Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

message: Please have a look at Robert Priddy. IMHO User:SSS108 is boldy misinterpreting  the ArbCom ruling. It doesn't apply to the article Robert Priddy (as he is neither Sathya Sai Baba nor an affiliated organization). And if I'm not completely mistaken, the ArbCom ruling only applies to User:Andries and User:SSS108. --Pjacobi 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Robert Priddy is a former SSB devotee who wrote a hagiography, then became disillusioned, left the group, and wrote an attack book.  While a typical author's web site might be expected to contain information about past and future projects, a calendar of book signing appearances, etc, Priddy's web site contains attacks on the SSB movement drawn from personal experience and original research and appears to violate the ruling in this case (which I think applies to content, not the editor who adds it).  A clarification would be appreciated. Thatcher131 22:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is because Priddy's notability today is mostly rooted in its attack site. Like Tilman Hausherr and http://www.xenu.de or Jack Chick and http://www.chick.com. --Pjacobi 22:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Priddy's self-published observations and opinions about SSB make him notable and get a link, does NPOV require that we link to the self-published observations and opinions of a pro-SSB web site that is critical of Priddy? Thatcher131 01:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, although I would take a look at it first. If it contains plainly false and defamatory material we should probably not link to it. if it just contains assertions that Priddy is a sorehead and exaggerates Baba's faults; it might be OK. I think there is an underlying problem with any of this material being encyclopedia however. A brief note that Baba is suspected of molesting young male devotees ought to suffice as well as a note that it is suspected that he uses slight of hand to produce his miracles. Problem is, like Little, Big the further in you go, the bigger it gets. Fred Bauder 14:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly not comfortable that the anti-Priddy web sites are suitably encyclopedic.  Are you saying Priddy's article can link to Priddy's site criticizing SSB?  I certainly agree with you about the general direction these articles should go with negative allegations; unfortunately that is not happening under the current decision with the current editors. Thatcher131 14:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thatcher131, if you think that Robert Priddy's criticism of Sathya Sai Baba is not notable then this should be solved with an AFD (the previous one  failed). It should not be solved by omitting the one fact which Priddy makes notable i.e. his websites critical of Sathya Sai Baba. Let us follow generally accepted policies and practices for the article Robert Priddy too. Andries 06:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The websites critical of Robert Priddy authored by SSS108 are highly defamatory and contain hardly anything than original research. They should not be linked to because Priddy is not a public figure in the sense of e.g. Sathya Sai Baba who himself blurred the distinction between private life and public life with his claims of being an embodiment of truth, purity, and love and attracted followers with these claims. In addition, it would be at best inconsistent to forbid in the entry Sathya Sai Baba critical websites containing partially original research and partially reputable sources, like www.exbaba.com and www.saiguru.net, while at the same time allowing websites with only defamatory original research at the entry Robert Priddy. Andries 20:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Pjacobi makes the mistake in that he comparing people who have been referenced in reliable and reputable sources with Robert Priddy who has not been referenced  by even one single reliable or reputable reference. Pjacobi attemtped to argue for Priddy's attacks against SSB by citing Indymedia (a public forum where people can post whatever they want whenever the so choose under any name they so choose. This doesn't sound encyclopedic to me. Let these distinctions be known. SSS108 talk-email 04:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, non-notability should be solved with an AFD, not by omitting a website by the subject that makes him notable. I have been saying this at least ten times. Andries 06:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for clarification 

message: Just to inform that SSS108 has been blocked for 12 hours because of ongoing incivility, harassment and personal attacks. See SSS108's block log. Perhaps the Log of blocks and bans on the project page needs to be updated with this information? Ekantik talk 23:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: It looks like SSS108 has now been blocked indefinitely for harassing the admin who enabled the above-mentioned 12-hour block with claims of sockpuppetry. Ekantik talk 00:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful. Ekantik, if you avoid escalation and eliciting responses to comments that can be perceived as provocation. These are never helpful in this or in any other disputes in WP. It is messy enough already. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Block Log

message: It is almost February now. Will I ever get an answer? At least one. Andries 19:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I asked several questions in Sept

message: See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_banned
Can Andries still edit the article Jesus, Vishnu, Shirdi Sai Baba, Shiva, and other Hindu saints and deities, even though Sathya Sai Baba claims to be a reincarnation of all of them? These claims are generally not accepted by the followers of Jesus etc. See Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Andries
Thanks in advance for your answer. Andries 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Andries comparison to Jesus, etc. is grossly misleading. If the reviewer would review my comments on the request for arbitration enforcement, it would be appreciated. Thank you. Vassyana 19:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it misleading? Sathya Sai Baba claims to be an incarnation of Jesus too, though it will be clear that the relationship is only accepted by followers of Sathya Sai Baba, and not by follower of Jesus. Same for Shiva, Vishnu and Shirdi Sai Baba, Rama, and other deities and Hindu saints. Andries 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The relationship between Shirdi Sai Baba and Sathya Sai Baba on which Vassyana's bases his complaint against me was added by user:Kkrystian on 17 May after I edited the article Shirdi Sai Baba for the last time (on 6 May) without citing reputable source. Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Kkrystian. Andries 20:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, Andries may edit these to the degree that they are not related to Sathya Sai Baba; in other words, not to edit-war with people over Sathya Sai Baba mentions in those articles.  Mention of Sathya Sai Baba in those articles should be minimal if not outright nonexistent in any case; otherwise would violate the prohibition on undue weight contained in NPOV. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's about right. The topic ban should have minimal impact on say, editing of Shiva. Charles Matthews 18:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification from user:Andries reg. Sathya Sai Baba (March 2007) 

message: I have spent some time reviewing the recent history of the Sathya Sai Baba-related pages, and there is little or no doubt in my mind that the articles need a little more attention than they are currently getting. I understand User:Andries runs a website critical of this movement, but we do not at this point, I understand, view that as a direct CoI. I note also that there are some examples I can think of of "topic experts" who are known to be major critics of individuals/movements and yet are visible participants in editing/discussing articles on those individuals or movements. This has produced few major problems (though some drama, I suppose), but, more to the point, seems to be acceptable by our current community standards. 
I urge ArbCom to lift this restriction, because the quality of the articles needs it. Relata refero (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved Relata refero

message: * I take the view that this remedy, whether appropriate in the first place, is no longer needed. As noted in the original case, Andries was not an irresponsible editor of Sathya Sai Baba. His position as webmaster of a site critical of Sathya Sai Baba does give a conflict of interest on matters directly relating to that website but it is stretching a point to say that it gives a conflict of interest on the entire subject. Therefore I will be proposing to discharge the remedy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: I request to re-edit Sathya Sai Baba movement. I lost the rights to edit the article in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2. I lost to a great extent interest in the subject and have little time. But I still have a lot of good sources on the subject on the shelf. I bought them because they were recommended in arbcom case 
Sathya Sai Baba nr 1. I think it is a waste for Wikipedia and of other people's time and money when they are on my book shelf and only very few people have access to the contents. The article was never controversial, unlike Sathya Sai Baba. But after I stopped editing the Sathya Sai Central Trust, an organization that is part of the movement, has received much criticism. I was the only substantial contributor. I promise that I will revert max. once per week. I will not get involved in lengthy discussions or extensive, repeated dispute resolution, because I do not have time. One of the reasons why I request to re-edit is that nobody seriously tried to improve the article after I was forced to stop editing. I also compiled excerpts from sources and nobody every used them. See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources.
To summarize, the reason why I was topic banned for the set of Sathya Sai Baba related article were. 
:1. perceived inappropriate linking in the article Robert Priddy. The dispute was about linking to one of the home pages of the subject. 
:2. alleged conflict of interest. I personally think that there was never a conflict of interest in the strict sense of the word, but I admit that I was, as a critical former member of the movement, emotionally involved. This has waned in the course of years. The fraction of my edits related to Sathya Sai Baba has become much smaller as my edit history shows. I did not receive an e-mail or phone call for years via the exbaba website. I was never involved in updating or maintaining this website.
:3. very frequent use of the conflict resolution procedures without coming any closer to agreements.
:The arbcom considered my edits to the article Sathya Sai Baba as responsible. The arbcom did not scrutinize my edits at Sathya Sai Baba movement, because, as stated, the article was never controversial. 
The article Sathya Sai Baba movement suffers from neglect. Look for example, at the following sentence without good reputable source that was inserted  there on 11 May 2011] and remains there until now. 
:"When he died at the age of 84, it was revealed that he meant 96 lunar years, in keeping with the Hindu calendar."
The article Sathya Sai Baba will always remain problematic due to the lack of reputable sources for a good biography. This lack of reputable sources is explicitly described in reputable sources e.g. by anthropologist Lawrence Babb.
List of all diffs to talk page of Sathya Sai Baba, maximum one year back from 17 Aug. 2012
*19 Aug. 2012
*19 Aug. 2012
*19 Aug. 2012 
*8 Oct. 2011
*6 Oct. 2011
*25 Sep. 2011
*25 Sep. 2011
*25 Sep. 2011
*24 Sep. 2011
*24 Sep. 2011
*21 Sep 2011
*21 Sep. 2011
*21 Sep. 2011
*20 Sep. 2011
*29 Aug. 2011
*28 Aug. 2011
*28 Aug. 2011
List of all diffs to talk page of Sathya Sai Baba movement, maximum one year back from 17 Aug.2012
*28 May 2011
*28 May 2011
List of books or article copies that I have on the shelf and intend to use as sources. See here for a discussion of some of these sources 
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2
*Babb, Lawrence A. "Sathya Sai Baba's Saintly Play", in Hawley, John Stratton, ed. Saints and Virtues Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. 
*Babb, Lawrence, A., Redemptive Encounters, (University of California Press, 1986) 
*Bowen, David The Sathya Sai Baba Community in Bradford: Its origins and development, religious beliefs and practices. Leeds: University Press. 
*Kent, Alexandra Divinity and Diversity: a Hindu revitalization movement in Malaysia, Copenhagen Nias Press, first published in 2005,  
*Knott, Kim Dr. South Asian Religions in Britain in the Handbook of Living Religions edited by John R. Hinnels (1997), second edition, 
*Kelly, John D. Dr. Bhakti and Postcolonial Politics: Hindu Missions to Fiji in Nation and Migration in The Politics of Space in the South Asian Diaspora
*Poggendorf-Kakar, Katharina German language Der Gottmensch aus Puttaparthi. Eine Analyse der Sathya-Sai-Baba-Bewegung und ihrer westlichen Anhänger. :de:Verlag Dr. Kovac, Hamburg 1999. 
Thanks for your time. Andries (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement user:Andries 

message: Support. I had thought of proposing this myself a while back. Enough time has passed. Andries has access to good sources, and I trust him not to abuse the editing privilege. JN466 07:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Echoing Tjfo098's concerns. Discretionary sanctions in the topic area seem like a good idea to me. --JN466 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Jayen466 

message: Given the inability of Wikipedia to actually contain the edits of self-declared returning editors such as , it's probably better to allow everyone to edit it. (Also the number of registered SPAs with obvious prior knowledge of wiki syntax editing there is not surprising; those are easy to find too.) The article should put under discretionary sanctions instead, so that any new flaring of edit warring can be easily dealt with, instead of vainly hoping that every nick banned in the ancient ArbCom case is going to do what Andries did, i.e. asking permission before returning to editing. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Tijfo098 

message: @Silktork: The list of topics that under discretionary sanctions is getting too large, in my opinion. Instead, I would recommend that if you are not comfortable letting the appellant back unconditionally, perhaps you could lift the topic ban and add a editor probation that expires in 1 year if not invoked? NW (Talk) 19:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: With regards to motion one, may I suggest the following rewrite or some variant thereof: "Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 Request for Arbitration is hereby vacated.  may be banned from the topic or subportions of it by any uninvolved administrator. This sanction is to expire after three months unless invoked before then, in which case it shall become indefinite." NW (Talk) 06:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by NuclearWarfare 

message: : This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
*Enacting the third motion. NW (Talk) 20:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: *Decline appeal. In my view, the case for overturning the sanctions is not compelling enough to justify the risk. AGK [•] 11:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Will somebody move to vacate R1.1 of Sathya Sai Baba 2? AGK [•] 13:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: For these motions there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority. 
==== Motion vacating Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2#Andries banned ====
Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 Request for Arbitration is hereby vacated. In its place  is placed on probation for three months with a view to lifting restrictions entirely past that date.
; Support
:# Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: # Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Although I note that we do not have a standard "probation" provision to describe how this might actually be enforced in practice. Kirill [talk] 01:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Support, but I will propose an edited version to make the intent clearer, below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: #I support the idea, but I can't support anything this nebulous, as there is no solid indication what this "probation" is. Courcelles 02:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

text: #Like Courcelles, it's not clear to me precisely what 'probation' means. AGK [•] 21:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

text: #More I think about it, this is the only way I can support moving forward here.  We have no usable definition for probation, and the topic area is not exactly orderly. (I note that if this were a more recent case, this would almost surely be the status quo already) Courcelles 03:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # I can live with this too, but are we simply going to end up putting discretionary sanctions on everything, eventually? Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Fair enough. Kirill [talk] 20:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # all editors have to abide by rules. Any editor finding problems with another editors' editing can raise this at one of several venues. I can live with this option. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Second choice, support the alternative limited to Andries, and given that we really don't know anything about the current state of the editing environment in this area beyond what we can casually glean from skimming the pages, since the case is several years old at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: #How far are we going to stretch the standard discretionary sanctions system to take this gamble on a topic-banned editor? Either leave the appellant banned, or unban him entirely, but don't pass a motion that insures our decision by extending a system of last resort to an article that has been off our radar for years. AGK [•] 21:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Per AGK. PhilKnight (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Also per AGK. Risker (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # I think this is what the first motion above was driving at, but eliminates any confusion over procedure and terminology. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Would prefer 4 months as this places the decision in the run up to the holiday season. PhilKnight (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: #: I have no objection to this. It would mean that the final decision would be made by next year's arbitrators rather than this year's, to the extent there is turnover, but I don't think that's a big deal one way or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: #I'm quite keen that we don't so regularly authorise discretionary sanctions that it is as though we are throwing bureaucratic confetti, so this is my only choice. (I'm fine with returning to this issue in three, rather than four, months. Our busyness over the holiday season seems greater in imagination than in reality.) AGK [•] 14:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Support as written; while I'm okay with 4 months if there's a copy edit, I think we can handle it in 3 months if Andries shows he is doing fine.  Risker (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Kirill [talk] 12:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Willing to support this alternative, too. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Yes exactly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # OK. Willing to give this a go. Only one article has recently experienced edit warring - Sathya Sai Baba movement - and that was by IP accounts, so I have semi-protected it for three months. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

text: #Far from optimal, so only if nothing else passes. Courcelles 18:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

text: ; Abstain
; Comments
*I'm still considering the requests for discretionary sanctions to be applied to the topic area, while weighing that against the reluctance to expand discretionary sanctions. The article has recent history of instability, and we are adding to the potential of there being increased instability with the removal of restrictions on Andries. There is the same weight of responsibility on admins if we leave matters as they are, or if we grant any of the motions: an infringement on a series of articles can be reported and sanctions applied whatever we decide. Motion Two, however, is the only one that changes the situation from attention on one editor to attention paid where the disruption is most likely to happen: as what we are seeing is that the user has no recent problems outside the topic area, and that the topic area itself is unstable, it appears to me that it may be the topic area that requires attention rather than the user. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: @Tijfo098. Yes, I have been considering semi-protection, and that may well be enough. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motions: Sathya Sai Baba 2 (Andries) 

message: Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 Request for Arbitration is hereby vacated. In its place  is placed on probation for three months with a view to lifting restrictions entirely past that date.
; Support
:# Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: # Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Although I note that we do not have a standard "probation" provision to describe how this might actually be enforced in practice. Kirill [talk] 01:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Support, but I will propose an edited version to make the intent clearer, below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: #I support the idea, but I can't support anything this nebulous, as there is no solid indication what this "probation" is. Courcelles 02:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

text: #Like Courcelles, it's not clear to me precisely what 'probation' means. AGK [•] 21:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion vacating [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2#Andries banned]] 

message: Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 Request for Arbitration is hereby vacated.  Standard discretionary sanctions are hereby authorised for the Sathya Sai Baba movement topic area, broadly construed.
; Support
:#More I think about it, this is the only way I can support moving forward here.  We have no usable definition for probation, and the topic area is not exactly orderly. (I note that if this were a more recent case, this would almost surely be the status quo already) Courcelles 03:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: # I can live with this too, but are we simply going to end up putting discretionary sanctions on everything, eventually? Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Fair enough. Kirill [talk] 20:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # all editors have to abide by rules. Any editor finding problems with another editors' editing can raise this at one of several venues. I can live with this option. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Second choice, support the alternative limited to Andries, and given that we really don't know anything about the current state of the editing environment in this area beyond what we can casually glean from skimming the pages, since the case is several years old at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: #How far are we going to stretch the standard discretionary sanctions system to take this gamble on a topic-banned editor? Either leave the appellant banned, or unban him entirely, but don't pass a motion that insures our decision by extending a system of last resort to an article that has been off our radar for years. AGK [•] 21:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Per AGK. PhilKnight (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Also per AGK. Risker (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion to vacate topic ban and impose discretionary sanctions

message: Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case is suspended for three months. During this period, Andries may edit within this topic area, provided that he carefully abides by all applicable policies. After three months, Andries may request that the topic-ban remedy be vacated permanently.
; Support
:# I think this is what the first motion above was driving at, but eliminates any confusion over procedure and terminology. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: # Would prefer 4 months as this places the decision in the run up to the holiday season. PhilKnight (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: #: I have no objection to this. It would mean that the final decision would be made by next year's arbitrators rather than this year's, to the extent there is turnover, but I don't think that's a big deal one way or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: #I'm quite keen that we don't so regularly authorise discretionary sanctions that it is as though we are throwing bureaucratic confetti, so this is my only choice. (I'm fine with returning to this issue in three, rather than four, months. Our busyness over the holiday season seems greater in imagination than in reality.) AGK [•] 14:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Support as written; while I'm okay with 4 months if there's a copy edit, I think we can handle it in 3 months if Andries shows he is doing fine.  Risker (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Kirill [talk] 12:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Willing to support this alternative, too. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # Yes exactly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

text: # OK. Willing to give this a go. Only one article has recently experienced edit warring - Sathya Sai Baba movement - and that was by IP accounts, so I have semi-protected it for three months. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

text: #Far from optimal, so only if nothing else passes. Courcelles 18:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

text: ; Abstain
; Comments
*I'm still considering the requests for discretionary sanctions to be applied to the topic area, while weighing that against the reluctance to expand discretionary sanctions. The article has recent history of instability, and we are adding to the potential of there being increased instability with the removal of restrictions on Andries. There is the same weight of responsibility on admins if we leave matters as they are, or if we grant any of the motions: an infringement on a series of articles can be reported and sanctions applied whatever we decide. Motion Two, however, is the only one that changes the situation from attention on one editor to attention paid where the disruption is most likely to happen: as what we are seeing is that the user has no recent problems outside the topic area, and that the topic area itself is unstable, it appears to me that it may be the topic area that requires attention rather than the user. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: @Tijfo098. Yes, I have been considering semi-protection, and that may well be enough. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion to suspend topic-ban