User:Tznkai/desk/Reports/The Troubles 9-30-08 Sanctions

Summary
On September 23, issued a complaint about  on Arbitration enforcement. After initially denying the complaint as a content dispute, further investigation showed on face, Domer48 was conducting himself in an uncivil fashion, and had been edit warring. Domer48 had already been blocked at that time. Initial investigation suggested a deep and wide problem, spanning multiple users, so I investigated further. During the course of investigation, there was sustained bickering on the arbitration enforcement thread, with content disputes and additional users coming to the fore, and multiple failed attempts to bring the thread back on task. Of note, on the night (EST) of September 30, Domer48 made repeated previous (refuted) accusations of abusive sock puppetry against {{user|The Thunderer}, despite repeated warnings to let it go. This provoked an immediate 72 hour block on Domer48 by myself, as well as placing Domer48 on indefinite probation as described in Requests for arbitration/The Troubles and Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. This action was immediately followed by further sanctions, based on my investigation of user contributions conduct, including and especially on the relevant arbitration enforcement thread. On very early October 1, I placed The Thunderer,  and  on the same probation terms as Domer48, but for self expiring durations.

Complaint and WP:AE thread

 * Setanta747 complains about Domer48
 * I initially decline issue as a content dispute N.B. Domer48 was already blocked at this time, apparently problem solved.
 * Tradtional Unionist references general sanctions
 * Brief investigation leads me to recommend Domer48 be put on sanctions N.B I asked for, and did not receive additional outside input. Also, this was 4 minutes after my declining, so my investigation at this point was admittedly, extremely brief.
 * Domer48 notified Domer48 is still blocked, and his talk page is protected at this time.
 * BigDunc asks for a hold on discussion
 * Traditional Unionist responds
 * BigDunc brings up content on Northern Ireland's flag (or lack thereof) Essentially blaming Setanta's content opinion as the source of problems
 * Traditional Unionist continues dispute blaming Domer's content opinion/actions as the problem
 * I tell them to stop fighting the content disputeN.B. I bring up the "wide net" idea here for the first time.
 * SirFozzie comments on wide net
 * Setanta747 continues content dispute, but then asks to refocus on Domer48
 * RockyBiggs suggests a topic ban Somewhat disingenious, Rockybiggs is an involved editor in related articles, but not recently.

Locus of the dispute
The primary focus of my investigation was on the month of September, but extended back several months as needed. The dispute was over multiple articles related to The Troubles, Britain and/or Ireland but most recent and especially:
 * Ulster Defence Regiment (history)
 * Ulster Special Constabulary ‎ (history)
 * Template:IrishL (history) (Locus of original complaint)
 * Northern Ireland (history)


 * Arbitration_enforcement While not an article, this thread had all of the sanctioned editors editing in the same environment simultaneously, thread copied in its entirety in /Appendix A
 * User talk:Alison Not an article page, but another common thread in the sanctioned editors, and apparently a favorite place for them to air their disputes. See especially User talk:Alison/Archive 25 and User talk:Alison/Archive 26

Nature of the dispute
The dispute is characterized by strongly entangled and factional editors warring over. Most of the involved editors are highly combative, and there is little of any inter-faction cooperation. There is evidence however, of factional behavior, with editors cooperating with eachother against other groups of editors. In short, there is an almost total breakdown of cooperative spirit and harmonious editing. This dispute has lead to accusations of POV pushing, system gaming, bad faith, assumptions of bad faith, and uncivil conduct. Worse, editors have justified such conduct as a proper response to perceived bad conduct by their ideological opponents. The similarity to the process of real life conflicts and atrocities should not go unnoticed. The suspicious and combative attitudes make the situation difficult to solve, and the strong entanglement makes it difficult to find any one editor at fault. Instead, it is the disruptive pattern rather than any one editor that is disrupting Wikipedia, not merely the individuals themselves.

Sanction rationale
All sanctions on Wikipedia are essentially preventive: they are done to cease and prevent future damaging behavior. To quote from Wikipedia :Blocking policy, the use of blocks, and by extension restrictions that are enforced by block is by: 1. Preventing imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia. 2. Deterring the continuation of disruptive behavior by making it more difficult to edit. 3. Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated. 4. Encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. Editors and their actions tested by the following prongs, with more recent, egregious and persistent violations, treated as more problematic: This is not a bright line test, but requires the judgment of the acting admin. Problematic behavior at any one of these prongs is taken to be indicative of disruptive behavior and a likeness to continue, and problematic behavior at multiple prongs is considered worse. "Failure" against this test is indicative of a likeness to disrupt Wikipedia in part or in general, by edit warring, thus warranting intervention
 * Prong A: A history of editing by reversion, and the unwillingness or inability to cease doing the same. The basic stuff of edit warring.
 * Prong B: Battling other editors: a whole range of behaviors including assuming bad faith, incivility, and personal attacks of varying severity, but all indicating an editor versus editor conflict, not an edit conflict based on its own merits. Battling other editors reduces the likelihood of successful dispute resolution and exacerbates existing problems.
 * Prong C: Content dispute obsession: Displayed inability of editor to separate conduct issues from content disputes, displayed unwillingness to, continued justification of bad behavior by the (in)correctness of the content. A fundamentally corrosive and problematic attitude that leads to continual squabbling and self righteousness, and more disruption.
 * Prong D: Displayed "tit for tat" attitude: editors responding to reversions by doing the same, responding to personal attacks with the same, especially with justification similar to "he started it." This is makes a bad edit into an edit war.
 * Prong E: Egregious conduct. Generalized bad conduct, should be self explanatory.
 * Prong F: Factionalism: Editors who are convinced that they are fighting against a POV pushing team and/or are part of one themselves tend to turn Wikipedia into their own personal battleground. Likely to cause long term harm and future edit wars and other disruption, especially when compounded by any problematic behavior from previous prong.
 * Prong G: Displayed inability to "get it" when they're called out on troublesome behavior. Includes so called wikilawyering and assumptions of bad faith. The weakest of the prongs, but still indicative of the likeness of the problematic behavior to continue in the future.

Domer48

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * followed by and
 * 
 * 
 * and
 * 


 * article history of Ulster Special Constabulary Sept 1306 forward

The Thunderer
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ulster_Defence_Regiment&diff=235846476&oldid=235819846

BigDunc
BigDunc was brought to my attention after he injected himself into the thread, but more importantly brought up an content dispute without good cause.

Minor problems include:


 * a mostly harmless revert Only suspicious because of who was reverted, a user under editing restrictions. (Weak Prong A, Weak Prong F
 * an assumption of bad faith (Prong B, Prong F)
 * bringing up an content dispute without good cause. (Prong C)

More serious indications include:
 * removal of content created by or significantly edited by The Thunderer continued here (Prong A, Weak prong B)
 * more of the same continued here (Prong A, Weak prong B)
 * Clear revert warring with The Thunderer (Strong Prong A)

Serious indications include:
 * personal attacks See also /Appendix B for more context. (Prong B, Prong E)

Conclusions:

Recently, BigDunc has shown poor judgment and an over eagerness to revert (moderate violation of Prong A), and bring content disputes up (weak violation of Prong C), and hostility, suspicion, and combativeness when confronted with bad behavior (weak violation of Prong G). Deeper history (into August) suggests possible gaming by using reverts (weak Prong F) and serious personal attacks (strong violation of Prong E) In BigDunc's defense, he has since apologized for the personal attacks. There is evidence to suggest BigDunc is in effect adding up his reverts with Domer48 (so called tag teaming) but I decline to make a judgment on whether this is a horrible coincidence due to similar view points or genuine bad faith. BigDunc's primary contribution to the ongoing conflict is his removal and reversions of content, particularly that of The Thunderer, and the general bad blood that has been going around this group of editors. Big Dunc's primary entanglement in this dispute is with The Thunderer, so the two of those editors having similar probation lengths would be most likely to produce harmonious editing.

Actions taken:

BigDunc placed on probation for 2 months.

Sarah777
was brought to my attention after she injected herself into the arbitration enforcement thread.

Minor problems include:
 * unnecessary continuance of a content dispute Poor judgment shown by injecting herself into a debate that was already off topic. WP:AE is not for content disputes. (Prongs B and C)
 * An apparent hatred of the British Not sure how else to describe it, but it seems to be a serious chip on her shoulder (Prong F)
 * Removal of Sentanta747's edit Could fall into standard acceptable editing patterns followed by this edit. By itself, not necessarily a cause for worry (Weak Prong A)
 * this comment on Domer48's talk page A small outpouring of disgust, less an example problematic behavior but entanglement(Weak Prong B, Weak Prong F)

More serious problems include: Serious problems include: Conclusions:
 * combativeness (Prong B, Prong G)
 * Harassing Alison, apparently based on something involving SirFozzie, but a display of combativeness and willingness to disrupt. (Prongs B, F, G, weak D) Section in its original is in /Appendix B
 * Combativeness on her talk page related to the bot in the previous point, copied in its entirety in /Appendix C (Prongs B, G)
 * responding to an edit war by reverting Two things are of special note here. First, it is a sign of very poor judgement to respond to an a reversion war by reverting. Second, chose to revert to a then recent version by Domer48 as shown here while the edit war had many more edits involved. While one revert does not make an edit war, Sarah effectively injected herself into the existing edit war and chose a side. (Prong A, Prong D, Prong F)
 * an excess of suspicion shown here (Prong B, Prong F, Prong G)
 * Nasty epithets Aside from the egregious and inflammatory nature of Nazi references (which we all know are there, thats why we (don't) use them) this is illustrative of factional, and confrontational behavior. The genocidal empire comments are also similarly a bad idea.(Prong B, Prong E Prong F)
 * genocidal British empire comes up again Confirming the above (Strong Prong F, Prong E, Prong B)

Sarah777 has the unique distinction of being simultaneously being the most factional and combative of the sanctioned editors (Prong B, Strong Prong E, Strong Prong F, but being the least involved of the actually grist of the edit warring. (Weak Prong A, Weak Prong C). Sarah777 has a displayed anti British attitude, and more importantly, has let it infect many of her edits and interactions with other users. (Prong B, Prong E, Prong F) Sarah777's edits on North Ireland and Ulster, the most salient of the violations, are not by themselves a problem. Sarah777's disruptive behavior, is a serious problem, but is not strictly speaking, within the bounds of the relevant Arbitration remedy. There is a link between Sarah777s disruptive behavior and the salient articles, which is Sarah777's displayed factional behavior. When evidence aggregated and taken on balance, it suggests Sarah777's strong entanglement and likeliness to participate in the future in edit warring on relevant articles, thus preventative measures described.

Actions taken:

Sarah777 placed under probation for 1 month.

Addenda and Reconsideration
Since the sanctions were laid, Sarah777 has registered her objections on both her and my talk pages, and she and others have contested my placement of sanctions on her. I have also received other advice, comments, criticisms, and endorsements. To address some of those criticisms: the reasoning for placing Sarah777 on the block above is the same reasoning I had at the time. It has been since suggested to me that 1. Sarah777 was not "edit warring" but some other sort of substantially different (disruptive) behavior and that 2. Sarah777's problematic conduct is outside of the bounds of The Troubles arbitration case.

The first dispute I see ultimately as semantic, because I feel that Sarah777's behavior still disrupts the project to the degree implied by "disruptive editing" in relevant remedy. I note here that the Troubles and related articles are under general sanctions, resulting in a higher standard of behavior.

The second issue however, I feel is more salient. The degree to which Sarah777's conduct is disruptive I think is beyond whatever brightline test we wish to apply, but it is very possible it is not sufficiently within "The Troubles" to be covered by the discretionary probation clause. If that is the case, then have no problem with removing the probation, but I would argue that Sarah777 is sufficiently disruptive that some sort of mentorship or supervision for the time being is appropriate.

As a separate note, Sarah777's mounting hostility to me in the recent days does not make me "involved," but I am aware that it may have appearance of affecting my judgment. If asked, I will recuse myself from further discussions on what, if any sanctions should be lifted or applied.

Traditional Unionist
Traditional Unionist came to my attention after commenting in the Arbitration enforcement thread.

Minor indications include
 * continuing content dispute Arbitration enforcement is not the place for content disputes, but the comment was mild, if snarky. (Weak Prong C)
 * Reverting during edit war involving Domer48, The Thunderer, and somewhat BigDunc (article history) While a single reversion is generally not a big deal, it is seldom a good idea, worse in the context of articles under general sanctions, and even worse when the reverter is aware of the edit war "(Reverted 1 edit by Domer48; An edit war over a dispute tag is irony defined. (TW))" (Prongs A, D)
 * Reverting in response to an edit war Again, small incident betraying poor judgment that is likely to be repeated. (Prongs A, D)
 * a reversion followed by one here in the midst of edit warring between BigDunc and The Thunderer. To Traditional Unionists' credit, he reverted BigDunc and The Thunderer separately, who are generally believed to be on different sides of edit wars. (Prong A)

Other indications:
 * Remaining evidence of any significance is far and away outside of the proper time frame of this investigation, and have not been included but summed up as "historical entanglement." Evidence will be included in Addenda upon request.
 * See also /Appendix B

Conclusions:

Traditional Unionist has shown some disturbing tendencies to add to edit wars (Prong A, Prong D), in addition to a minor indication of content obsession (Prong C). In my investigation I found no mitigating factor of Traditional Unionist asking for outside opinion, administrative help, or use of the various available procedures (AN3, RFPP). Thus the behavioral issue at hand was Traditional Unionist's apparent instinct to solve edit wars by reversion, generally an unhappy way to do it. The long histories of the contested articles, the apparent entanglement of Traditional Unionist with the other editors suggested the way to harmonious editing was to include Traditional Unionist in the wide net of sanctions. Specifically the probation discourages reversions, which seems to be the problematic behavior at hand.

Actions taken:

Traditional Unionist placed on probation for 1 month.

Addenda and Reconsideration
In the period of time I chose to focus my investigation on, being the month immediately before the original complaint, Traditional Unionist has relatively clean hands. There is a fair argument to be made that Traditional Unionist's treatment relative to the other editors was unfair: after all, I cited Traditional Unionist against the least number of prongs (only three) and the least severity of violations against those prongs. This appears grossly unfair and arbitrary, and for that I apologize to Traditional Unionist directly. You got caught in a wide net, and got dragged down by your entanglement with the other editors. While I feel now, as I did when I laid the sanctions that the primary goal is to stop current and future warring, and that a wide net was the way to do it, I acknowledge that the levying of "sanctions" (A word used from the arbitration case) is a proverbial slap across the face.

It is my firm recommendation that Traditional Unionist be a part of any sort of mediation, formal, informal, or enforced. It is my belief that Traditional Unionist would both benefit and be benefited by such an arrangement.

It is my conditional recommendation that if the community feels strongly that it must avoid the substance or appearance of unfair or arbitrary sanctions that Traditional Unionist's probation be immediately overturned and struck from Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Others
Users and  were brought to my attention by their participation in the Arbitration enforcement thread. Both of these users showed troublesome conduct (Varying violations of Prongs A, B, C, and F) but were not put under sanction. Rockybiggs had few if any relevant article edits within the time frame of investigation, and Setanta747 is already under probation, and the course of my investigation turned up no behaviors to justify extending that probation.

Conclusion
All of the editors sanctioned int this thread, and a few who were not, have shown poor judgment and an apparent immunity to outside criticism. Each of these editors is entangled with the other, with plenty of bad blood to go around. Conspicuously absent is the spirit of cooperation that Wikipedia thrives on. Of particular note, when the sanctions were laid, not one editor rose to the defense of another, only themselves. The fairest and most effective method available to me at the time, and with a conspicuous absence of timely and willing help, was to apply a wide net of sanctions. While it is a formal slap on the wrist, the probation does not actually prevent desirable behavior. It merely enforces good behavior. It is for this reason, that I have applied the sanctions I have. Looking forward, what alternate solutions are available? A mediation, be it special, informal, or formal may well be desirable. If the sanctions are not only followed, but a spirit of cooperation emerges that would be sufficient reason to remove the sanctions.

Enacted remedies as of October 2

 * blocked for 72 hours for gross incivility and disruptive editing, may request unblock.
 * placed under indefinite probation under discretionary sanctions prescribed in Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, because of disruptive edit warring and inability to compromise and cooperate instead of edit warring.
 * All editors on Troubles related articles are directed to get outside opinions. Preferably someone from China. Perhaps Angola.


 * put on 2 month probation under discretionary sanctions prescribed in Requests for arbitration/The Troubles because of disruptive edit warring.
 * put on 2 month probation under discretionary sanctions prescribed in Requests for arbitration/The Troubles because of disruptive edit warring.
 * put on 1 month probation under discretionary sanctions prescribed in Requests for arbitration/The Troubles because of disruptive edit warring.
 * put on 1 month probation under discretionary sanctions prescribed in Requests for arbitration/The Troubles because of disruptive edit warring.
 * Any editor found taking advantage of these discretionary sanctions is immediately blocked for 1 week, put under discretionary sanctions indefinitely, and referred to the community for an indefinite topic ban.
 * Any editor found violating these discretionary sanctions will have their probation reset and extended to double previous term immediately, then referred to the community for consideration of a topic ban.
 * Unless otherwise stated, probation is as described under "Terms of probation" Requests for arbitration/The Troubles with the following caveats and clarifications
 * Any article or edit that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under the reversion restriction. When in doubt, assume it is related.
 * Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty
 * Rollback should not be used on related articles
 * Reversions are roughly defined as changing a page so it is substantively the same as a previous version. Consult WP:3RR for guidelines, but apply a healthy dose of common sense.
 * When in doubt, don't revert.

Appendices

 * /Appendix A Copy of original thread found at Arbitration enforcement, up to date as of 01:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * /Appendix B Copy of relevant threads found at User talk:Alison
 * /Appendix C Copy of threads found at User talk:Sarah777