Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/2/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment

Request to amend prior case: The Troubles

Initiated by Elonka at 04:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Case affected

The Troubles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Amendment 1: New remedy: Discretionary Sanctions

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, or any expected standards of behavior or decorum. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; temporary bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; temporary bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; temporary restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

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

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

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

Statement by Elonka

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

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

• Banning one editor from one article and its talkpage for one week.[1]
• Banning one editor from making Samaria-related reverts, or removing reliable citations, for 90 days.[2]
• Banning one editor from editing the lead section of one article for one month.[3]

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

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

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of blocks and bans
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

The Troubles case has been amended before via community discussion, such as in October 2008[4] and October-November 2009.[5] A recent (November 2009) attempt was made to authorize discretionary sanctions via community discussion at ANI, but though a majority of uninvolved editors were in support of the idea, there was not a clear consensus. So I'm bringing this here, for a formal determination by ArbCom. It is my hope that if discretionary sanctions can be authorized in the topic area of Irish and British nationalism, we can avoid a case with a name such as "The Troubles 2". --Elonka 04:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka's reply to Vassyana

The articles within the topic area of Irish and British nationalism are subject to large quantities of tag team edit-warring. The articles are technically under 1RR (one revert per editor per article per day), but when teams of editors on each side engage in the battle, 1RR means very little, since we'll just get a stream of different editors coming through, all reverting each other. For example at Sinn Féin, there has been a longterm edit war about whether the infobox should state that the founding date of the organization was 1905 or 1970.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Other disputes overflow to articles that have a more tenuous connection to the topic area, but are still clearly the same editors battling over issues of nationalism. For example, Mooretwin (talk · contribs) created articles about soccer players from Northern Ireland, such as Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer) and Bobby Campbell (Northern Irish footballer), and move wars erupted as to whether the articles should be disambiguated as "(Northern Irish footballer)" or "(Northern Ireland footballer)". The dispute has also overflowed to the Scotland article, with an edit war over Scotland's national anthem.[23][24][25][26][27][28] Another overflow article is at British National Party, about an extremist political group which has policies related to Northern Ireland. Though not directly related to "The Troubles", it is still an article in the British/Irish nationalism topic area,[29] and is a location where established editors continue to revert each other.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]

Any action taken by an administrator in this topic area, no matter how minor or how clearly supported by policy, is usually immediately challenged by one side or the other of these battling editors. Challenges range from well-coordinated wiki-lawyering[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments,[49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57] to accusations of bias and incompetence, and sometimes out and out personal attacks.[58][59][60][61][62][63][64] It takes considerable fortitude for an administrator to deal with this, and the frustration is enhanced by the fact that administrators have very few tools at their disposal in this topic area. We can remind people of 1RR (1 revert per article per day) or put them on probation (1 revert per article per week), but with the coordinated tag team efforts, the edit-warring at the articles continues. If discretionary sanctions were authorized though, uninvolved administrators could implement more specific sanctions. For possible examples:

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

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

Statement by GoodDay

The proposed amendment is acceptable. Afterall, my suggestion of barring self-proclaimed British & Irish editors from those articles, hasn't been endorsed. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statement by MickMacNee

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

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

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

Statement by LessHeard vanU

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

Statement by Tznkai

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

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

Statement by RashersTierney

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

Statement by BritishWatcher

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

Here is the quote by Elonka on her talk page

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

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

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

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

Statement by HighKing

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

View by Giano

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

Statement by Rockpocket

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

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

View by Rannpháirtí anaithnid

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

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

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

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

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

View by Sarah777

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

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

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

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

Statement by Thryduulf

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

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

View by Sswonk

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

View by Snowded

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

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

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

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

Statement by User:Nickhh

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

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

Statement by SirFozzie

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

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

Rather then wait a couple months for that to happen, let's do it now. Let's identify the high-level bad actors in this area, and remove them from the environment (Topic Ban, or siteblock, etcetera), and see if other editors improve (either from not being pushed as much into wars, or getting the hint that WP has had ENOUGH of the constant battles). If not, deal with them until either all the edit warriors have been removed from the battlefield or until everyone stops the Battleground mentality. SirFozzie (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Explain it to me like I'm stupid. What are the specific behavioral problems being encountered? Are there editors exihibiting such problems who otherwise work productively and uncontroversially in other areas? Are the numbers of disruptive editors too high or too deeply engrained in the editing area to deal with them on a case by case basis? As a side note, the discussion linked demonstrates how the heavy participation of involved editors can derail outside input and make it extremely difficult to decipher the opinion of the broader community (as represented by participating uninvolved editors). I strongly encourage the community to address this issue, as it has deep negative consequences across most controversial areas. Beyond that, I await further statements. (As a note, please keep statements to a reasonable length and do not rehash the ANI discussion here.) Vassyana (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• It would be helpful to have a table like this drawn up for all related AE threads over the last six months. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  Based on the recent spat of statements, I am more inclined to believe that this amendment is required, because it has been effective when employed in more recent cases of this kind. I don't see careful consideration by the parties who should have the most valuable insight - just lots of FUD. There is no need to quickly add your statement to make sure your voice is heard; this is not an admin noticeboard. If you don't think this amendment is right, your statement should offer a better solution. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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

• Personally, I think that the discretion Elonka asks us to enshrine already belongs to administrators; strictly speaking, the only thing discretionary sanctions add is provide a formal venue where such interventions are centralized (Arbitration Enforcement) and make it "more bad" for another admin to unilaterally overturn measures placed by one of their colleagues. — Coren ^(talk) 20:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

---