Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate

message: 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)
thread_title:  Part of GuardianZ's statement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Appropriate to close related SSPs? 

message: It should be 2007, not 2006.  Just thought I'd mention it. - Skinny McGee 21:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Case closed date is incorrect

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by SilkTork 

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

message: Relevant Arbitration enforcement archives: ,  
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  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)
thread_title:  Statement by Thatcher 

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by Ebonyskye

message: *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)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title: Explanation of motion

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with SilkTork's interpretation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Still a few scenarios not covered, but this is fair enough for now. Carcharoth (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying that. SilkTork *YES! 08:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion