major issue facing British-Irish articles is the battlefield that they have become. Even among ostensibly cool-headed editors exists suspicion of the motives of others. A handful of editors occasionally flare into outright war-mode, drawing others into it. The way to resolve the issue is not to give admins a bigger stick, that only re-inforces the idea that a battle is being fought. We need to normalise the situation, not "abnormalise" it any further.

Outside admins, to their misery, have tried to resolve these issue before - go ask SirFozzie or Masem. God bless them, but anyone trying to "fix" this problem gets drawn into it and becomes an actor in it. We don't need a lone cowboy to put order on the Wild West. We certainly don't need to kit them out with bigger guns. What we need it a wet blanket, not more fire. 1RR is good because it acts as a wet blanket. Bigger sticks are bad because they encourage more warfare.

We need to normalise. Normal means assuming good faith and remaining civil. Normal rules. If someone breaches the normal rules, enforce the rules as normal. There's plenty of scope within the normal rules to enforce normal behavior. We don't need to make anyone feel special just because they behave incivilly. We definitely don't need to reinforce the idea that they are fighting a war.

The range of articles that this ruling has come to cover is so extensive that it now effectively covers the an entire chapter of the encyclopedia. We cannot square off a corner of the encyclopedia and label it as a battleground. That is how this ammendment would be interpreted and it is the kind of behavior that it would encourage.

Think: wet blankets. Don't think: fire. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

View by Sarah777

Oppose. This isn't a "nationalist" conflict per I/P; Armenia/Azer; Balkans etc. This is NPOV v. the dominant systematic Anglo-American bias in Wiki. And the proposing Admins are partisans in the conflict, albeit they are not aware of the fact. They think they are "neutral", applying "rules" and "policies". They are not. The breadth and scope of potential conflict is so wide that we will inevitably end up with frustrated Admins targeting Irish editors in the mistaken belief that "Irish nationalism" is the problem even though it doesn't even exist in most cases. Supporting this proposal will either result in a blatant political censorship of all British-related articles or else chaos. As in RL; we need to admit that some problems have no easy solutions, there are no magic bullets. Just possibilities to make things much worse. Sarah777 (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

To my surprise, I find myself in agreement with Giano: the powers proposed here are far too sweeping, and will inflame the problems which they seek to resolve. Their unlimited scope reminds me of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922, which allowed police to pretty much whatever they thought fit, and were applied overwhelmingly to nationalists. As a result, the manifest injustices of Special Powers Act became a significant factor in stoking further conflict, and the "remedies" proposed above will undoubtedly have a similarly destructive effect.

Per rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid, we need to normalise this area of wikipedia rather than adopt measures whose perceived injustices which will stoke the conflicts between editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum by BrownHairedGirl

Having read the other contributions to this discussion, and thought about it further, I would like to offer a further observation.

To date, admin involvement in this area has overwhelmingly focused on policing technical infringements such as edit-warring, and conduct issues such as incivility. That sort of response can succeed only if it restores focus on a shared purpose, but the lack of that shared purpose is the source of the problem here. As such, technical and conduct-based enforcement will inevitably fail to resolve the disputes, because suppressing one set of symptoms merely produces another set of symptoms. Admins end up playing Whac-A-Mole, unsuccessfully.

The core issue here is that on both sides of this dispute there are editors with strongly-held points of view. This of itself is not a problem, because WP:NPOV is explicit that we should be representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources ... but the most notable feature of this area is the presence of a number of editors on both sides who persistently and tenaciously work to ensure that articles either disprove or suppress viewpoints to which they are opposed. I have watched countless articles turn into battlegrounds as the opposing forces manoeuvre to slant an article on way or the other, when it is painfully obvious in most cases that the article concerned could be relatively easily constructed to give clear voice to all the significant viewpoints.

Unfortunately, this core problem is never addressed, because arbcom refuses (for good reason) to take a stand on content issues, reserving its remit to user conduct. As a result, countless warnings, rulings and sanctions in this area have not resolved the problem, because they never actually address it. So we find ourselves facing a proposal for draconian powers, which still fail to address the core issue.

Rather than looking for yet more ways of taking sledgehammers to symptoms, I suggest that these proposals be shelved and a wider discussion initiated on how the community should deal with editors who persistently take NPOV to mean that the opposing viewpoint may be represented only if it is demonstrated to be false. That's a huge undertaking — and maybe an impossible one — but I can see no other way to end the conflicts in this area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

I think that the amendment proposed by Elonka could work, but only if applied to a much smaller set of articles than they suggest. I would use wording along the lines of "1. an article about or directly related to the Troubles. 2. articles articles about Irish nationalism or British nationalism related to Ireland where there is no significant objection by established editors of that article not involved in Troubles-related disputes". This would avoid situations like the existing one over the BNP article. As a counterpart to the vastly reduced scope of article restrictions, I would say that restrictions on editors involved in the disputes should be used more, with blocks of several days in the first instance for engaging in Irish nationalist and/or British nationalist POV pushing in other articles.

This would need to be done carefully however to avoid accusations of bias against others by heavily biased editors resulting in blocks to innocent parties. In a dispute where everyone who did not agree with one editor's opinion was labelled as anti-Irish regardless of why they did not agree. In this situation, the user throwing around accusations of anti-Irish bias without merit should have been subject to restriction for their disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

View by Sswonk

At the recent AN/I discussion where Elonka first drew up this request as a proposal, I opposed with the notion that the boundaries of the scope of The Troubles in the encyclopedia were ill-defined and bound to become grossly inflated, and that the other European conflicts and the Mideast one shown as precedents for similar Wikipedia treatment were not nearly as "close to home" for many enforcers as this one. I formulated that opinion being uninvolved and frankly unaware of much of the previous discussion and actual evidential diffs shown, but essentially wrote along the same line as a more well-written rationale later expanded upon by LHV. Here, I came to a conclusion that the situation is what I thought I would describe as a bad road intersection, one where hiring more police and giving them stronger powers wouldn't solve a problem that really needs to be addressed by a redesign of the intersection itself. Coming to post those thoughts now, I see the view above by RA, which really sums that sentiment up very well. So, I am two for two: seeing these problems with the proposal and then now the amendment, independent of the other two editors but in broad agreement with them, indicates to me there is some truth in that view. If we are asked by John Vandenberg to offer a better solution, I would suggest following the advice of LessHeard VanU and Rannpháirtí anaithnid to not take a view that presents editing surrounding The Troubles and other elements of Irish independence movements as a war itself which needs a "crackdown". Rather, practicing a more calm and measured response is a solution that already is available, with the previous rulings in force and other existing tools ready to handle truly insidious behavior. Metaphorically, don't poke the bear. I could have linked to the essay of that title if that is what I meant. Essentially I mean that RA and LHV have it right and solutions are found when thinking along those lines presented by them, not by broadening the conflict with more potential avenues of dispute. Sswonk (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

View by Snowded

Something does need to be done, although overall the problem is not as bad as it has been at times. A series of wars on a range of Irish articles can be linked to provocative edits by a small number of editors - some of whom have been banned and not received progressive blocks for subsequent failures. Scotland has just got one of its 2/3 times a year debates about national anthems and country status, there is no need to extend this type of sanction to that article. The surge in interest in the BNP and EDL and other far right groups in the UK has put them in the news so they are active, but I wouldn't say that any of them are really out of hand given the contentious nature of the subject matter. The current debate on the "whites-only" membership rule and the related court case has nothing whatsoever to do with the Troubles and there is no case for a 1RR rule there at the moment. So I would suggest:

Enforce WP:BRD and sanction anyone who reverts a revert, with the admin restoring the prior position. This was used well on British Isles but needed more enforcement. That is much better than a 1RR restriction which is too easily gamed
Ban all IPs from editing any article put under this type of sanction. IPs can edit at will and frustrate established editors tempting them into a failure to follow IRR. Some of the IPs are socks anyway.
Most of these articles really need admins who understand the political context. Its too easy to miss deliberate provocation, or misunderstand what is going on. I think there is a case for a small number of admins to look after some articles and agree sanctions collectively. They can also intervene to create a structure to debates.
Keep the British National articles under watch, but don't impose on them yet, the connection to the Troubles is remote (ditto Scotland). Keep this to articles linked to the Troubles, or individual attempts to take issues related to the Troubles onto other pages.
It is all too easy for a disruptive editor to make multiple small changes to an article, claiming that each is an attempt to improve the article. They don't fail the 1RR rule but place other editors who simply want to restore the prior version while discussion is taking place on the talk page in an invidious position. Any sanction should therefore clearly state that if an issue is disputed, then the ONLY place for discussion is the talk page, not progressive edits of the main article.

--Snowded ^TALK 02:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, WP:BRD would be far superior to 1RR. If there is to be an amendment it should be that. 1RR is just asking to be gamed - although BRD requires genuine discussion, not a lock down on "consensus" by veto. That too would need to be enforced, which requires admins familiar with the topic to understand the nuances involved. I don't agree about blocking IPs for many reasons that don't need to be discussed here and would see the issue as being both British and Irish nationalism involving, say, Scotland but not the BNP (different kind of nationalism, different kinds of topics). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nickhh

If the upshot of this amendment would be yet more swooping onto pages that have no serious relationship as such with the Troubles (like the BNP) to impose restrictions on editing or editors that would not otherwise be imposed, it is clearly a very bad idea, and is most certainly not a simple amendment to an "existing case". This kind of creeping extension of previous decisions, such that in this case it would now cover "British nationalism" generally, and so that individual admins would have the authority to arbitrarily decide that even where there is doubt about whether specific pages are included within that, their interpretation trumps everything else, is wholly inappropriate. And given that I have seen it suggested that Irish or British editors should be barred from editing such articles, as they have too much invested in them, I might similarly suggest that arbs and admins recuse themselves from proposing and then approving dramatic extensions of this sort to their own powers in specific areas. I also agree with Snowded about the inherent problems with 1RR as a remedy. And, going beyond that point, the proposer's self-certified assertion that they have "personally used discretionary sanctions to good effect", is, well, a little contentious - on many occasions those sanctions have simply allowed very poor content to accumulate on WP, and go unchallenged, even if they may have occasionally helped at the margins in terms of any conduct issues. --Nickhh (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: On the last point, this is a serious matter. The purpose of this project is to write an encyclopedia, it's not social club. "Discretionary" powers emphasises keeping order, not writing/improving content. "Removing" an editor may have a very calming effect on an article but it does nothing to address genuine problems the content may have. It's an answer to a content dispute that relies on "removing" editors that say there is a problem with the content. That's doesn't solve anything, it just makes belief that there is no content dispute. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: As already noted, and per Mastcell below, there seem to be two themes to this request - first, the issue about discretionary sanctions, and second, a suggestion that the scope of the Troubles decision should be extended to anything to do with British or Irish "nationalism" (or even, it would seem from one reading of the request, any article with the word "Ireland" in it - although apparently not every one including the word "Britain". Yet). I'm sceptical about the first, though don't have that strong an opinion, and no involvement in Troubles-related issues. However, the second is of serious concern - on what basis is this extension being proposed? Is there a serious problem with either British or Irish nationalism in a broader sense on other WP articles? I'm sure there has been and will continue to be the odd flare-up related to either of those isses (and indeed English/Welsh/Scottish nationalism), but is there extensive edit-warring, abusive/disruptive behaviour and sockpuppeteering of the level that requires ArbCom attention where it doesn't already apply? I don't wish to pretend that all British and Irish people and WP editors are paragons of liberal virtues, or that WP doesn't have an Anglo and, more generally, a Western bias to it, but equally I don't see any current need for a creeping extension of the scope of a decision that was very specifically about the Troubles - a relatively recent manifestation of a specifically Irish-British dispute about a small-ish part of the north of Ireland. ArbCom is the court of last resort after all, not WP's ruling body. --Nickhh (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

I am in favor of anything that would normalize the environment in this section of articles. I do not think that removing current sanctions would do that however. I think the only reason that John Vandenberg's suggestion below would work, was that everyone who is currently gaming 1RR and AE will now be gaming 3RR and ANI/3RR. IE, AE would stop being clobbered... and it would go back to ANI.

If you're thinking of that, tell us to make a full fledged case. Otherwise, what it will do, is ensnare more administrators (in ANI) into this area and send them down the path to being attacked, charged with bias, etcetera just like every other administrator who has gotten involved in this area.

Rather then wait a couple months for that to happen, let's do it now. Let's identify the high-level bad actors in this area, and remove them from the environment (Topic Ban, or siteblock, etcetera), and see if other editors improve (either from not being pushed as much into wars, or getting the hint that WP has had ENOUGH of the constant battles). If not, deal with them until either all the edit warriors have been removed from the battlefield or until everyone stops the Battleground mentality.

My thoughts are that these new sanctions would supersede the existing sanctions (ArbCom/Community). I do think that something needs to be in place. This is a good idea, but we really have three options: The current sanctions (ArbCom/Community), the newly proposed sanctions, or a full fledged Troubles 2 cases. Annulling the existing case is not a good option, in my opinion. SirFozzie (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for proposed motion

After discussion of this case with others, I do think the proposed discretionary sanctions would be useful in this area. I would be hesitant to completely drop the community restrictions "cold turkey", however, and prefer phasing them out if we can. So I would take Elonka's wording for the proposed restriction, with the following addendum.

The community-based restrictions put in place on articles in this area (1RR rule on all editors, etcetera) will be continued for a minimum of 60 days from the conclusion of this motion. 30 days after the conclusion of this motion, the ArbCom will invite comment on whether to continue these restrictions as they stand for a period of time, to modify them, or to let them expire. Involved editors are invited to discuss these restrictions, but the greater uninvolved community's thoughts and desires will take precedence.

This would allow us two months of phase in time, to see who gets placed under discretionary sanctions, etcetera, while continuing the general sanctions and seeing if they're still needed. SirFozzie (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Any update on this, prior to the US Thanksgiving break? SirFozzie (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Domer48

Vassyana below asks what are the specific behavioral problems being encountered? It is a fact that behavioral problems in this area from the time of the original Troubles Arbcom have dramatically reduced. This is no doubt down to the number of sock abusing accounts that were closed down, (I'm not fully convinced that we got them all) which has resulted in this reduction. The current problems being encountered at the moment in addition to the normal issues is the "New Admin in the area" syndrome. The latest is User:Elonka who was preceded by User:Rd232, User:SarekOfVulcan, User:Tznkai etc etc... In this syndrome it seems to follow a typical pattern. They start by taking their Que from the sitting Admin's, a big mistake since these Admin's are neither uninvolved or without their own bias, they then wave a big stick, throw around a few blocks which get overturned, and then call for additional sanctions.

Now the latest problems started with a bad block, another common feature on these articles. This block here which then had to be lifted. The Admin, rather than accept that they were wrong, created a fuss and went off to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles looking for "clarity." Now everyone knows what 1RR on the Troubles is, and we know that they were dropped because one Admin did not want to block a sock abusing editor. We also know that the 1RR restriction is not part of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles decision which was Case Closed on 08:09, 30 October 2007, nor is it a discretionary sanction supported by the decision. Rather, it was a community-based remedy, established by consensus during this discussion. In addition to proposing amendments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard they then posted this at Requests for arbitration/The Troubles.

This latest proposal is also based on a bad block and ban, and the same Admin's attempt to get retrospective support for them in the form of these additional “discretionary sanctions.” Here is the page ban and then the block. Now the block was very quickly overturned as been a bad block. Likewise the ban, however the Admin who issued it still has not got the good grace to admit they were wrong, with this comment supposed to signify that it has been dropped. Not to be thwarted though, they placed a “discretionary sanctions” here, with this call now for additional sanctioning powers to be given to them.

So what do they mean by “discretionary sanctions”? Is it like user:Angusmclellan's use of “discretionary sanctions” above to issue a bad block and ban on an editor who he is involved in a content dispute with? Or is it like User:Elonka's bad block above and placing probation on an editor who has challenged here misleading and disruptive comments? When sanctions are place at the discretion of Admin's they are going to be abused. Clear cases of edit warring will be ignored, violation of 1RR will also be ignored [89] despite previous blocks here and here with Admin's obviously not being sanctioned [90].

I agree with 1RR, but it can not be at the discretion of Admin's. If you violate 1RR you get sanctioned! These latest blocks and Bans illustrate why we should not give “discretionary sanctions” to Admin's.--Domer48_'fenian' 16:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

One very good reason to reject this attempt to censor wikipedia. That the like of Moreschi could be considered "uninvolved" shows this motion up for the joke that it is. To even suggest this motion illustrated how you and others have have seriously failed to adhere or understand the purpose of Wikipedia. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by MastCell

I'm generally in favor of discretionary sanctions in problem areas, as I'm not aware of any more effective alternatives (though I'd be open to hearing bright ideas). I do agree with Coren that discretionary sanctions formalize, rather than extend, an admin's "power". If the admin enjoys a reasonable degree of community confidence, then their imposed sanctions will generally stick whether or not they're backed by a formal decree from ArbCom. On the other hand, if the community lacks confidence in an admin's discretion, then they shouldn't really be in the business of enforcing discretionary sanctions in the first place, so it's a moot issue.

That said: I think anyone voting on this proposal needs to pay close attention to the wording. The existing Troubles probation covers "British nationalism in relation to Ireland" (emphasis mine). Elonka's proposal would cover "British nationalism" categorically, regardless of relation to Ireland. That is a significant broadening of the scope of the existing case, and it appears to be one crux of dispute here and at Elonka's talk page (one current dispute is over whether to characterize the British National Party as "whites-only", which seems to have little to do with Ireland).

Let's take it as given that discretionary sanctions are an appropriate extension of the existing Troubles probation. I'd like to see more (rational) discussion on the proposed extension of scope, because that to me is the real debate. Perhaps discretionary sanctions should be extended to any issue of British nationalism; if that is the case, I would ArbCom to make that extension with eyes open. MastCell ^Talk 00:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Side comment by uninvolved Mathsci

Groups of editors may move randomly between articles in ways that are hard to fathom. Two articles that are directly related to the Troubles, far more than British National Party, Ukip or Monster Raving Loony Party, are Ulster Unionist Party and Democratic Unionist Party. These have no Troubles tags on their talk pages. If administrators are unfamiliar with British/Irish politics, it might perhaps be advisable to avoid this area. Mathsci (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Angus McLellan

There is a table like that mentioned by John Vandenberg at User:Angusmclellan/Troubles. Many thanks to Elonka.

While I have no objection to the changes Elonka proposes, I do not view them as essential. Policy on edit wars says that "...editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR". Other policies are equally broad in their applicability, such as biographies of living people and no personal attacks. As Rockpocket said, "removing a single disruptive presence from an article and talk page can do wonders for improving the editing atmosphere". So let's do it more often, if necessary.

I am not in favour of extending the scope of the decision which I think is broad enough, as I interpret it. I am fairly clear in my own mind as to what constitutes a Troubles article. It is one where the editorial disputes which can be seen in articles concerning the Troubles, narrowly defined (and I can't define the Troubles so narrowly as to exclude the Irish War of Independence and the Irish Civil War, although others may do so), are imported. From that perspective the recent fun at British National Party or over the non-existence of a purely Scottish national anthem are not part of this problem even if they do share some of the same cast. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jdorney

At the moment we have teams of people trying to re-write all kinds of articles for POV in this area. The only way this will change is if admins enforce NPOV - as well as general good article standards for readability and length. If admins need more powers then fine. If you're not edit-warring you've got nothing to fear

The problem with many Irish history articles right now is that, due to competing wars over pov, many have become unreadable, too long and contradict themselves. in those articles where one "side" has given up - as at Ulster Special Constabulary and Ulster Defence Regiment - not only is the quality of the articles terrible, they also extremely pov. In the USC article, for example, half the "disbandment" section currently argues the USC were Nazis!

With the current tag team edit wars going on, it's also impossible to revamp such articles, as your edits instantly get reverted by eds who assume you're on the "other" side.

What are we doing here? Are we playing a game, where antagonistic teams compete to see who can game the system best? Or are we supposed to be working together to produce quality, readable, npov articles? If its the latter then we need admins to be able to enforce non partisan editing. Jdorney (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Explain it to me like I'm stupid. What are the specific behavioral problems being encountered? Are there editors exihibiting such problems who otherwise work productively and uncontroversially in other areas? Are the numbers of disruptive editors too high or too deeply engrained in the editing area to deal with them on a case by case basis? As a side note, the discussion linked demonstrates how the heavy participation of involved editors can derail outside input and make it extremely difficult to decipher the opinion of the broader community (as represented by participating uninvolved editors). I strongly encourage the community to address this issue, as it has deep negative consequences across most controversial areas. Beyond that, I await further statements. (As a note, please keep statements to a reasonable length and do not rehash the ANI discussion here.) Vassyana (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It would be helpful to have a table like this drawn up for all related AE threads over the last six months. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Based on the recent spat of statements, I am more inclined to believe that this amendment is required, because it has been effective when employed in more recent cases of this kind. I don't see careful consideration by the parties who should have the most valuable insight - just lots of FUD. There is no need to quickly add your statement to make sure your voice is heard; this is not an admin noticeboard. If you don't think this amendment is right, your statement should offer a better solution. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that I would also be very happy to "normalise" this area by annulling the case. That should be a shock to the system, and might mean that a few of the problem editors become saints. Those that dont will likely end up being brought back to Arbcom in due course. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering SirFozzie's suggestion on a practical level, if this amendment passes in the next week or so, the 30 day review will start when the new arbcom panel is just settling in, and are being inundated with requests from people hoping to obtain the attention of the newly appointed arbcom members who are both enthusiastic and .. umm .. relatively uninformed. ;-) As a result, I think it would be wiser to push the review out to mid- or late-February. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think that the discretion Elonka asks us to enshrine already belongs to administrators; strictly speaking, the only thing discretionary sanctions add is provide a formal venue where such interventions are centralized (Arbitration Enforcement) and make it "more bad" for another admin to unilaterally overturn measures placed by one of their colleagues. — Coren ^(talk) 20:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
First off, I do not believe that any "special" statement needs to be made to provide the degree of administrator flexibility being sought here, and I believe that administrators have ample tools now, although I do see a somewhat disappointing reliance on a few and little creativity that is currently within scope. I agree with several of the commenters that there has been progressive "creep" in the scope of this set of sanctions, and it is serving to spread the battle rather than to circumscribe it. This appears to be largely related to following the contributions of editors rather than because the articles involved are related to The Troubles. This creep needs to stop, as it deters uninvolved editors from developing, maintaining and improving the content of the encyclopedia. I suggest that enforcing administrators consider that if the battle is being taken elsewhere, then the issue is the editors and not the article, and the sanctions should be in line with that. For articles, BRD is generally more effective in attracting independent, uninvolved and knowledgeable editors, whereas 1RR will nearly always deter the uninvolved from editing—quality editing will frequently involve multiple "reverts" or removal of coatrack content. I am not seeing much that would make me inclined to support the original proposal or the motions being proposed by my colleagues. Risker (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't foresee any massive advantage to replacing a probation remedy with a discretionary sanctions remedy, given the problems that have been articulated here (coordinated edit warring, expanding areas of conflict, and attacks on administrators trying to implement the existing remedy). A remedy providing for article-specific sanctions might be useful, but it would also run up against some of the same problems. Rather, I agree with SirFozzie's (original) assessment that a new case may be needed. --bainer (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Motions

Motion 1: Discretionary sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, or any expected standards of behavior or decorum. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; temporary bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; temporary bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; temporary 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. Blocks and/or topic bans may initially be for up to one month in duration, escalating in stages to a maximum of one year if the misbehaviours continue.

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question must be given a warning with a link to this case; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This notification must be logged at the case page, as must any sanctions that are later imposed on the editor.

Support

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
(With additional text} Roger Davies ^talk 15:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Including Roger's changes. Carcharoth (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The opposers' points have merit, but I think it's worth trying this. Inclusion of the requirement of a warning before sanctions are imposed is a particularly helpful step that may help keep users in the affected areas away from the line. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Very weakly. If this fails to help, then it just comes back here anyway so we'll see. Wizardman 16:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Not seeing value in this; the remedies from the existing case, as supplemented by later community actions, and the existing discretion allowed administrators are quite sufficient. I note, on reviewing logged bans and blocks, that multiple sanctions are included in that log that are routine administrator actions that just happen to relate to editing behaviours on the related articles; for example, blocks for making personal attacks are routine and not specific to the existing remedy or this proposed modification, which actually doesn't modify anything of significance. Risker (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Per comment above, I see little value in this, and think a new case would be more appropriate. --bainer (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced that any part of this not already covered by the remedies of the existing case already falls well within the discretion afforded uninvolved administrators to prevent disruption anywhere within the project (and not just in one problematic area). Requiring the committee to craft remedies for every case where there is a dispute before administrators can enforce our policies is not helpful, and this motion would tend to encourage a mindset of "It's not a real sanction unless it was done by ArbCom". — Coren ^(talk) 14:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Per bainer, so we can once again look in depth at this reoccurring issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

My only reservation is the fettering of admin discretion by way of arbitrary block and ban limits. Thus, I am abstaining instead of opposing. I note that I am entirely unconvinced that it is impossible to find uninvolved or unbiased admins in the English speaking world. For better and worse, the overwhelming majority of the English-speaking internet (including Wikipedia editors) is dominated by the United States. Assertions about the impossibility of finding neutral English speakers grossly overestimates the interest in and awareness of Irish and British politics in the United States. Even in Canada, where the awareness of the Isles' history is much higher, you'd be hard pressed to find that many people with a firm opinion about the Troubles. Vassyana (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm very happy to support this though the block and topic ban provisions should probably be more qualified. Perhaps add to paragraph one: "Blocks and/or topic bans may initially be for up to one month in duration, escalating ~~in length~~ in stages to a maximum of one year if the ~~misbehaviour continues~~ misbehaviours continue". Roger Davies ^talk 08:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
This could be interpreted as a second offense earning a year long block. I dont think that is reasonable in any but the most extreme cases, and those extreme cases are likely to be easily solved by the community. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but I'm not prepared to support a sanction that s currently drafted allows a year's site ban for a first offence at a single administrator's discretion. I've tweaked the proposed amendment to accommodate your comment. Roger Davies ^talk 11:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Your proposed amendment works for me. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Motion 2: Scope

The scope of the discretionary sanctions may include any article in conflict that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, or British nationalism. When there is doubt as to whether or not an article falls within the scope of this case, assume it is related.

Support

There is obvious sprawling from the main area into related areas of nationalism. I am not ignoring concerns about spreading the drama, but rather find them less convincing than arguments that the disruption is inclusive of these areas. Drama prevention should not be focused on inhibiting the ability of administrators to act, but rather on dispute resolution so that admins do not have to act. If behavioral issues are spreading and disruptive, it is the response to administrator intervention that is drama-laden and disruptive, not the impositions of sanctions themselves. It is not the admin's fault, nor that of other editors in the topic area, if an editor is launching personal attacks, edit-warring, tendentiously arguing, or so on. That responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the editor engaging in such conduct. Vassyana (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
While anyone reasonable would see what "[...] reasonably construed" should encompass, sometimes restating the obvious is necessary. If one is under a topic ban then the topic as a whole is verboten, regardless of the title of the article (though editing unrelated parts of a an article would normally not be problematic). — Coren ^(talk) 14:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

While I see the reason for this - to prevent wildfires spreading elsewhere - I'm uncomfortable about conflating the BNP with the Troubles. The topics are not really related though they may both offer similar opportunities for jingoism, and worse. I note though that under the "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project" provision in Motion 1 is already sufficiently widely drawn to enable administrators to topic ban from editing in other topics/articles where the editor is causing trouble. Roger Davies ^talk 08:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The mention of British nationalism misses the point (that is more England-Scotland issues). The articles that cover Irish-British politics are more Ulster nationalism, Ulster loyalism, and Unionism in Ireland. Or indeed, Category:Politics of Northern Ireland. Politics in Northern Ireland is incredibly splintered and factional, and it does take a little bit of background reading to become acquainted with it. I would favour remedies focused on editor behaviour, rather than drawing too wide a net over too many articles. Find the editors who consistently push the boundaries, and deal with them. Ensure articles outside the topic area don't get affected and continue to function as normal. Impose stringent restrictions on the editing of articles within the topic area. Ensure that editing on an article remains relevant to that article. Consistently focus editors on improving articles (especially the non-contentious areas of the articles), instead of arguing over the controversial parts (or, indeed, manufacturing controversy where none exists). Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
If there is the sense that the battle is being carried beyond the confines of the original scope, then the problem is more likely the editors than the articles. Involving an ever-increasing number of good editors into this sanction mentality is destructive to the development of the encyclopedia and paints good editors as warriors in a battle in which they are uninvolved. Again, I point to the editors bringing an inappropriate mentality to peripheral articles as being the problem here, not the articles themselves. Risker (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Per vote on #1. --bainer (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Per Roger Davies, Carcharoth, and Risker. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 16:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

Discussion

Motion 3: Review of community-based restrictions

The community-based restrictions put in place on articles in this area (1RR rule on all editors, etcetera) will be continued for a minimum of 60 days from the conclusion of this motion. 45 days after the conclusion of this motion, the Arbitration Committee will invite comment on whether to continue these restrictions as they stand for a period of time, to modify them, or to let them expire. Involved editors are invited to discuss these restrictions, but the greater uninvolved community's thoughts and desires will take precedence.

Support

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Roger Davies ^talk 08:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I think periodic review will help here. The discussion suggested by BrownHairedGirl would help, and I largely agree with her comments about normalising the topic area, remembering that the aim is to improve the articles, not just keep warring editors apart. Carcharoth (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

I'm loathe to intervene in community decisions without a strongly compelling reason. I perceive no such need here. Vassyana (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Per vote on #1. --bainer (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that increased direct intervention from the Committee is unlikely to be useful in this case. — Coren ^(talk) 14:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Per Vassyana and Coren. Wizardman 16:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Per Vassyana and Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

While I see some value in the community looking at how this is going, I think there's been some pretty good feedback both on AN/I and in this review from the broader community already, identifying that the spread of scope of this decision is not welcome. There is, however, benefit in reviewing the effectiveness of remedies on a periodic basis. Risker (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
This review should take place, but I'm not convinced it needs to take place under our auspices. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: West Bank - Judea and Samaria (January 2010)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Nableezy at 20:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Case affected: West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedies 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
G-Dett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pedrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nickhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MeteorMaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

Nishidani restricted; G-Dett restricted; Pedrito restricted; Nickhh restricted; MeteorMaker restricted; Jayjg restricted
The topic bans of the above users are lifted

Statement by Nableezy

User:Canadian Monkey has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:NoCal100. NoCal100 was using a number of sockpuppets during the dispute that brought this case about (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive for examples and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of NoCal100 for a list of confirmed socks) as well as a sockpuppet during the actual case. The entire process was disrupted by abusive sockpuppetry by one user. The actual dispute has seemingly been resolved by the community. The only thing the topic bans are doing now is depriving the encyclopedia of 6 highly capable users in a topic area that badly needs them. Other restrictions can be used to limit any edit-warring, such as imposing a 1RR for however long.

Statement by IronDuke

I have long felt this was a good idea, and I must offer heartfelt thanks to Nableezy for having the courage and thoughtfulness to propose it. I understand that the committee was unhappy with the editing patterns on I-P articles, and that unhappiness was well justified. However, we lost some of our best editors in the service of making things ostensibly more "pleasant" on those pages (which has not, AFAICT, in fact happened), and banned editors for extraordinarily picayune offenses. I would add NoCal to the list of parolees, NOT because I approve of sockpuppeting -- I am emphatically against it -- but because the "crime" he was banned for was so ultimately minor (compared to what so many others get away with on a daily basis) that a fresh start with a solemn promise never to sock again would benefit him, Wikipedia, and the subject matter at hand. IronDuke 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mackan79

I think this request may have merit. To briefly recap for new and old arbitrators, the above case involved a dispute over the use of the terms "Judea and Samaria" (or either term by itself), and whether these terms have been superseded by the modern name, "the West Bank." The named editors in this arbitration were all clearly on one of two sides. On the one side User:Nishidani, User:G-Dett, User:Nickh, User:Pedrito, and User:MeteorMaker sought to limit the use of the terms, while on the other side User:Jayjg, User:Canadian Monkey, and User:NoCal100 sought to maintain or expand use of the terms. These were not the only editors to address the issue, of course, but it seems that they were the most actively involved.

It's now been accepted that two of the above accounts, User:Canadian Monkey and User:NoCal100, are the same user, and most likely the return of a previously banned editor. If arbitrators review the request for checkuser here, I think you will see that all of this was even more involved, with likely at least two more accounts of the same editor (User:I am Dr. Drakken and User:Mr. Hicks The III) having been used to bolster his position and perpetuate the larger dispute. All of these accounts were noted for their highly confrontational style. While presumably it was not known that these were all the same user, the fact that each of them appeared to be a sock of someone, and the possibility, had been noted.[91][92]

The difficulty in my mind is that all of these editors have been at least somewhat combative, even if at this point I think one has to consider the reasons why. The question may be whether the editors are willing to continue in a different mode. This may work in part, though in truth I have no hope that it will happen in all cases. Perhaps 1RR would work. One other approach would be to allow each editor to make an appeal based on a "change in circumstances" for why they should be unsanctioned. With a good explanation of what went wrong and what will be different, and a thoughtful evaluation, that could be a reasonable response and achievable for any of the involved editors. Not perfect, but maybe a possibility. I see in my edit conflict something similar is proposed by Vassyana. Mackan79 (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nickhh

While I appreciate the reluctance to approve anything that is perceived as being a "blanket amnesty", I think it is worth clarifying a few points, especially in the light of arbitrator comments below. Some of the individuals who are still on the committee may have forgotten the details of the timeline and case, newer members may not be aware of it. I'd also add that I'm not that bothered personally about being allowed to edit in the area itself - it's something I know a little about and have a vague interest in, and also happen to see a lot of bad editing in; but I'm not in fact desperate to fight any corner in this issue, and am actually far more interested in making minor edits to a range of other topics. Having said that, I resent the implication that the topic ban carries, and also the fact that it means I get chased off any article - especially journalism pages - as soon as anyone who disagrees with me on content waves the "it's an Arab-Israeli conflict page" flag at any passing administrator -

This case was brought to ArbCom by User:Pedrito, specifically in response to obstructive behaviour and edit-warring being conducted primarily by what is now known - months after the case was concluded - to have been the same editor using several separate accounts. Other users who ended up being topic-banned, myself included, supported coming to ArbCom to get resolution of some sort. We weren't aware of course that we had been dragged by a sock farm into signing our own death warrants.
One problem was I think that ArbCom then took this case to be some kind of battle between Israeli and Palestinian editors or activists, when in fact it was much more simple than that - should WP use standard, international words for places (as English, Swedish, Uruguyan and American editors, among others, were saying) or should it instead give undue weight to fringe nationalist Israeli terminology. Specifically Palestinian views never got a look-in.
In response to Steve Smith, in fact that key issue has been addressed - unsurprisingly broadly in favour of "our" substantive position, as it happens - by the naming conventions. The interesting point is that those of us on our side were calling from the outset, and throughout the case discussions, for something like that to be sorted out. ArbCom ignored that until the last minute, instead deciding to ban editors suggesting exactly that, along with those who were dismissing any attempt to deal the problem constructively.
As for the edit wars resulting from that underlying dispute, they had ceased months before. In my case, my contribution had been about four edits to actual relevant article space in three months, three months previously (including one attempt at compromise), for which I was condemned with no debate or explanation for having "repeatedly and extensively edit warred". Could any arbitrator explain how exactly I can "significantly improve [my] behaviour" beyond that? User:MeteorMaker for example spent hours compiling an exhaustive list of sources to demonstrate the obscurity and narrow nationalism of the terminology the now revealed sock farm were trying to push into multiple articles here. Should they acknowledge their error in having done that and promise not to do it again?

The only thing I personally would acknowledge is an occasional frustration with the political games that people play here when trying to push articles here to a particular point of view, and with the tendency for arbitrary administrative decisions - which often affect people in pretty serious ways, and break the fundamental principle here that people are free to edit - to be made without proper analysis of what has happened. I for one would not acknowledge that I had engaged in extensive edit warring, or disruptive behaviour of any sort. Hence I can't promise to "improve" my behaviour in either respect. Edit warring at all? Sure, bad. I promise not to ever do it again. It might even be easier not to now I and others are not being stalked around the place by an aggressive sockpuppeteer. If indeed the editor in question was User:Isarig from way back, I can only point out that from the moment I branched out from editing French wine articles and ventured a tentative inquiry into my first I-P article talk page (the Six Day War), it was they who roundly chased me out. And rarely left me - or others - alone subsequently, even on media pages not directly related to the conflict. --Nickhh (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Amendment 1A

Nishidani restricted; G-Dett restricted; Pedrito restricted; Nickhh restricted; MeteorMaker restricted; Jayjg restricted
The topic bans of the above users be limited to a duration of one year from the latest of the following that apply to them:
1. the start of the ban,
2. any violation of the ban which has been accepted at the arbitration enforcement page whether or not the admin who handles the violation chooses to take any additional action against the user in question,
3. any unreversed block against the user in question whether or not it is related to the Israel/Palestine dispute.
Should any of the above editors again behave problematically in this area of dispute, then any admin uninvolved in the dispute shall have the option of reimposing the topic ban.

Statement by Peter Cohen

I am disappointed by the initial response from arbitrators. I consider that the dispute that led to these editors being topic banned was hugely aggravated by an individual acting in bad faith through the use of multiple accounts. This factor has only come to light recently and was not known to arbitrators at the time of their decision nor to those who brought the original course or to admins who dealt with the dispute prior to the case being brought. I feel that, had they known at the time that there was a sockpuppeteer involved in the dispute, different actions would have been taken by these people in resolving the dispute.

I hope that the amendment as revised above will be seen as taking into account the reservations expressed by arbs below through:

not lifting the bans immediately;
taking into account that some of the affected users have acted in violation of the ban and treating them accordingly;
taking into account any serious ongoing problematic beahviour anywhere else on Wikipedia;
providing a means for the bans to be reimposed without Arbcom itself having to take action.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

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

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

I absolutely and unequivocally reject any blanket amnesty. Step one in appealing sanctions is fully heeding the sanctions in both letter and spirit. This has not happened in many cases.[93][94] Productive editing within the bounds of restrictions and/or in other areas is also usually necessary. Similarly, a clear understanding of the problematic patterns that lead to the restriction is also usually a necessity. On the latter, a lack of taking personal responsibility and tu quoque arguments will usually bias the result against an appeal. Both of these are lacking in many instances. I would be open to seeing individual appeals, but be aware that in the absence of any of those three conditions being met, I would encourage the rejection of an appeal. Vassyana (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Vassyana above; while the committee might be willing to examine specific restrictions under certain circumstances where good faith is visible along with a notable improvement of editing behavior, there is no possibility of this being applicable to all editors at once. — Coren ^(talk) 16:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Concur with the two above. Blanket Amnesty is NOT on the table, to me. SirFozzie (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Vassyana. Individual appeals are needed. Failing to point to the arbitration enforcement threads is not a good start (though drawing attention to the checkuser case is useful - was that noted on the arbitration case pages?). Any appeal should start with a summary of what has happened since the case ended, and examples of productive behaviour the editors in question have been engaged in. Carcharoth (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Do not support these changes. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Finding that an editor was socking doesn't change the behaviors that led to these restrictions. Absent evidence that each of these editors has significantly improved their editing behavior, there is no way to approve this request. Shell ^babelfish 13:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Concur with Shell. Further, the suggestion that the underlying dispute has been resolved by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) ignores that the de facto scope of the case was more than naming disputes. Would be willing to consider specific amnesty requests where there was evidence of improved behaviour, but not a blanket request like this. Steve Smith (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Obama articles (January 2010)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Sceptre ^(talk) at 01:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Case affected: Obama articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Finding 8
Remedy 4, 5, 10.2

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Stevertigo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Username2 (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)
Username3 (repeat above for all parties)

Amendment 1

Obama articles finding 8
Remove the assertions that I "engaged in edit summary attacks".

Statement by Sceptre

Carry-over from the previous amendment request: I do not believe that the word "fuck", used in exasperation, automatically makes a statement an attack. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Amendment 2

Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
Early expiration of mine, Stevertigo's, and Scjessey's edit restrictions.

Statement by Sceptre

The intention of arbitration committee remedies, as I understand it, is to prevent further disruption. While the remedies passed back in June were needed at the time, I don't believe they are needed now, at least for me, Steve, and Scjessey. The restrictions, I believe, have served their purpose of persuading; at least myself and Scjessey, and probably Steve (as evidenced by this discussion) have turned to a less confrontational, more collegial and discussion-based method of dispute resolution. Unfortunately, I do not believe the same can be said for ChildOfMidnight or Grundle2600; COM is the subject of a current RFC and Grundle was community banned from politics articles several months ago. Per the principle of assuming good faith, I respectfully request the committee expire our remedies early, approximately five and a half months before their natural expiration. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Re ChildOfMidnight: your diffs paint me as an Internet liberal troll, which is not that all. I don't hate all conservatives; I just hold a massive disdain for the types that deny reality as I think their politically motivated editing—which verges on defamation—has no place on Wikipedia. The same goes for a hardline communist editor whose politically motivations compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia; see Anonimu for an example where I did entirely that. Oh, and personally? I honestly think Obama is a better-tempered version of Bush. He's certainly not the Liberal Messiah people think he is. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I find it funny that you think I'm persecuting you, and produce a diff where I support allowing you to edit! Sceptre ^(talk) 04:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re Bigtimepeace: There isn't any "battleground mentality" in this request. Stevertigo was on the opposing side to me during the dispute nine months ago. I'm opposing lifting COM's sanction because of the current RFC, and Grundle's because of his recent topic ban. If this did not happen to Grundle or COM, I would have added them to this request too. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I second Scjessey's request to withdraw this amendment. Again, I feel the restriction was passed unfairly, but allowing COM to soapbox is just not on. I'll be taking this to AE, however, as I believe this constitutes a violation of COM's restriction (Remedy 11). Sceptre ^(talk) 00:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey

My restriction is one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles. I was given this restriction because of two specific instances of edit warring (one of which was only 2 reverts, and I was unblocked by another administrator). I have found this to be somewhat restrictive insofar as it forces me to check my contribs before every reversion I make in this topic, but not really a huge deal. In this particular topic, I engage in a lot of talk page discussion, but not much article editing. It would certainly be convenient to have the restriction lifted, but I'm not going to make any special effort to petition for that. I'd be happy to adhere to the spirit of the restriction voluntarily, if that helps, because it would save me from having to monitor my own contribs quite so religiously. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to be withdrawn from this Amendment

Although I felt the editing restriction I am subject was unjustly applied to me, it has not been too burdensome to deal with (as I stated above). I did not ask to be a party to this Amendment (I was notified only after the request was made), and given the fact that this process has been abused by another editor as an excuse to attack me, I think it would be better off not having anything to do with it. I am not sure if this is procedurally-appropriate, but I would like to formally request withdrawal from this proposed Amendment, reserving the right to appeal my restriction at a later date if I feel the need. If ArbCom agrees with my request, I give my permission for my entire block of statements to be struck out or deleted as seen fit. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to statement by ChildofMidnight

I do not see this as a violation of my interaction restriction with ChildofMidnight because Wikipedia must surely allow me the right to defend myself against that editor's misrepresentations. I see no point in referring to CoM implicitly, as he has attempted to do about me. Let me address each of CoM's points in turn:

diff, diff - These diffs refer to a conversation I had with an administrator in which I was seeking advice for how to handle specific concerns about the interaction restriction. This Request for Amendment is exactly the sort of situation for which I sought advice, after earlier asking an ArbCom member about it and not getting anywhere.
diff - A moment of despondency after being hounded out of an AfD by a group of editors who frequently collaborate with ChildofMidnight because I had the audacity to !vote for deletion of an article that turned out to be one he created.
diff - A claim of edit warring was made against me that the reviewing administrator disagreed with. Also of note was the involvement of Caspian blue (talk · contribs), a frequent collaborator of CoM, who came out of nowhere to try to get me sanctioned.
CoM makes reference to a thread on my talk page concerning an editing sanction that applies to him, and claims it is "clearly being left up to be pointy in violation of user page rules". This is a complete fantasy. I assume CoM is referring to this thread, created by an ArbCom clerk. An examination of my talk page will reveal I have left up every warning and/or sanction I have ever received, including everything relating to the ArbCom case posted by clerks. The amended remedy to CoM's topic ban was not applied to me because I had offered to voluntarily follow the same restriction (which I did).
CoM's statement then rambles on with vague and unsupported claims of bias, POV-pushing, etc. I don't see any point in trying to defend myself against nebulous misrepresentations. I have noted CoM's penchant for this sort of thing in endless WP:ANI threads so I am sure ArbCom will see this for what it is.

And so that pattern of misrepresentations about me from ChildofMidnight continues. In my opinion, this tactic of his is the reason I was sanctioned in the Obama-related ArbCom case in the first place, but what's done is done. I am not seeking a relaxation of my editing restriction (although one would be welcome), so I can only assume CoM's pointy statement attacks me purely for his personal satisfaction. Hopefully, someone will have the good sense to refer to CoM's misrepresentations in this Request for Amendment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to statement by Bigtimepeace

Bigtimepeace refers to "some concerns about edit warring" with respect to me. Any accusations of edit warring have been found to be without merit, and I have received no sanctions or warnings. I think it is important this is made clear. I would also like to point out that the 1RR restriction applied to me (and CoM, for that matter) was as a result of this block that was applied after only 2 reversions. Both CoM and I have long agreed that we were both treated unfairly by both the blocking admin, and by ArbCom, with respect to this specific matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ChildofMidnight

The inherent problems with this report include:

Sceptre's failure to inform me or the other editor he disparages in his summary of this discussion.
Sceptre using a request to amend his restrictions (arguing he's no longer confrontational) to be confrontational in taking unnecessary pot shots at editors he disagrees with

His recent editing history also shows that he is as much or more of a problem than he was in the past.

Refers to other editors as "idiots" in a cursing edit summary [95]
Uses unnecessarily inflammatory "bullshit" in edit summary [96]
Continues to use very partisan and soap boxy edit summaries to attack and disparage political parties and viewpoints he disgrees with [97]. He's used the "conservatard" epithet in a past edit summary.
Discusses his desire to ban an editor with inflammatory language: "I'm the only one who has the balls to post on ANI to get him banned. Really, we all want him gone. But sometimes I think that it would take a dead body before people stopped brown-nosing him. And maybe not even then. I'm not saying that he'd do that, but, honestly, the noses are so far into the rectal cavity it's unbelievable. Sceptre (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
He also makes the comment "...we're more insistent on sycophantically brown-nosing our precious little Designated Dissenter and letting him go off on his little harassment and trolling spree..." in the same thread.
Removes a thread with unnecessarily provocative edit summary "troll thread" [98]
Pursues editors he disagrees with (often in inflammatory misrepresentations intended to smear) to try to ban and block them [99] and [100].
Disrupts ANI discussion with disruptive off-topic soap boxing [101] and [102]
Disrupts article talk pages that are on probation because of past disruptions using inflammatory and potentially offensive diatribes [103] "In other news, an amputee has recalled that losing his legs "stings a little bit". Sceptre ^(talk) 05:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)"
Sceptre's confronational approach and seeking out of disagreements has also occured at the RfC instituted by Bigtimepeace in collusion with editors who are not supposed to be commenting to or about me (see section below this one) [104], [105].

The other party to this request under an editing restriction that is supposed to prevent either of us from commenting to or about each other. This was imposed at my request to stop a long term pattern of stalking and harassment, but has been violated repeatedly in comments made about me, my editing, my "friends" etc. etc. even after I posted repeated notifications on pages where the violations took place (such as Bigtimepeace's talk page where editors restricted from commenting to or about me have been colluding with that admin to come after me).

The persistent Arbcom restriction violations include:

[106]
[107]
[108]
There was also aggressive and relentless involvment by that editor to have an article I created deleted (the only AfD as far as I can tell that he was involved in discussing around that time). [109]
There was also a recent incident of edit warring (five in a row) that wasn't followed up on by Tony Sideways because the page was protected. [110] (compare this to the core justification for my Obama restriction which was a trumped up allegation that 4 edits over two days on a page that I had left off editing while working on other articles was "edit warring". This came after the 7th or 8th abusive ANI report made against me trying to have me blocked.)
There is also an entire thread on this editor's talk page about an editing sanction imposed on me many months ago that is clearly being left up to be pointy in violation of user page rules (not to mention the Arbcom restrictions).

There are MANY MANY other diffs of improper and abusive behavior that I am willing to make available to Arbcom upon request, but in order to comply with the editing restrictions in good faith I'm not going to post additional diffs here except those directly relevant to my being on the direct receiving end of continued abuse and violations related to the Obama article and other political subjects nasty and intolerant places to edit. Many good faith editors have been chased off and the time is long overdue for Arbcom to start addressing these problems.
Please keep in mind that I believe in and adhere to transparency, so I will not able to e-mail them via back channels the way other editors do. I would have made requests for enforcement, but they are time consuming and have been used in the past to go after me, so I'd be satisfied if there are no more violations going forward.
I'd like to focus on article work and I hope that this Arbcom will take seriously the need to address POV pushing, stalking, abusive behavior, collusion, and other means to use Wikipedia for propaganda purposes.
It should be noted, for example, that Bigtimepeace refused to address the Arbcom violations and continues to come after me and other editors who he disgrees with politically. He and RD232 should be advised to stop abusing their admin tools on in order to push their POV on political subjects where they are passionately involved.
I also believe that checkusers should be sweeping the Obama editing pages to prevent socking by editors there. I have strong suspicions that there is aggressive and organized collusion, sock puppeting, and meat puppeting by some of those heavily involved in patrolling those pages against perspectives they disagree with, no matter how notable.
Imposing the long overdue civility restrictions many of us requested previously would be a good start. It should be noted that I took part in the Obama Arbcon at Wizardman's request and highlighted the problems on the article and article talk pages in the hopes that we could get some means of enforcement. Instead of that we've seen encouragement and a worsening of the improper behaviors, aggressive ownership issues, soap boxing and other disruptions on those pages.Obliging this request would be a BIG step in the wrong direction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace

I'll comment here since I was mentioned repeatedly above and have a familiarity with the background. My advice to the Arbs would be to not act in any fashion on this request for amendment. Like ChildofMidnight, I don't think Sceptre's recent behavior remotely warrants a loosening of current ArbCom restrictions. That editor seems to have adopted a battleground take on the Obama articles (this edit to a current RfC, referenced by C of M, was just ridiculous) and as such it seems highly inadvisable to relax revert restrictions (incidentally, gratuitously referencing two editors who Sceptre thinks should keep their restrictions in his request here also demonstrates this battleground mentality). I think the revert restrictions are fine for Scjessey and Stevertigo as well (the former does not seem to mind them that much and apparently there have been some concerns about edit warring (addendum: though these do seem to be minor and relate to one incident, also as far as I know it's not an issue on the Obama pages), and I can't speak to the behavior or feelings of the latter) and need not be repealed early. Edit warring is particularly problematic on Obama-related articles, and I just don't see a convincing argument for removing any of the restrictions at this time.

I'll also speak to ChildofMidnight's complaints which pertain in some fashion to me or my talk page. First I would point out that this is obviously not the place to discuss those issues, but Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight certainly is as I was one of the certifiers of the RfC and can therefore be put under scrutiny there (ChildofMidnight has not yet participated in the RfC, which has garnered a lot of comment). C of M's reference to "the RfC instituted by Bigtimepeace in collusion with editors who are not supposed to be commenting to or about me" is utter fantasy. Essentially all of the evidence for the RfC was provided only by me, and the editors to whom C of M is referring (as far as I know Scjessey, Wikidemon, and BaseballBugs are the only three editors in mutual interaction bans with ChildofMidnight) had absolutely no input whatsoever into the RfC either on or off-wiki.

The "Arbcom restriction violations" on my talk page to which C of M refers took place in this thread which originated nearly a month ago, but still had some comments a couple of weeks back. C of M commented about it at the time and I told him I did not think these were violations (while acknowledging that others might disagree), at which point he could have obviously pursued the matter elsewhere and did not. Basically two editors and I were discussing how interaction would work once certain Obama topic bans were lifted, and this was an issue I eventually discussed with Carcharoth and ChildofMidnight. In the course of discussion on my talk page references were made to ChildofMidnight by editors who cannot interact with him (definitely too directly in the end), however this was in the context of genuinely trying to figure out how several editors restricted from interacting would handle editing on the same articles. The question was put to an Arb by me and sort of left hanging at that time, and any sort of "Arb enforcement" over the conversation struck me as an eminently bad idea. I invite the Arbs to look over the thread linked above and if they feel I was remiss to allow that conversation to occur on my talk page then by all means put the blame squarely in my lap. It's a bit of a Catch-22 when it comes to editors with interaction restrictions trying to clarify those restrictions, and that's what I was trying to navigate when someone showed up on my talk page.

At any rate all of this is tangential to the matter at hand and not something ChildofMidnight should have brought to this limited request. If he wants to take me to task with specific diffs of my misbehavior (as I've invited him to do on countless occasions) he knows where his RfC is, and if he takes issue with Sceptre he can start a user conduct RfC on that editor. For problems with editors with whom he is restricted from interacting per an ArbCom decision, he should probably just e-mail the committee (or perhaps a neutral admin) directly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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 Tarc

Both ChildofMidnight's and Grundle2600's behavior has been atrocious since the ArbCom restrictions...the former must be dragged to AN/I on a regular basis...ironically, for behavior in AN/I...and has a current RfC/U filed against him, which he has so far declined to particulate in, while the latter has had to be indef'ed first from Obama articles, then politics, and now politically-oritented BLPs.

But going by the sentiments expressed below in the Judea and Samaria case, there doesn't seem to be a need to request that these two be excluded from the amendment request, as arbcom does not honor blanket amnesties anyways. You can make your own request for amendments without having to worry that it must be applied across the board. Tarc (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

From what I can see, the RFC for ChildofMidnight (CoM) is a currently active stage in dispute resolution that needs to be left to work through to its conclusion. I see Sceptre's point that CoM maybe shouldn't have commented here, but some of the diffs he quotes are concerning - the language used by Sceptre does not look acceptable at first glance. On the actual request itself, I see no reason to lift any of the restrictions early, and would suggest both Sceptre and CoM disengage from this request and not engage in any back-and-forth between themselves, but restrict themselves to waiting and responding to points raised by arbitrators. Carcharoth (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any convincing evidence that these restrictions should be lifted at this time; there still appear to be issues with a battleground mentality. I would also suggest that ChildofMidnight seriously consider the concerns currently being raised at the RFC. Shell ^babelfish 13:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Concur with Shell in all respects. Steve Smith (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Shell - I think more time is needed Fritzpoll (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Concur with Shell Kinney. Noting that Scjessey has asked to be removed from this request. Vassyana (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Asmahan (January 2010)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Supreme Deliciousness (talk) at 19:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Case affected: Asmahan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedies

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nefer Tweety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Nefer Tweety is aware: [111]

Amendment 1

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

The scope of case as posted above show that Nefer Tweety has been involved in this conflict but no remedy was suggested against him, I had previously posted evidence showing that almost the only thing the Nefer Tweety account is used for is to back up Arab Cowboys edits, do the exact same edits as Arab Cowboy and revert to his edits, now after the case has been closed it has happened again, Nefer Tweety reverted the article back 4 months to Arab Cowboys last edit, not caring about edits made by several people [112] Some of the edits he reverted: [113] [114] [115] [116] [117]

In this reversion he amongst other things reinserted copyrighted material, I had made a copyright violation report and a copyright admin removed the copyrighted material here, the exact same copy righted text was re added by Nefer tweety, personal life, section: [118] I had also corrected the sections according to previous collaborations and it was reverted: [119]

Nefer Tweety disrespect to other peoples edits and inputs in the article, only caring about reverting to Arab Cowboys edit, not about improving the article, I am therefore requesting that Nefer Tweety gets topic banned from the articles involved in this case or banned from wikipedia altogether for being an agenda account with only one purpose.

Initial editing of above section finished at 20:07, 23 December 2009

response below was by Supreme Deliciousness to Vassyana, moved here by Carcharoth (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The case was about the disruption at the Asmahan article and related articles, the disruption continues with no remedy against Nefer Tweety. I have already used efforts to resolve the matter at the community level several times, I have already pointed out the 3O, rfc, mediations and interfering of admin al ameer son at the case, I filed an official plagiarism report and the CV was removed by admin and now Nefer Tweety has re added it, the article is on probation and no admin has interfered against the edit made by Nefer Tweety although I have pointed this out at the talkpage. It is this, the constant destruction of the Asmahan article, the constant going against collaborations by Arab Cowboy and Nefer Tweety. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nefer Tweety

SD and AC have been warring over this article for a long time and SD took it to arbitration. As a result, on 15 Dec, SD was “prohibited from making changes to any article (specifically this one) about a person with respect to their ethnicity or nationality.” SD’s edits of 20 Dec. are the same as those he had made prior to his prohibition. SD’s latest edits, exactly as before his prohibition, are intended to dilute Asmahan's Egyptian nationality in favor of a Syrian one, which is a violation of his prohibition. He's inviting more edit wars and he should therefore be blocked at least for the remaining period of his prohibition as stated. He has been advised by the admins to leave this article alone and focus on others, but he is not complying. He's also changing his input on the Discussion page after people have responded to it! Nefer Tweety (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

I agree with the arbitrators that issues relating to other editors should be taken to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement first. The case was written in such a way that administrators can impose sanctions on other users, such as Nefer Tweety (talk · contribs) and HelloAnnyong (talk · contribs), if they cause problems after a warning.

CactusWriter has cautioned Nefer Tweety at User_talk:Nefer_Tweety#Asmahan, but there is not yet a "warning" noted on the Arbcom case log. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Just because ArbCom has reviewed an area or examined specific editors in the past does not mean that all related matters are ArbCom business. Even where we have previously intervened, efforts to resolve the matter at the community level are usually required before we will step in. Have you tried utilizing the available dispute resolution options, including requesting admin intervention? Is there any particular reason this cannot be resolved at the community level? Vassyana (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not clear what change you want other than you want some sort of sanction. Besides, WP:SPI may be a more suitable venue, if you have the evidence to support a filing there. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you need arbitration enforcement here. There appear to be enough remedies in the case decision to help resolve this. Carcharoth (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Since the remedies in this case included discretionary sanctions, you should bring a case to arbitration enforcement. Shell ^babelfish 13:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Concur with all of the above. Steve Smith (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Also concur. Please take this to Arbitration Enforcement. Risker (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Aye, take this to Arbitration Enforcement. - Mailer Diablo 02:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.