Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate

Part of GuardianZ's statement

Last sentence in a photo caption (Plain Dealer, October 30, 2000) reads:

"In 1998 Monolith Graphics produced the cd Born of the Night which streamlined 
the music of local band Midnight Syndicate to appeal to a gothic audience. The success 
of Born of the Night spawned Midnight Syndicate's latest release, Realm of Shadows. "

The 1998 radio interview for the release of Born of the Night: Edward Douglas states:

"Joe suggested we do a Halloween CD...  Joe wanted to create a Halloween CD that 
would have music that would reflect his artwork... to conceptualize a CD that would go 
along with the gothic artwork that you create... am I right Joe?"

I don't know how much clearer you can get than that. GuardianZ 19:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate to close related SSPs?

The backlog on the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets page is horrendous, something like 2 months. Anyway, 2 SSP cases are strongly related to this case, and arbitrators here have done a far more thorough job on these issues than I could (issuing subject bans, and, tracking down Liz St. James as an actual person, for just two examples). I would like to close those two related SSP cases with reference to this arbcom case, as providing a more thorough solution than just potential sock puppet bans. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Case closed date is incorrect

It should be 2007, not 2006. Just thought I'd mention it. - Skinny McGee 21:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate

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

• SilkTork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Ebonyskye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notifications:

• User_talk:Thatcher#Clarification_request
• User_talk:Ebonyskye#Clarification

Statement by SilkTork

I have userfied an article, Blood of Angels deleted in an AfD for User:Ebonyskye. I have since discovered this archive: User talk:Ebonyskye/Archive1 in which the user has been notified by User:Thatcher that a checkuser found a relationship between the Ebonyskye account and that of User:GuardianZ who was banned from editing the Midnight Syndicate article. Thatcher also informed Ebonyskye that the ban extended to related articles including Nox Arcana articles. The article I userfied is a Nox Arcana article. My query relates to the wording of the ArbCom case. "GuardianZ (talk · contribs), and Skinny McGee (talk · contribs) are banned indefinitely from Midnight Syndicate." is clear enough. However, "No present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics, under any username or anonymous IP, may edit Midnight Syndicate or associated articles. " is less clear. Under the ruling is GuardianZ/Ebonyskye free to edit Nox Arcana articles? SilkTork *^YES! 16:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Fred Bauder has been notified: User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Clarification_request_on_wording_of_Midnight_Syndicate_ArbCom_decision. SilkTork *^YES! 18:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedy: As the two main parties in the ArbCom case, SkinnyMcGee and GuardianZ/Ebonyskye have not engaged in edit warring since the ArbCom decision; that the general feeling is that there should be equality in this matter; that the wording of the topic ban allows for some ambiguity; and that an indefinate topic ban is an unusually harsh sanction, especially given, as far as I am aware, that the conflict took place on one specific article: that the ban on the specific article, Midnight Syndicate, remains, but the wider topic ban is lifted for all parties. SilkTork *^YES! 11:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarity on Newyorkbrad's Motion. Could "any uninvolved administrator may reinstate the topic ban" be changed to "any administrator, other than [name], [name] and [name] who should bring potential infringements to the notice of a neutral aministrator, may reinstate the topic ban". I am not clear if I am an "involved administrator". SilkTork *^YES! 10:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Fred Bauder

The issue is whether the petty edit warring continues or starts up again. Fred Talk 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher

Relevant Arbitration enforcement archives: [1], [2]

Although this checkuser request was formally declined, another checkuser answered privately that Ebonyskye was related to GuardianZ (search link for arbs). It's possible that this was an error, of course, but I believe Ebonyskye is a "present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics, under any username or anonymous IP" and so falls under the topic ban passed as remedy 2. I notified her of the topic ban here, logged here.

It is apparent from Ebonyskye's contributions that she has been evading her topic for a long time. Interestingly, I find a complaint by Ebonyskye that Skinny McGee (talk · contribs) was evading the same topic ban, which resulted in Skinny McGee receiving a stern reminder. Why Ebonyskye was not similarly reminded and sanctioned, I have no idea.

Most of Ebonyskye's edits relate to the band Nox Arcana (including a considerable amount of self-promotion, which is not really an Arbcom matter) and she has largely (but not entirely) avoided direct edits to Midnight Syndicate where the dispute arose. (Skinny McGee seems to be a current member of the band while Ebonyskye is, or is associated with, a former member, now a member of Nox Arcana.)

One possible response would be to narrow the topic ban to encompass Midnight Syndicate only, to allow Ebonyskye to edit Nox Arcana-related articles, although this seems somewhat inequitable to Skinny McGee and essentially rewards Ebonyskye for being able to escape sanction for repeated violations of the ban over the last 18 months. Another possibility would be to lift the topic bans entirely on a trial basis, contingent on continued good behavior by all parties. I am somewhat concerned about this approach, having just discovered the diff of Ebonyskye reporting Skinny McGee's violation while knee-deep in her own repeated violations, and I would be interested to hear Ebonyskye's views on why she thought it was appropriate to report the violation in August 2008 while she was at that same time engaged in editing multiple articles that fell under her topic ban. (I expect she will say that she never was GuardianZ; I point to the checkuser log I noted above, and also to her contribs, if she is not GuardianZ she is still clearly a related editor. There are ways to correct a mistaken topic ban, pretending it does not exist is not one of them. She needs to come up with a better answer than that.) Thatcher 17:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ebonyskye

Thatcher, I still state I am not and have never been any other editor, not GaurdianZ, not Skinny McGee, no one.. I believe I sent you an email two years past with my home address, after which I immediately began to get spammed. (Not blaming you, just maybe opened up my email to this inadvertently). So I removed my email from Wikipedia and even got a new email. Anyway, the reason I reported on Skinny McGee was because I could. He falsely accused me of making edits I did not make then falsely accused me of being another editor. I simply returned the favor, except that he was proven to have had 4 other accounts, whereas I did not. And Thatcher, you yourself said that your discision is based on editing I had done.I did not start having a problem with McGee until he started with me. Per the suggestions of other editors (who also turned out to be sockpuppets - MarckChase, and unsigned others) I began looking for reliable sources to back up some of the statements on the Nox Arcana pages. I added what I thought was appropriate, describing the music, the instrumentation, and was slammed for it. So I looked for more sources. Then I got slammed for having too many links. More seasoned editors and admins love to slam on newer editors to "be bold" and "cite" etc, and when we DO, then we get crap for citing too much and for being too bold. This is just stupid that now there's actually a "committee" to decide if anyone properly looked into something I complained of 2 years ago. You didn't care then, so why now? And I can't even recall all the edits I may have made 2 years back and really don't want to waste time looking through history and trying to recall what I was even thinking then. How about this solution. Delete all of it, every scrap for BOTH bands. Who cares, right? Ebonyskye (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I admit, it IS frustrating to be falsely accused. So, how do I go about proving who I am, or in this case, who I am not? It's like deja vu, I know I asked this of Thatcher and we (or some admin and I) traded emails, but that seemed to go nowhere. Also, I would like to suggest some AFDs. Where might I go to do this? I read the procedure, but since I am banned from editing certain articles, I cannot follow said procedure. There are plenty of articles needing RS or that are far less notable than any I have edited. Since I am discouraged to create, perhaps I can help clean up. Ebonyskye (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

As the filing party who requested the Midnight Syndicate arbitration, I found SkinnyMcGee to be the more cooperative of the two primary disputants and subsequently awarded that editor a barnstar for creating a DYK about an unrelated (and uncontroversial) topic. GuardianZ was the primary aggressor in the original dispute. At no time in my observation did GuardianZ demonstrate a commitment to adapting to site standards or to Wikipedia's larger mission. To the extent that I noticed followup (which was quite some time ago), either GuardianZ or someone closely associated with that individual appeared to be openly contemptuous of project norms. Although I have not encountered the Enonyskye account directly, if the Committee were to demonstrate lenience toward either side of the dispute I would encourage them to either extend it toward SkinnyMcGee or else equally toward both parties. Meat/socking and topic ban evasion should not be rewarded while the party who demonstrates improvement remains under full sanction. Durova^Charge! 21:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything the arbitrators are seeking? Could put together an updated report with diffs etc. if there were an indication of what the Committee is interested in. Durova^Charge! 03:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

To Carcharoth: I am not seeking a lifting of SkinnyMcGee's editing restrictions. Raised that solely to illustrate the point that a reduction of SkinnyMcGee's restriction would be more justifiable than the present request.

To Sam Blacketer: see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate/Evidence#Addendum:_Blooferlady and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate/Evidence#GuardianZ_is_Blooferlady.2C_who_happens_to_be_Joseph_Vargo.27s_manager_and_girlfriend. GuardianZ was indeed covered by remedy 2.

The case in a nutshell is this: a close associate of a former Midnight Syndicate band member came to Wikipedia and attempted to convert the article into an advertisement for the talents of that former band member. The former band member had subsequently formed a competing band of his own. The primary aggressor first registered as Blooferlady, and later either edited as (or proxied via) GuradianZ. After the case ended either Blooferlady/GuardianZ or a close associate evaded the ban. Respectfully disagreeing with Fred Bauder's characterization of the edit warring as 'petty': this is a real world business dispute that migrated onto Wikipedia, so modifying the remedy could affect the business prospects of either or both bands. Durova^Charge! 22:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements. Please bear in mind that this case was decided more than two years ago and that none of the arbitrators who participated are still serving on the committee, so give us a little time here. Please give notice of this request to Fred Bauder, who wrote the decision, as he may have a view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm looking into this; my thanks to Fred and to Thatcher for their thoughts. I'll wait another day or two to see if anyone else wants to provide input, and then decide whether to propose any change to the current remedies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I've been away for a few days but will try to post a motion tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Offering a motion, below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• As NYB, just waiting to see if there is any further comment. --Vassyana (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Brad for working on a motion for this. Hopefully, we should be able to wrap this up within the next few days. --Vassyana (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Of the original parties to the case, Indigo1032 and Peacekpr are no longer active. I note that User:Dionyseus is actively editing. Could they be notified of this in case they want to say something? Turning to the main two parties, I see that User:GuardianZ edited from February 2006 to 10:22, 12 March 2007. User:Skinny McGee edited from October 2006 to 04:18, 5 August 2008 (Durova, if you want sanctions on Skinny McGee lifted, they will have to start editing again and file a separate request). Looking at User:Ebonyskye, the first edit was at 08:19, 2 March 2007, with the account created earlier that day. I've also read the checkuser cases and the AE archived threads and skimmed through the arbitration case and decision. I think it is reasonable to conclude from this that Ebonyskye is GuardianZ or someone editing with a similar agenda (note principle 5 in the case: "In cases where it is difficult to identify the identities of users and anonymous editors due to use of a number of accounts, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity"). I think the AfD Ebonyskye is talking about is this one (Blood of Angels is a redirect to a section in that article). I think the key here is for Ebonyskye to state directly (without going into detail) whether they have an undeclared conflict of interest with either the Midnight Syndicate or Nox Arcana articles, and if so, whether they will abide by a restriction on editing either or both articles, or would agree to any of the proposals made above by SilkTork and Thatcher. Carcharoth (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• I wonder if we would be needlessly adding to the problems needing rectifying if we took this issue much further. I think that Ebonyskye is probably the same user as GuardianZ but it is far from clear if he was covered by remedy 2 in the original case - specifically because I don't see any reason at present for assuming that he was an employee or associate. Secondly and more importantly his edits seem to have been uncontroversial for some time. While arbitration decisions are intended to stop disruption of the encyclopaedia, if the disruption stops for another reason we should take cognisance of that fact and be willing to step aside. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion

Explanation of motion

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate, which closed in January 2007, this Committee found that several editors had engaged in extended edit-warring and disruptive editing on Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, and related articles. The disputes appeared to stem from real-world disputes concerning the history of these musical groups, with which these editors were or are associated off-wiki. As a result, two named editors as well as all others associated with the groups were topic-banned indefinitely from editing this group of articles.

More than two years have elapsed since the topic-bans were imposed. During this period, there have been some allegations of sockpuppetry, but in general terms the level of edit-warring and disruption on the articles has decreased, reflecting that the topic-bans have had their desired effect. Now, however, it has been suggested that we consider relaxing the topic-ban in whole or part.

The editor misconduct that led to the imposition of the remedies was serious. However, two years is a long time on Wikipedia, and it may be that the editors who were previously restricted are now capable of editing these articles in compliance with all relevant policies. This would include, among other things, avoiding edit warring and disruptive editing, editing only from a neutral point of view, minimizing edits that reflect the impact of any conflict of interest, and discussing controversies that may arise in a civil fashion on talkpages. In addition, it can be hoped that the passage of more than two years may have helped to alleviate any real-world feuds or bitterness that led to the original problems.

Understandable concern has been expressed that lifting the editing restrictions will lead to a resumption of the original problems. Accordingly, we should not simply terminate the remedies. However, in an effort to balance the competing considerations here and to allow a fair chance to evaluate the effect of our extending a second chance to this group of editors, I offer a motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion

The remedies (1 and 2) ordered by this Committee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate are suspended for a period of 90 days. During this period, the editors who were previously restricted by these remedies may edit without topic restriction. However, they are instructed to comply with all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines in their editing, particularly those discussed in the original arbitration decision. Each of these editors is also instructed to edit these articles from only a single account.

During the 90-day trial period, should any of the previously restricted editors engage in edit-warring, POV editing, or other misconduct on the articles in question, any uninvolved administrator may reinstate the topic ban against that editor or impose another appropriate sanction. Unless the misconduct is blatant, a warning to the editor should first be given.

As the end of the 90-day period approaches, a request for permanent termination or modification of the remedies may be submitted for consideration by this Committee.

Because there are 15 active arbitrators, a majority is 8.

Support:

1. Proposed for consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Sounds fair. Wizardman 15:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
3. NYB provides an excellent rationale and the motion seems fair. --Vassyana (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Per Vassyana. --bainer (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Carcharoth (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Motion carried. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion enacted Tiptoety ^talk

Discussion

• Brad, the remedies you point to name Skinny McGee, who last edited in August 2008, and GuardianZ who last edited in March 2007. I'm aware that Ebonyskye is considered to be either GuardianZ, or someone with a similar viewpoint, or someone mentioned under remedy 2 ("present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics"), but as Ebonyskye denies they are GuardianZ, we need to make clear that this proposed remedy applies to Ebonyskye regardless of the truth of the matter. You also say "Each of these editors is also instructed to edit these articles from only a single account" - again, this is only hinting at things here. If this is aimed at Ebonyskye, that needs to be made explicit. I can't support this motion unless Ebonyskye is explicitly mentioned. Carcharoth (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The aim of the Arbitration/Requests/Clarification was to see if Ebonyskye was able to edit Nox Arcana related articles. The motion above would allow Ebonyskye to edit such articles if Ebonyskye is also GuardianZ; if Ebonyskye is a "present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics"; or if Ebonyskye was drawn into this by accident. The end result is the same. SilkTork *^YES! 18:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SilkTork's interpretation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Still a few scenarios not covered, but this is fair enough for now. Carcharoth (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

---

• Could "any uninvolved administrator may reinstate the topic ban" be changed to "any administrator, other than [name], [name] and [name] who should bring potential infringements to the notice of a neutral aministrator, may reinstate the topic ban". I am not clear if I am an "involved administrator", and others may also wonder. SilkTork *^YES! 08:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I shall assume that I am an uninvolved admin unless informed otherwise, and so am able to act directly if I notice any problems. SilkTork *^YES! 18:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I know of no facts inconsistent with that. Without more, having taken prior enforcement action does not constitute involvement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. SilkTork *^YES! 08:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)