Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 62

Amendment request: Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan (July 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Magog the Ogre (talk) at 20:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * Case affected :
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy
 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * , filing party
 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Information about amendment request
 * Requested amendment: Standard discretionary sanctions may be placed on any editor by an uninvolved administrator, including revert limitations, civility parole, and outright topic ban. the wording from WP:ARBPIA is a good one: " uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project."

Statement by Magog the Ogre
ArbCom previously denied a request to hear a new case. At the time, I opined that I thought this issue would remain unresolved, and it has. Since that time, numerous discussions, blocks, and threads on ANI have occurred, and yet the only difference between now and then is that both TopGun and Darkness Shines have received a 1RR probation.

It is my opinion the editor Darkness Shines is an unrepentant POV-pusher who sees the world through the lens of "us" vs. "them", an opinion echoed by other editors at ANI threads and other editors not involved in this dispute (cf. Talk:British Pakistanis). JCAla has been just as bad, but has not edited as much in the past several months. TopGun faces POV-pushing issues himself, as does Mar4d.

As you can see from the links below, this has been a huge drain on community time, and I respectfully ask Arbcom to amend the remedy of the case to allow the sanctions. All previous attempts at fixing the issue have failed, and the only reason RFC's have not been tried is that everyone knows they would fail. To not allow an amendment would leave the community once again to try to implement a fix, something which it has failed at before (cf. with the interaction ban, which was eventually lifted as ineffective).

The following has a link to the discussions that have occurred just revolving around a few different users, all attempts to get the parties in line with proper conduct (the noticeboard links are just the ones that have occurred since ArbCom's rejection of the case 6 months ago; there are more in the archive, if an arbcom member wishes to look at the link I provided above of the previous decline):
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Top Gun & Darkness Shines
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive739
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive740
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive741
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive741
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive750
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive751
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive754
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756
 * Darkness Shines block log and unblock request block 1 (expired), unblock request block 2 (expired), 3 unblock requests block 3, one unblock request block 4 (withdrawn), 2 unblock requests block 5 (last one accepted), 3 unblock requests block 6, 5 unblock requests block 7 (last one accepted), 1-34 unblock 8 (all denied) - note, these are all just in the past 6 months.
 * TopGun block log (I don't have the patience to go through all the unblock requests on this one too, but I assure you they are manifold; they can be provided upon request; otherwise, Arbcom is encouraged to look through the talk history here)

PS. I am willing to remove myself from any action related to any one or more of the above parties regarding enforcement if ArbCom, the community, or any non-involved party whatsoever thinks this is important. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

PPS. FPaS is entirely correct about filibustering: the common tactic I've seen in use is textbook WP:SOUP, and it has been marvelously successful at confusing ANI and pushing blocks ever further away. Also, I forgot to mention there is rampant sockpuppetry in the area (User:Nangparbat and User:Lagoo sab). Finally, you will note below the traveling circus of POV-pushers that FPaS speaks of which all find no fault in editors on their own side. But you decide for yourselves if this editor (DS), which everyone below maintains if a bastion of neutrality, is a POV-pusher: his requests for unblock are mostly denied, he's been blocked by other admins on several occasions, he would have been blocked by other admins at some points if I hadn't stepped in,, and he makes wildly POV-pushy edits like this one (which I'll note he still maintains was a completely legitimate and neutral edit). His and JCAla's tactic of claiming that I am biased (which is ludicrous, seeing as I give not a single fuck about the parties in this dispute; JCAla in his diffs below cherry picked the two admins who didn't support my block versus the ~9 who did.) and trying to leverage that into claiming I'm too involved to block has been employed against other admins (e.g., User:TParis), in an attempt to chase off anyone who looks closely enough into the area to recognize their WP:BATTLEGROUND agenda. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.
Yes, please, do something. The situation is out of control [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=20&offset=0&redirs=1&ns0=1&ns4=1&search=TopGun+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=JCAla+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&ns4=1&redirs=1&profile=advanced][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=Darkness+Shines+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&ns4=1&redirs=1&profile=advanced]. Last time I suggested imposing discretionary sanctions on a community basis, the ANI folks couldn't agree on anything. Admins have been curiously reluctant to use their tools in a decisive fashion – people in this field can collect seven or eight blocks in a row for disruptive editing within a few months, but admins will still not escalate the block lengths beyond a week or two, when it's pretty obvious that indef would be the only rational response [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADarkness+Shines][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AJCAla]. The topic area is poisoned by the presence of a small number of determined, incorrigible agenda editors, whose constants fights with each other have led a larger number of associates/allies/enablers into joining the "travelling circus", conforming their own editing to that same "us-versus-them" mold defined by their ringleaders' obsessions. The ringleaders need to be taken out. Don't ask us to take them to RFC/U first – an RFC/U works only on the optimistic assumption that a person might be prepared to listen. These guys have known their editing is offensive for ages; if they haven't begun listening yet, what reasons have we for hoping they ever will? Don't ask us to wait for mediation between them – that's a colossal waste of time, serving only to pamper their egos and train them to become even better filibusterers. We are dealing with a number of people here who are deeply, fundamentally unwilling to accept or even to conceive of "neutrality" as a desirable goal to strive for.

Do something. No matter what: take a full case, or decide per amendment motion. Ban the central figures yourselves, or just impose disc-sancs. But do something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and before it gets forgotten, please make sure to include also Afghanistan in the scope of this; the disruption there is intimately related. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To SilkTork and Risker: if you see the mediation as a reason for holding off with the discretionary sanctions, please consider the following:
 * The mediation only attempted to deal with one highly limited content issue. After three months, it is nowhere near solving even as much as that. It's moribund, and has been so for a while. The last bit of dialogue between the parties on the case page was almost two weeks ago.
 * Meanwhile, the travelling circus is busy moving elsewhere. Currently it's at Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, India and state terrorism and no doubt several other pages I've not been keeping track of.
 * Parties are still engaged in personal squabbles, exchanging accusations and spurious warnings, block-shopping and all sorts of similar noise (e.g. here, here).
 * Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Vibhijain
I have to disagree with Magog the Ogre's statement. I don't think that DarknessShines is a "unrepentant POV-pusher". Magog has blocked him many times, and this one specially raises concerns. So does this. As of TopGun, he shows serious neutrality concerns. Along with attacking editors on the basis of their nationality, he has a history of making highly controversial and questionable edits and reverts, citing WP:BRD; and when someone reverts him, he harasses him crying hounding. The sad point is that he also gets support for his false accusations. The main purpose of TopGun, while editing Wikipedia, is evidently to push Pakistani POV, and he is also supported by other editors. This, and even this, shows some signs of blockshopping. Another point which I noticed, is that this case case came when DS was all set to open a case against MTO. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * On accusations of hounding
 * Anti-Pakistan sentiment Through Interwiki links (Template:Kashmir separatist movement > Pro-Pakistan sentiment > Anti-Pakistan sentiment)
 * I Protest through Template:Kashmir separatist movement
 * Kashmir Solidarity Day through Template:Kashmir separatist movement
 * State-sponsored terrorism Through Interwiki links (2008 Mumbai attacks > Pakistan and state terrorism > State-sponsored terrorism)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 29 It on almost every Kashmir related article; its obvious to catch my eyes.
 * Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War I reached there through DarknessShines' user page, and watchlisted it.
 * Talk:Operation Dwarka TopGun's talk page is on my watchlist, and since being a controversial article in a bad state, I preferred to comment there.

Now I hope that no one other will put such allegations, and still if he/she wants, then I will be more happy to solve out those too. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC) A user puts tons of sources in the favour of keeping an article, despite the fact that they have no mention of the topic, and when a user does nothing rather than blindly accusing me of hounding, I think I am supposed to term those comments as baseless. Also watching someone' talk page is completely allowed, and its not my headache if you are involved in every dispute of this topic's articles. TopGun’s accusation that I am following his DYK noms is another baseless one. Please note that I have around 20 DYK credits and various DYK reviews, I am an active contributor to the DYK page, and I have reviewed various dyk noms. 1, 2 and 3 to name a few. Most, or I should say all DYK noms by TopGun have highly non-neutral hooks, and the article also aren't different. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply to TopGun's accusations

Statement by JCAla

 * 1) The editors in the mentioned content area are currently engaged in a mediation process. An arbitration process for these issues is currently not warranted because it would be a parallel process disrupting mediation efforts. There is no urgent dispute which would cause disruption going on currently. Editors are discussing content disputes on talk pages.
 * 2) This arbitration request was initiated by Magog the Ogre not because of any urgent need with regards to a specific content issue (as mentioned above, mediation is already proceeding as a means of dispute resolution). Instead this request was made because Magog the Ogre's administrative competence has been questioned just yesterday by Darkness Shines. This was, according to Magog himself, the "that's it" that compelled him to open this arbitration request.
 * 3) Both administrators asking for sanctions, Magog the Ogre and Future Perfect at Sunrise, are involved editors/administrators in the topic area. Uninvolved administrators have said that Magog the Ogre appears to be involved and to lack neutrality. Magog bears bad feelings towards one part of the editors which makes him take unbalanced actions. Future Perfect at Sunrise is himself involved as an editor in a content dispute.
 * 4) Conclusion from me: An arbitration process for the content area is currently not warranted as a mediation is in full process. During the mediation period any wrong behavior can be dealt with by uninvolved administrators according to normal policy and procedure as agreed on at ANI just a short time ago. If the mediation fails, arbitration can still be requested. On Magog, he keeps refusing to accept that he is neither considered neutral nor uninvolved by several editors and administrators. Starting arbitration to get an editor who has criticized oneself off wikipedia is yet another sign. There are plenty of uninvolved administrators who have successfully acted in the content area, which do not lack the appearance of being neutral. Please accept this. JCAla (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TopGun

 * Since back in around November since I edited the Taliban article, the two editors who disputed my edits there (DarknessShines and JCAla) now have a dispute with me in all the articles I edit after they followed me there one after another. I reported DS's admitted and unrepentant stalking/hounding which resulted in an IBAN, after the administrators failed to enforce the IBAN (through which the stalking continued with vios only being on DS's part), the IBAN was removed on the pretext that admins would act on normal vios to make decision making easy for them. Yet many many requests to deal with the situation of the editors have been rejected with the excuse that it is difficult to gauge hounding/stalking even after I've presented with hard evidence of diffs . Another editor Vibhijain has started hounding me soon after his interaction with DS and who did not back off after a civil warning  and is not being dealt with the very same way . This has gone a step further   and the editor continues to unambiguously follow me around to revert my edits or oppose me. The same was the case with DBigXray who now tries not to appear following me around but games my 1RR restriction when ever he can with edit summaries about some thing completely different . As noted in his SPI he has also been suspected of meat and sock puppetry and only got away with it because I was reporting him and had content/conduct disputes with him. This user also pretended to be an administrator clearly lying . Based on this and the subsequent administrative failure I very strongly oppose discretionary sanctions as admins have already shown that they've been extremely poor in enforcing sanctions with the filibustering that goes around in this specific dispute and support that either arbcom takes the fully case or asks admins to make swift blocks when provided with hard evidence of diffs and patterns of diffs. Also agree with Fut perfect that the Afghanistan topic is very much in the range of this dispute. -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to DBigXray's statement
 * The editor never assumes good faith on part of any editors opposing his views and calls any allegations on him with diffs as "baseless" some thing that Vibhijain does too now. Whenever warned civilly for editwar aor any other matter he instead chooses to point out my blocklog in reply to the warnings which actually contains many reverted blocks.
 * The "Blockshopping" as being called here are actually formal reports to administrators as it was explicitly said at ANI that me and Darkness shines should better stay off that page after I reported an IBAN vio with diffs and it was turned into a thread for topic bans instead of acting out on the actual vios. The point being about the further sanctions instead of enforcing the previous ones. -- lTopGunl (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to Vibhijain's statement
 * So we have a second user who agrees he stalks (atleast) my talkpage and follows my disputes. All other incidents also still categorize in hounding as they have short time difference and all oppose my edits. Just more reasons to take a case rather than hand over the power of handing out sanctions to the administrators who couldn't enforce them before either. It is quite funny to find the allegations of POV pushing on me when I am trying to get an NPOV or a combination of all POVs in balance while these editors simply want to remove any views they don't like and state Indian POV as neutral. Something to do with WP:MPOV. -- lTopGunl (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to TheSpecialUser's statement
 * Last I checked, opposing something against the majority was not a reason to believe the editor had bad faith and neither is the wikipedia a majoritarianism. I discussed the edit more than any of the users who commented there and actually found agreement with atleast 2 users who initial opposed my edit at Talk:Pakistan Zindabad. Also funny that none of my blocks were because of incivility. Such false accusations make me doubt TSU's intervention here in the first place. -- lTopGunl (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Darkness Shines
Regarding blocks


 * 1) His first block was for edit warring which was completely unfounded in policy. I had but one revert on that article, and it has been my first revert in four days.
 * 2) His second block was also a violation of policy, wherein he accuse me of hounding I explained that I had gotten to the article in question via an RFC which had been posted on a user talk page He ignored this and allowed the block to run it's course.
 * 3) His third block was again entirely wrong.  Accuses me of edit warring and stalking. I explained how I had gotten to the article in question via internal links and it was obvious an article on a non existent word would be deleted. There had been no stalking nor edit warring on my part at all.
 * 4) The fact the Magog so blithely calls me a bigot in his statement above shows he has not an ounce of neutrality towards me whatsoever, such a blatant personal attack is proof of his attitude towards me. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

On accusations of hounding

 * 1) . Edit wars uncited content into an article.
 * 2) Reverets in unsourced content.
 * 3) Other states of India:- Citation needed. Various editors arguing with TG over his edit warring uncited content into an article.
 * 4) When pointed out on his talk page his habit of reverting unsourced content into articles he says "Blah"
 * 5) Reverts out reliably sourced content. He did not like it.
 * 6) Files an AN3 report, even though 3R was never broken by myself.
 * 7) Misrepresentation of sources
 * 8) Battlefield mentality, talks of "sides"
 * 9) Inter-Services Intelligence was locked for two weeks due to TG edit warring, his first action upon the article being unlocked, He reverts again. I endeavor to use only the best of sources, all are from academic publishing houses.
 * 10) Taliban we have the same issue again, TG reverts out huge amounts of content, all of which is sourced to academic publishers. He quite simply reverts out content which he thinks sheds a poor light on Pakistan.

As I pointed out to Magog I began to look into TG's edits after the fiasco at the Taliban article per WP:HOUND Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. Magog ignored all the above infractions of policy by TG and focused on my actions for reasons known only to himself. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Salvio giuliano
Well, to tell the truth, I'm not sure discretionary sanctions will be particularly helpful in this case due to the peculiarities of the topic area. First of all, it has been plagued by constant blockshopping, with users complaining about their opponents' edits on the talk pages of many different admins disclosure: I have received several requests to examine somebody else's edits. This is the area where an interaction ban between two editors had to be lifted because it was creating more drama than it was preventing, after all. Furthermore, only very few sysops have acted in an administrative capacity and, on top of that, some, though not all, have not always appeared neutral when brandishing their mops disclosure: and in a couple of circumstances, I have commented to that effect on the blockee's talk page. This does not mean they were not neutral, merely that they did not appear to be. Besides, owing to the incredible litigiousness of all editors involved, the sanctions imposed have not always received the appropriate level of review by the community. Actually, the reaction on ANI has been either aww, jeez, not this **** again or a chorus of let's ban them all and be done with them. Moreover, the editors involved in this topic area are very few (fewer than ten). I realise that the ongoing disruption needs to be stopped; however, as I have already said, I'm not sure the imposition of discretionary sanctions is the best way forward. That said, if the Committee were to consider them unavoidable, I'd like to urge you to consider not imposing the standard set of discretionary sanctions, but to shape them in a way that takes into account the peculiarities of the topic area (particularly the litigiousness, lack of appearance of neutrality and blockshopping). Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by DBigXray

 * I was not a party to this case as the nominator Magog had only mentioned 5 names as involved users and TopGun has wrongly dragged me here by adding 2 more names to make this a soup and distract the case. This also comes after I was recently threatened by topGun for commenting at ANI. I hope the arbcom members will note this and remove the extra names as attempts to distract,  noting that  I have never been blocked or accused by any editor other than TopGun (who because of a few content disputes likes to take my name everywhere)
 * 1) User:TopGun (previously edited as User:Hassanhn5) keeps pushing Pakistani POV in Wiki articles (and can be clearly seen in his edits) using unsourced or poorly sourced (blogs, SPS) contents and is often met by resistance from other editors. In past I had disputes when he tried to disrupt (insert POV and remove sourced content) in india related articles under my watchlist. To get me out of his way he had desperately tried all attempts of getting me blocked by all possible means and failed in all of them.
 * 2) Its not easy for a such edits to go un noticed on wikipedia. And whenever the other editors complain of his behavior he prefers calling them Sockpuppets  and  . TopGun has made failed attempts to get me blocked by falsely accusing me for Sockpuppetry  . Inspite of the fact that I  was cleared and the case was closed, he keeps wrongly accusing me for his imaginary socks.
 * 3) TopGun has tried block shopping against me by canvassing on talk pages of admins and editors, ,(many more..) and called me a vandal and presented a content dispute at AIV for a quick block on me
 * On accusations by TopGun:


 * 1) TopGun makes controversial edits on articles and whenever the page watchers revert him he accuses everyone else (with whom TopGun has content disputes) of hounding. this observation has also been supported by Magog himself . In past  also TopGun tried to get me blocked my making a concocted report at ANI hoping that he might get me banned by incorrectly accusing me of "hounding", for editing my watchlisted articles and failed.
 * 2) In response to an 11 month old diff presented by TopGun above on accusing me of posing as admin where I was trying to warn a proven Vandal about Vandalism is yet another ill-intentioned attempt to show me in a bad light. I was new to wikipedia and was  trying to discourage  a vandal only account from vandalizing wikipedia. later on I learnt that there are templates to warn them so started using them. The very next day that account was blocked indefinitely for being a Vandalism only account. But the Arbcom members must also note that TopGun brings this incident with carefully worded phrases  every time he makes a complaint against me and here as well.
 * 3) The diff of the revert pointed by TopGun above was done by me in accordance with the talk page discussion here, when other editors had pointed source misrepresentation by TopGun.
 * Unlike TopGun who follows WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and has a block log filled with edit warring and disruptive editing,  I have never been blocked neither have I been warned for any issue.


 * It is to be noted that TopGun makes regular visits to Magog's page for block shopping instead of  taking the issue to the ANI as his attempts of block shopping have a much higher success rate at Magog's page than at Admin notice boards.

As it is evident by the diffs provided by the many editors here, this is more of a user conduct issue which could have been handled in a better way by uninvolved admins. The block shopping and subsequent blocks by involved admins have brought this here. It will not be appropriate to put up Discretionary sanctions to block any of the editors in this topic area, just by the wrong doings of individual users above. The action by Arbcom if any should be taken on the erring users and not the topic area as a whole.-- D Big X ray  17:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It must be duly pointed out that block shopping at admin's talk pages need to end and if there is a genuine concern then it should be posted at appropriate noticeboards where "uninvolved" admins can take proper actions (or boomerang if appropriate). I am in complete agreement with Salvio's comment above. -- D Big X ray  07:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Request

Request 2
AS evident by the comments of admins User:Magog the Ogre and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise above, I will also request the arbcom to prevent these two admins from taking administrative actions against the editors in this topic area, as they are clearly involved and their admin actions are biased while dealing with few specific editors in this topic area. -- D Big X ray  19:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TheSpecialUser
I completely disagree when MTO calls DS an "unrepentant POV-pusher who sees the world through the lens of "us" vs. "them"". DS's edits may look controversial but none of them are disputing neutrality or using unreliable sources. As far as his reverts for TGs edits are concerned, TG's edits were controversial and subject to eventual talks or RFCs at talk pages or user talk pages. MTO being an admin has made few uncivil kind of personal attacks to DS. Especially this didn't look appropriate at all as the editor wasn't even warned or asked for clarification prior to the block. This isn't my main point at this statement. I will have to say that it is actually TopGun and at times Mar4d who have pushed POV and they seem to remove addition of any content that sheds a poor light on Pakistan. They have also been adding data which is not so in favor of Indian authorities at Jammu & Kashmir or related issues negatively. The best example of this "biased behavior" can be found at where TG and M4 introduced links (I Protest, Rape in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir and Media curbs and usage of social networking sites in Kashmir) which have no connection whatsoever to separatist movement. These links don't even have any content related to the movement and still get a place in the template. Another example is Pakistan Zindabad where TG removes data which is completely sourced with WP:RS and the incident is notable enough to have a mention but still it was removed just because it was proving a bad point for his country, I was totally shocked by such biased behavior (Pakistan Zindabad incident lead to a Talk:Pakistan_Zindabad where editors are in clear support of inclusion). This is nothing but clear POV pushing. He also accused Vibhijain of HOUNDING which was not a case there. HOUNDING says that edits that are intended to dispute or badger the editor in a wrong way is HOUNDING but addition of material and other fixes in good faith are not HOUNDING. Since long TG has accused people of HOUNDING and still does as he doesn't seem to understand what WP:HOUND is. Since long TopGun has followed such behavior and has faced many blocks due to incivility or personal attacks (hostile editing against Darkness Shines, improper calling of "sock") or breaking IBAN or Disruptive editing. He has since long continued to make this site WP:BATTLEGROUND and one of the instances can be found here. This dispute doesn't look like it is going to end. I believe that a ban from Indo-Pak related articles will be the best possible solution to this continued conflict.  — TheSpecialUser  ( TSU ) 05:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Anir1uph
I have been an active Wikipedia editor for the past 6 months. I edit many articles, and that includes articles about my country, India. I have observed the process of edits, reverts and ANI proceedings from the sidelines for some time. I am here as an editor whose willingness to edit, add content and removed vandalism/violations from these articles has been diminished. This is because of two reasons:
 * 1) Fear of swift administrator intervention, due to a complaint against me by an opposing party. I am here to devote my time on Wikipedia's article space. Being caught up in ANIs, with a possibility of being handed out blanket bans is terrifying to me. I would not like to be dragged into an official mess for cases that ideally require more discussions on the talk pages.
 * 2) Distractions caused to regular editing, by users who hold opposite views but are reluctant to discuss them, and are willing to enforce them using tactics like talk page intimidation (as illustrated in the examples linked in the previous sections).


 * In my opinion,
 * 1) Placing blanket sanctions on the topic area will not be very effective as it won't solve the root of the problem, which, in my opinion is a user conduct issue here.
 * 2) Administrators on Wikipedia are like administrators anywhere. In all progressive democracies, there is a time-bound change of guard, of elected politicians and behind the scene bureaucrats. This i believe is done to ensure that an administrator appointed to a particular 'region' does not become all-powerful and start to 'intimidate' his/her subjects. Similarly, when an administrator on wikipedia remains associated with a disputed subject for a long time, any action by him/her that might even appear to be biased causes further agitation among opposing users. The problem is made worse by the fact that other/uninvolved Wikipedia administrators do not like to intervene on seeing an admin already 'handling business'. A vicious cycle is formed, which might discourage other editors from contributing to such articles/topics.

I would urge the ArbCom to ponder over these issues.

Thanking you all,

Anir1uph (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Strike Eagle
I completely disagree with Magog the Ogre's description of Darkness Shines as a unrepentant POV-pusher.Darkness Shines has been doing great service to neutralize the POV pushing that plagues many(most) of the Indo-Pakistani articles.Magog the Ogre was always involved in the dispute when he repeatedly blocked Darkness Shines.There was obviously some kind of blockshopping due to which Darkness Shines was indiscriminately blocked many times.MTO ridiculously accuses DS of Anti-Pakistani editing while he supports TG and Mar4d who openly push anti-india propoganda.


 * User:TopGun has always been trying in extreme magnitudes to push Pakistani POV in any article he finds..TopGun has been Templaring and warning regular and established editors as they stand against his pov pushing. .He regularly(and baselessly) accuses DBigXray and Vibhijain(sysop elsewhere) for hounding .TopGun has a good history of edit-warring due to which he was blocked quite a good number of times and was even stripped off his rollback privelages.It's ridiculous to see him accuse another established editor for edit-warring and hounding.

Mar4d's follows a different pattern of POV pushing where he pushes his point silently so that no one notices his edits.He doesn't appear on other user talk pages as frequently as TG but his effect on articles is quite high too.

I hereby request the ArbCom to take necessary action against TopGun and Mar4d-Discrete Sanctions or Ban.Darkness Shines and JCAla, who have been working for NPOV in the conflicted articles must be freed of the charges.Vibhijain and DBigXray who were dragged into the dispute by TG have no major role in it and hence I think must be removed from the list. Sincerely,  TheStrike  Σagle   13:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

On Accusations of POV Pushing by Mar4d
The only major POV dispute I have ever been involved was a userbox I created.Mar4d nominated it for deletion saying that it was not in use and unnecessary.Who is he to decide what is necessary here? Unfortunately(for Mar4d) the MfD was closed as keep with no delete !vote other than Mar4d's. perhaps his friends were off-wiki that time .It is clear that Mar4d accuses other users for POV pushing while he himself does it all the time.Hope this clears the accusation. Regards  TheStrike  Σagle   13:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Smsarmad
I don't know why my name was added here as none of the statements given up till now state my name. As I edit in this topic area so I will like to share my observation: that whenever an editor persistently pushes his/her POV in a topic area giving an impression that he/she is working on some agenda here at Wikipedia, the editors contributing to the same topic area how much neutral they may be but a time will come that they will be forced to push the opposite POV instead of coming to neutral ground. The problems in this topic area are so difficult to handle that most of the admins avoid using their tools in this area or even try to understand what the actual problem is and what is its cause? I have been viewing Darkness Shines’s (DS) edits in the Pakistan topic area, for the last 7 months. Per my observation he is continuously pushing his POV and disrupting any good effort put by most of the other editors working in this topic. I have raised this issue previously many times (some other editors also did this). Some of his edits that don’t need much explanation describing his POV:, , , ,

Not to mention his uncivil behavior, creation of article to piss other editors, hounding other editors, as they are separate and lengthy chapters.

On calling an admin involved I will just say that DS calls anyone involved/not neutral admin whoever supported Bwilkins idea of blocking him for six months,in the last discussion at ANI so that includes: Bwilkins,The Bushranger, Dennis Brown, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Magog. Though till now he has called only Bwilkins, Magog and Future Perfect as involved, with this argument but I don’t see it far that all the other admins who supported his block will be accused of being involved whenever they take some action against him. So I think an editor should not be given the right to call an admin being biased/involved just because he/she blocked or supported/upheld a block of that editor previously. It will set a bad precedence leading to problems for the administrators dealing with disruptive editors.

There is much more happening in this topic area that most of the outside editors are possibly not aware of, like creation of retaliatory articles, hounding, teaming up, defending an editor or his/her actions whenever an action is (or going to be) taken by an admin, accusing any admin who takes action of being involved/biased, accusing editors (including admins) of being friend of the other editor, giving barnstars to each other with inflammatory comments against other editors soon after a discussion is concluded, etc. All this is now increasing with more editors following the path of others who did this successfully and have become a role model. Also the frequency of these kind of disruptive activities is increasing. Actually this is one of the reasons that my contributions are declining too as I avoid these disputes as much as I can. That is why I think Arbitration Committee should take a thorough look into this (that unfortunately most of the admins avoid), that I guess is possible if a full arbitration case is taken. Apparently it looks like that discretionary sanctions will solve the problems in this topic area but it will not be plugging (only) the right hole, instead it is like plugging all the holes, that will have collateral damage to some extent as issues which arise in this topic area are so complex sometimes that it is difficult for an admin to act without thoroughly checking the lengthy history of the events, so sometimes they avoid using the (sysop) tools. So my only concern about giving admins the powers of discretionary sanctions is why ArbCom is leaving this case once again for the admins, majority of whom are probably reluctant to act in this topic. Besides I would like to mention about the more visible display of Battleground mentality .i.e. the addition of my name to the involved/affectee list that apparently looks like an "us vs them" approach. -- S M S  Talk 22:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Stfg
In addition to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, I suggest including Bangladesh in the list of countries covered by the motion. There has been extensive battling by the same editors over articles related to it. --Stfg (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nyttend
Just ran across this by accident while looking for more context on the change-of-username motion; I'm not at all involved with Indo-Pakistani disputes. If this motion pass, does that mean that this arbitration decision would be binding on random people who dispute sports stats for Vijay Singh or who disagree on the US political aspects of business process outsourcing in India? Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignoring rules to respond inline here: see the discussion at the very bottom by the arbs. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by The Blade of the Northern Lights
Although I haven't been particularly involved in the situations leading up to this, I do have a lot of experience dealing in the closely related topic specifically covered already. I'm fine with adding discretionary sanctions, but I'm not sure how effective they'll be. Setting aside the problems that Salvio giuliano says above about experienced editors, anyone who's done any NPP or editing in the topic area will recognize the substantial problem created by new users as well. Many seem to treat Wikipedia articles as a place to practice their English, which wouldn't be a bad thing were it not for the fact that most of their English skills are atrocious and create another layer of communication problems; looking at Talk:Nair and its archives is fairly demonstrative of the problem. Discretionary sanctions can only do so much to solve those sorts of problems; what's needed is more admin attention, which from what I can see isn't forthcoming. So while I think discretionary sanctions will help, the underlying problem to me seems more like the lack of admins willing to head this off at the pass. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 21:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by user Fifelfoo
Arbitrators ought to be aware that there is an existing community sanction of general discretionary sanctions regarding caste and sub-groups. This community sanction will of course keep running regardless of your decision—some day you may reverse yourselves, correspondingly the community must reverse itself on its sanction that overlaps with this one to some extent. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Volunteer Marek
Ugh. Usually I do an excellent job of avoiding controversy, contentious topics, disputes, and anything that remotely smells of "trouble" but it seems I have somehow stumbled into this, mostly because I began editing some articles related to Bangladesh out of a personal interest.

So.

First, whatever is done, you should add Bangladesh to the "India, Pakistan, Afghanistan" list since this stuff has already began spilling over there.

Second, I'm torn between, on the one hand, my established disdain for "discretionary sanctions" and the sincere belief that these often do nothing but pour gasoline on the fire - in many cases instituting "discretionary sanctions" is like exporting arms to war torn countries, it just provides another weapon for people to fight with - and, on the other hand, the obviousness that there's plenty of trouble going on here. So it's a sort of 60% Salvio Guiliano 40% Future Perfect kind of thing going on here.

What really would work at this point is involvement in the topic area of some knowledgeable, respected and diplomatic uninvolved editors. If you know of any, you should hire them. Or just record their existence, before that species goes extinct (again). In absence of that, discretionary sanctions *could* work as long as it's not just a "we'll put in the discretionary sanctions and then abandon the issue and pretend it's solved" ... kind of thing. If you do put in discretionary sanctions, be prepared to deal with follow up complaints, with a whole new slew of WP:AE reports (most of which, but not all, will be petty and stupid, and further proof that Wikipedia IS in fact a battleground) and more work for yourselves (which you can always evade by pointing out that the ArbCom is not concerned with content disputes).

Honestly, to deal with these perennial consanguineous areas you're going to have to start appointing "Tsars" (like the "Education Tsar" or "Drug Tsar") or at least "Surgeons Generals". Or maybe Consuls. And with the consuls, there was always two of them. So I nominate Salvio Guiliano and Future Perfect as the first two Consuls of the "India-Pakistan-Afghanistan-Bangladesh" topic area. With Fifelfoo as the tribune, just to watch over them. Volunteer Marek 03:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Ncmvocalist
Were the relevant Wikiprojects notified (eg via noticeboards for related topics) - that you intend on putting this DS regime on anything related to these countries? Next, should we expect you to also put the entire project on DS without properly consulting community first? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by RegentsPark
Like Ncm above, I'm a little disappointed that we have arbs voting on sanctions without seeking wider input from the community that will be affected by those sanctions. However, if that's the way things are then that's the way they are.

I think discretionary sanctions are unnecessary. To the contrary, I think the problem in this area has been an excess of admin involvement and admin action. Punitive blocks applied at will, restrictions imposed on the various participants that are really not warranted, gratuitous lectures about behavior that are better suited to parent child interactions than to admin/editor interactions, stuff like that. This has lead to a poisonous atmosphere marked mainly by block shopping and a constant low grade complaining about other editors. My suggestions, perhaps too late since arbs seem to have already made up their minds, are the following:
 * 1) Remove all restrictions on all participants in these areas. This has more or less been done through ANI though there may be other restrictions on these editors that I am unaware off.
 * 2) Remind admins that they should use their tools minimally, only when there are clear transgressions.
 * 3) Remind admins that they should be sparse in their comments. Comment only on the transgression not on editors.--regentspark (comment) 16:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional note
Now that I've had the time to look at this further, I think Magog is overstating the "disruptive" nature of what is going on here. A look at the block log of both DarknessShines as well as TopGun shows that most of l the blocks were for violating one restriction or another. The restrictions were the problem and the predictably unfortunate effect of discretionary sanctions is going to be more blocks not less. The ANI cases were largely initiated by two of the editors, DarknessShines and TopGun, probably because block shopping on technical violations of the restrictions was, partly anyway, turning out to be an effective weapon against each other. I believe this is better handled on a case by case basis using the normal way of dealing with edit warring or tendentious editing rather than through adding to the bureaucratic overhead by placing more restrictions on both these editors (and, incidentally, on any other editor who may happen to be editing these pages). --regentspark (comment) 18:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Fowler&fowler
This very bizarre. Discretionary sanctions are being considered for India and Pakistan related pages, yet, none of the significant contributors to these pages (see, for example, here) know about this. No announcement had been made on WikiProject India, until NCMvocalist just made his. Most editors making statements above (who edit South Asia-related pages), on the other hand, seem to be relatively new users; all are seasoned at edit-warring and POV pushing; all know enough wikilawyering to template me for writing this sentence. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse - I'm one of the two mediators in the RfM before the Mediation Committee. -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Enacting the motion now.  NW  ( Talk ) 18:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Seems a good idea - a preliminary circuit breaker on pages with ongoing troubled history which can be installed with a minimum of effort for (hopefully) some settling of behaviour. I'm inclined to post a motion as requested but will wait for some more input. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that enabling discretionary sanctions for this topic area seems like a good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur, and am fairly surprised it hasn't been done already, given the level of disruption that goes on in this area. Courcelles 18:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I think a motion is probably the best way forward. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this remedy, adopted in 2007 (before my time on the Committee) in a case involving India-related articles, could be viewed as a primitive phrasing of discretionary sanctions? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do I detect a hint of nostalgia the good old days when we could have remedies calling for people to be hit on the head with sticks? Kirill [talk] 00:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was the clerk in that case, and I remember asking the arbitrator who drafted the decision (Mackensen) whether I really had to post the decision with that in it. He said yes. At the time I was aghast. After four and a half years arbitrating, I understand now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues above, and have proposed a motion to that effect. Kirill [talk] 00:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Motion (India-Pakistan)
1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed.

For this motion, there are 12 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.


 * Support
 * Proposed per discussion above. Kirill [talk] 00:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Added Afghanistan per the comments below. Kirill [talk] 03:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Necessary to maintain order. Courcelles 00:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Fut Perf's comment this should include Afghanistan as well. PhilKnight (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * + Afghanistan too Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 07:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed (though not surprised) that discretionary sanctions for these topics were recently proposed as a community measure at ANI, but failed to achieve consensus. It is so obviously needed. AGK  [•] 13:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * There are a number of statements saying that this is not needed, and there is a call to wait until the Mediation case has finished. If the community are in the process of resolving this dispute, then it is too soon for the Committee to be stepping in.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  19:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with SilkTork - we should not be acting while this is being actively discussed in a lower level of dispute resolution. Risker (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * I support the intent, but shouldn't this be limited to pages or edits concerning national, ethnic, or similar disputes between or within India and Pakistan? I wouldn't think the discretionary sanctions would be needed for every single article relating to India or Pakistan. (At least I hope not!) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Our other geographic discretionary sanctions are purely region-based, with no reference to the specific nature of the edit. Given how disputes of this nature can pop up on otherwise seemingly uncontroversial articles, it seems more straightforward to authorize discretionary sanctions for the entire area rather than requiring administrators to individually add articles once a dispute flares up. Kirill [talk] 02:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Kirill--on non-controversial pages they shouldn't have any effect, but can be applied broadly and quickly in case of flare-ups. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request: Annotation of case pages for sanctioned users who have changed username (August 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Seraphimblade Talk to me at 18:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: This request would also indirectly affect anyone who has been involved in an arbitration case with ongoing sanctions and has publicly changed usernames.
 * (initiator)

The two editors involved in the immediate discussion have been notified:.

Statement by Seraphimblade
Clarification is requested on the following two questions:
 * May the log pages at a closed arbitration case be annotated to note that a user has changed his or her username by those who become aware of the change, or must such an annotation be performed by an Arbitrator or Clerk?
 * If only Arbitrators and/or Clerks can make such an annotation to a case, what is the proper procedure for requesting such an annotation, and are objections considered?

This objection led me to make this request, as it seems this is not as uncontroversial a housekeeping measure as it would seem, and I could not find any existing policy or discussion on the matter. A clarification would hence be much appreciated.

For the record, the thread at arbitration enforcement suggested such annotations to the case page, and had I evaluated consensus for such at the close, I would have found that they did have consensus among the uninvolved admins commenting. I did not make such a determination as to my knowledge it was not required. I think the clarification would still be useful in a broader sense, however. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply to Hersfold: I sure didn't see any trouble with it either, but MVBW seemed to pretty strenuously object, and thought it was only clerks/Arbs. Just wanted to make sure there wasn't something I'd missed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes
I do not see why not. My renaming was already annotated. The only question is this: should you only annotate users who were sanctioned, or all users indicated as parties. For example, speaking about WP:EEML, should renaming of User:Offliner be annotated? My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Siebert
In my opinion, information about past conflicts (or alliances) between the users editing contentious and scrutinized topics should be easily available to everyone, and the linkage should be traceable not only between an old and a new names, but in the opposite direction also. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea to link new and old names on the relevant case pages was initially proposed by VM. His new idea seems also quite reasonable. However, that should be done in such a way that old account page will redirect to new ones similarly to what has been done to the user:Radeksz page. In contrast, a situation with the user:Biophys page is hardly acceptable, because this account has been totally deleted, and a new account user:Hodja Nasreddin was created instead. The Biophys page should be converted into a redirect to user:My very best wishes, similar to what Volunteer Marek did. In addition, since user:Biophys was deleted, a possibility exists that some new user may request to use this name.
 * @ Newyorkbrad. I agree that off-wiki harassment is a legitimate reason for rename. However, in my opinion, the users with problematic edit history should provide serious evidences of harassment to get a permission for name change.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Biophys. I conclude from your last post that the real reason for you user name change was outing, which was a result of the leakage of the EEML archive. Contrary to Jclemens, I believe you do have a right to take some protective measures. However, you are missing one point: whereas you have a right to defend your privacy, the good faith users working in the EE area also have a right to know whom they are dealing with. Therefore, we have two mutually exclusive tasks, which cannot be solved simultaneously. In my opinion, if you want to conceal your identity, WP:CLEANSTART option is still available for you. However, that should be a real clean start: the old accounts must be labelled as "retired" (and not deleted), and you must leave the previous area of contentions. Under your new account, you may edit biophysics, molecular biology and all other areas, but not EE related areas. However, if you do not plan to do so, the linkage between your old and new account (and vise versa) must remain totally transparent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be a good idea to allow someone to create a Biophys account. Not only that would lead to further hiding of the connection between old user Biophys and present My Very Best Wishes, that may complicate a life of the new good faith owner of the Biophys account. Indeed, as far as i know, the archives of the EEML and other story are available on Internet (outside of Wikipedia), so the new account may be confused by someone with old Biophys, which may create problems for the absolutely innocent person. In connection to that, I believe the Biophys account should be restored and converted into a redirect to MVBW.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
I could, in some extreme cases, such as perhaps controversial OUTing of an editor in a previous identity, see some basis for not indicating changed names there. But, honestly, only in such cases, and I imagine that there are probably already procedures in place to deal with such circumstances. If that is the case, this seems a good way to ensure that people do not try to change their names to avoid dealing with the realities of their own previous objectionable activity. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek
I've been thinking about asking for something similar for awhile, but for different reasons. The major reason IMO (it certainly applies to myself, I'm guessing it applies to others) why people changed their usernames after the case was not to escape any kind of scrutiny but rather because of ongoing off-wiki harassment (I know that that kind of thing doesn't stop the dedicated harassers, but it might make it a bit harder for them or any new potential ones). This is particularly true for those users, like myself and I believe Nug, whose previous usernames were tied to their real life names.

So why not kill two birds with one stone? That is, why not go through and change all the old user names in the case pages to their current names: i.e. Radeksz-->Volunteer Marek, Miacek-->Estlandia, etc. That way people can always refer back to the case, while at the same time the old-names-tied-to-real-life-names will be gone. Everyone will be happy. Win win. Volunteer Marek 01:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

@JClemens - What the hey are you talking about? What "extraordinary efforts"? ??? Volunteer Marek  20:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Btw, if time and effort are a concern then... well, this is a collaborative project, so I can go through myself and change all the old names to all the new names, at least for myself. Just like working on articles. Volunteer Marek 16:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba
As long as it applies to all users. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @JClemens, if that is your attitude (I believe the proper action for a user who has 1) been sanctioned by the community or the commitee, and 2) has been harassed sufficiently unpleasantly that he or she cannot function on Wikipedia if their prior identity is known is to leave.) then you leave me no choice but to appeal and overturn EEML in its entirety. Your statement sanctions off-Wiki harassment to drive editors away from Wikipedia. I am utterly gobsmacked. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Penwhale
Depending on the size of involved case, you could have a really large list to track or very little.

I would like to suggest that the log/action section be accessible to anyone that can currently utilize that section, and information about renamed users be listed under a separate heading. However, as for the actual findings/Remedies/etc, let ArbCom/AC Clerk handle changing/notarizing those parts. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 05:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I see no reason why such a routine notification couldn't be made by anyone. Unless I'm missing something? <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 19:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose the confusion could come from the fact that the vast majority of the page is considered to be restricted to Arbitrators and Clerks - however, for the purposes of clarity, I think a general exception can be made for editors who wish to add a note such as "(since renamed to )" to the list of involved parties at the top of the main case page. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 19:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer MVBW's question, I would say all parties regardless of whether they were sanctioned or not. Obviously, though, non-sanctioned users are not bound by the requirement stated by AGK below. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 18:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In my view, final decisions ought to be updated to reflect changes in username of users who are (or previously were) subject to sanctions; this would include expired sanctions. In the case of outstanding sanctions, this committee should probably do the updating: we must be notified by any editor who wants to rename their account while under arbitration sanctions. In the case of amended or vacated sanctions, an optimal method of having the decision updated would be to ask a clerk to do so—though I would take a dim view of this becoming a tool for editors to embarrass or humiliate their 'opponents'. Obviously, very old cases are retained largely for the purpose of reference and should probably not be disturbed. AGK  [•] 20:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The log section is not restricted to just Arbs, Clerks and AE admins. All users are able to add appropriate and relevant information there, such as notifications. I think if there is an issue with what someone has posted there, the Clerks would be able to deal with it.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  22:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't have a problem with AE admins making annotations such as this. PhilKnight (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Updating should be performed as appropriate, but I share Volunteer Marek's concern about being sensitive to situations where usernames have been changed because of harassment situations, and there are probably some instances where the time and effort of doing the updating wouldn't be worth it (e.g. in cases from years ago where there have been no further problems). Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Contra Newyorkbrad, I believe the proper action for a user who has 1) been sanctioned by the community or the commitee, and 2) has been harassed sufficiently unpleasantly that he or she cannot function on Wikipedia if their prior identity is known is to leave. There is no right to edit Wikipedia, and we should take no extraordinary efforts to allow protected editing by previously sanctioned users.  The community's interest in ensuring that previously-sanctioned editors are subject to appropriate future scrutiny takes precedence over the individual's right to edit pseudonymously in a manner unconnected to previous pseudonymous access. Jclemens (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Vecrumba, no, it simply refuses to grant 'special rights' to previously sanctioned users just because they claim to have been harassed. My stance is that this committee's past actions that failed to clearly proactively track and identify previously sanctioned (to include failed RfAs and community noticeboard discussions, not just ArbCom sanctions) users to this community have done 1) no particular good to the users in questions, two of whose identities have been found out in recent months despite such efforts, and 2) have eroded the trust in the committee's impartiality an willingness to serve as the community's watchdog in such cases. I do not sanction the off-wiki harassment of anyone, so that booting previously sanctioned users out of Wikipedia entirely is the best option for both the integrity of the encyclopedia and the protection of the real person behind the account.  There is no right to edit Wikipedia, so there can be no right to edit Wikipedia harassment-free: freedom from harassment is easily achieved by the editor in question leaving Wikipedia, should they desire to avoid potential harassment. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer any such modifications be handled via requests to the clerks, to provide some scrutiny first, as on occasion this could be contentious.  Roger Davies  talk 09:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like we're all quite on the same page here, so I've proposed a motion (Arbitration/Requests/Motions) to address this issue more formally. Kirill [talk] 00:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request: Eastern European mailing list (August 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Nug (talk) at 21:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Notified The remedy of the Eastern European mailing list case is amended to lift the interaction ban between User:Russavia and User:Nug.
 * Case affected :
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Eastern European mailing list Remedy 4.3.11A: Editors restricted (as modified by motion)
 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (formerly User:Martintg)
 * (formerly User:Martintg)
 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Information about amendment request

Statement by Nug
EdJohnston had previously requested that the mutual topic bans between Russavia and I be lifted Unfortunately after some editors objected due to their apocalyptic fear of our possible collaboration might turn the world up side down, it was declined. Given that Russavia has since been site banned for a year and indef topic banned and the chance of now interacting reduced to zero, can this restriction be now lifted? I'd like to edit articles like 90th anniversary of the Latvian Republic, but I cannot remove those tags placed by Russavia almost a year ago without breaching my interaction ban. --Nug (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

@Clerks, I fail to see how Paul Seibert's comments have any relevance what so ever to a request to amend a redundant interaction ban, and I ask that they be removed. If Paul has issues he can air them in a more appropriate forum (along with linked evidence) where they can be discussed in full without derailing this specific amendment request. Thanks. --Nug (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@Courcelles, Russavia is indefinitely topic banned from EE, see this, in addition to the one year site ban. --Nug (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that the problematic behaviour occured solely in the EE topic area, an indefinite topic ban in EE is virtually an indefinite site ban in any case. --Nug (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Link to discussion on Courcelles' talk page. --Nug (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand the point of Courcelles' concern, which apparently is related to Russavia's behaviour when he returns from his site ban. Courcelles claims that Russavia's disruptive behaviour extended outside of the EE topic area, but I cannot find any evidence of this. As EdJohnston states, discretionary sanctions remains available under the existing authority of WP:ARBEE, this request is merely to enable editing of articles that Russavia is indefinitely banned from editing without breaching my Iban. --Nug (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update Brad, this is an intriguing and dramatic development. As I recall Russavia had previously supported the lifting of our mutual iBans, so I hope this evidence is germane to the issue of the iBans, rather some unrelated and unsubstantiated allegations which would more likely be evidence of where his own head is at, more than anything else. Anyway, I await with interest. --Nug (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @SilkTork, Roger Davies, The point of an interaction ban is to stop interaction between two parties, if one is indefinitely topic banned from the area of conflict there can no longer can be any interaction, and thus it is redundant. What you appear to be suggesting is that you believe the edits of a banned editor should be preserved by keeping an interaction ban in place. The reason no editor has been "moved to remove" these tags is simply because there isn't anyone who cares a cat's fart about certain obscure topics. Tags are not meant to be used as tools to further battles but to alert editors to real potential issues, but no one has responded in almost twelve months. The reason why they were placed in the first place along other tags and immediately nominated for deletion was more to do with the same battleground attitude that eventually got Russavia site banned for one year and topic banned indefinitely.
 * It is just absolutely astounding that you, both Arbitrators, would contend that there should be mutual agreement from an indefinitely topic banned editor prior lifting an interaction ban. In any case I provided evidence of such prior mutual agreement in an earlier request. If Russavia has since withdrawn that agreement in some email to the Committee, then that is further evidence of his battleground mentality as there is no cause for him to withdraw such agreement. I just don't see what these implications that SilkTork alludes to other than to perpetuate conflict that Russavia and I agreed to leave behind and to hold hostage some topics to the whim of someone who forfeited their right to edit that area for an indeterminate period.  --Nug (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek
Yeah, me too. It's sort of pointless now. Volunteer Marek 23:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

@Ed Johnson - I'm pretty sure that there are no remaining sanctions from the EEML case and there haven't been for awhile (btw, as an update, EE topic area is actually doing pretty well). And even the sanctions themselves were pretty mild to begin with. Some people keep dredging the case up in the standard battleground tactic of poisoning the well but honestly, that stuff's old news, there's nothing left, nobody, including AE admins, is paying much attention. The interaction bans are the last remnants of the case (well, actually, more from the R-B case) and even those, obviously, are no longer much relevant. Volunteer Marek 01:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@Paul - Paul, when I wrote ""keep dredging the case up in the standard battleground tactic"" I actually did NOT have you in mind. Rather just some more peripheral users. Keep in mind that lots of folks from what can be described as the "anti-EEML" side managed to get themselves banned/blocked/topic banned just fine without any help from anyone on the list in the months following the case, thank you very much. I was thinking more of these guys who sometimes keep coming back as IP addresses or fresh starts or sock puppets, who pretend to be new to Wikipedia but somehow have this magical knowledge of the EEML case which they try to use win arguments and battles in which they got blocked for in the first place.

Anyway, more general point is that aside from this interaction ban there are no outstanding sanctions from the EEML case. This is a good opportunity to put it all to rest. Volunteer Marek 04:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Siebert
@Ed Johnson & Volunteer Marek. First of all, I always supported the idea to lift all remaining individual sanctions against ex-EEML members. However, this my post is mainly a responce to the Volunteer Marek's post where he mentioned some people who "keep dredging the case up in the standard battleground tactic". In connection to that, I would like to remind VM that I was among the users who had conflicts with the EEML cabal, and, I recall, someone (probably user:Viriditas) strongly advised me to read the EEML archive and present the evidences against them when the case was open, because the cabal had been contemplating some actions against me. I refused to do that, however. I believe, the fact that I had been silent when the EEML case was open, and that I decided to return to this issue now is per se an indication that something happened during last year that forced me to express my concern now. The major EEML violation, their coordinated edits is the fact that is extremely hard to establish. As far as I understand, the community became aware of the existence of the EEML cabal purely by accident, and there is absolutely no guaranty that no similar cabals currently exist. By writing that, I do not imply that the EEML member continue to coordinate, however, it would be equally incorrect to claim that their one year long topic bans may guarantee that no coordination can exist between them. In connection to that, I believe the behaviour of EEML members must be absolutely transparent to dispel any suspicions. Concretely, I am not sure ex-EEML members have a moral right to simultaleously participate in votes or RfCs when no fresh arguments are brought by each of them (i.e., the posts such as "Support a user X", without detailed explanation of one's own position should not be allowed for them). Similarly, joining the chain of reverts where other EEML members already participate should not be allowed also. We all remember that these users massively coordinate their edits in past, we all (including the admins) have absolutely no tools to make sure such coordination does not occur currently, so we have a right at least to express our concern in a situation when such coordination cannot be ruled out. The fact that they cannot be considered as uninvolved parties when they join the action of their peers should also be clear for everyone. In contrast, we currently have a directly opposite tendency: any mention of the EEML is treated as a "battleground tactics", many EEML members changed their usernames to protect their privacy and, simultaneously, to disassociate themselves from their past violations, and many of them continue to concurrently edit the same articles. In my opinion, the EEML pendulum is moving in the opposite direction, and now it has already passed its lowest point...--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul, with much respect, the conduct you describe as suspicious due to the potential for off-wiki collaboration, is suspicious without reference to off-wiki collaboration. If discussion closers are poorly closing discussions on the basis of !votes, rather than on the basis of quality and influence of independent arguments, then this is a problem with closers.  If a number of editors happen to have the same reversion style, which appears to an editor to be against policy or consensus considerations, then that is already a matter for content dispute resolution.  The conduct you're describing is unacceptable regardless of demonstrated past off-wiki collaboration, or the potential for off-wiki collaboration. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@ VolunteerMarek. Thank you, Marek. In actuality, I also didn't mean all EEML members in this my post. Behaviour of majority of them is almost impeccable, and they do their best to dispel any doubts about any possibility of coordinated edits. The problem is, however, that some mechanism is, nevertheless, needed to eliminate any possibility of resurrection of this story (with the same or different participants, no matter). In connection to that, I proposed some modifications to the EW policy. To my great satisfaction, one of the EEML members, whom I sincerely respect, Piotrus, supported this proposal (which, in my opinion, would eliminate any possibility of tag teaming). However, some other EEML members opposed to that, and my proposal went into oblivion. Maybe, it makes sense to return to this issue?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @MVBW. In my opinion, the idea of amnesty should come from some third party, not from the EEML members themselves. Frankly speaking, I do not support a blanket amnesty. Whereas some ex-EEML members fully learned due lessons from this story, some other members still demonstrate partisan behaviour.
 * Moreover, in my opinion, the right of amnesty should be earned. By earned I mean, for example, the following. You guys should come together and propose some changes to policy that would make any tag teaming, as well as other manifestations of edit warring impossible. For example, you may propose a following change to the policy: every user who joins a chain of reverts started by others is responsible for edit warring even if his personal 3RR limit has not been exceeded (a kind of "collective 3RR", we can discuss technical details elsewhere). Two years ago, I proposed this change to the policy, I was supported by one of the EELM member, Piotrus, - but two other EEML members opposed to such a change! What is the most logical explanation for that? The most obvious (although not necessarily the most correct) explanation is that you guys (of course, just some of you) still have not fully abandoned your battleground mentality. Again, if you guys will propose, and persuade, our community to make this, or similar modification of the policy that will help to prevent future edit wars - I will fully support a wholesale amnesty, and, probably, even deletion of the EEML case from the archives. However, for now - no.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @Frankly speaking, I agree with this Vecrumba's argument. It would be more reasonable not to focus on the interaction ban between Nug and Russavia, but to fix a ridiculous situation when the interaction ban between the user A and B becomes a tool that allows one of them to seize a control over some article by making edits scattered through the whole article. Fixing of this issue will be tantamount to lifting of the Nug/Russavia interaction ban. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
I have to say that this proposal makes sense to me. Russavia probably can't remove any tags himself under his own restrictions, and it makes no sense to have possibly now irrelevant tags remain in place because the person who placed them can't do so himself. I might request Nug start a discussion on the talk page before removing tags or maybe making substantial changes to an article not necessarily directly related to recent developments, under the circumstances, but I can't see how it makes any sense to allow people who have been banned from the site and a given topic to in effect continue to have a degree of control over them, through such things as dubiously placed or now irrelevant tags. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
There would be a benefit to making EEML obsolete, and the Committee could pass a motion to lift all remaining bans and restrictions from the original WP:EEML case. The understanding would be that any bans that turn out still to be necessary can be reimposed via discretionary sanctions under the existing authority of WP:ARBEE. The only nuance might be that some of Russavia's restrictions come from WP:ARBRB which is thought of as including all of the former Soviet Union. So the Committee might clarify that WP:ARBEE will allow discretionary sanctions relating to any countries of the former Soviet Union. In actuality, the only provision of EEML that hasn't expired is Remedy 11A, the one that prevents the EEML editors sanctioned by name from interacting with Russavia.

Statement by Vecrumba
To the point at hand, I support lifting of the ban. In particular, any evaluation of editor behavior needs to be from here forward, not, as as has been implied, saddle particular editors with a permanent stench. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the IBAN mechanism, I have commented elsewhere on its completely inappropriate enforcement which invites conflict. I thank Paul Siebert for his stated agreement with my position. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I move not only that the ban be lifted but that the IBAN policy be strictly interpreted. If two editors are "banned" from interacting with each other, that should not be construed as a ban on their constructively interacting on content, addressing content and not each other. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
It should be noted that the ban/block on Russavia was a strange reaction to a harmless cartoon, and therefore could be overturned at any time. Rich Farmbrough, 01:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

Clerk notes

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


 * Comment. I have left a note on User:Russavia's talk page, as they have yet to comment. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Russavia cannot edit own talk page. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 04:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting statements, but I'm inclined to seriously consider this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless anything new and concerning is raised in the comments, I'll propose a motion on this in a couple of days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The delay is because the Committee received an e-mail from Russavia indicating he has some evidence we should consider. I'm allowing a little more time for him to send it to us. Note that I wouldn't take any action (or refrain from taking any action) based on such evidence without giving anyone else mentioned in it an opportunity to comment on it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is little value in maintaining interaction bans that have been mooted by one of the parties being banned. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the banned party is not banned indefinitely, so that is a mitigating concern... when that party returns to Wikipedia, will the interaction ban save strife? Courcelles 20:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Nug, topic bans don't really change the usefulness of interaction bans to my mind, I'm only concerned about Russavia's site ban here. Courcelles 02:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am also concerned about the implications of lifting an interaction ban because one party is currently blocked - that appears one-sided and simply delaying potential conflict. I would rather lift an interaction ban because BOTH parties are in a position of agreement. If the tags that Russavia placed are significantly inappropriate, then another editor would be moved to remove them. It doesn't need to be Nug.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  08:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty much per SilkTork.  Roger Davies  talk 09:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Nug. A topic ban and an interaction ban are two very different things. I'd be prepared to lift the interaction ban for both parties, but would like to hear from Russavia first.  Roger Davies  talk 12:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that we've lifted other individual sanctions in this area on the basis that the discretionary sanctions are sufficient to maintain order in the future, I don't see a particular need to retain this one, especially on the off chance that the conflict might resume once Russavia's current ban ends. I'll propose a motion to that effect below. Kirill [talk] 01:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Motion (Eastern European mailing list)
1) The interaction ban placed upon and  in the Eastern European mailing list case is lifted, effective immediately.  The users are reminded of the discretionary sanctions authorized for their area of mutual interest.



Enacted - Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support
 * Per the discussion above. Kirill [talk] 01:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * [Switched from oppose],  Roger Davies  talk 05:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no benefit to retaining this sanction. AGK  [•] 23:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, per Roger Davies. Risker (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * This is a one-sided discussion. Prefer to discuss it if the other party returns. In the meantime, Nug is able to edit Wikipedia without the ban interfering. Having assisted on the main aspect of the ban that Nug had problems with (and willing to help out in any other areas that remain) there is no valid reason for lifting the ban. If the ban on Russavia was permanent, then yes, but he may return on successful appeal.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  19:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Per SilkTork, especially the part about that Russavia's block is time-limited changes the discussion considerably. Courcelles
 * It is not an interaction ban in the conventional sense. It restricts a group of editors from commenting on or interacting with Russavia. I would like (1) to hear from Russavia about this before amending and (2) to consider removing the restriction entirely from the group of editors rather than lifting it piecemeal. In the meantime, I am not persuaded that it continuing in force is onerous.  Roger Davies  talk 07:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Having heard from Russavia, I'm switching to Support in this instance,   Roger Davies  talk 05:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * Holding my vote, for reasons similar to Roger's. AGK  [•] 13:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)  Voted.  AGK  [•] 23:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently, Russavia will contact us with his views over the weekend. AGK  [•] 15:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request: The Troubles (September 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Cailil   talk at 14:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected :

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

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

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

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

Also, I would like to propose that the list of users under MER should have its own subpage (instead of being grouped with other editing restrictions), because the editors in question is not under a topic ban (and a different page/section/etc would make it easier to track). - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 15:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Clerk notes

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


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

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Motions

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

Formalization of Mandated External Review as an independent sanction

 * Note: This motion is an alternative to motion 2.

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


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


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


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * Passage of this motion would amount to a "no" answer to Cailil's original question. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 18:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Formalization of Mandated External Review as a form of discretionary sanction

 * Note: This motion is an alternative to motion 1.

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


 * Support
 * 1) First choice per above. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 18:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) PhilKnight (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) This is, IMO,  the status quo. Courcelles 22:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Jclemens (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) But subject to my comments above, the gist of which is that we ought to proceed deliberately in introducing and evaluating this new remedy/sanction formulation, rather than just introducing in all DS topic-areas in a blunderbuss fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support this if there is a good review/evaluation of its usefulness scheduled in somewhere. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) First choice. I would like us to make this option available to AE administrators who are otherwise at the end of their tether with one topic area or another. Like Elen, I would however prefer that we evaluate the effectiveness of MER at some stage. I prefer that we unfold the MER documentation into a separate page, to make it clear we intend MER to be an elevated form of discretionary sanctions. Setting this specific case aside, I am rather uncomfortable with the idea of MER, and if I were a sysop staffing AE I would probably topic-ban a user instead of subjecting them to MER. Nevertheless, I am content for us to give it a shot: discretionary sanctions were probably once thought of as a novel and dangerous.  AGK  [•] 14:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Kirill [talk] 11:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * Passage of this motion would amount to a "yes" answer to Cailil's original question. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 18:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Enacting motion.  NW  ( Talk ) 16:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Falun Gong 2 amended

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

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


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


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


 * Abstain


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


 * Enacting motion.  NW  ( Talk ) 16:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request: The Troubles (September 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Seraphimblade Talk to me at 21:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC) N/A
 * Case affected :
 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 5
 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)
 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Information about amendment request
 * It is requested that the discretionary sanctions in the area of British baronets be lifted.

Statement by Seraphimblade
Following a recent appeal to arbitration enforcement from a user who had been sanctioned under the Troubles discretionary sanctions, and objected to the portion of this which forbade editing of British baronets, a closer look was taken at this. Arbitrator Newyorkbrad confirmed that the Committee had not seen any issues arise from this area for at least a year and a half, and taking a check through the AE archives and case enforcement logs, I also can't find any trouble there recently. The administrators involved in the discussion regarding the appeal, including the one who closed the original request and placed the sanctions, agreed there was little purpose in the baronet portion of the ban and it ultimately was lifted for that editor. It's nice to see an area where sanctions have done their job and calmed things down, so I think it's time to give it a go without them. Accordingly, I'd propose something to this effect:
 * "Remedy 5 (Standard discretionary sanctions) of Requests for arbitration/The Troubles is amended as follows: The words "and British baronets" are stricken from this remedy. The Committee reserves the right to restore sanctions to this area by motion should a pattern of editing problems reemerge. Existing sanctions which were placed prior to this amendment remain in effect until they expire or are lifted via the normal appeals process." Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

All of the troubles-related disputes wrt baronets involved, who is currently indef-blocked (and I think also perma-banned) after a very long series of conflicts. - Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This is potentially thorny enough that I would appreciate the clerks notifying various noticeboards/wikiprojects that would be reasonably interested. Might be worth letting AN know as well. Courcelles 03:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, lets get rid of this clause. Courcelles 20:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Awaiting further statements. PhilKnight (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on everything I am aware of, the disputes that formerly existed on the "baronets" articles were not directly related to "the Troubles"; they are mentioned in the remedy because those disputes, at that time, involved a handful of the same editors who were involved in the "the Troubles" disputes as well. If, as appears, there aren't any ongoing disputes concerning baronets, then editors restricted under "the Troubles" need not be restricted as to "baronets" editing. That being said, I don't believe a formal motion to amend is necessary to narrow the sanctions. Any administrator imposing a discretionary sanction has the authority to tailor the sanction to the specific misconduct warranting it. Thus, if the ArbCom decision says "discretionary sanctions are authorized in areas A, B, and C" and a user has breached policy only re A and B and has never had a problem with C, then it's quite in order for the admin to impose the sanction as to A and B and leave C out. So, a formal amendment isn't necessary, but I'm willing to propose an amendment motion anyway if there's a consensus of the AE administrators that it would be helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the comments, unless anything else comes up, I'll make a motion in the next day or so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support removing "and British baronets" to avoid the unnecessary paperwork as witnessed in the FergusM1970 incident. As there has been no recent evidence of problems, and problems were mainly caused by one (currently indefinitely blocked) editor, I see no value in keeping this wide sanction. If there are problems in this topic area in future, it may be more appropriate to focus sanctions on those editors causing the problems rather than referring the topic back to The Troubles.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  16:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with both removing the no-longer-necessary sanctions, as well as with the option for administrators to NOT impose discretionary sanctions in irrelevant areas. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Motion (The Troubles)

 * "Remedy 5 (Standard discretionary sanctions) of Requests for arbitration/The Troubles is amended as follows: The words "and British baronets" are stricken from this remedy. The Committee reserves the right to restore sanctions to this area by motion, should a pattern of editing problems re-emerge. Existing sanctions which were placed prior to this amendment remain in effect (and unmodified) until they expire or are lifted via the normal appeals process."
 * Enacted - Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  19:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of this motions, there are 14 active arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.


 * Support
 * Courcelles 16:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Kirill [talk] 00:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Template:Troubles restriction sets out a scope for this dispute of "The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland". If conduct while editing British baronets becomes problematic in future, item three of the scope ("British nationalism in relation to Ireland") will enable enforcement. (Fixed punctuation in this motion; feel free to revert.) AGK  [•] 12:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 *  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  21:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 14:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain

Discretionary sanctions appeal: The Troubles (September 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  2 lines of K  303  at 12:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * notified

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rather than actually deal with the editors persistently violating policy, the admins have decided "sod it, we'll just ban everyone" without taking into account that some editors are simply trying to enforce content policy in the face of disruptive editors adding transparent violations of policy, and that removing the disruptive editors from the situation is all that's needed. I can't see how this topic ban is remotely justified by the "evidence" unless attempting to enforce content policy is now topic ban worthy? 2 lines of K 303  12:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Finally "The crux of the sanction was due to the tag teaming at Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997 while the case was open. It is not acceptable for a party to bring a case to AE for stated misconduct and then engage in such misconduct themselves - that is the definition of unclean hands." sums up the whole problem here. Reverting once to enforce policy is not "misconduct" 2 lines of K  303  14:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I never called AE a cabal. What I said was that you're invoking the cabal by saying editors are tag-teaming, when it's more obvious that they are reverting because the edits were violations of policy. I didn't involve myself in any edit war. As the article history and the evidence page shows, a series of *brand new* edits were made by FergusM1970 on 7 August 2012‎. I reverted the changes I disagreed with, and for most of those changes I was the first person to revert them. What happens after that is nothing to do with me. What you appear to be saying is that FergusM1970 could make any changes he wants to (no matter if they violated policy or not), and that anyone who had the cheek to revert him gets topic banned. I hope everyone else can see how bizarre that is. 2 lines of K  303  15:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "in concert", there you go again invoking the cabal. Since you intend to keep mentioning the edits to Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997 that have already been refuted at at User:One Night In Hackney/Appeal let's just examine them here?
 * 7 August.
 * The use of insurgency is inappropriate, read the rest of the lead. "The British Army characterised this period as the 'insurgency phase' of the IRA's campaign" and "The British Army called this the 'terrorist phase' of the IRA's campaign". Two different distinct phases in the British Army's assessment, so why use one of those labels for the entire campaign?
 * Use of 2009 opinion poll about a tangentially releated subject to try and show lack of support for a campaign that was from 1969 to 1997 - self evident WP:NOR violation but explained at User:One Night In Hackney/Appeal in even more depth.
 * Removal of "specifically" - commentary added by FergusM1970 not in the source
 * Change of "IEDs" back to "bombs" - WP:ACRONYM. And if you want an anecdote about the use of [I]EDs versus bombs "At a press conference, he explained that the Cole blast was the result of 'an explosive device on a water-borne delivery vehicle.' One of the assembled hacks shouted out: 'You mean - a bomb on a boat,' to general hilarity."
 * 14 August are repeating the same previously disputed changes for the same reasons. The fact SonofSetanta had chosen to edit war those disputed changes (including the blatant OR, which was removed several days before my second edit while only "contributing" this to the talk page discussion is the root of the problem here. I'm the poor sod who's vainly attempting to enforce policy in the face of this....


 * You bring up 7 July 2005 London bombings again, if I'm not being "singled out" then you might want to try and explain how my edits (to remove OR) are worthy of a topic ban yet Flexdream's edits (to add OR) are worthy of a slap on the wrist not a topic ban? If you deal with the real problem (the editors who add OR claiming a "Wikipedia link" justifies the inclusion) then everything else disappears, there is no edit warring without them. You're thinking a symptom is the problem, it isn't. 2 lines of K  303  16:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @BHG, there's also the fact that 4 out of the 7 articles at Category:GA-Class Irish Republicanism articles were taken there by me, and in fact 3 of those were created at pretty much GA status by me. I don't have as much time to write as I'd like right now due to ongoing difficulties in my family hence my lack of recent substantial content edits, since various involved editors made the accusation I contribute nothing. 2 lines of K  303  14:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @NYB, I'd second that request. I'm sure it shouldn't be too difficult for someone to provide the exact diffs in a short, concise post. 2 lines of K  303  16:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * "Huh? If there was a consensus, why was mediation in process?" - is that a serious question? "summarily executed" was the consensus wording, FergusM1970 wanted to get consensus to change that wording to something else. That's why he stared the DRN thread and made the mediation request. Why else do you think he did that? I could suggest he did both as a token gesture to counter the fact he was going to continue edit warring to remove the term anyway, which is exactly what he did at the history of the article shows. 2 lines of K  303  11:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


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


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


 * "if ONIH had applied the same verifibiality and NOR criteria to both parts of the sentence, and had supported Flexdream's concerns about and deletion of problematic material by removing it himself, the edit war that followed might easily have been avoided" - I did the former, as the talk page proves. As already stated, I was not willing to edit war on his behalf to make an edit he'd already attempted to make which had been reverted. I find it a hilarious double standard that you're saying if I revert Flexdream's addition I'm edit warring, yet what am I doing if I revert Nick Cooper's edit? Is that not edit warring also? The sequence is bold-revert-discuss. Flexdream was bold in his removal, reverted, then didn't attempt to discuss but made a totally different bold edit. He was then reverted by me, and rather than discuss he started an edit war, then edit warred again, 27 minutes after starting a talk page "discussion" and 1 minute after claiming a "Wikipedia link" justified the inclusion of OR. So exactly who is causing the problem on that article? The editor adding OR, or the one removing it? It's a simple enough question, and while I'll accept some share of blame it's impossible to say my behaviour is worse than Flexdream's on that article, yet he gets a slap on the wrist compared to my 3 month topic ban. I've asked repeatedly how this is remotely justifiable, and pointed out that Flexdream's disruptive behaviour just happens to be on the the same articles you're using to justify my ban, yet I've never received a proper answer to the question. Perhaps someone could take the trouble to answer it? 2 lines of K  303  13:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


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


 * "ONiH was participating in the edit warring, and AE isn't there to decide who's the "right" side of an edit war, but rather to determine whether someone was or wasn't a part of it" - you really ought to think about the message you're sending out here. FergusM1970 is nothing but a disruptive POV warrior in my opinion, and even Slp1 says was he/she "was appalled by FergusM1970's pointy editing about being "unarmed"". Although he didn't include this as an example, this where he changes "Three-year-old Johnathan Ball" to "Unarmed three-year-old Johnathan Ball" is as bad as it gets, how many armed three-year-olds have you ever heard of? Enough to warrant the addition of "unarmed" to this three-year-old? I doubt it! The message you are sending to any editor who is foolish enough to revert disruption of this nature is clear - dare to do it and we'll accuse you of edit warring and using Wikipedia as a battleground and topic ban you too. That's totally wrong. It boils down to - let the POV warrior make whatever edits they want or we'll topic ban you - is that really the message you think should be sent?  2 lines of K  303  11:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @Courcelles and PhilKnight, have you actually looked at the backtracking and goalpost moving by the admins here? "Per the consensus of uninvolved administrators" is against Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed. So I break down the evidence actually cited in the original discussion. So what do the admins do? Cailil invents a reason that was never mentioned in the discussion among admins in relation to me, and Slp1 introduces evidence that wasn't discussed either. This is positively Kafkaesque. A ban is proposed based on one edit, I ask for an explanation as to why that edit merits a three month ban, never get a reply. I get banned, for unknown reasons, then told I am banned, again without the reasons being explained. So now we get here, and I'm told I'm banned for a reason that was never mentioned in relation to me and based on evidence that was never even mentioned. And it's within admin discretion to make decisions like that? The mind boggles, it really does.... 2 lines of K  303  20:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad. As can be seen from the discussion, the 3 month topic ban was suggested to apply to everyone supposedly involved, regardless of previous history. For example has two previous Troubles sanctions on his current account, as well as 5 previous blocks on Troubles related articles on his previous account  (see Sockpuppet investigations/The Thunderer/Archive for details). So to give me the same length topic ban as SonofSetanta is perverse, when I have never even been blocked on Troubles related articles, save one erroneous block quickly overturned. I find myself in a bizarre situation where I have been topic banned for reasons that have not been explained based on "evidence" that hasn't even been fully divulged to me. How am I supposed to edit again under those circumstances? I'll only get topic banned again based on the whim of some admin who refuses to answer questions, as has happened here. 2 lines of K 303  11:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

@AGK, I'm really struggling to understand this now. SonofSetanta twice tries to force through incorrect or policy violating changes made by FergusM1970. I revert the changes a full 7 days after Domer48 had edited them out, and that's somehow worthy of a 3 (or even 6!!) month topic ban? Seriously, can I have an explanation as to this thinking please? The message is still clear to me, don't bother trying to stop people forcing through disputed changes or you'll get topic banned. So what's the alternative? Let their disruptive, incorrect and/or policy violating changes stand while we go through dispute resolution and they refuse to compromise and insist their edits stand? Does the reader benefit from allowing those changes to stand while all this goes on? 2 lines of K 303  11:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

@Various people. If the decision is "harsh", then why is a harsh decision being allowed to stand? I'm not simply asking for the ban to be overturned, reducing the length is a second option. 2 lines of K 303  11:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

@Flexdream. I don't have the time or energy to pick apart your latest attempts to revise history, like when you claimed at editors previously blocked and topic banned "didn't realise at the time they were in breach of a rule" [1RR]. However your claim regarding RTÉ is incorrect, as you are well aware. At the time of the dispute there was no podcast copy of the show on the RTÉ website at all, that is an addition made since the edits in question. This is obvious to anyone reading the discussions about it. 2 lines of K 303  11:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

@Slp1. Totally irrelevant in my opinion, unless you're of the opinion that topic bans should be handed out at a minimum of three months regardless of the supposed level of misconduct? 2 lines of K 303  11:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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


 * @ONiH: I understand you're angry but it's going a bit far to describe AE as a cabal - and it's a bit unfair to target me when this is a group decision. Furthermore slow editwars and tag teaming should be obviously inappropriate behaviours and are and have been covered by WP:TROUBLES's rulings since the imposition of the 1rr & probation. In the midst of an edit war at the Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_campaign article where the same edit was contested multiple times you involved yourself ONiH in that dispute - yes your edits were days apart but the behaviour of you all was unacceptable. This kind of conduct uses the revert function to impose a group's preferred version without a constructive attempt at consensus, in a way that circumvents 1RR. Furthermore Slp1 raised the issue of the 7 July 2005 London bombings of which your conduct was slow editwaring as she mentioned (no perhaps we didn't single you out by name but that should be obvious by the article history and your edits) You were only 1 part of that issue and you were not singled out, others (ie OldJacobite) did the same thing The discretionary sanctions issue was raised within the AE discussion on foot of your question on my talk page - 4 *other* sysops disagreed with your interpretation (Seraphimblade at AE, Tim Canens, Ed Johnston and KillerChiuahua at Tim's page). I belive Seraphimblade dealt with this in detail and an AE appeal by Domer48 was already closed on these grounds as declined. For this appeal to be completely upheld the Arbs would have to exhonerate your actions at both articles ONiH. If the Arbs feel that the discussion at AE was not explicit enough and that that is grounds for appeal, fine - we can learn from that, but the grounds for action seem clear to me and if Arbs disagree fine but I'd like a note on why so similar decisions are not made-- Cailil  talk 15:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * At the IRA campaign artile ONiH you reverted twice - your second revert is the current version made on April 14th. Your First revert was April 7. In the intervening period the same edit was reverted an re-added multiple times. You were all in breach. On the 7/7 bombings article you reverted the same edit 5 times in concert with others against a group of reverters. Again you were not singled out. If it had been down to me alone Flexdream WOULD have been banned too for his conduct there & that was my proposal-- Cailil  talk 15:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


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


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


 * @Arbs: Both myself and Seraphimblade have said that we'd see MER as an appropriate alternative to a topic ban here. Given that 1 month of the topic ban has passed without incident I'd have no issue with the other 2 months being moved to MER-- Cailil  talk 20:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by Slp1

 * (edit conflict with SilkTork's comment) Arbitrators are familiar with lookinb at the overall pattern of a person's edits to see battleground tendentious editing style. Individual edits in themselves can seem innocuous and understandable, but it is the full pattern that reveals the problem. Here, in summary, is why I decided One Night in Hackney needed a break from this topic area; much of this was already noted in the multiple AE reports directly or indirectly.  One Night in Hackney is to be commended for much excellent editing, but as an experienced editor, and one (of many) named to the original Troubles case back in 2007, he knows, or should know, how to avoid practices which exacerbate the systemic problems in the Troubles area and how to promote cooperation and consensus building.
 * Within this appeal request are battleground statements that reinforce my concerns. For example, the repeated statements about how ONIH seeks to "enforce content policy". The comment "some editors are simply trying to enforce content policy in the face of disruptive editors adding transparent violations of policy" is deeply problematic. This is clearly ONIH's view of himself, but of course editors on the other "side" would say just the same about their own actions and motivations.
 * One particular maintainer of this battleground mentality is the extensive use of the reverting and edit warring rather than seeking discussion or waiting till that discussion is resolved. A look at the article histories in dispute during the time the AE was open shows ONIH's participation in such problematic patterns Corporals killings; 7 July 2005 London_bombings Bloody Friday (1972) etc.
 * Another concern is the combative nature of many talkpage comments; related to this a lack of clear interest in the proposed dispute resolution. In the 24 hours between receiving notification of the DRN discussion‎ and the DRN closure ONIH had time to file a sockpuppet investigation about FergusM1970, respond regularly at AE e.g., make multiple other edits including a revert to the article that was the very topic of the DRN as well as delete the DRN notification - all without any hint that he was thinking about participating.
 * My greatest concern, however, comes from the selective use of content policy "enforcement". There seems a clear attempt to have it "both ways" in ONIH's edits.
 * During the various disputes, ONIH has quite rightly urged editors to provide sources for their edits and choice of wording.e.g.. Yet during the "summarily executed/killed/murder" discussion, when another editor suggested using RSs to guide the decision, and found that only one source (of questionable status) used ONIH's preferred wording,, instead of accepting per V, NPOV etc), ONIH argued on, suggesting that those with concerns about his preferred wording (which included a couple of AE administrators)  only had them "because they believe the parrot-like comments of FergusM1970".
 * Similarly, while removing unverified original research and synthesis is good, it is inappropriate to revert "rv unsourced commentary"] which favours one side of the Troubles divide, while leaving in equally unsourced commentary which favours the other, most especially when an editor on "the other side" had already quite appropriately removed the latter material(and been reverted-not by ONIH). Over a period of 6 days, ONIH continued to slow-motion edit war (along with other editors) to remove/reinsert the same part of the unverified original research, before he finally removed all the unverified material.[], for which due credit should be given.
 * A final example, this time about enforcing consensus. In this edit ONIH reverted to his preferred phrasing of "summarily executed" and "brandished" with an edit summary that simultaneously claimed consensus and offered an invitation to the Mediation discussion about the wording. Huh? If there was a consensus, why was mediation in process?


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


 * A quick and short response to ONIH. Concern about various editors' actions, including ONIH, on the articles during the time period in question were indeed mentioned, directly or indirectly, on one or the other AE threads, by me or others. ONIH can't really complain about the detail now being given when it was he who asked for more specifics above. And yes, ONIH contributed to the later Mediation, albeit initially with a caveat ; my links and comments referred to the prior failed DRN which ONIH referred to in his first post above.
 * AE enforcement looks at behaviour, not content. It examines at how editors apply the various policies and guidelines here, and in this case how they deal with disputed situations where the content is in dispute.  I'd argue that the response above continues to indicate a battleground perspective in which ONIH provides evidence about the "rightness" of his edits.  He states, for example, that on Bloody Friday he reverted because "an an editor was attempting to use an unverifiable TV show as a source". In fact, there was a lively debate about the topic at RSN, in which he participated, with experienced editors disagreeing about the issue. Yet during that very discussion he reverted the content for a third time.. As an another example on the 7 July 2005 London bombings ONIH asks "You appear to be suggesting that if I want to remove the content Flexdream added, I also have to join in an edit war on his behalf.". The edit war happened anyway, actually, but yes, if ONIH had applied the same verifibiality and NOR criteria to both parts of the sentence, and had supported Flexdream's concerns about and deletion of problematic material by removing it himself, the edit war that followed might easily have been avoided, and more importantly a small bridge could have been built between the factions.
 * I could make other points, but that's enough from me.Slp1 (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding to this; real life busy-ness and it took me a while to research the following. I wasn't the one who suggested three months, but I have done a survey of all the topic bans given out at AE in the last 6 months, and the 3 month length seems very typical. Note: I have not include the topic bans given out in this RFAE in the analysis.
 * 15 were indefinite topic bans. Two were given out, as far as I could see, as the first and only sanction but the bulk (13)  were given to editors who had at least one previous topic bans, blocks etc, mostly in the topic area.
 * 6 were given 6 month topic bans. All of these editors had a previous history of problems and sanctions in the area.
 * 4 editors were given 3 month topic bans, 1 of whom had a previous history of sanctions, while the rest didn't.
 * 1 editor, with a prior history, received a topic ban of 1 month
 * All to say that a topic ban of 3 months for a first sanction at AE does not seem to be unusual at all; in fact it seems to be the typical first step for most AE admins.
 * As with the other AE admins who have responded here, I would be happy to accept any modifications ArbCom chooses to accept. I would be happier still if I felt  that editing restrictions were not required at all; however, based on comments by ONIH here and elsewhere, I do not honestly see that ONIH has developed significant insight into the ways that his actions have contributed to the problems in topic area, and/or what he would do differently in the future. If Arbcom decides to have a trial of MER so be it, but my personal opinion is that given the fact that there are documented problems with talkpage discourse too, I'm not sure this is the best case to try it with. Just my 2 cents. Slp1 (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

 * I think Cailil and Slp1 have already said a good deal of what I would say, so I won't belabor those points other than to say I am in essential agreement with them. The issue here is not a single egregious edit or comment on the part of ONiH, nor a violation of a bright-line rule like 1RR. Rather, the issue is an overall pattern of conduct and battleground behavior. Some examples: "rv to last good version" (implying the others are, of course, a non-good version):, states that someone is attempting to "circumvent consensus" but invites them to join the mediation&mdash;why have we a mediation if we have a consensus already? , "good version" again , dismissive attitude in discussions ("Yawn"), , as some examples, as well as the number of reverts occurring. ONiH was participating in the edit warring, and AE isn't there to decide who's the "right" side of an edit war, but rather to determine whether someone was or wasn't a part of it.
 * That being said, if the ArbCom allows mandated external review as a discretionary sanction, as it seems likely will pass, ONiH is probably the one of the disputants here that I'd be most inclined toward moving to MER of the same length rather than an outright topic ban. But I would strongly disagree that there was no misconduct or action required at all, and I would also disagree that ONiH is a blameless victim caught up in a case of, as he said, "Sod it and ban them all". Of course ArbCom does have the final say as that goes. If ArbCom feels an error was made, I would echo those above who would like guidance on what could be done differently in the future. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Newyorkbrad: ONiH was participating in the tit-for-tat and the edit warring. Like I said above, there wasn't a single occurrence that was utterly egregious, but rather a pattern of substandard behavior that convinced me the area would be best off with ONiH out of it for a period of time. It is certainly my hope that ONiH, as well as the other editors involved, will return to the area after their topic bans expire with a more cooperative approach, or if they can't do that, will refrain from returning to it at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Corporals killings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 July 2005 London_bombings

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

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

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

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

Bloody Friday (1972)

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

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


 * @everyone


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


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


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

Statement by Domer48
The following report was filed by ONIH on 2 August and was considered at the time by two Admin’s EdJohnston and Cailil on 3 August to be fairly cut and dry with Cailil noting that “…content is not relevant to ArbCom enforcement.” It was Heimstern here who suggested they “hold off on sanctions, let's find a way to resolve the content dispute via actual consensus first." NuclearWarfare asked did Admin’s “see anything by any party that looks like it would be called poor editing (POV writing, misrepresenting sources, etc.) by any objective observer?” and Seraphimblade asked “if there's clear POV editing, baiting, nastiness during discussions...” Heimstern said “no, nothing is blatantly obvious.”

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

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

It is now that the editing history of editors is called into question. We still have a group of editors who insist on violating the 1RR even with threads already open on them, and continuing to add un-sourced POV laden text and nothing is done. I do agree with the comments by AGK, "Topics subject to AE are demonstrably problematic areas of the encyclopedia, so misconduct reported here needs to be dealt with swiftly and effectively." In this case it was not! Admin's failed to act on this, and exasperated the situation by sitting on their hands failing in the one task they were assigned to do and have shifted this mess onto editors who have to deal with these editors. ONIH has ably demonstrated this with diff's and I've attempted to do the same. The more one looks at this, the more I question the fact that I have, along with ONIH been topic banned? I'll put up some diff's on my edits and request that Admins point to the ones that justify such a decision. -- Domer48  'fenian'  10:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by 86.25.25.204

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

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recused, although I do think the filer has a pretty good point here. SirFozzie (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Awaiting further input, including from any other AE administrators who participated in the decision and may wish to comment. (For the benefit of Cailil and others, while we appreciate and need the input of the AE admins when there is an appeal, I do not consider that the AE admins are parties to the dispute.) In particular, it would be helpful if someone could identify the specific edits by One Night in Hackney that led to the sanction, and any prior sanctions history involving him that might be relevant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Still reviewing; will comment further in the next day or so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To Flexdream: Yes, a (reasonably brief) statement from you would be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Having now reviewed the submissions, I understand the reasons that the AE administrators decided that One Night in Hackney was editing unhelpfully on the articles in question. I do not agree that every single diff that's been mentioned constituted misconduct, and his conduct was less aggravated than that of some of the other sanctioned editors, but there are just enough issues in the context of the overall picture that the decision to sanction One Night in Hackney is defensible. That being said, One Night in Hackney also has a record of positive contributions in this topic-area and, as far as I can tell, has not been subject to any sanctions under the decision in the past. Given that, a three-month topic-ban strikes me as arguably on the severe side. I recognize that deciding on the severity of a sanction by its nature can never be an exact science, and I also recognize the need to create a healthier editing environment on this topic area in general, so I'm not going to vote to modify an AE sanction lightly, so this may well fall into the "within the range of reasonable discretion, therefore appeal denied" category. Nonetheless, I'd appreciate any additional input from the AE administrators on how they chose the length of the topic-ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I accept that the consensus here is in favor of upholding the sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm also waiting more details. Having looked at the discussion, the admins involved appear to have looked into the matter and grown concerned at the approach adopted by the subsequently topic banned users of using the revert button as an editing tool, and that reverting was still happening while their conduct was being discussed. While Hackney's point is taken that the DRN was quickly closed, he does give the appearance of someone unwilling to cooperate by removing the notice, and then continuing to engage in arguments about the article in question, and reverting in related articles until he logs off for the night. Looking at Hackney's contribution history to the article in question, it appears that he is is working to keep the article neutral, though some of the reverts are dubious (is "brandished" really more NPOV than "drew his service pistol" - I don't see "brandished" used in the sources), and some appear to be inhibiting involvement of other good faith editors by removing everything they have contributed in one click back. I also note the unhelpful at times aggressive tone adopted by Hackney when discussing the matter on the talkpage - comments like "And try learning the difference between an execution and a summary execution, it isn't difficult..." will inflame situations rather than calm them down. And difficult not to stray into discussion of content here, but that a source can be found for a term (such as "summarily executed") does not necessarily make that term neutral. Sources can also be found for murdered, and no doubt other loaded or emotive terms. The neutral term, and the one used by most reliable sources appears to be "killed". As such, it appears valid to raise the question, so dismissing it as "irrelevant" is perhaps not in the right spirit of cooperative and collegiate behaviour we wish of our users. I'm interested in what others have to say, and a three month ban may be harsh if there has been no previous sanctions or poor conduct, but I'm not sure at the moment I'm seeing that the admins are that far wrong as to warrant ArbCom overturning their decision.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  22:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Decline.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  18:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Decline. I essentially agree with SilkTork's last sentence: this could possibly be a slightly harsh decision, but on balance, I think it is within admin discretion. PhilKnight (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Decline appeal, per PhilKnight. Courcelles 15:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Decline. This decision was justified (in that, e.g., ONIH reverted Domer48). Unlike Newyorkbrad, I think the 3-month topic ban is this case's 'goldilocks sanction'. A longer sanction could have been severe (though 6 month would seem preferable to 3, in my view), but a lesser sanction would have been ineffective and lenient. AGK  [•] 12:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All that said above, I wouldn't be opposed to making this one a MER sanction rather than a straight topic ban, or even allowing talk page comments (but not reverts). The AE result is justified, but we do have other options if there is any momentum that way. Courcelles 18:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I, too, would support converting this to a MER vs. a topic ban. MER was designed for editors who have a history of positive and problematic contributions, as a way for us to ask the community to look over the editor's shoulder and verify appropriate content focus. Having said, that, I also don't see the sanction as overly excessive, per my other colleagues above.  While I don't ever think a site ban should be as short as three months, a topic ban of that length is not unreasonably short. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)