Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive30

Bože pravde

Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia.

Violated by Bože pravde (talk · contribs).

The editor has long been aware of the sanctions: [8].

Violations:

massive edit-warring: [9], [10], [11], [12],

move-warring to advance a POV: [13],

undiscussed changes to advance a POV: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23].

In fact, almost every diff produced by him seems to be a violation. Colchicum (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This has also been raised at WP:AN, and the section above it (...Lobbyist group...) appears to be related. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for extension on the editing restrictions

There are editing restrictions imposed upon myself and Martinphi at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. The dispute has only gotten worse, probably indicating that arbcomm did a poor job of adjudicating, but no matter. I hereby request that the editing restrictions which are set to expire in about two weeks for this arbitration decision be extended. I am perfectly happy living under civility, AGF, and NPA editing restrictions if it means that Martinphi must also live under editing restriction regarding his (continued) disruption of fringe-theory-related articles.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this posted for several days now, and I'm surprised no one else has weighed in here. I'll toss in my two cents.

I propose extending the editing restrictions by six months. Perhaps these restrictions can be reviewed periodically in this fashion. The problems identified by ArbCom have not disappeared, so extending the restrictions seems sensible. I don't see much collateral damage either: these are the same behaviors we hope from all editors. These two are just held to a more explicit standard. Cool Hand Luke 20:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but, as you've mentioned the dispute has not settled at all. If there was some way to magically put both of these editors on opposite sides of the Wiki, that might work, but I'm short on brilliant solutions at the moment.--Tznkai (talk)

Remedies 1 and 2 are due to expire soon. Remedy 3 has no end date and will not lapse. Remedy 4, passed more recently via motion, is a discretionary sanction remedy authorizing discretionary sanctions in the broadly defined pseudoscience area. Remedy 4 certainly authorizes any uninvolved administrator to extend remedies 1 and 2 within the pseudoscience topic area. For a non-topic bound extension, the ArbComm should be asked instead of this board. Additionally, there is a separate community imposed sanction for both of these two which can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi that is intended to keep the two of them apart. Enforcing it might be the key. GRBerry 22:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Special Constabulary

Another edit war is being provoked at Ulster Special Constabulary by User:BigDunc. Despite a mutual editing pact made in ongoing mediation not to edit this article this user has made three successive edits today reverting information placed in the article by me. He has not entered into any dialogue on the talk page. Given the edit war of yesterday I have twice reverted him and done the same with regards to User:Domer48 who has also given the same undertaking not to edit the article while mediation continues. The edit history is here. In an effort to avoid disruption to the wiki and to act according to the guarantees I have given not to edit war I would ask that admins step in here to control these two very agressive editors and hopefully encourage them to drop this belligerence and return to mediation. I would be very grateful if a determined effort could be made to stamp out this type of bullying and gaming on articles related to the Irish Troubles.Thunderer (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you check I have not made any undertaking to edit any articles on mediation as it was breached 4 times by Thunderer he has made 3 reverts on the USC article and 1 revert on the RUC article after promising yesterday not to edit war and was blocked after 7 3RR reports were made against him. BigDunc^Talk 13:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Would admins please note User_talk:BigDunc where the mediator has asked BigDunc not to violate his agreed editing terms. Which he has obviously done and is also promulgating an edit war. On this occasion I am not falling for the strategy as aI have guaranteed I will not edit war. I believe this was an attempt to force me into an edit war in order to get me blocked. Thunderer (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain the mediator will confirm this for me in a moment, but no where in mediation terms or precedent are you responsible for enforcing the mediation terms on others. You are responsible for your own conduct, not that of others. Likewise it seems I see a justification of edit warring based on "well he started it." I'm seriously considering some sort of short term drastic enforcement measure and I would appreciate someone making that unnecessary. --Tznkai (talk)13:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you waiting confirmation on Tznkai? Don't know what you mean. BigDunc^Talk 13:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In mediation, you agree to certain editing terms, and you are responsible for policing yourself, not others. Its entirely possible you all agreed to something else however.--Tznkai (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

We had an agreement not to edit articles that others had edited before Nov.5th this was breached 4 times by Thunderer so I struck my name on the 16th Nov from the agreement as it was pointless if editors failed to comply. BigDunc^Talk 13:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that we are not to make the actual mediation itself part of any complaint here but to confirm: all parties to the ongoing mediation which includes myself, BigDunc, Domer48 and David Underdown (by his own request) have agreed NOT to edit articles which the others were involved in prior to 5th Nov 2008. There have been some small inadvertant breaches of this rule which have been discussed on the mediation talk page. The edit war yesterday and the attempt at starting another one today have been instigated by deliberate and premeditated breaches of the agreed editing conditions. In the absence of our mediator, who is in a different time zone, I reverted the edits and referred BigDunc and Domer to the mediation talk page. I believe the solution in this case is for admins to ask those parties to refrain from editing these articles and failing that, revert their edits and block the articles until the mediator User:Sunray is able to resolve the situation. Thunderer (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your usuall tactic revert and get PP. You promised yesterday not to edit war and have reverted 3 times on one article seems your promises means nothing. And you have used the same excuse on numerous occassions and been told bring it to admin if a problem but don't revert. But you do keep reverting as you have got away with it so many times you think you can keep doing it. BigDunc^Talk 14:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Further to my above: if User:BigDunc is suggesting that he has withdrawn from the mediation I request that his actions be treated as a breach of sanctions for those involved in Troubles articles which means he has breached the 1RR and should mean an immediate block. I re-iterate that this is obviously a premediated attempt to take control of the article while others are involved in mediation and is gaming.Thunderer (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And so are your 3 reverts I reverted once yesterday and once today. Inserting text is not a revert. BigDunc^Talk 14:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Please don't attack the editor. Address the issue.Thunderer (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What attack? BigDunc^Talk 14:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oiche this is ridiculous. Thunderer, don't play traffic cop in your own mediation. Thats exactly what mediation tries to avoid! Thats what got the lot of you in this mess in the first place, insisting on enforcing things on eachother. Similarly Bigdunc, pulling out of a structured agreement is at the very least, a terribly bad idea, if not out right against policy, as is diving straight back into the articles.

The mediation was in response to a problem. I accept that one or both of you got frustrated with mediation, but the problem that lead to mediation still exists, so going back to old patterns (which is what this looks like to me) is not the answer. Escalation is never the answer. Tit for Tat is not the answer.

At this point I just want it to stop. Try working out on a talk page somewhere an improved style guideline for Derry/Londonderry for example. Work on your preferred versions in your userspace, and compare notes. Whatever. Stay out of article space until you can avoid reverting eachother.--Tznkai (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Tznkai if I am in breach of policy on mediation I was unaware and didn't realise I will strike my comments and return. This has already ended you don't have to repeat it to me thanks again. BigDunc^Talk 14:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunc I refuse to respond. I have drawn this to the attention of admins and they will now decide what is to be done.

FAO Admins. Both Domer and BigDunc have now withdrawn from the mediation by redacting their agreement not to edit other articles as previously advised. This means that (from memory) Domer is on a 0RR on Troubles related articles and BigDunc on 1RR. Domer also voluntarily stated that he would not edit articles which covered the period from 1969 onwards. Both have breached these terms. Thunderer (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You refuse to respond because you cant find an attack that you claim and as Tznkai says don't play traffic cop in your own mediation. BigDunc^Talk 14:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not withdrawn from mediation, please. I withdrew from one agreement because you kept breeching it. I'm on 1RR the same as everyone else, and Tznkai will confirm that for you, and thats it. I can edit any article except the UDR until the end of mediation. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Tzankai - what else can I do? These two have allowed us all to think they have an agreement and look what's happened as a result? Both are now trying to say they're still involved in mediation but have revoked the agreement which was the basis for discussion. I believe that's called having your cake and eating it.Thunderer (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It was breached 4 TIMES by you before I removed myself from the editing terms that were agreed as they seem not to apply to you. BigDunc^Talk 14:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My understanding has been that Domer48 has been under a UDR topic ban, and a 1RR on Troubles articles, a ban that is up for review by a 3 member referee panel, which will be convened upon request/advise of the mediator. I can dig out the old AE thread if needed.--Tznkai (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Both editors seem to think it was ok to be seen to breach the agreement then go in and edit their previous agreements to show that they no longer agree. That's after 24 hours of provocative action on these articles. Thunderer (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats an untruth check the history my name was struck on the 16th Nov. BigDunc^Talk 15:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

An admin is involved Tznkai. BigDunc^Talk 14:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As a note, as everyone involved is under some sort of a restriction at this point, you should be aware that you are held directly responsible for any actions or edits that you conduct. No one is going to hold your hand and tell you if it is appropriate to revert or "insert" text; that is a judgment that is decided upon by your own conscious. No one is forcing anyone to edit war or to violate the bounds of the restrictions. seicer | talk | contribs 15:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree Seicer I am not blaming anyone for my edits and I never have.BigDunc^Talk 15:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't breached anything. I'm trying to bring an end to breaches by two other editors. Thus far all I seem to have done is invite more personal attacks on myself - not that I'm not used to that by now.Thunderer (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Again you are making untruths were have a personally attacked you so that admins can take action if I have attacked you. BigDunc^Talk 15:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you even read what Seicer has said no one forces you to edit war. BigDunc^Talk 15:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And no-one forces you either but you seem determined to provoke edit wars.Thunderer (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And again as Seicer says No one is forcing anyone to edit war or to violate the bounds of the restrictions BigDunc^Talk 15:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Provoking or not (and I am not accusing anyone of this), you have a personal responsibility to not edit. Take responsibility for your own actions and edits, instead of pawning it off on the next editor or blaming others for the incident. It takes two to tango... seicer | talk | contribs 15:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Seicer. BigDunc^Talk 15:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that BigDunc signed this edit as "more untruths". Being honest here, I feel I am again being bullied, gamed and pushed into submission by people who know this system better than me. I feel my time on Wikipedia is coming to an end because this bullying can't be controlled and no matter what I have done in terms of compromise doesn't seem to have helped. It's a shame but I can't see any other way if I'm ever to get any peace. Thunderer (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You should take this opportunity to find other articles to edit for the interim, and to distance yourself from the conflicts of the past. This is something that shouldn't force an editor to retire or quit; it's really quite petty and bowing out because of this is pretty shameful. Take the comments in good faith, because although you are not wholly at fault, you have participated in what has been described here, and of course, as I have noted above, it takes two to tango. I feel that this matter has been resolved, and would like all parties to move along and find other articles to edit. seicer | talk | contribs 16:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This editor has left wikipedia (Personal attack removed) . Thunderer (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment from mediator

As Tznkai and Seicer have each said:

In mediation, you agree to certain editing terms, and you are responsible for policing yourself, not others.

All three participants to the mediation have violated the agreed upon terms of editing. I also see protracted edit-warring on the USC article by BigDunc and Thunderer. User:Shell Kinney (co-mediator) and I remain of the opinion that if participants would each police themselves, and return to the case talk page prepared to mediate in good faith a successful outcome is possible. Sunray (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, here are the Terms of Editing that were agreed to as part of the Ulster Defence Regiment mediation:

"Participants agree to the following terms of editing:

• I agree that, until further notice, I will not edit articles that the other participants have edited prior to 5 November.
• I further agree to discuss any issues or concerns I have with other participants [on the case talk page]."

Anyone who cares to do so may look at the USC article revision history, or that of other articles relating to the Troubles, to see who has, or has not, breached these terms. Sunray (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Refactored comments from participants

With all due respect Shell, I did not breech any agreement. If I may draw you attention to Sunrays comment on the issue "Again, you are technically correct. You made a minor edit to the article on 6 November which was prior to Thunderer's first edit. My apologies."

Mediation at the minute is all over the place, being side tracked and de-railed. Having said that it is working, in some areas at least. Now both myself and David have been putting a lot of effort in the consensus building exercise. I’ve seen it now work for me on this article here which to be honest makes the UDR article look tame. I’m working through each issue in a reasoned and considered way.

To date, that is what I’ve got out of mediation. All I need to know now is how to close a discussion, having gone through the process if there is not complete agreement. That Sunray is having difficulty with it also is, as far as I’m concerned an indication of how far I have come in the mediation. While I still don’t suffer fools gladly, I’m patient now when it comes to BS. I simply ignore it and move on. Now having said all that, being accused of bullying at this stage, is just a crock and should be struck out, unless it is defended with diff’s. I don’t for one minute think that the mediation should finish, after all this is now their third time to walk away. I’ve made positive and productive efforts, so why should I be penalised?--Domer48_'fenian' 18:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No one has said that the mediation had ended Domer as far as I am aware it is still ongoing. BigDunc^Talk 18:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I was'ent sure, thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please remove the personal attack against two editor from this page as it seems Thunderer has returned to edit war over it. It is offensive and should not be on the page it has already been removed by the mediator on the UDR mediation page.BigDunc^Talk 18:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunc your best of just leaving it to an admin, the Mediator has removed it from the mediation page so lets move on please. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree to the terms after 4 breaches from Thunderer went unchecked so I struck my agreement to them. If all editors would agree to it without breaching I would gladly agree again as they are reasonable conditions. BigDunc^Talk 18:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Since your here Sunray, could you also remove the personal attack comment above, what purpose dose it serve? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I also struck out my agreement after the continues breeches on the 16th. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

here is direct link to the terms and here were I struck my agreement due to breaches. BigDunc^Talk 19:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Derry / Londonderry

I explained WP:IMOS to Thunderer in the course of mediation here, and it was a view indorsed by Shell a mediator in the second post here. Despit this, Thunderer reverted an univolved editor here who correctly applied WP:IMOS, and then reverted me here when I fixed it. Not only have they breeched an agreement reached aat mediation, but they have also breeched the AE applied 1RR sanction on all Troubles related articles. I do address the issue of Derry / Londonderry as seen recently here, and my edits here are no different.. Now having explained my rational, and cited WP:IMOS, Thunderer has raised the issue of Wikistalking. I would suggest editors read Wikistalking, which state “Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam.” Thunder has again reverted both myself aand Dunc as can be seen here, with the edit summary of “rv wikistalking” which is obviously not the case. Could someone explain WP:IMOS to Thunderer, and suggest that if they wish to change IMOS that the talk page of IMOS is the place to do it. Untill then however, could they be asked to self revert, thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 13:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Manuals of style aren't binding policy, they're just guidelines. That having been said, I am investigating it further. Domer, could you explain why you feel the need to take this outside of the current mediation structure?--Tznkai (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Tzankai. The articles being reverted are referring to official names such as Royal Navy bases which would never have been called "Derry" but would always have used the official name. I have no personal issue with the usage of Derry and often change articles myself. I'm searching, as always, for historical accuracy. Thunderer (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick responce Tznkai, and in answer to your question as to why I raised it here, its simply because this is outside the mediation. Now since my post they have reverted other editor, again calling it wikistalking, apart from breeching 3RR on some of them. I think it is unhelpful. All I want is the IMOS explained, that all.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR has not been breached when I am obviously reverting the work of three editors who are a, wikistalking and b, not interpreting IMOS correctly. Thunderer (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer its four editors, please stop and use the talk page, and this editor was trying to help. 3RR has been breeched here, here,(5 Reverts of four different editors) here, here again please stop. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No point in using the talk page when you consider that the first two editors who reverted me are actively involved in mediation with me at the moment. Furthermore it's about time this matter was brought to a head. Too many editors are trawling the wiki looking for opportunities to change Londonderry to Derry, often incorrectly. You've seen me err on the side of caution in the past and corrected me so you of all people should know I have no agenda other than the interests of the wiki with regards to this.Thunderer (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've only looked into this briefly and had to educate myself on the real world dispute... and this is potentially really lame. How I see it is this:

• Generally speaking, please explain your position instead of citing a policy acronym or guideline. Explain why you agree with the guideline.
• I'm not sure if we have a policy or guideline on this, but I believe that articles should generally be in harmony with eachother. As long as Derry/Londonderry (the second of which is rejected by my spell checker for some reason) is at Derry then it should continue to be referenced that way in other articles.
• There is of course, the occasional exception, but the burden is on the person changing the name to explain, in detail, why the general convention should not apply within that article. Obvious exception would be a name change during a time of history such as: The Mongols ruled China from Daidu (modern day Beijing).
• Edit wars over naming disputes have a tendency to end up here
• Don't revert! The cycle is bold, revert, discusss not bold revert revert revert revert revert.

As to the wikihounding stuff, this is what I see:

• Wikihounding is relegated to malicious intent. The purpose of wikihounding is to irritate, not to conduct a genuine difference of opinion.
• If an accusation of wikihounding is true, the proper course of action is not to revert it on face, and doubly so if you're the one hounded.
• However, even if you disagree with an editor's changes, undoing all of their contributions on a style disagreement is really lame. This is an content dispute, and like all content disputes, reverting, especially with snappy edit summaries, is counterproductive.

Basically, revert wars get us no where. Perhaps a fruitful discussion can take place on the Talk:Derry talk page on the exceptions to the established compromise.--Tznkai (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that Thunderer has been blocked, the course of action I suggested was to have IMOS explained to them, ask them to use the IMOS talk page, and revert themselves for the time being. Could the block be reviewed with this in mind. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 14:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There has been edit warring across a range of articles. See the reports here. I have blocked The Thunderer (talk · contribs) for 48 hours. No matter who is right about the content dispute, or what other transgressions may have been committed by other parties, edit warring is not allowed. WP:BAIT has good advice for all concerned. Jehochman ^Talk 14:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock Thunderer, as he is still actively participating in this discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If he wants to actively participate in the discussion, he should not get himself blocked for edit warring. When he promises to stop, a convincing promise, I may unblock him. You are free to move this discussion to his user talk page. I am sorry, but I was not aware of this discussion at the time I placed the block. I am sorry for any inconvenience, but I think it would send absolutely the wrong signal to unblock this editor so he can chat at WP:AE. Jehochman ^Talk 14:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an idle chat, this is attempt to resolve the situation without the unnecessary use of tools. Its exactly the *right* message to send that we want editors to participate in dispute resolution. --Tznkai (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE is not for dispute resolution. It is for getting ArbCom sanctions enforced. Could you continue this discussion on the user's talk page, or via email? There need to be consequences or behaviors will not be changed. Jehochman ^Talk 14:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello all, I've been playing catch up here after seeing a rather nasty exchange of edits on HMS Leith (U36), an article I wrote a while back. When I wrote it, I used the term Londonderry to mean the port/naval base out of which Leith operated rather than the city (and I was deliberately vague as both HMS Ferret and her offshoots, as well as HMS Foxglove, not to mention the large American base were all in operation at this time). The official term for this was HM Naval Base, Londonderry, (for example and also Ben Warlow's 'Shore establishments of the Royal Navy') and Derry was not used as the establishment's name, so I do think User:The Thunderer has a point, as using Derry here is literally a misnomer and technically inaccurate. The navy of the period simply termed their establishments as 'Londonderry'. One of Leith's sisters was even HMS Londonderry. For the sake of accuracy I suggest that when referring to the Second World War naval base, Londonderry is the accurate choice. Londonderry Port might be a better piped link than the city one, and I regret not having done so originally, as it might have saved some trouble. Benea (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Could I suggest that you copy your post to WP:IMOS talk page and address it there. On the issue of Derry / Londonderry we use Derry=City and Londonderry=County. It's simple and it works. For example on the naval base see the google result here. It can be argued either way? Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 15:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Do a google search for Londonderry + Naval base and compare.--Tznkai (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

To get back on the original topic for a moment, I'm just going to repeat myself:

OK, I've only looked into this briefly and had to educate myself on the real world dispute... and this is potentially really lame. How I see it is this:

• Generally speaking, please explain your position instead of citing a policy acronym or guideline. Explain why you agree with the guideline.
• I'm not sure if we have a policy or guideline on this, but I believe that articles should generally be in harmony with eachother. As long as Derry/Londonderry (the second of which is rejected by my spell checker for some reason) is at Derry then it should continue to be referenced that way in other articles.
• There is of course, the occasional exception, but the burden is on the person changing the name to explain, in detail, why the general convention should not apply within that article. Obvious exception would be a name change during a time of history such as: The Mongols ruled China from Daidu (modern day Beijing).
• Edit wars over naming disputes have a tendency to end up here
• Don't revert! The cycle is bold, revert, discuss not bold revert revert revert revert revert.

As to the wikihounding stuff, this is what I see:

• Wikihounding is relegated to malicious intent. The purpose of wikihounding is to irritate, not to conduct a genuine difference of opinion.
• If an accusation of wikihounding is true, the proper course of action is not to revert it on face, and doubly so if you're the one hounded.
• However, even if you disagree with an editor's changes, undoing all of their contributions on a style disagreement is really lame. This is an content dispute, and like all content disputes, reverting, especially with snappy edit summaries, is counterproductive.

Basically, revert wars get us no where. Perhaps a fruitful discussion can take place on the Talk:Derry talk page on the exceptions to the established compromise.

I think this can be resolved without (further) use of admin tools or formal process, there looks like there are issues with the use of Derry in specific situations - enough for further discussion anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai would WP:IMOS not be a better venue for discussion. This is the section here which addressed countless edit wars and has been seen to work? --Domer48_'fenian' 15:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that this generic use of Derry for the City and Londonderry for the country is historically innacurate. The official name of both county and city is Londonderry BUT - Londonderry is an offensive term to some people and the use of it with regards to the city, where everyone (except those with a political point to make) actually call the place Derry. So for the most part I find the use of Derry reasonable. Where we are going wrong is that some editors are taking this vague IMOS and trawling the wiki looking for articles to change - the hounding I got is an example of that. I agree that where either name is used there should be a concensus on the talk page based on the IMOS guidelines and the most suitable and appropriate title used based on the historical context. Using Derry for a navy base name is ludicrous however and isn't in line with naming convention at all. Thunderer (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend creating a subpage, then transcluding it on Talk:Derry, WT:IMOS, and Derry/Londonderry naming dispute or whatever that article was called. I myself personally despise trying to handle individual article concerns with global MOS guidelines, and suspect others do as well, so I think that actual article talk pages are the place to do it, but in the end, why not go to both. Either way, no enforcement seems to be necessary right now.--Tznkai (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I suggested to Tznkai, the discussion needs to happen on WP:IMOS and not here or Derry. As to your accusations of "trawling the wiki looking for articles to change" and "the hounding" you could possibly report it at WP:ANI. Since you are now unblocked, are you now willing to revert yourself on the above mentioned articles untill the discussion has taken place? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is made even more ridiculous by the fact that on one of the disputed articles there is a map showing "Londonderry" but some editors are insisting upon using "Derry" for that historical period. As for reverting, I have no need to. This spat, whether I've handled it well or badl,y has shown this IMOS for the well intended but poor policy it is and other editors have now corrected the articles properly, apart from one or two which in my opinion need to stay as they are. Do bear in mind that I've come across "Derry" in other articles but haven't changed it, even though it conflicts with the IMOS because to me it looks correct in context.Thunderer (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I must protest. Despite what has transpired User:HighKing has just gone into Apprentice_Boys_of_Derry and Henry_Montgomery_Lawrence and again reverted "Londonderry" while this discussion is still ongoing. I think that shows nothing but utter contempt for the editors and admins who are trying to resolve this.Thunderer (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What this shows by not reverting yourself is that the block was ineffective, as was the unblocking. So the precedent it sets is, edit war on seven articles, be reported on 3RR for three violations for all seven article, get blocked for 48 hours, apologise, get unblocked, retain your edits on your version, and come here and tell us you were right all along? Have I got that right? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Domer, how about sticking to content rather than the contributor? Each individual is responsible for their own behaviour. Sunray (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on that logic, can you explain how Thunderer didn't get blocked for god knows how many breaches of WP:3RR? Or does this rule not apply for British editors (just troublesome Irish ones)? I seem to have missed the discussion where it was decided he hadn't really breached policy, etc, etc... --HighKing (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I further object to these personal comments. As an Irish passport holder and other priviledges under Article 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland, I reserve the right to make judgements on Irish issues. Thunderer (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yada, yada. As Sunray says above, each individual is responsible for their own behaviour. Except it seems he forgot to add - the exception being if you're British and you breach policy - in those circumstances, we'll waive the breach and you won't get blocked. Even if it's multiple breaches. Yeah - easy to see a pattern emerging..... --HighKing (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There were 7 3RR reports made and no block go figure. BigDunc^Talk 21:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I must admit I have intervened on two of those seven occasions to argue against blocking. Thunderer is inclined to test the limits and maybe 'cos the Admin Community is basically of the Anglo Culture they tend to be much quicker to spot Irish breaches than those of Thunderer et al - in fact I'm sure of that. But trying to get folk blocked is not something we should be doing. Personally, I am viscerally unforgiving of those who have blocked me. I'd not be surprised if Thunderer feels similarly. But he is sinner (Wikipediacally speaking) of the first order. Thunderer, I suppose asking you to cease your problematic behaviour is futile? Sarah777 (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer was blocked, and then subsequently unblocked, both by Jehochman. I'd like to point out Domer himself did not want Thunderer blocked, and I did my best to move things towards a more productive discussion. That sadly has apparently failed. Separately, I resent any implication that I am biased for the British over the Irish. I think they are both inferior to my own ethnicity. (Joking!) That having been said, I am going to have a chat with the mediators on whether there has been success if there is hope for further success. --Tznkai (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Tz; you could well be right about your superior ethnicity. You are obviously Japanese. Sarah777 (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarah there's a lot of good sense in what you say but I for one would be very annoyed if I thought there was a downer on anyone simply because they are Irish and I don't think there is. Highking is exceptionally out of order when he makes personal comments about my nationality. I'm extremely proud to be Irish and my duality should not be a concern. BTW I don't think we should be unforgiving of those who have blocked us. I think it's too easy for us to be locked into our own wee mode of parochial thinking and we must understand that the international community who provide the admins aren't always switched on to our personal views. They do their best so let's not give them a hard time eh? Thunderer (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Meowy

WP:AE is not your battleground
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Meowy (talk · contribs) was placed on 1rv per week parole according to the ruling of the arbcom case AA2: [56]. Within the last 2 days he violated his parole twice, and he was perfectly aware of consequences, since he was blocked for the similar violations of his parole 3 times before: [57] Here he reinserted the map, which was removed from the article per discussion at WP:RSN: [58], failing to reach any consensus for its inclusion on talk of the article, and here he did it again: [59]. Grandmaster (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Grandmaster, Wikipedia's serial complainant, is at it again. The matter concerns a map which, some months ago, had been extensively and heatedly discussed in the article's talk page, with the result being no consensus to remove it and with no credible reasons given to remove it. However, some time after the discussion had ended it was removed silently (without any explanation, without even an edit summary) by Baku87 at the end of last month. When I noticed it was gone, on the 19th November I returned the map to the article. I gave a proper edit summary for my action, and also mentioned in the talk page my reason for returning it. Almost within the same hour my edit was reverted by Grandmaster, who gave a false reason in the edit summary, saying that there was "no consensus for its inclusion". After another editor reverted Grandmaster's edit to restore the map. That edit was also reverted, this time by Atabəy, an editor who often works hand-in-glove with Grandmaster, giving what was basically an "I don't like it" explanation in the edit summary. I reverted Atabəy's edit, giving an edit summary as well as an explanation in the talk page. That was my first and my only revert of that article within a one week period (and also only my second edit made on that article in a year, though I've made contributions to its talk page). Meowy 21:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Note: Since Moewy was placed under editing restrictions on October 18th, 2007 then they have expired. Everyone else had it for one year only, I don't see why it should be any different for Meowy. In this case only discretionary sanctions can be applied to Meowy, like anyone else and he has done nothing to warrant any discretionary sactions.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 23:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Can you show me where the sanctions are limited to a year? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to be sure that's set in writing. I would suggest he's still under the 1RR/week limit, as I see no expiry on that, except such time of the logical expiration of edit warring on the subject. I know arbcom generally only blocks for a year, but I didn't know mass edit paroles such as this one were under the same limit. Or was Meowy under a more specific parole? --Golbez (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC) I don't see any time limit actually and that is the mistake of the admin who placed him under the restrictions but since the MAXIMUM anyone has ever been sanctioned under either of the AA's has been one year than we must assume it is one year since not only there is no precedent for editing restrictions lasting for more than a year in this case, there is also no justification whatsoever.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Please see here [60] and here: [61] Grandmaster (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC) How many times should Grandmaster deliberately fabricate evidence to have his foes blocked before any action is taken against his disruptive reports? It's literally impossible that Grandmaster did not know that Meowy did not break anything. It's more than obvious from the history of edits here. In what parallel world is this breaking anything (besides, it has been over a year since Meowy was subject to the sanction)? - Fedayee (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Meowy's parole has no time limit. Time limit was only for the parties to the first arbcom case, but even those people are to voluntarily stick to 1RR limitation, which is what hey do. As for the evidence being fabricated by me, I would prefer the admins to make their judgment. From what I see, Meowy deliberately violated his parole, as he knew that everyone else, myself included, voluntarily observes it. So why does he have to make 2 rvs within 2 days, especially considering that there was no consensus for inclusion of this map, and the third party opinion at WP:RSN, where Meowy also participated in discussion, was that the map is not acceptable? I see that the group of editors tries to divert attention from this blatant violation, but I'm sure that the admins will see, who's right and who's wrong here. Grandmaster (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were appointed an arbitrator and set the "no time limit". This is a superfulous and an unnecessary report like most of your reports.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 16:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Request extension of the topic ban imposed against Atabek Also, if anything, Atabek actually broke indirectly his topic ban by this revert whose purpose and subject of contention was the Armenian principalities of Khachen (Artsakh) noted as Karabakh on the map. Atabek was indefinitely banned from its main article. What's the use of the topic ban, when several articles cover the same principality and that he can still remove any reference to it from those other articles? Exactly like he did by removing the map, and also recently removed the reference to Khachen from another article by claiming that Anderson is not a valid source when Britannica and several sources consider (as shown to him in prior discussions) it as common knowledge. I strongly believe that the topic ban imposed to Atabek to be worthwhile should be extended to the history of Karabakh in general since he is gaming his topic ban, thank you. - Fedayee (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC) This is nothing but an attempt to divert attention from real violation. Andersen is not a reliable source, and this was confirmed a number of times by admins (such as Mikka) and at the WP:RSN board. Yet there's a group of people who keep inserting references to this website, and one can only guess why they keep on doing it. Grandmaster (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Again, Meowy is violating 1RR parole [62],[63], and ignoring the results of ongoing discussion at [Reliable sources noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Andrew_Andersen_Maps] and the prior conclusion by 3rd party: "if the maps come from a blog, and they deal with contested borders, then they are not reliable". And now Atabek, who actually initiated the discussion at Reliable Source Noticeboard instead of engaging in edit wars like Meowy, should be topic banned :). Brilliant! Atabəy (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC) As I said on my talk page, I disagree the first one is a revert. It was an edit to put back content that had been removed a month earlier; we usually take 'reverting' to mean 'putting back stuff recently removed'. There has to be a logical barrier between what is a revert and what is an edit; I think a week is enough. Considering the length of the 1RR/week parole, then, a few weeks is sufficient. --Golbez (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Restoring to the article hotly disputed map, despite the results of discussion at WP:RSN and knowing that other editors will not agree with that is disruptive. Plus, I don't think revert is counted by the time elapsed since the last time the same revert was made. WP:3RR says nothing about the time between the 2 reverts. In that case, anyone can restore previously contested info twice and that would not be violation of 1RR. Grandmaster (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC) What's the time limit? If I put something back into an article that was removed six months ago, does that count as a revert? 12 months? --Golbez (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Isn't that amazing, that in the past 1 year, any time "AA" conflicts come up in WP:AE, only contributors from one of the "A"s are accused and placed under probation, while the other "A"s are groomed and their reverts are considered to be not quite reverts, their paroles are lifted. Additionally, the groomed side gets bold enough to propose topic banning the individual contributors for no reasons, just to further push their POV without resistance, or in past, accusing others of meatpuppetry and getting them banned, proven wrong through ArbCom, while walking away absolutely unpunished for their waste of Wikipedia board space, etc. And they get encouragement from admins and arbitrators patting them on the back, just notice Golbez above posting not in section pertaining to Meowy but in subsection opened by retaliating POV pushers on me while I haven't done anything, not even open AE thread. The pattern of side-taking is becoming already alarming... I have a suggestion, why not make Meowy, Eupator and even Fedayee :) - admins, spare yourself this comedy show of "neutrality". Atabəy (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC) You're right. We're all in the tank for Armenia. You caught us. Good job. --Golbez (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement

This is a place for arbitration related enforcement, not a place for you to bicker. The distinct lack of admin interaction with the lot of you suggests that they, like me, are upset, irritated, and exhausted of your collective nonsense. After my comment you may file your complaints, but I expect them to be short, concise, and without personal attacks. Cite the case, the relevant restriction, and the edits in question. Defenses are similarly to be short and to the point, without personal attacks. Polemics are unacceptable. Bickering is unacceptable. If anyone attempts to justify their bad conduct with "he started it" I will immediately take that as an acceptance of responsibility for a breach and block you for 3 weeks.--Tznkai (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to note, since there seems to have been some confusion, that the supervised editing remedies under AA2 were not time limited, so those placed under such restrictions are under them indefinitely. That doesn't mean forever, the sanctions may be appealed to the admin who applied the sanctions or ArbCom, and either one of those may be willing to lift sanctions after a long period of good behavior. What I'm seeing here, though, is the direct opposite of good behavior. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Your points are valid and understandable but unfortunately, it is not the first time this was done by Grandmaser, see here... and I am digging up more recent ones. Under his own definition of what is a revert, Atabek would be blocked several time because of his reintroduction of his same reverts of months ago and this, several times.

On the comment made by Seraphimblade: The AA2 claimed that the restrictions on AA1 remains and they made a decision to add others when it fits. It fails logic to have indefinite restriction for the new users under AA2 restrictions, particularly against Meowy and VartanM who are not as involved as all the users who don't have any restrictions anymore.

On Atabek, is it possible to have Request extension of the topic ban imposed against Atabek here addressed? Moreschi writes: Atabəy (talk · contribs)'s editing at Talk:Principality of Khachen and Talk:Sahl Smbatean is classic tendentious editing. He comes back many months after the last dispute ended pushing the same rejected arguments as he did previously. [64], the rejected argument is against what Moreschi says which is: While this may seem a long way off from the Nagorno-Karabakh War, the location of the historical Khachen is also that of modern-day Nagorno-Karabakh, so from an Azeri point of view, if we can prove that Khachen cannot validly be called Armenian (the other candidate is Albanian), then Armenia's claims to NK could be considered less valid. The row at Sahl Smbatean is along similar lines. Essentially this is WP:BATTLEGROUND again.[65]. Atabek’s edits described here were specifically to remove Khachen principalities references from two articles just recently. He was topic banned from its main page and he is gaming the system by removing any reference of it from other pages.

Thank you for reading. - Fedayee (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not reading that. "I expect them to be short, concise, and without personal attacks. Cite the case, the relevant restriction, and the edits in question.--Tznkai (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It is short, concise, and without personal attacks. First paragraph relates to the fact that Grandmaster's report was superfluous (the paragraph was two lines long).

Second paragraph relates to the fact that Meowy can not be kept in restriction for more than one year when the Arbcom restriction for the parties to the case was one year (the paragraph was two line long).

The third paragraph contained mostly quotes from Moreschi about the rational of the indefinite topic ban against Atabek and the fact that Atabek gamed his topic ban by removing the reference to the Khachen principality from two articles (it’s also about two lines, the rest are quotations from Moreschi's rationale for the topic ban).

All necessary diffs were provided to the relevant cases. Thanks again.- Fedayee (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the time with you either. I'm telling you what decision ArbCom made. It's right here. There are no time limits, that was the decision. As to those in the original case, if they were still editing disruptively in the affected areas, they could easily enough be put under the AA2 remedies by an uninvolved admin just like anyone. Regardless, though, that decision was not mine and I would have no power to change it. You could appeal it to ArbCom if you believe it unfair, I wouldn't bet on it being changed, but that's the venue for appeal if you feel the need to make one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

But it makes no sense, as you can see the list of users placed under List of users placed under supervision includes all the users from the prior case too. We were left to believe that it was for one year. I have no problem with that as long as it is fair for everyone. I would still like to see a reply about Atabek gaming his topic ban too. - Fedayee (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the issue about the time limit has been clarified, I'm reposting my original report and would like the admins to comment and take actions. Thanks.

Meowy (talk · contribs) was placed on 1rv per week parole according to the ruling of the arbcom case AA2: [66]. Within the last 2 days he violated his parole twice. Here he reinserted the map, which was removed from the article per discussion at WP:RSN, failing to reach any consensus for its inclusion on talk of the article, and here he did it again: [67]. Thus, 2 rvs in 2 days. Grandmaster (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The above again highlights Grandmaster's repeated abuse, over several years, of Wikipedia procedures, resulting it the wasting of everyone's time and energy. Even if the doubtful and discredited AA2 sanctions are still in place, there is no question of me having broken its "parole" in the above edits. I have already given a full rebutal of his accusation in the section now contained in "WP:AE is not your battleground" - so I won't type it in again. Does Grandmaster believe that if he repeats an obviously false statement often enough, its falsity becomes less apparent? Would it possible for an editor to be banned for a period from making any reports, appeals, checkuser requests and similar such things? The threat of such a sanction could serve to moderate Grandmaster's behaviour in the future and give us all a break from his serial complaining. Meowy 16:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, I gave an example above where an Admin refused to block a user when Grandmaster did similar digging. As for the worthless reports by Grandmaster, the result of them all was to distract the attention from real disruptions. In this particular case, Atabek gaming his topic ban. Grandmaster's superfluous reports come all with a good timing. - Fedayee (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For prior Wikipedia board space, admin time as well as reputation waste due to battleground mentality of Fedayee and Eupator, check out the whole ArbCom case. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And for Golbez's inability to be neutral in mediating A-A related topics, I suggest checking out this report on Wikipedia ANI about a year ago: [68], including the conclusions by admins [69], [70], [71]. So no surprise, on justifying Meowy despite clear-as-a-day parole violation. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, please put a stop to this pointless thread. You can. You said at the start "if anyone attempts to justify their bad conduct with "he started it" I will immediately take that as an acceptance of responsibility for a breach and block you for 3 weeks". Look at Atabəy's above two "he started it" posts. Meowy 21:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what "bad conduct" is involved here on my behalf. There is a violation of ArbCom parole by Meowy, making 2 reverts within 2 days. I didn't even file a report at AE, I initiated the discussion at WP:RSN to resolve the issue with unreliable maps. So why is discussion shifted on to me again? Atabəy (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Asgardian

Arbcomm case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae

Diffs showing violating behaviour:

• Reverting without discussion on the talk page, in violation of the Remedies.
• Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks and incivility- on my talk page, in violation of the Principles.

After 7 blockable violations of the Arbcom decision, I trust that a diff showing prior warnings is not necessary. 98.210.221.64 (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If we wanted to apply the strictest letter of the law, then *maybe* he should be blocked however, he's correct that your changes introduced error into the article and needed to be removed. I think this is so marginal that a block might be over the top, however, in future he should note that clearly in the edit summary about what he's doing - I'd take that as fulfilling the "discuss" clause (obviously he'd then need to discuss any further reverting. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The user with the IP address seem to be a good editor, but is in error. An examination of the comment here: [72] shows that it is incorrect. As indicated, the user removed a legitimate link and restored text in the wrong tense and grammar. Despite this, I was accused me of writing a false summary. In effect, lying. This is not true. Given this, the edit is by literal definition, "ignorant", as given the user's impressive Edit History I'm surprised the comment was written. There, was however, no venom in the comment. Finally, my curiosity is piqued as to why there was such a strong reaction to what was a very minor and beneficial edit. Cordially, Asgardian (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. So this editor, who's repeatedly had a problem with civility, is just given a pass for calling another editor ignorant? I would think this demonstrates that not only does he have problems with the letter of the law, he's still unclear on the spirit of it. 98.210.221.64 (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I apologise. You, however, have yet to address the original point for which you are in error. It could also be argued that your own Edit Summary was uncivil. Asgardian (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Asgardian is subject to an editing restriction: "He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism)." Unfortunately, he reverted 98.210.221.64 twice in one week. [73] [74] While these were good faith edits removing redundant information from the article, it might be smarter to sit back and let other editors handle it after the first revert. I don't agree that he tried to hide it, though. He did say "and again, Film info belongs in Film" in his edit summary (although I think he meant television, not film). --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And the incivility. It's really disappointing that nobody has spoken out about the rude manner in which I was addressed. 98.210.221.64 (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to GentlemanGhost's point, there actually aren't two blind reverts as there were different changes. There was, as stated, also commentary in the Edit Summary. What concerns me is that User talk:98.210.221.64 has yet to address my points:

1. The original Edit Summary which states I was in effect lying, which is in itself uncivil and began this matter.

2. Why the user removed legitimate information, which Cameron Scott noted above.

There is also a more disturbing issue I wish to raise and Cameron Scott alluded to it on my talk page. How does an IP user know about an Arbcom matter and go straight there? The behaviour - the fixation on civility - is very similar to that of another user who erroneously blocked me and was challenged regarding the act. I know of no way of checking for sure, but is seems very convenient. For your consideration. Asgardian (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Classic tactic - turn it back on the person who points out the bad behaviour. Sow seeds of doubt because of course an IP address must be trying something underhanded. None of which changes the fact that, as this edit shows, you reverted without discussion on the talk page, and that your first post to my talk page was to call me ignorant. And for the record, it's not very hard to track down the Arbcom case or your record of incivility when your block log is littered with references to them. 98.210.221.64 (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please just answer the questions put to you, as your erroneous edit and statement in the Edit Summary started this. Asgardian (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I will not agree to play your blame-the-victim game. This is Arbitration enforcement, and the only issue here is your edits. Do you deny that this edit is a reversion to a previous version with a few cosmetic changes? Do you deny that your first post to an IP editors talk page referred to my edits as "incorrect and even ignorant comments"? 98.210.221.64 (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to acknowledge your actions. You made an incorrect statement in your Edit Summary that was also uncivil. You reverted legitimate information. I have made an accurate and true statement as to my actions. Others are now welcome to comment, although I still see this as an overreaction. Asgardian (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

More examples of reverting without talk page discussion:

• Ultron
• JLA/Avengers
• Avengers Forever
• Death (Marvel Comics)
• Avengers (comics)
• Bi-Beast
• Secret Wars
• Blacklash
• Kang the Conqueror

Note: These diffs show the version reverted to, and often contain superficial differences. To see what was removed, look at the difference from the last version prior to Asgardian's.

More examples of treating other editors with contempt:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics
• Ultron talk page
• User talk:Daniel Case
• An entire section at User talk:Emperor#Asgardian, again

These were all accessable from the first page of Asgardian's recent changes. This shows that there is a strong tendency to remove the bulk of changes with which he disagrees, keeping only minor formatting fixes, all without talk page discussion. When he does choose to use talk pages, the tendency is for sarcastic, belittling statements that question the editors intentions, knowledge and competence. In short, all the same problems evident in the Arbcom case are still in play. 98.210.221.64 (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I will say three things:

1. Much of what 98.210.221.64 presents is opinion, and there have been mistakes made by administrators I have spoken with in recent times. Others admit as much.

2. This smacks of a grudge. I've made peace - and considerable progress - with Tenebrae since the original Arbcom, and even met another user who I initially clashed with, halfway. I think everyone would just like to move on. User 98.210.221.64, however, does not seem willing to drop the matter. Unfortunately, the behaviour (fixating on civility) and editing style matches that of Nightscream. I know of no way to prove or disprove this.

3. Finally, 98.210.221.64 has yet to address the original points, being his uncivil and misleading comment, and why legitimate information was removed. This user does not seem capable of admitting that they are at fault.

That is all I have to say. Other comments are welcome. Asgardian (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the behavior on Asgardian's part that led to this ArbCom matter, I will let other editors here and the relevant Talk Pages speak for themselves (unless otherwise asked to elaborate), including the Talk:Black Bolt, Talk:Ultron, User:Emperor's and Asgardian's own Talk Page, from which he blanks material related to his multiple blocks, rather than archiving them, under the rationale that they were "nothing of note anymore". I will, however, address two points:

First, if one observes violations of the Civility policy, then the proper action is to politely admonish that person, or refer the matter to an administrator. The proper action is not to use such events as a rationale for engaging in such behavior oneself. Asgardian has argued that it is hypocrisy to be admonished for his incivility (what he calls "obsessed" or "fixated") because other persons were not so admonished. This is a fallacy, unless Asgardian can demonstrate that the same admins who addressed his incivility are the same ones who were aware of those other editors exhibiting the same behavior and did nothing. I am not familiar with Cameron Scott, nor has Asgardian furnished diffs showing his violations, and indeed, this is the first time he's mentioned any of these past violators by name. In any event, the fact that others violate a policy is not license to do so yourself, or to make personal comments about others who call you on it. Arguing that you are not violating policy because others are is a poor argument.

As far as his thinly veiled implication that I and User:98.210.221.64 are one and the same by pointing out that an IP check website reveals that IP to be from Santa Clara, CA, whereas I live in New Jersey, and have never been to California. I am not familiar with his/her "editing style", but for the record, I have never engaged in anonymous IP sockpuppetry. Nightscream (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That's good to know. I note, however, that the IP user in question seems to have gone to ground. Odd. Asgardian (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Setanta747

Unresolved

 – See "Further problems" section

Arbcom case: The Troubles.

• Setanta747 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Setanta747 is on probation from the above case, and is limited to one revert per article per week, which was imposed here. He has reverted twice on List of flags by country to his version which includes an unofficial and POV flag - first revert and second revert. Domer48_'fenian' 18:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

 Declined with a caveat. List of flags is not within the "area of dispute", but this is a content conflict that needs to be sorted out, and my view on it is this: we record the controversy not our opinion on the controversy.--Tznkai (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai if I could just draw your attention to the fact that edit warring over that flag is within the area of dispute, it was specifically stated in the case. "To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles." Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 18:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Noted and in consideration, but I'd like to give Setanta747 a chance to respond.--Tznkai (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Accepted. Tznkai, it was clearly stated here that the dispute specifically included articles related to NI flags ("...The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner..."). This double revert clearly violates that, and this is a second breaking of the ArbCom ruling. Therefore, I have blocked Setanta747 for a week. Black Kite 19:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, this all could've been avoided, if the dependant countries were deleted from the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree. However, all Troubles editors should know by now that edit-warring over the Ulster Banner is a guaranteed way to get yourself a short holiday from editing. Black Kite 19:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

struck my decline, but I still would like to hear from Setanta, who was not notified of this thread when it started.--Tznkai (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to see Domer quick off the mark as usual. Always helps to improve relations, espicially considering his impecible behaviour.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hate to muddy the waters, but at least one of those reverts (and possibly both) was to remove an edit of a persistent, and bothersome, banned user. Whether Setanta747 was aware of that is unclear (and the fact that there was no mention in the edit summary would suggest he probably wasn't). However, there is an ongoing issue of this banned editor using multiple IPs to revert edits from, shall we say, a more unionist perspective. Inevitably, the legal editors revert (usually multiple times) and the consequence is that those editors face sanctions where the banned editor just jumps to another IP. Now, the editors probably shouldn't be making those controversial edits in the first place at least without discussing them first, but we should be careful of blocking them as a consequence of a banned editor gaming the system. Rockpocket 20:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I take your point, given that one of Setanta's insertions of the Ulster Banner had a completely misleading edit summary as well, which was clearly meant to 'hide' the edit, something which he'd done a few days previously as well ("disambig template" - I think not), I don't think there's much doubt that he's being tendentious. Black Kite 20:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

While I would disagree with Setanta's view on the flag issue I really think this goes yet again to show that reverting IPs should not count towards 3RR or even 1RR. Sarah777 (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually Sarah777, they in fact don't count according to the arbitration case at hand. "2) Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert." (emphasis mine)--Tznkai (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the original edit was tendentious, but that wasn't the reason that the request was bought here. This isn't any old IP, its a banned editor doing his best to aggravate editors under restriction. There is typically two different issues here: there is editor #1 making edits that may be problematic, controversial or tendentious. Then there is a banned editor #2 reverting and an edit war ensures. Editor #1 gets restricted, incorrectly, for edit-warring. That should not be happening, though it does not change the fact that editor #1's edit was problematic, controversial or tendentious in the first place. We need to deal with the first issue (if it is a problem), without getting suckered into the second. Rockpocket 23:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

So could we be maybe a bit flexible here and reduce the block to 24 hours? perhaps? maybe? please? Sarah777 (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)The first one would from any other editor deserve a quick trouting, but Setanta747 should know better, so some sort of more forceful measure (a block) may be sensible. I agree with Rockpocket's analysis of the situation, and recommend either vacating or reducing the block, Sarah's suggestion seems reasonable.--Tznkai (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I too think that might be appropriate, but since Setanta probably isn't even aware he is blocked yet, its better to wait for the blocking admin to comment. If Black Kite hasn't commented again after 24hrs we can probably unblock Setanta with a warning about misleading edit summaries. Rockpocket 23:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Setanta is probably out having a few scoops like any sensible Irishman on a Saturday night! Sarah777 (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As I was, which is why I haven't commented in the last few hours! OK, that's a fair enough consensus, I think, so I'm going to unblock Setanta, but really - any more sneaky editing like that and a block would be reasonable regardless of who it was reverting, as I'll say on his talkpage. Black Kite 00:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough Kite. Sarah777 (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Flagging resolved: congratulations all around on the spectacular lack of drama.--Tznkai (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[de-indent] Although this case was submitted and resolved (hasty decision reversed), I would like to comment on it. There was no "sneaky editing" involved. There was no "hiding" involved. I resent the lack of good faith and the accusation of it. My edit summary was as clear as most of my other edit summaries. In this case, I was disambiguating the flag of the United Kingdom from the flag of Northern Ireland. No 'hiding' or attempt at being "sneaky" was made and anyone who thinks that should perhaps take a look at the mote in their own eye. I am fully aware that any and all edits made by me is being watched by Republican-minded editors.

I have made an edit to the article in question and I feel this represents both "POVs" adequately until this dispute can be resolved in some way. --Setanta 14:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• And I have reverted it. "Disambiguating" is fine if the Ulster Banner was the current flag of Northern Ireland. It isn't. Setanta is skirting the limits here. Further eyes welcome. Black Kite 14:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you why you have reverted the article? You do not own the article, yet you resist any attempt at improvement or compromise. You also continue to assert that the flag of Northern Ireland isn't the flag of Northern Ireland... and you have then the audacity to claim that you do not have a POV (see my talk page)!

I am unsure why I need to "assert" that the UB isn't the current flag of Northern Ireland, when it is clearly stating a fact. I don't see much point in continuing to attempt to argue with your non sequiturs, though. Black Kite 19:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Wikipedia is not a primary source. --Setanta 12:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not quite as black-and-white to say that it is "stating a fact" that the Ulster Banner is not the current flag of NI. In terms of custom and practice, it is, as far as I know, the only flag used to represent NI. It is used in the Commonwealth Games, for example. Until such time as a new flag is adopted, the Ulster Banner must remain the (unofficial, if you prefer) flag of NI. The campaign on WP against the flag can be viewed in the wider context of other nationalist-POV campaigns to undermine NI in related articles right across the whole encyclopaedia, particularly the attempt to impose "Ireland" as the name for the 26-counties rather than for the whole island, of which NI is a part. Mooretwin (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now - sporting use is a different matter, as I've mentioned before. However, the article involved here is List of flags by country - in other words, the current official flags of each country. Now, looking at Flag of Northern Ireland, we see that the current flag is the Union Flag. So, either we use the Union Flag in the former article, or we contradict the latter. See the problem now? There may well be a nationalist campaign to remove the UB from Wikipedia - OK, no point beating about the bush, there is, and I've sanctioned users on both sides for edit-warring on it before - but on the other hand we do need to ensure consistency across our articles. Black Kite 20:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I completely agree about the "Ireland" issue, btw. (Not to mention the "British Isles" issue). Having said that, the focus here is on editor(s) covered by the ArbCom probation edit warring on articles. Black Kite 20:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And again, Wikipedia is not a primary source. The "current flag" of Northern Ireland is not the Union Jack. The Union Jack is the flag of the United Kingdom (as a whole). An entry which specifies Northern Ireland should have the flag of Northern Ireland beside it, as per other countries. --Setanta 12:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you achieved any sort of consensus that the Ulster Banner is in fact, the verifiable and appropriate flag for the country of Northern Ireland?--Tznkai (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We have been here many times before. Northern Ireland doesn't have a current, legal, veriafiable flag which applies only to Northern Ireland, hence the use of the U/Flag as the closest possible fit. In articles where an icon is required, a compromise was to use Image:NIShape.gif, as can be seen in such articles as Red Kite. However, where the article is actually about the current flags for a particular country, our own article makes the legal position clear. Black Kite 23:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Further problems

• See [75]. I have unresolved this, as it is clearly still open. Black Kite 18:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. This is lame. Someone please invite Setanta to explain himself.--Tznkai (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I did try. His talkpage should show you how much use that was. Black Kite 19:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed very lame, Tznkai. You may not have noticed, but I have already explained my attempt at a compromise with the article. This second attempt at compromise - one which clearly shows both 'POVs', if you will - was reverted by Snowded. I am going to ask him why he has done this - he has labelled it "vandalism" in his edit summary and my edit was clearly not vandalism. --Setanta 16:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that disputing something is not vandalism. Your so called compromise however, is edit warring in substance and reverting in spirit, which is, as noted repeatedly above, a major no no for anyone on discretionary sanctions having to do with the Ulster Banner and other Troubles related issues. You need to be able to walk away from this.--Tznkai (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact in my last edit I did not revert the article to a previous state - I introduced a new edit, which most definitely could be regarded as a compromise, considering it reflected two 'points of view'. I will not "walk away" from this until the issue has been satisfactorily resolved. I consider it an important issue with regard to this encyclopaedia reflecting and presenting facts. --Setanta 13:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Setanta, the UB is simply not the flag of NI today, if it ever was. Note that some passing non-Irish/British editor who was removing "non-countries" removed a province of Finland, Sardinia and also Scotland, England and Wales on the same basis! Sarah777 (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh Dear! Upon closer investigation maybe User:Yman88 isn't just a random passing non-Irish/British editor! Sarah777 (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate please?--Tznkai (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea who Yman88 is, nor can I claim to have much knowledge of Finland or the province thereof, or Sardinia. The flag of Northern Ireland however, has not been replaced. Nor has it fallen out of use. It remains the only flag which specifically represents Northern Ireland. I am fully aware of your opinion on it and, in fact, I share that opinion on the flag to some extent. However, Wikipedia is not censored in order to appeal to the sensibilities of some. --Setanta 13:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you now Tz! - that message on my page from last night was a bit cryptic till I figured out that AE = Arb Enforcement. OK.

• (1) I noticed that an editor who I assumed was an "outsider" (uninvolved in the British/Irish area) called User:Yman88 brushed through the article and removed a provincial Finnish flag, the Flag of Sardinia and those of Wales, Scotland and England on the grounds that they were'nt countries, in the sovereign sense.
• (2) I took Yman88 to be Japanese - for obvious reasons!
• (3) It has been argued, by others including myself, that as England etc are not sovereign they are not really "countries" in the normal sense.
• (4) It appeared that this random passing (Japanese) editor was therefore validating my position and undermining Setanta; not alone on NI but even on Scotland and England. Thus the WP:NPOVness of my view was apparently validated by an objective, neutral Japanese source.
• (5) Then I went to make a comment on Yman's talkpage - and discovered ....well...have a peek!

Sarah777 (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, noted and keeping an eye on, thank you.--Tznkai (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for a special restriction at Naked short selling

Executive summary: To prevent sophisticated sockpuppetry, I propose that we bar new accounts from editing the mainspace of articles under probation.

collapsed due to length
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Me and User:Mackan79 have become concerned that it is impossible to enforce the article probation from the Mantanmoreland ArbCom. Although editors are instructed to edit only from their main or sole account, technical evidence cannot enforce this instruction against highly sophisticated sockpuppeteers. Mantanmoreland, having learned from at least four prior sock puppets, is an extremely sophisticated sockpuppeteer. His most recent User:Bassettcat account initially passed check user with flying colors. This account was only caught after making one—and only one—unproxied edit. There are two new editors now at Naked short selling who share Mantanmoreland's POV. Mackan79 suggests that they're violating instruction C of the article probation (no advocacy) by their inflammatory rhetoric. I don't know whether either of them is Mantanmoreland, but I find it hard to believe that they are completely new accounts—as they claim. For example, Janeyryan claims that this is her first and only account "since the dawn of time," but I note that her first edit was a sophisticated wiki-markup contribution to Wikipedia Review, in passages purporting to deal with the Overstock.com article.[76] Still, I don't know whether either of these accounts is certainly Mantanmoreland, and I don't see why we should spend more time worrying about it. Instead, I suggest we put controls on these articles to limit the incentives for Mantanmoreland (or Wordbomb, or anyone else) to sockpuppet in these subjects. So, I present Mackan79's proposal. Basically, new users (I would argue users who began editing after March 2008) should refrain from editing the mainspace of the reverting with other users in the topics under probation. Mackan79 hoped that the editors would voluntarily agree to such restrictions, but Janeyryan rejects them, and casts aspersions on the motives of me and Mackan79.[77] Janeyryan suggests that this proposal seeks to exclude POVs from the article. This is false. I don't know about Macken79, but I don't have a strong POV on the article. (Here I reverted to JohnnyB's version[ because I thought it was better than Mackan79's. Here I removed some pro-lawsuit SYN that doesn't belong in the article. Here I added material proposed by JohnnyB and Janeyryan.[78][79]) Our objective is solely to prevent sockpuppeteering by removing the incentives to create new sock accounts. In this way, Mantanmoreland or any other interested party can suggest changes from the talk page, but these suggestions will be reviewed by editors who were never involved in this POV war. I think this arrangement will improve the quality of the encyclopedia; it should not be applied to just these two users, but to any new accounts in this area. This externally-driven battle must stop. In the words of Newyorkbrad, "please, not here; no more here; no more, no more, no more. We need to stop the bleeding; we need our encyclopedia back." Cool Hand Luke 02:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Holy smokes. While I appreciate and understand the reasoning behind this, this has a huge number of practical and philosophical problems. Aside from the "wiki way" issues, enforcing this would require a completely new technical tool or blocking any relatively young account if they attempt to edit a probation topic. Semi-Permanent full protection would probably be less drastic than this. More than a few accounts got their mop at less than six months, so March 2008 as a cut off is really a bit much That all having been said, I trust that there are reasonable editors making these suggestions, which suggests a serious problem going on in the background that needs more attention.--Tznkai (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC) I also considered that new accounts could submit some form of identification, but that seems equally unwiki, and I don't believe we have the infrastructure. Semi-protection has been applied almost continuously since the ArbCom. Full protection is another option that I'd considered in the past, but I think it's overkill for simply preventing new sockpuppets. This is less restrictive. Cool Hand Luke 03:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Having additional, un-public information here, I am convinced that at least one of the accounts here directly relates to Mantanmoreland in some way (meat or sock). While I deplore having to take steps such as the one requested above (or something similar), this is a long term disruption from a user who is exceedingly good at preventing technical identification of his accounts. If we simply restricted the two users in question from the page (perhaps allowing them to use the talk page), I am convinced that yet another one would take his place, and attempt to use up the reservoir of Assuming Good Faith that we must do, lest we devolve into a witch hunt, the type the user in question used to do so many times to opponents in turn. This is a financial feud. This is a personal feud. This is something that has the ability to greatly harm the encyclopedia, and I urge readers to take it gravely seriously. SirFozzie (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC) I think it would be wrong to ban new accounts, because it would give too much of a POV advantage to editors on the page whose accounts were set up before March 2008. My suggestion is that anyone wanting to edit articles that fall under that ArbCom ruling should be asked to discuss on Skype, by voice and on webcam, their interest in editing those articles, with an experienced admin who has no prior involvement in the case. Certain questions can be asked to ensure that the admin really is speaking to the person behind the account and not a friend who's standing in for them. It would have to be the same admin conducting all the "interviews," for obvious reasons. The editors would also have to be willing to give their real IP address, and to commit to using only that one, or one within the same range if it's not static; and by editing the articles would be agreeing to be regularly and randomly checkusered. If this is applied to all accounts making edits to those pages, that would be much fairer than banning new accounts. Alternatively, as I suggested about 18 months ago and I see Luke has considered too, the articles should be protected so that only admins can edit if good suggestions for edits are left on talk, but where the idea would be to add new material only if there were a pressing need to do so. As I see it, what's needed is for those pages to be left in peace for a long time, in the hope that people with strong views get bored. SlimVirgin talk|edits 04:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Full protecting the articles as SlimVirgin has suggested above is a possible way to move forward on this. I do think that the proposers of this AE section have been working competently and fairly (fair disclosure: I have been a dilettante on this, when I see a bit in the news about naked short selling (such as international bans), but rather then possibly play whack a mole, or twenty questions, or put every user through an inquisition just to edit the article , the we just refuse to let it happen. I really don't like to lock this down "Long term" (ie, for the forseeable future), but rather then play the game every time a new user shows up (which is what I don't like about the current situation), or unfairly restrict a broad swath of users, it may be best to say "We're not interested in your battles." and full protect it until such point that people who want to use it as a battleground drift away. SirFozzie (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC) If we do full protection, I suggest that me, SirFozzie, and any other editor who has ever touched the article should be prevented from editing it. We'd use {{editprotected}} if required, just to get truly fresh eyes. I think announcing a long policy from the outset is the best way to bore would-be POV pushing socks. (By the way, 18 months ago this would have saved tons of drama!) Cool Hand Luke 04:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC) I certainly have no problem with that. SirFozzie (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Hm, tough one here. The Janeyryan account history certainly raises a few eyebrows. It's conceivable but unlikely that a genuinely new editor could share a pointed interest in Wikipedia Review, Naked Short Selling, Overstock.com, Patrick Byrne, and Gary Weiss without being our old friend. A number of arbitration cases have had a multiple editors with a single voice provision, including COFS, Starwood, and Midnight Syndicate. Although that provision wasn't specifically included in the relevant case to this thread, it may be arguable that it applies generally. So on the good faith supposition that the new accounts might somehow be intimately familiar with Wikipedia Review yet unaware of the history behind these particular article topics, suggest leaving this instance go with a caution. Although not an administrator, I am fully prepared to open a formal arbitration clarification request and seek an amendment to the Mantanmoreland case fashioned after the findings and remedies of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. Specifically: The recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, perform reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Agapetos angel and User:Dennis Fuller, User:Phloxophilos, User:220.245.180.133, User:220.245.180.134, User:220.245.180.130, User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242 and User:58.162.251.204 are banned from editing of Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. This list is not exclusive and the remedy applies to any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel. Posted in trust that any actual good faith contributor in this unusual situation will get the message and contribute non-disruptively, refraining from confrontational actions such as characterizing a polite request to depersonalize a dispute as trolling. It is natural that concerns exist after 2.5 years of contending with a persistent and very sneaky sockpuppeteer. Nonetheless, we err on the side of good faith at this website, and in ambiguous situations seek to act politely in ways that resolve conflict (or ambiguity). DurovaCharge! 04:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC) That might be helpful, but I truly don't want this to be a finding about these editors. This is a sophisticated sock master. Like SirFozzie said, if we banned these accounts from the subject, Mantanmoreland could still start more, using each up until he depletes its share good faith. I would be interested, in whether Arbitrators would favor some kind of protection solution. Cool Hand Luke 04:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC) That's why I would open it as a clarification request, so that a remedy could deal with any return of MM & Co. The Agapetos angel case dealt with a dispute that had similar dimensions (although far less high profile) and a similar disruptive pattern, and the provision settled things down nicely. Given the history of CU-confirmed socking that was known even before Bassetcat was confirmed, it's a bit surprising that this year's Committee didn't include a 'who's who' provision already. DurovaCharge! 04:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC) To respond to the main proposal, heck no. Several editors already oppose arbcom's over-extension of rulings that involve editors not named in a specific case, and this would be going far further than that. Extremely out of the scope of power that arbcom has. -- Ned Scott 04:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Ned's comment appears to be directed at Luke's comment, yet fwiw the Agapetos angel decision was enacted in April 2006 and has been enforced without controversy for 2.5 years. DurovaCharge! 04:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC) I've just seen this, and would mostly like to clarify, with respect to Luke, that this is more his proposal than mine.[80] I don't have a strong opinion, but my comment was only intended to reflect the way I was approaching the situation, mainly in response to one of the new accounts' complaints that I was "revert warring" against the two of them. I consequently raised this, as I said on the page, mainly needing to clarify what was going on: two new accounts with the same views, jumping in with apparent familiarity, insulting other editors, making questionable edits, and as I considered notable, both tending to make grudgy comments about "Mr. Byrne."[81][82][83] The specific problem I saw was that without stricter enforcement of the probation, treating new accounts like this normally would lead to another quick devolvement of the article. To be honest, I mostly felt that if other editors knew what was going on, then the problem might solve itself (at the moment it didn't seem anyone was paying attention). From the above, I think this may still be the best option, assuming that admins are willing to look on and deal with any editor who, under the circumstances, edits tendentiously. I do think something here needed to happen, though, so I can see the basis for Luke requesting clarification. Mackan79 (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Also, to clarify, my suggestion wasn't that new editors be restricted to the talk page, but that they "be asked to rely heavily on the talk page, and not join together in reverting other editors." Of course to a great extent all editors should do this; my reason for saying that new accounts should in particular on these articles is that it is one of few ways to disarm the specific problem of sockpuppetry without much more restrictive measures. I do think that's a reasonable and possibly needed principle, whether or not it needs some finding here. Mackan79 (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry for the mischaracterization. No "reverting with other users" is probably more palatable solution, although it's also much more subjective. I agree that would be an improvement though. Cool Hand Luke 14:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Not to the exclusion of the excellent suggestions above, I have a recommendation to add. Part of the way that the WP:BATTLE was waged in the past was in the use of aggressive language and bad-faith accusations. Janeyryan's language perpetuates this: "please don't take out the articles you don't like", "you just want to remove opinions with which you disagree", "what I see are two editors...attempting to ban editors from an article who disagree with them", etc. Polite inquiry into another editor's reasoning and mindset is fine, but accusatory mind-reading inflames the discussion and disrupts the collaborative process. I'd like to recommend a low tolerance for mind-reading on the talk pages relevant to this case. Specifically: where such statements are made, they may be redacted by any editor without the permission of the one who made them, normal talk page etiquette notwithstanding. The editor who made the statement should be warned. And if an editor continues to use aggressive accusatory language or impute ill motives to another, they should be blocked or topic-banned quickly with appeal to Arbcom as the only recourse. alanyst /talk/ 14:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Public suspicions of sockpuppetry are also accusations of bad faith. Cool Hand Luke 14:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Indeed, and I think that such accusations (as distinguished from polite inquiry) should also be covered under the restriction I proposed. If sockpuppetry is a concern, a discreet checkuser request or note at this AE page would be far preferable to derailing a content discussion on an article talk page. alanyst /talk/ 14:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC) I regret some of my language such as that and apologize for it, but I was upset at edits that I felt were arbitrary and which changed things from correct to incorrect. This edit [84], reverted language by another editor that, however imperfect, made the point that the most serious NSS regulations were temporary, not permanent. That was pointed out on the talk page when originally made, but was changed back anyway. It has since then been changed back to reflect the temporary nature of those regulations. I also was upset by this edit [85]. While I agree that the language was inappropriate,this edit changed authorship of the cited article from correct to incorrect. Subsequent to this change, the citation was removed in its entirely by another editor, so I imagine that my concern over this was not unwarranted. I agreed that the language used by the other editor 'JohnnyB' was not good, so I later substituted more neutral language[86], discussed it on the talk page, and Mackan agreed with it. While all this was going on I had an exchange with Cool Hand Luke where I became annoyed, which I regret, but I was troubled that my editing was not properly appreciated. Also I felt that I was being goaded by Luke, but I now see that this was not his intent. I just wanted to clarify the editing in question, as the subject is complicated but at issue here were some simple factual matters. I feel that my edits were generally proper, even though I did not always display proper tempermant and I certainly apologize if anyone was offended if I was not diplomatic. I agree with Mackan that editors should preferably post in the discussion pages first before making chages. I think this should be followed by all, and I thought we were reaching that. Yes, to respond to another point, I most certainly did have knowledge of the controversies surrounding these pages in a general way, as it has received widespread publicity outside of Wikipedia. There seem to be other editors drawn to this article by the same publicity and it is not reasonable to expect that all editors who become interested in a page because of publicity will have the same viewpoint.--Janeyryan (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC) I'll briefly address the substantive issues. 1.) Most sources I have seen report that the September emergency rules "banned" naked short selling. The current source cited in the lead says so in the subtitle.[87] Yes, some of the rules have descriptions such as "provisional," while others don't. However, JaneyRyan and JohnyB256's decision to focus only on those that do, and therefore to remove the general assessments of many sources that have said the rules "banned" the practice, did not "correct" the article as Janeyryan says. Janey says above that he or she refers to the "most serious" parts of the regulation, but this is solely their interpretation. 2.) It is possible that JohnnyB256 was correct to expand a citation while adding the language that Janey concedes was not appropriate. However, I'm not exactly sure how this is relevant. Also, it was not someone else but myself who then removed the citation altogether in response to comments on the talk page. In any case, I don't believe Luke or I are of the opinion that Janey did not make any valid suggestions. My concern was that after Johnny made a series of problematic and contested edits that I undid and brought to the talk page,[88] Janey replaced the majority of them without discussion. Other changes were equally problematic, including that both removed mention of the failure of Lehman Brothers, and that both replaced contested language in the lead. The problem is that if new accounts can do this, then discussion becomes ineffective. This is why I suggest that new editors on these articles, or at least those that raise flags with the probation, should be asked to show some additional consideration for some of these problems. Mackan79 (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC) It is certainly true that the sources said the rules 'banned' the practice, but more detailed sourcing indicated without a shadow of a doubt that some of these strictures were permanent and some temporary. The edits by JohnnyB drew a distinction between the temporary and permanent ones, without making value judgments as to which were more significant than others. Your edit reverted JohnnyB in toto. I reverted that reversion, and explained my reasoning on the talk page. I think the issue concerning the authorship of the cited study is more significant than you portray it here. A study was cited in which two of the three authors were engaged in litigation related to naked shorting. Even if that conflict was not to be noted in the article (and it eventually was, as Luke agreed with me that it was important), there was no good reason to change the citation so that the two principal authors of the study were not mentioned as authors. I disagree with you about Lehman Brothers. I think that it is POV to imply, on the basis of an offhand comment in a wire service story, that Lehman Brothers' demise was affected by naked shorting. Mr. Fuld said that, which is in the article and should be in the article. However, in Line 35, I think that a more neutral method of dealing with that issue needs to be found, without the controversial implication that the death of Lehman Brothers was caused by NSS. While all this serious dispute was going on, you at this point placed on the article talk page your 'proposal' that in effect would ban me from the article. Luke then reiterated that proposal, again on the article talk page. Even though he said he did so to get the input of other editors, so as to not come here prematurely, I felt, and I still feel, that it was not appropriate for you to place that proposal in the article talk page. I felt that doing so derailed the discussion and turned up the temperature of the discussion considerably. Then Luke placed a post on my talk page that I felt was unecessarily confrontational. I felt beleaguered by these actions. Whatever steps you take to enforce good behavior in this article I hope will be applied evenhandedly to new and older editors alike. I don't think it's fair to say that only new editors are making or have made inappropriate reverts, when as I just described there were edits by more established editors that were inappropriate. I think that all editors should take pains to discuss changes before making them. I also think there also should be a firm rule against discussing editor behavior, or editing strictures affecting current editors of an article, in article talk pages, whether it be this article or any article.--Janeyryan (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC) To explain my "confrontational" postings: You accused me of being a POV warrior five times before I posted to your talk page, and I only did that after you said we should stop discussing it on the talk page altogether; I was doing what you requested. Contra what you state above, we were not "reaching that" or any other agreement. The talk page now stands in a position where you reject Mackan79's proposal as an attempt to "bludgeon" POVs we allegedly disagree with. The point is not whether this or that user is making good or bad reverts. The point is that by allowing new users to revert war, we continue to provide incentives for dedicated sock masters to battle over this material. Like Cla68 said (but you reverted calling it "trolling" [89]), this dispute would benefit if you stop personalizing it. Cool Hand Luke 21:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC) We're discussing what happened in the article and talk page, and I don't see how one can do that without naming the editors who did what and when. Certainl my edits have been discussed at some length, as you just did. Why is your describing my edits not 'personalizing' but when I discuss your edits it is 'personalizing.' ? A proposal was placed on the article talk page that specifically singled out new editors, naming JohnnyB and myself, for a topic ban. That's about as personal as one can get, and it had no place on the article talk page in my opinion. It turned up the heat level and it was unnecessary. I also think that it wasn't necessayr for you to post on my article talk page as you did, essentially to make the case that even though you were proposing a topic ban of new editors, that it didn't have anything to do with me, when it clearly did. This is not 'mind reading.' Mackan's proposal singled out me and Johnny B. I felt that the article talk pages should be confined to discussion of the article, not the editors, and I did not agree with your view that discussing a topic ban for new editors belonged in the article talk space, when it would specifically affect (and antagonize) new editors actively editing the article. As for reverting, I believe that no one has the right to revert war, new editors or old, and that all editors should be encouraged to use the talk pages.--Janeyryan (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC) No one ever suggested a topic ban. Along with SirFozzie, I don't even think a topic ban would be slightly helpful. It's a facially neutral proposal concerning editing to the article, not the editors. Cool Hand Luke 21:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC) The proposal was that editors from after March could not edit, but would be confined to the talk page. That;s a topic ban, in effect if not name. Look at the 'executive summary' at the top: Executive summary: To prevent sophisticated sockpuppetry, I propose that we bar new accounts from editing the mainspace of articles under probation. You then go on to talk about 'two new accounts,' one of which is me. How can you possibly claim that this has nothing to do with me? That is why I objected to your post in my talk page, as it was making a claim that was obviously not true, which obviously would annoy the recipient of such a post.--Janeyryan (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Just to clarify: the intial proposal to in topic ban new editors was made by Luke in this edit[90], in the article talk page, specifically mentioning JohnnyB and myself. I don't think it's correct to say that this is not plainly directed at myself and this other editor,--Janeyryan (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC) tl;dr but this is about a larger problem, and not (just?) you.--Tznkai (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC) I am not, and have never been interested in uniquely restricting you or JohnnyB. Cool Hand Luke 00:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Stepping back Janeyryan, let's step back from the particulars of how Luke presented his proposal. You arrived at Wikipedia with substantial familiarity about Wikipedia Review and a distinct interest in several articles that were favorites of an editor who was sitebanned a few months ago--one whose POV appears to be indistinguishable from yours. During his two years as a Wikipedian he and his interests were discussed extensively on Wikipedia Review. If this is coincidence it certainly is a remarkable one, particularly as we extend the good faith assumption that you stumbled into this quandary innocently despite your demonstration of fairly in-depth knowledge of the website that was most critical of him. Combine that with two other circumstances: the sitebanned editor was a serial sockpuppeteer whose last accounts were identified and banned a few months before your first edit. Now one way you could distinguish yourself from him--if indeed you have no connection to him--is by breaking from other patterns he exhibited. He was extremely skilled at sidestepping pertinent concerns about his conduct, and at blowing smoke over minor side issues, and at taking umbrage at direct questions. If you have a simple and direct explanation for this highly unusual profile of interests and POV your account has demonstrated then the community would give you a fair hearing. Historically, every previous account that has exhibited the same profile has turned out to be a sockpuppet of that same banned editor. So you can clear the air right now if you want: please, how did this come about? DurovaCharge! 23:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC) I've already explained that I became interested in these articles and subject matter by raading about them off-wiki, in a number of venues where they maintain that Wikipedia is a center of market manipulation and other forms of agita. These articles (and subjects) have received substantial publicity. They were one of the numerous topics in the Deep Capture website, which devoted substantial space to them, and they were also addressed in the Register in several articles. Surely there are other editors who were similarly drawn to Wikipedia, to this article and others, by reading about them elsewhere. It's quite that simple, and I hope that is a direct enough answer. I don't think there is anything sinister about that, or suspicious, though I am aware in general terms of the recent problems and of the socking that has taken place on both sides.--Janeyryan (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC) "Surely there are other editors who were similarly drawn to Wikipedia, to this article and others, by reading about them elsewhere." Actually, no, there weren't; certainly not in this particular combination. A few new editors showed up after naked short sales made headlines in mainstream news, but they didn't seem to have interest in the rest of the spectrum. In any case, much as I would like to agree with the idea of locking the page and having neutral administrators make edits agreed to by consensus, I am afraid it will be largely ineffective. There is a relatively small group of editors working on this article now, and a consensus generally would mean more than 3/5 editors wanting something in, with the other 2/5 saying it shouldn't be added. Despite significant efforts by several individuals to try to attract additional (and knowledgeable) editors to these articles, there is very little interest in them outside of a core group. The article probation is, I believe, important to providing a degree of control; however, given the real-world issues surrounding naked short selling, editors who work in the financial industry are probably constrained from editing that article, in particular. The other three articles specifically covered by the Arbcom probation have been much less problematic. Aside from addressing edit warring and forcing people to stick to the talk pages to work out improvements, I am hard pressed to see what full-protecting will do other than keeping the article in static form. Risker (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Note too this was three days after the Wikipedia Review article was moved into mainspace. Cool Hand Luke 00:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC) @Risker: that's remarkable. These articles have been publicized everywhere, not to recruit people to edit them but to publicize their supposed deficiencies. I disagree that people in the financial services industry cannot edit articles on financial topics, if there is no direct conflict. @Luke, my first edit was nine days after the Wikipedia Review article was moved to the website. I was not seeking to imply that I read about the Wikipedia Review article elsewhere; I read about WIkipedia Review itself elsewhere, as well as reading that magnificent website myself. Personally I think it is remarkable that Wikipedia has the forebearance to allow an article on a critical site. One correction: you or someone said that I had engaged in 'sophisticated formatting' in my first edit. Not correct. I moved a sophisticatedly formatted citation from one place to another within that page. I hope that my having done so does not detract from the fact that in my first edit I corrected a mistake.--Janeyryan (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Well, new editors would usually be expected to make a mistake with their first edit. That you did not is clearly suspicious. John Nevard (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC) That is a remarkably unhelpful comment. ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Behavioral rather than technical solution? Perhaps instead of trying to find a technical solution to this problem, a behavioral one will be better. I suggest that any editor who revert wars, personalizes any content disputes, is unwilling to compromise, or personally attacks any of the other editors/admins involved with these articles (the four mentioned in the ArbCom ruling), be immediately and completely banned from participation in these four articles for a month, with subsequent penalties escalating from there. That should be enough to make sure that any interested editor behaves. By the way, I've noticed that since the banning of Mantanmoreland at least three of those articles are now much improved. Cla68 (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC) This would almost work. The problem is in the loose definition of "edit war," and if we are still treating new users exactly like those who have been around. If I disagreed with an edit of Luke's and reverted it, for instance, I would be surprised if SirFozzie immediately reverted me, but I might say "ok, I guess I was wrong on that one." If SirFozzie tried a middle ground, I'd almost certainly go along. If new accounts can do the same thing, however, then there's more of a problem. That's what happened here: I disagreed with changes made by JohnnyB256, so I reverted them.[91] Janeyryan then replaced JohnnyB256's edit with some minor adjustments.[92] After explaining on the talk page, I reverted most of these edits again.[93] Whoever is right in this case, I think Johnny will be able to get a hearing and show in talk if I'm disrupting the page. I can't create another account like this one, so if that happens, I'm done. If new accounts are on entirely equal footing, however, then sockpuppets can effectively overtake the page. This isn't to disagree with your suggestion, but to say you probably still need something more to prevent that. From most restrictive to least, I see these options as 1.) Protect the page indefinitely, 2.) Restrict new editors to the talk page, 3.) Ask new editors not to revert, or 4.) Restrict editors who appear to be violating the terms or intent of the probation. Mackan79 (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC) When editors are put on article probation, aren't they allowed only one revert a day? Why not use that as the standard for what constitutes edit warring in those article? Cla68 (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC) As I see it, this could still be gamed by socking; in fact, it may even increase the incentive to sock in the same way as strict voting, by taking out the judgment element.[94] So, it could slow down revert wars in the hope that then more editors would pay attention, but I'm not sure it would solve this problem. Mackan79 (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC) I agree with Mackan79. As long as new and old accounts are treated equaly, there will still be a strong incentive to sock. I see Risker's point that locking the page will keep it in largely static form, but I think that's the core idea of SlimVirgin's suggestion. I dunno, it's not an easy problem. At the least we could try 1RR and hope that slowing reversion will provide enough time for more eyes, but I'm not confident it will be enough. Cool Hand Luke 14:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Alarm bells? You know, when I see edit summaries like the one here, all sort of alarm bells go off on my mind. Turns out that all the stuff removed by User:Janeyryan was a)weasel worded b)wrong c) in direct contradiction with the first source on the section d) already reverted once, told to go to the talk page, where his only discussion was placing in doubt the quality of the source and making a personal attack on the person that reverted him (Shapiro) [95] before killing the sentence again See my repairs [96]. Notice that JaneyRyan writes the edit summary as if it was an unsourced sentence, but he had previously seen the source for that very same sentence and he had only put in doubt the credentials of the source, not the sourced material itself [97] (TL;DR paragraph) He has also tried to downplay the incidence and damage of NSS[98][99] and puts in doubt that companies were bankrupted because of NSS[100] (doh) and restoring outdated articles from 2006 and 2007 before NSS started being a visible problem[101] and sort of misquoted sources[102] when the source says "For the market as a whole, however, it appears to be a large and growing problem (see chart). Hundreds of smaller firms claim to have fallen victim to naked short-sellers (though some clearly only say that to excuse underperformance)" so it's perfectly correct to say that there is concern of faltering companies and not just a reaction to a crisis. Given that these edits show an attempt to whitewash NSS, given that he re-made his edits with only personal attacks as discussion, given Janeyryan's history (which I have only looked at superficially on the last two hours), given that it's not the first time that his edits try to whitewash NSS in some form, and given that the article probation says "to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external (...) allegation,". Can I has a topic ban on Janeyryan? (this is the correct noticeboard to ask for a probation-related topic ban, right?) For all that is worth, JohnnyB256 edit warred over the same sentence and source the day before [103]. Maybe a coincidence, is it enough to has a checkuser too? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC) I don't understand the train of thought int he first paragraph in the above post, except that it appears to ascribing malevolent motives and actdions to me where none exist. The sentence in the litigationj section that I rewrote I explained in the talk page, under 'litigation section (redux),'[104] and it was agreed to by the other main editor on this article without any objection. I did not know that the language was taken from the Emswhiller article, and no one mentioned it. It is absolutely not true that I had 'previously seen the source of that sentence.' (the Emswhiller article, that is). As far as I could tell it was unsourced, and it was not supported by the law review article previously given as a source, for which the authorship was not properly stated. The assertion that thousands of companies have been bankrupted by NSS is highly controversial and should be sourced. The article saying that companies say they have 'fallen victim' to NSS is not proper sourcing for a claim that companies have been actually bankrupted, or put out of business, by NSS. If there are any such companies, let see a few examples. One would suffice. The articles from 2006 and 2007 were not 'outdated,' and represent a skeptical school of thought that should be in the article for purposes of balance. Attempting to balance this article is not 'advocacy.'--Janeyryan (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC) The wikilawyering... it hurts my eyes >.< . You removed a sentence saying that illegal NSS had happened, which should have been sourcable from multiple sources.... Articles from 2006 and 2007 are of course outdated. I remind of the The Register from October 2008[105] where it's explained how Byrne's denouncing of NSS was downplayed by manipulating the wikipedia article, which in turn made the media believe that the issue was not important, and the manipulation wasn't uncovered until mid 2006[106] and it wasn't linked to the DTCC until mid 2007. Knowing that, it's silly to take at face value the media statements on 2006 and 2007, as we know that they were manipulated. Anyways, you make some good points: the number of bankrupted companies should be sourced. However, if multiple huge companies make public statements that their notable bankruptings were caused by NSS then that's a notable thing to add to the article (especially the ones claiming that it was the only causing factor) and then balanced with analysis of which were the real causes. Seriously, your edits are just too sympathetic to NSS, to the point of whitewashing. If you are a legit account and not a sock, then you need to take more care to make neutral edits. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC) P.D.:Notice that the reason that I "attack" article specifics is because I am comment on your edits, not on you, so I forcefully have to cite specific issues. Once I have looked at them, I can tell if the edits go in a certain way. [I cut the rest of my comment, per WP:BEANS] --Enric Naval (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC) I have a problem with the language 'there's no denying.' Surely there is a more neutral way of phrasing that, because there are indeed those who deny there is a problem, Jenkins for one. I doubt very much that he got that idea reading Wikipedia.--Janeyryan (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Sorry, but content disputes are for the talk page of the article, not here. Please make this question again at Talk:Naked short selling --Enric Naval (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Missing the point Janeyryan: You are again arguing about article specifics, which has already been pointed out as not helpful, and is a diversionary tactic we have seen before. I agree with all the other editors here (that is, just about everyone) that you are exhibiting a lot of hallmarks of previously banned accounts that all ended up resolving to the same problematic person. There is a problem here that transcends this particular ID, because if we decide you too are Gary Weiss or whoever it was that was behind MM etc. (which I find behaviorally quite likely) then there will be a next, and a next and a next. A prohibition of a different nature entirely is needed. Without such, we will waste valuable time of otherwise productive editors, administrators, Checkusers, and arbitrators. (I looked at the CU log again to remind me, and a fair bit of time has been wasted looking into you by several CUs, to no avail) Remove the incentive to sock, and the socks will stop. Even if we posit that you are NOT a sock, your behavior is nevertheless problematic. Remove the incentive to get away with problematic behavior and the problematic behavior will stop. So I support the notion of developing and implementing a different sort of prohibition. The sooner the better. ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC) 'You are again arguing about article specifics, which has already been pointed out as not helpful.' That is really unfair and not accurate. I am responding, on point, to accusations made against my editing, as can be plainly seen from the exchange above. I strongly disagree with your saying that my 'behavior' has been more 'problematic' than that of other editors on that page, where surely I was not the first to revert. Even Luke, a regular editor of the page who brought this case here, has gone to great lengths to say that he is not singling me out and that he has agreed with some of my edits. --Janeyryan (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC) This Janeyryan ID is an example of a class of problematic IDs. My beef is with the class which this ID is a member of. My commentary (in a new section that I started to break things out from being a response to any particular posting) is not a direct response to any one posting by this ID, but to the discussion on the page as a whole. I see a lot of diversionary activity, attacks, and the like. Not helpful. There is a real problem here and trying to divert this into a discussion of those pointing out the problem is not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC) This is amazing. Somebody attacks me on article specifics. I respond to that attack. You say, 'Don't argue about article specifics, it is unhelpful, and is a diversionary.' I respond that I had been attacked on article specifics. You respond again that my saying that makes me part of a 'class of problematic IDs.' I am at my wits end here. Am I just supposed to sit down and shut up and not respond to accusations against me?--Janeyryan (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Feel free to respond to article specific concerns if you like, but realize that in doing so you are not addressing the major concern I have. Which is that you and several other users that frequent NSS and related articles are as likely as not to be socks of a long term problematic user. Given that that user has a track record of becoming increasingly hard to detect with each new sock, it is unfortunately irrelevant whether you technically correlate or not. You pass the WP:DUCK test and rather than trying to cope with increasingly sophisticated socking (or what appears to be such, even if it is not) the users here addressing the problem (none of whom have the remarkably narrow focus you and the other users of concern do) are trying to come up with novel solutions. You're not helping that. I note that there seems to be a pretty wide consensus (absent yourself and a few other users most of whom pass the duct test) that there is a problem and something needs to be done. Hence, you're not addressing the main point. Which is an expected behaviour pattern. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC) I have already addressed your main point, which is to say that I am not the sock of a banned user or any other user. Apart from that I answered directly what people say. I am not being 'diversionary' (changing the subject). Enric Naval advocated my topic ban, and I responded to that point. I don't see how I can just let such a remark go unresponded to, even if it does not address your concern. You do seem to have a similar concern, which is that my 'behavior' is 'problematic.' I addressed that. My purpose here is to respond to comments directed at me, or concerning me. I have done that, and accusing me of responding in a way that is somehow sinister or inappropriate, or exhibits a 'behaviour pattern' that is to be 'expected,' is not fair. Why is it objectionable for me to discuss article specifics but not when other users raise the subject, and in a way that mandates a response from me?--Janeyryan (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC) A bare assertion that you are not a sock, given your behavior pattern and area of interest, is not sufficient for my satisfaction. Sorry, I'm fresh out of Good FaithTM in this matter. The rest of it matters not. I would like to find a solution that allows even socks to edit constructively in this area, or not at all. What we got now... ain't working. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Again, what behavior pattern? Every time I try to narrow this down to specifics, so that I can figure out what the problem is and respond, I am accused of being 'diversionary' or exhibiting 'an expected behavior pattern.' Apart from defending myself in this page and its calls for my banning from the article, I have tried to make the article on naked shorting more neutral and in that editing there seems to be agreement to my contributions, albeit grudging, even from editing accounts with which I have crossed swords. You made another comment earlier about other accounts involved in this discussion that 'pass the duct test.' Can you please elaborate? Are you claiming that I have brought socks into 'this' discussion on this page?--Janeyryan (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC) The behavior problems are: Attacking the motives of other editors, even when it is just content that is being discussed. Huldra raised this on Janeyryan's talk page here. Cool hand luke has raised it again here. I raised it here, noting that you and JohnnyB256 were both doing this.[107][108] Other advocacy on the talk page, most noticabely in making off-topic jabs at Patrick Byrne. I noticed this coming from both Janeyryan ("Mr. Byrne is the dominant voice on this page, so please let's not be silly about this.")[109] and JohnnyB256 ("I think what you have here is an article that while it pleases your contributor Mr. Byrne is misleading to readers and skewed.")[110] ("Mr. Byrne no doubt is pleased that his pet crusade is given one-sided treatment, but you are doing a disservice to your readers.")[111] Editing of the article, for instance both Janeyryan and JohnnyB256 removing mention of the failure of Lehman Brothers without explanation,[112][113] as well as other generally partisan edits.[114][115][116][117] I note that the same also applied to JohnnyB256, possibly to a greater extent.[118] ("tangential at best");[119](adding that a statement was "generally derided," a term (and tone) also favored by one of the banned accounts on this page.[120]) As previously, the problem is not just one of these elements, but the three of them together; however, the three of them together is exactly what caused the problems last time. Mackan79 (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC) 1. My language was more antagonistic than it should have been and I've apologized for that, but this was in the midst of a heated argument, in which similar rhetoric was being used by others. Huldra was talking about people being blocked it they disagree with the 'Gary Weiss-people' and I replied by pointing to the action that was taken against me when I disagred with the 'Patrick Byrne people.' It was intemperate and I shouldn't have said that. 2. At the time I made that remark, Mr. Byrne was using the talk page to engage in lengthy advocacy of his point of view of naked shorting, to the point of dominating the discussion by sheer length. So yes, I indicated that Mr. Byrne was dominating the page at the time. 3. In footnote 38, I reverted your revert of the language distinguishing between permanent and temporary regulations, and added back that the authors of a study on NSS were suing the securities industry. I think most of these changes were later placed back in the article and are there now. The sentence in the litigation section was agreed to by Luke, and were there until recently removed. All this was discussed in the talk section. I agree that the Lehman issue was not discussed, so far as I can recall, and should have been discussed. In footnote 39 I added material from the SEC website that had been in previous versions of the article, and were needed for balance. In footnote 40 I took out language not substantiated by the underlying source. In footnote 41 I added reaction to the emergency order from Barron's and the Economist. Since they're both still in the article, I presume they are not too horrible. In footnote 42 I reinstated two notable skeptical opinions now not given sufficient weight in this article, which had been removed by you in this edit [121] without discussion.--Janeyryan (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC) I think the edits speak for themselves, in terms of content, tone, and approach to other editors. We could discuss it in greater detail, but I don't think it would negate my point that 1.) you and JohnnyB256 are unnecessarily attacking the motives of other editors, 2.) you and JohnnyB256 are making advcocacy-style comments on the talk page, and 3.) you and JohnnyB256 are editing from a strong POV, and are making controversial edits. As I said, the combination of these issues is the one we had before, and I believe what the probation was intended to address. Mackan79 (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC) My edits do speak for themselves, in the sense that most of them are still reflected in the article. My POV is no more or less strong than that ave seen from from other editors of that article, and I think my talk page comments, even the ones cherry-picked and cited above, have not advocated a blessed thing. Most are in reaction to what others have posted. I agree that this discussion can go on endlessly and I will try not to prolong it more than is necessary.--Janeyryan (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC) That only show that your edits have not been reviewed throughly, and that I need to clear a bit of time on my schedule to go throught them :) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Alternate proposals The proposals below are my attempts to address the existing problems, but without completely upending how we do the burden of proof on Wikipedia. An attempt to follow Jimbo's principle of applying strict scrutiny. Advocacy concerning outside disputes, controversies, proceedings and feuds, is unwelcome on Wikipedia The appearance of advocacy is unacceptable on naked short selling and related articles, and such edits are unwelcome, as are their editors, and editors are mandated to address such disruption, keeping in mind the judicious application of common sense. Combative edit summaries are unwelcome on Wikipedia Edits with combative edit summaries on naked short selling and related articles are considered to be disruptive on face, and will be removed. OR Naked short selling is protected indefinitely. {{Editprotected}} should be used to request the insertion of non controversial material Naked short selling/sandbox is created, and editors should feel free to use that space to work out their differences. Stable changes in the sandbox article may be migrated to the main article with the use of {{editprotected}}. I'm not overly pleased by either prospect, but I find it more workable than whats already been suggested (which I liberally stole from to create these proposals. Trout away.--Tznkai (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Although I agree that these accounts have had some behavioral problems (see Mackan79's newest summary above), I think POV article editing is what really provides an incentive to sock. It's all well and good to say that advocacy should not be tolerated, that's theoretically the rule throughout wikipedia. Advocacy is a very subjective thing. Therefore, I think the best option is locking the page, even if that makes the article largely static for a time. Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Of course the problem with locking the page is that other editors with a passing interest in the subject, such as myself, can't easily add new material like I did recently about Japan's temporary ban on NSS. That's why I advocate banning accounts from the article and its talk page as soon as they cause any problems, such as in the examples Mackan points to above. But, locking the page should work in the meantime, I guess. Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC) I see that you folks are wrestling with, over and over, is the the unique style of Gary Weiss. I see from the comments above that everyone has caught on to the style. Once you know it, it stands out like a sore thumb, doesn't it. 67.166.120.86 (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair analogy

Does anyone remember the Bogdanov Affair, from a few years ago? Massive sockpuppetry by two individuals that revolved around external events - it prompted an arb case and much gnashing of the teeth. I propose a similar approach to enforcement here - any new user accounts or anonymous IPs which focus on naked short selling and related articles shall be presumed to be parties to the external dispute. In summary, any new account or IP that shows up on these articles is automatically subject to the MM remedies - namely, a topic ban. It's pretty hard-line, but it seemed to work well in shutting down the Bogdanov idiocy. Skinwalker (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, this looks like a way better idea than full-protecting the page. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty heavy presumption against WP:AGF, but if the community doesn't object to it, I agree with Enric Naval. Cool Hand Luke 19:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of it, it kinda goes against the "anyone can edit" part. Another problem I think, is the assumption that the sockpuppeteers and edit warriors will get bored, which I doubt. If you're willing to expend as much energy sockpuppeting as we know some have on this article, you're not going to get bored just because things get shut down for a while.--Tznkai (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is why I suggested something a little more narrow, to say that new accounts who want to become involved in these article can edit as they will, but basically should not do so in ways that can be exploited by sockpuppets. A one revert per day for new accounts could do this, possibly beginning at notification (any new account that started editing the page could be notified, although they probably wouldn't be until there was some reason). If this seems in any way unfair, it's based on the fact that while new accounts are easy to create and leave behind, long term editors are more accountable to various dispute resolution mechanisms. I'm not exactly sure what would be considered a new account, but possibly there could be a starting point. Mackan79 (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(ed. conflict w/Mackan)Yes, it does abrogate WP:AGF. However, AGF is not a suicide pact. I've lurked throughout the MM RFC/Arbcom/CommunityBan process. I saw several gigabytes of drama, trolling, handwringing, bad faith, etc generated over editors who were obvious socks by any reasonable application of the WP:DUCK test. I think the community is done assuming good faith on this topic.

It also denies the "anyone can edit" philosophy. If that is the sole decision point, I don't see how permanent full protection is any better. Do you (the community) want a stable and neutral article with restrictions on who can edit it, or do you want to have an open access article and waste countless hours arguing with, reverting, and otherwise chasing down socks and vested interests?

To be completely arbitrary, let me suggest restricting editing privileges on naked short selling and associated articles (as well as talk pages) to named accounts with a minimum of 1000 edits to unrelated topics. Put a banner on the talk pages similar to that on Talk:Bogdanov Affair: "If you are new to editing at Wikipedia, do not start with this article, as you may be mistaken for an external participant editing with a sockpuppet account." Refrain from biting new editors to the article, but firmly point them in the direction of every other part of the encyclopedia. Topic ban them if they persist, and block them if they violate the topic ban.

Tznkai has a point, though - MM et al have not become bored with the article, and there is no reason to believe they will become bored with this topic in the foreseeable future. I suspect that a large amount of the gratification this individual receives from their activities is the reaction of the community, e.g. "dramahz" or "lulz" if you prefer. If we had a strict and enforceable rule against new and/or single-purpose accounts mucking about with these articles it would allow us to deny this person/people their jollies and would help motivate them towards more productive activities. Skinwalker (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Skinwalker's proposal makes sense and should be implemented. Cla68 (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Skinwalker has convinced me with the WP:DENY rationale. I think he's right about Mantanmoreland intentionally fanning the flames of drama, and so his proposal addresses both the POV and lulz incentive to sockpuppet. I also think his view would have a lot of support here. Lar agreed that the community is out of good faith on this topic. I think Durova was proposing something similar. Maybe they could comment on Skinwalker's proposal? Cool Hand Luke 02:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Too much collateral damage and more than a little bitey. Besides, all we're creating is another hoop to go through which sockpuppeteers will be plenty good at doing: say making 1000 RC patrol changes with tools and then starting up POV warfare. I understand the concept, but this isn't a game changer.--Tznkai (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this proposal is overly harsh. But, if we can't come up with something better (and as likely to be effective) I'm for it. What we got now ain't working. Further, if the cost per sock is 1000 RC vandalism reverts before they can POV push, that might be not too bad a deal! (can I get 10 car washes instead?) ++Lar: t/c 04:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Mmm... while we are talking about cost per sock... how about 1 Featured article per POV sock... ok ok kidding. I'll review this issue if/when I get time if it is not fixed soon. —— nixeagle 03:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Like someone above mentioned, locking the page(s), and maybe the talk page(s) for a long time might be the best way to go. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's an utterly unacceptable solution, mainly because the articles are still in a really terrible POV-CoI situation. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It stands a better chance of getting fixed if it's locked down for a while first than if things are left to continue as they are. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Update

Has there been any movement or news on this?--Tznkai (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think in general, the consensus is to go with the full protection with a sandbox for others to work on. SirFozzie (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that. ++Lar: t/c 05:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe next time this arises? I hesitate to oppose, but it seems the problem is currently subsided, and maybe there's sufficient desire to edit the page from all around that an impending full lock-down would quell problems. I do think there's a thin line in the way of the article devolving from its current state, though, and am not sure it will hold against much. Mackan79 (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no particular problem enacting that plan now or later. I don't have the article watchlisted myself, so I'll defer to those who do as to exactly how much trouble there is with it right now.--Tznkai (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If we don't need it now, great! "Later" then? ... How about the next time any admin thinks there's a problem, this lockdown is the approach for dealing with it? Knowing that is in the offing might help keep the peace. ++Lar: t/c 16:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be good if the proposal were considered authorized but not yet implemented. It should be implemented in the future if an uninvolved admin finds in necessary; the threat of locking it down might actually promote better behavior. Cool Hand Luke 09:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I may have jumped the gun slightly, but I've gone ahead with this. Feel free to treat the boldness the standard way if necessary. --Tznkai (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Curious question

Without going through years of archives, has any actual legitimate non-puppet editor beside the various Mantanmoreland socks, pushed the Mantanmoreland POV? How many? I'm curious because, he had a fairly obvious POV: naked shorting is a good thing, and a legal thing. rootology (C)(T) 21:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

User:John Nevard is certainly not Mantanmoreland. In fact, Mantanmoreland's POV is probably the majority POV among finance writers (perhaps not to the extent that NSS is good, but certainly to the extend that it's not bad or illegal—and that Overstock.com is wrong). I do not think any good faith identification can be made on the basis of POV alone. I found the behavior and dates of appearance suggestive of sockpuppetry for these accounts, but cannot confidently say they are socks—just that there's a very good chance they are. Cool Hand Luke 22:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)