Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: MBisanz (Talk) & Dougweller (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Stephen Bain (Talk)

Additional statements

The following statements were offered whilst this case was in the requests for arbitration stage,. They are provided here for ease of reference, and should not be changed. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jéské Couriano

I will not say anything on this matter aside from this - Theserialcomma and Tothwolf have a history stretching back a few months; I've tried to amass enough diffs in a timely enough fashion for Tothwolf to use in any RFC/U, but after Theserialcomma butted into discussions I was having with a blocked user, I was obliged to try and disengage. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 14:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question by uninvolved Spartaz

Has it now become a tradition to skip the RFC and go straight to arbitration these days? Seems to be a worrying recent trend & is not for the good. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Elen of the Roads

I have seen every one of those go by at ANI and concur that the ANI noticeboard was entirely unsuited as a venue to untangling the mess. My perception is that the root cause is a different view of the importance/notability of a class of topics, and the problem has mushroomed because all the editors have preferred to make things personal, rather than hold discussions with the possibility of a compromise view. Given this, and given all of the editors outright refusal to engage in any form of DR, I would have thought the other option available is to block all of them until such time as they agree to (a) stop accusing each other of the seven deadly sins and (b) agree to some form of mediation regarding the topic group. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Miami33139

There are a lot more diffs in this case than that one, so your question appears entirely pointless. If all of you could for a moment put aside your accusations of each other, and establish what is the basis of your disagreement about editing the encyclopaedia (because there is one, and I would say it's to do with how notable some topics are, and how they should be handled), this can be settled with an RFC on the subject, and all of you (a) agreeing to abide by it, and (b) agreeing not to flame each other all the time. ArbCom won't look at who is right or wrong with regard to content. They will only look at your behaviour, and from what I've seen will have no option but to sanction the lot of you.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved SoWhy

The ANI reports demonstrates two reasons why arbitration is the most reasonable next step:

The users named by the filing party have demonstrated repeatedly that they are completely unwilling to consider that they might be incorrect. While RFC has not been tried here, we already know that those editors are unwilling to reflect on their conduct voluntarily from their comments in both ANI reports.
The community has demonstrated their lack of willingness to resolve the situation in those ANI reports as well and there is no reason to believe that they will act different if an RFC is attempted. The first ANI report was even taken to its own subpage where it was left and ignored afterwards. I tried to raise the matter again but no one commented further. The second ANI report demonstrates an equal lack of willingness to handle the situation.

For those reasons, I think RFC, while not tried before, would be unproductive in this special case since it requires a certain level of willingness to communicate with the opposite parties and to reflect on one's behavior. I cannot see such a willingness to exist in this case no matter how much good faith I am willing to assume, so I would urge ArbCom to take this case to resolve this conflict which the community demonstrated to be unable to resolve. Regards So Why 22:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Stephen Bain: Per WP:RFAR/G#PRIOR, a request can be directly accepted without prior steps of dispute resolution if the filing party explains why those steps would likely be pointless and fruitful. As Jehochman has explained in it's opening statement, the community has already demonstrated that it's unwilling and/or unable to resolve the dispute themselves. Furthermore, all involved editors have demonstrated their unwillingness to talk to each other or to consider that they might be incorrect in any way. But all steps of dispute resolution before arbitration require that the editors involved are willing to resolve the dispute or at least that they are willing to listen to neutral third-parties. Since Jehochman has laid out why other steps prior to arbitration would be insufficient to resolve the problem (as have I), I think it's inappropriate to imply that directly requesting arbitration is based on the laziness of the filing party. Regards So Why 13:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I'm technically inactive and I haven't looked at this request, but despite this, I want to note 2 things that may be relevant. (1) It is difficult to conduct a community discussion due to the fashion in which Tothwolf structures some of his comments. Regardless of the outcome of this request, can someone please please PLEASE teach/tell/make Tothwolf to habitually sign directly after his comment and get out of the habit of putting a signature 2 lines later? It's possibly fine during a statement, but it's impossibly distracting (and off-putting) during threaded discussions, be it at AN, ANI or talk pages, and there's only so much I'm ready to do in formatting at such discussions. (2) See Sept. ANI - particularly section 1.8.1 onwards. The discussion did not reach a conclusion as users kept bringing up more things later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Juliancolton

I encourage ArbCom to accept this case. I've followed the activity related to the dispute over recent weeks and though I've remained entirely uninvolved, to the best of my knowledge, I don't see how an RFC will help in this case. Certain parties have violated behavioral restrictions on several occasions, and once a debate fails to resolve itself following several ANI threads, a review by the committee is likely the best way forward. Essentially agree with SoWhy and a couple others. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved editor Blaxthos who had past interaction with Tothwolf

While not a party to this particular action in any form or fashion, I would like to add that I personally have been the victim of off-wiki stalking and harassment from Tothwolf based on an article content disagreement. I have witnessed him attempt to votestack and canvass, and have received threatening emails and messenger communications from him and his IRC pals. I also received notes from several notes from other uninvolved editors warning me not to get involved with Tothwolf at all due to their experiences with his harassment. While none of this is evidence of anything germane to this proceeding, it should serve as a cautionary tale when assessing the proper level of good faith and benefit of the doubt accorded to Tothwolf. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Log of clerk actions

Any actions undertaken by a committee clerk in his or her official capacity may be logged here, for the purposes of reference. Clerks will remove discussions which are unhelpful (especially those that are not relevant to the case scope) and will sanction editors whose conduct is disruptive. Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed or deleted discussions

Editors cautioned

User:Tothwolf was warned against making edits that appear to be outing and accusations of paid editing by User:Dougweller
User:Miami33139 and User:Tothwolf were both warned not to revert each other's edits by cleark User:MBisanz Dougweller (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors banned from case

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Tothwolf

Initiated by — Jeff G. ツ at 05:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Tothwolf arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

JBsupreme warned

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Jeff G. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

JBsupreme (diff of notification of this thread on JBsupreme's talk page)
Jeff G. (diff of creation of this thread, for completeness)

Amendment 1

The link to the remedy is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#JBsupreme_warned.
I would like to change the remedy to:

1) JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Statement by Jeff G.

Accompanying edits with diffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued (since the warning in the original remedy) making edits with problematic edit summaries, which are uncivil, contain personal attacks, or contain assumptions of bad faith. This behavior has been despite the warning in the original remedy, and despite attempts to change the user's behavior (since the warning in the original remedy) via user talk page posts by multiple editors, including Amalthea, Jéské Couriano, Maunus, and Will Beback. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive531#User:JBsupreme_and_problematic_edit_summaries and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:JBsupreme_and_problematic_edit_summaries_.28again.29 for background. In addition, that user's user talk page currently stands at a rather unwieldy 228 kilobytes, and the user has actively declined to archive it or even index it. — Jeff G. ツ 05:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor: User:Maunus

It seems to me that this amendment is necessary in order to have any kind of administrative leverage against this long time pattern of verbal abuse which does not contribute to making wikipedia a friendly and good work environment. It seems to me that JBSupreme is wilfully ignoring any request about changing his behaviour and the banner above his talk page[1] suggests the same. It feels to me like the system is being intentionally gamed here in a fashion that cannot be avoided untill an amendment like the proposed one is applied.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JBSupreme is editing again. [2][3][4][5]·Maunus·ƛ· 19:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jeff G. (2)

Many others have tried to counsel JBsupreme by posting on that user's user talk page, only to be countered by summary removal of their posts by that user. For further background, please see:

11 September 2008 - Reversions by user JBSupreme
25 April 2009 - User:JBSupreme's continued inappropriateness
11 May 2009 - JBsupreme edit summaries again

Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 20:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Niteshift36

There wasn't a lot of support about this at ANI and for good reason. The complainant seems to be making a project out of this. While JB might not be polite, he's really not making personal attacks (which was the original complaint). Further, this seems to have started when the complainant kept trying to add a link to a deleted article onto a list (for reasons he has yet to explain) and got his nose out of joint over it. As I said at ANI, frankly, I just don't care if some vandal gets his feelings hurt and I think it's a big waste of time to jump through all these hoops over it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jeff G. (3)

I would also like to change the heading for that section to a more appropriate one, such as "JBsupreme restricted". — Jeff G. ツ 16:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:JBsupreme_and_problematic_edit_summaries_.28again.29 has now been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive614#User:JBsupreme_and_problematic_edit_summaries_.28again.29. — Jeff G. ツ 01:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking note of Maunus's post here of 19:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC) and Will Beback's post here of 23:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC), JBsupreme used this edit to delete Newyorkbrad's post from their user talk page, and has not commented there or here in the 69.5 hours since then, despite 20 intervening edits in two sessions, and has thus posted with four more questionable edit summaries and has continued "refusing to respond to good-faith criticism". — Jeff G. ツ 04:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This request has been open for a month now. JBsupreme is editing again, has deleted Maunus's post to their user talk page, continues "refusing to respond to good-faith criticism", and continues using questionable edit summaries.[6] — Jeff G. ツ 20:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object "to making this a new remedy (2.1?) rather than having it replace the current, still applicable remedy". — Jeff G. ツ 20:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback

I have no involvement in this matter other than leaving a note on JBsupreme's talk page and some minimal comments at ANI. However I see that, in addition to incivility, the previous decision also faulted JBsupreme for "refusing to respond to good-faith criticism". JeffG posted his ANI complaint at 05:33, 14 May 2010. JBsupreme made his most recent edit 05:15, May 14, 2010, just 18 minutes earlier. It appears that he has not responded to the good-faith criticism on his user talk page, on the ANI thread, or here. Will Beback talk 23:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lawrencekhoo

I had some brief interactions with JBsupreme a couple of years ago and found him problematic to work with. He's not very response on talk pages, and his edit summaries tend to the impolite. Perusing his edit history, it appears that he has only gotten worse in that respect. LK (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

JBsupreme hasn't edited since May 14. Pcap ping 17:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It's been six days now. There is no rush (a look at his contributions during the current calendar year shows that he has had periods of at least a week's absence before), and the thing to do now is be patient and wait, but at some point we will need to work out another way to resolve this if there is no response after 10 days or so. Carcharoth (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the post Brad made earlier can be assumed to have been read by JBsupreme (blanking such messages is not disallowed), and there was a follow-up post here. I would much prefer JBsupreme to make a statement here, and now that they have edited since the amendment was opened, I will ask them to make a statement here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

No time to write a full response here, but on an initial perusal of the edit summaries used by JBsupreme, I am not impressed at all. All those edit summaries are viewable by anyone reading or editing this website, and are undoubtedly read by more than just the people they were directed at. I will wait to hear what JBsupreme has to say, but I am tempted to add an enforceable remedy to this case by motion to address this ongoing conduct. A general observation I would also make is that while it is tempting for any editor to act the way they want to act, or feel they can act, some restraint is needed, and gratuitous incivility and lack of restraint over a long period of time is something that should be addressed eventually, especially when it is possible to say the same thing in a more restrained manner. There is no prize for coming up with the most cutting and biting edit summaries possible. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC) (Noting here to maintain a transparent record of earlier dialogue: [7], [8])[reply]
I'm in agreement with Carcharoth here; the edit summaries provided seem well outside of the normal decorum expected when editing. Shell ^babelfish 06:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Carcharoth, Shell Kinney, and several of the commenters that the pattern of edit summaries is unbecoming and unhelpful, particularly in light of the warning in the prior case. I also take note that JBSupreme has not edited for almost two weeks. In that light, rather than keep this request open indefinitely, I am going to place a notice on his talkpage calling his attention to this request and asking that his edit summaries adhere to the guidelines of civility and NPA in the future. Hopefully this will resolve the problem; if it does not and JBSupreme continues to submit inappropriate edit summaries, the request for an amendment may be renewed, with a link to this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's been editing again, and at least four people (including NYB and Carcharoth) have left messages about the summaries. He's not responding. Support a motion. Cool Hand Luke 17:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I was inactive on this initial case and will remain inactive for the purposes of this amendment request. Clerks, please note when calculcating the majority. Risker (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

For this case there are 10 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Remedy 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf ("re JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ) is changed to read "JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." The six months starts from the day this motion passes.

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

— Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - generally support this, but would there be objections to making this a new remedy (2.1?) rather than having it replace the current, still applicable remedy? Steve Smith (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either as a supplementary remedy or replacing the previous remedy. SirFozzie (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Carcharoth had something more modest in mind, but I support this—as supplement or replacement. Cool Hand Luke 21:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 15:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it needs to replace the current remedy, but I support either possibility. — Coren ^(talk) 14:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Recuse

This motion passes and will be archived in 48 hours. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Tothwolf (August 2010)

Initiated by Miami33139 (talk) at 06:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Tothwolf arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedy 1

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Miami33139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Tothwolf

Amendment 1

Tothwolf restricted
This recently expired. It should be extended for one year without opening a new case. It should be amended to include making accusations.

Statement by Miami

[9] On the xpiration of his Arbcom sanctions, Tothwolf recently started an ANI discussion accusing me of hounding and harassing him again in the same manner that brought this issue to Arbcom the first time. He singled out the handful of deletions that involve him and his preferred editing area (IRC clients) from the dozens of deletion areas I have been working in (Table-top role-playing games, Web browsers, media players, firewall software, and other miscellaneous software).

In finding 3 of the Arbcom case it was found not credible that I was singling him out.

In finding 6 & 7, it was found that Tothwolf's repeated accusations (against many editors, including myself) were often in bad faith, against evidence to the contrary, and poor decorum.

Evidence in the Arbcom case showed Tothwolf has a history of "crying wolf" (making accusations) when people edit in his area.

In this ANI post, he is essentially repeating the accusations of persecution that he made about myself and others in the Arbcom case. He blames Arbcom for his troubles. I do not feel I should have to defend myself all over again when he has sympathetic administrators (his claim) on ANI ready to pounce on his accusations.

I understand that deletion of material often upsets people and I have acted at Arbcoms suggestion on my deletion activities. I have slowed down the rate of proposing deletion and deletion requests to be more managable. The overlap with Tothwolf is minor and not any sort of personal vendetta against him. Requesting MfD requests of deleted articles kept in userspace is simple followup of deletions made six months or a year ago.

Response to Seth Kellerman

2% of my editing in the last two month has any overlap with Tothwolf. None of these overlapping edits are about him. Even while nominating his two userspace articles at MfD I did not direct any commentary to or about him. His accusation that a small handful of edits are persecuting him are non-credible.

Response to Carcharoth

Do you actually think since after the close of the Arbcom case and prior to the ANI that my editing had any interaction with Tothwolf? My nominations of two of his userpages for MfD particularly avoided discussing him and only focused on the fact that the content was previously deleted and stale. How could I be harassing Tothwolf without interacting with him? Tothwolf needs to produce evidence, please, that predates the ANI discussion.

Response after Uncle G

I see based on Uncle G description, how the timing of the MfD of Tothwolf userpages could appear baiting. It was not. I did know which article Tothwolf kept in userspace and did mean to ask to be deleted. It was not timed for baiting purpose. I knew it was many months since they were deleted at AfD. I verified they had not been worked on since deletion. I nominated. All I ask is AGF. Uncle G was actually inflammatory role here. Uncle G advertising MfD in various places, using phrases like "flaring up" "not wise" and "being gamed" and highly suggestive of his opinion. This drew !voters questioning motives rather than the straight content issues raised about WP:FAKEARTICLE. WP:FAKEARTICLE is a standard rationale at MfD. These MfD would have concluded without drama had Uncle G not advertised them.

Uncle G show no other evidence, except bad faith on my motive, that I harass Tothwolf or that my editing shows substantial interest in Tothwolf. I have no interest in Tothwolf other than followup to delete articles in userspace that were previously deleted. I have been engage at userspace issues two years before any intersection with Tothwolf [10].

Uncle G raise deletion activity which is not at all related to Tothwolf and Uncle G show no connection to Tothwolf in my activity. Uncle G claim I have not adjusted my actions towards deletion. Prior to Arbcom I would propose or nominate many pages each day for deletion. After Arbcom I do maybe one per day. I have nominate for deletion less than 20 Wikipedia articles in more than two months, which is a drastic change. Uncle G claim I am careless about deletion. In fact, of last nine closed AfD where I nominate, 5 were deleted with consensus of community. 2 were close as no consensus. 2 were keep. I do not think this is a record showing carelessness.

My deletions have nothing to do with Tothwolf or any other volunteer. I follow a template like Template:Web browser or Category:Open source games and open each article. The ones which look bad, I nominate. Another volunteer is heavily interested in web browser or open source games so Tothwolf "stalking tool" will show overlap between our edits and he claim I stalk other volunteer. This type of accusation is most frustrating to me!

Uncle G also has a different Wikipedia philosophy than me, and is hardly neutral towards my deletion activity which is why he raised it. Uncle G take out of context my statement "I vote delete on everything" from a prior AfD. I made that comment because I rarely vote Keep. I do not vote Keep often because other editors have already said it and my opinion not necessary. I made that statement to give weight to fact that I voted Keep on that AfD. Uncle G also has philosophy about sourcing requirement of articles. Uncle G claim at AfD that people like me are required to put source in article. Untrue according to Wikipedia guideline, it is burden of person adding material to add source material. It is indeed, "Somebody Else's Problem" to source article. This is basic conflict of Wikipedia editing and deletion philosopy between Uncle G and myself but this is a schism between all volunteers on Wikipedia. My own opinion, that material should be cited before it goes into article, is not unique [11] and even agrees with Jimbo, that unreference material should be deleted [12]. I should not be punish for disagreeing with Uncle G on Wikipedia philosophy.

Uncle G raise significant issue with evidence on questionable deletion activity involve JBsupreme. He can defend himself. When reading Uncle G statement, be careful to differentiate JBsupreme edits from mine. I should not be punish for JBsupreme activity. JBsupreme obviously in contradictory philosophy to Uncle G too.

Uncle G make some claim about Theserialcomma. He can defend himself. Undoubtedly Theserialcomma have Tothwolf pages on his watchlist and follow to MfD. His involvement on WP sporadic for several months. Since at least April I see no other intersection between him and Tothwolf. I hardly think two delete !votes[13] constitute some major Wikipedia crime or evidence of baiting.

Statement by Seth Kellerman

This stems from an ANI initiated by Tothwolf at Wikipedia:ANI#Wikihounding_and_disruptive_editing.3F

As an outside observer it appears to me that Tothwolf has been failed by the wikipedia system repeatedly throughout this ordeal. Baiting is difficult to demonstrate, and more difficult to demonstrate without walls of text. Tothwolf tends to be verbose and disorganized with providing difs, and he (IMO) Plaxicoed himself during the case itself with his brazen taunting (i.e. repeatedly telling others to "kick rocks"). Tothwolf's actions during the case were not excusable, however, Principle 3 states Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards. It is disappointing that such little scrutiny was given to the behavior of Miami, JBSupreme and Theserialcomma, especially with such a parade of users who suffered bad experiences at their hands submitting evidence.

Furthermore, there appears to be much consensus among editors that Miami was attempting to deliberately provoke Tothwolf.

Miami nominated userfied articles within Tothwolf's userspace for deletion. I have no difs to provide as the articles have been moved several times and may be deleted, but Miami should not have done this.
In response to Tothwolf's post on ANI, Miami responds with "tl;dr" [14], he has yet to explain why he chose to do that.
- In that same dif, he said "Paranoid ramblings of Tothwolf", "Other than his walled garden, I ain't following his editing or hounding him", "enough paranoia", "paranoid ranting"
Miami subsequently posts on JBSupreme's talk page "Call the Waaaambulance that same old someone had a fit again."
Miami posts the same on Theserialcomma's talk page, with the addition of an edit summary "whine one one"
Despite requests from myself and Crossmr, Miami has declined to explain why he mocked Tothwolf with "tl;dr". He justified the taunting posts on the talk pages of JBSurpreme and Theserialcomma based on Tothwolf not having notified them of the ANI discussion.

In conclusion.

Miami33139 and JBSurpeme are in violation of policies WP:HARASS, WP:CIVIL, WP:BAIT and WP:HOUND.
The sanction against Tothwolf, that he shall not cast aspersions without evidence, is irrelevant as the general consensus on ANI is that he has evidence and that he has a good reason to feel he is being hounded.

Seth Kellerman (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments in regards to Miami33139 and JBSupreme's participation in deletion discussions. Finding 3 of the arbitration case states Miami33139 and JBsupreme are reminded to observe deletion best practices when nominating articles for deletion, including the consideration of alternatives to deletion such as merging articles or curing problems through editing. Although I am admittedly ignorant of all things IRC and not a good judge of reliability of sources and thus notability of software, I can see bad deletion discussions.

It does appear that Miami has improved his deletion practices somewhat. His AfD nominations have all been reasonable. I am still seeing the old "That source isn't notable enough" arguments in other discussions, though.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orion_Network_Licensing_Platform (Miami argues with Hobit over whether a mention in a reliable source is trivial)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Labyrinth_Lord ("The Ennie awards are a bunch of fandom nerds.")

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shuttle_Inc. Although Miami votes keep, he comments "I vote delete on everything".

It does not appear that JBSupreme has improved his deletion practices any more than he improved his civility. I am particularly concerned about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_mobile_Internet_Relay_Chat_clients_(2nd_nomination). This discussion was initiated by JBSupreme, with Miami33139 showing up to support him. This article was kept nearly unanimously during its first AfD, with the only delete !votes being JBSupreme and Miami33139. As of this posting, during the second AfD, again the only delete !votes are from JB and Miami.

I also find Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Hm2k/MIRCStats symptomatic of WP:HOUND

Seth Kellerman (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Protonk

I am uninvolved w/ the case, but left some comment on the AN/I discussion. With regard to the furor over the use of tl;dr, perhaps he felt that totwolf's comments were too long, and didn't read them? I know it was probably meant to mock the editor, but how much blood can be squeezed from that turnip? The comments were retracted. Protonk (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tothwolf

I know I made some huge mistakes in allowing myself to be baited back in December while the original case was open. While not an excuse for my own behaviour in how I responded, at the time I was extremely frustrated with how long the case had been dragging out without any resolution to the wikihounding, baiting, taunting, etc which was still ongoing. I also know the evidence I presented during the case [15] may have actually been too detailed, potentially making it difficult to parse.

I believe I also made a mistake when I presented evidence during the case which focused mainly on my own interactions with Theserialcomma, Miami33139 and JBsupreme. It was later explained to me that it might have been better had I focused more on showing how they had been doing similar things to other editors. Towards that end, as I mentioned on AN/I, while I was blocked by Sandstein I spent a considerable amount of time reviewing and documenting both my and other editors' interactions with Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme. That documentation can be found here. While the sections which cover Miami33139 and JBsupreme's behaviour and interactions with other editors are far from complete, the section which covers Theserialcomma's behaviour [16] is fairly complete and gives a pretty good overview of their interactions with other editors. Note that while that page is currently protected from editing by the general public, it can be transwikied if needed.

The statement made by Uncle G to which Carcharoth referred to below was on WP:AC/N. [17] I had replied to Uncle G via email after he left a notification on my talk page [18] of the two MFDs which Miami33139 had initiated. [19] [20] When Miami33139 initiated those MFDs, I hadn't even edited since June, [21] which as I explained on AN/I was due to the combination of the continued wikihounding and my workload. As I also mentioned on AN/I, Theserialcomma and JBsupreme also became involved in these two MFDs. [22] [23] [24] [25] At the time Theserialcomma became involved, they were not even actively editing. [26]

I'd also really like to see JBsupreme provide an answer for the question DGG raised in one of the above MFDs [27] as the answer which JBsupreme gave previously [28] seems to be more of a dodge than an answer.

Another example of the continued disruptive behaviour can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ircle. I think this AfD is representative of the continued disruption and misuse of deletion processes by these individuals. This article was nominated for deletion by Miami33139 shortly after I contested the prod deletion with the admin who deleted it. There are other articles that were similarly prodded/deleted which should also be contested, but that is not something I have the time to work on right now. While not showing the larger pattern, the edit history for {{IRC footer}} [29] will begin to help show why Miami33139 has intentionally targeted articles like Ircle which are within the scope of WP:WPIRC.

Upon Miami33139's return, not only did he resume his wikihounding of myself, but also other editors. An extreme case can be seen in Miami33139's interactions with Beyond My Ken (and his former usernames). Beyond My Ken also made a statement regarding Miami33139's behaviour which should also be taken into account. The wikihounding of Beyond My Ken by Miami33139 can be easily seen in the edit histories of the articles from these links: [30] [31] [32] Note the massive numbers of automated or semi-automated edits by Miami33139 which remove Beyond My Ken's changes to the articles. I also noticed that the script Miami33139 uses for this task doesn't function properly in that it often improperly re-orders navigational and stub templates and removes intentional formatting changes which fix things like bunched-up edit links.

While this is an incomplete list, other editors which Miami33139 is known to have followed and wikihounded include: Mabdul, Neustradamus, EdoDodo, and Hm2k. I note that Mabdul in particular has been a target of particular interest to Miami33139. He has worked very hard on expanding articles about FTP clients, web browsers, email clients, etc which Miami33139 began to target after he noticed Mabdul was also a member of WP:WPIRC. [33] Oddly enough, today Mabdul removed himself from the WikiProject's participants list. [34]

I think these diffs should also be taken into consideration: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] I previously presented these in the original evidence, [42] but as I mentioned above, because I gave so much detail, they would have been easily overlooked.

While I would very much like to return to actively editing Wikipedia, as it stands now I don't feel that I can unless the disruptive behaviours from Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme are fully addressed. When I'm not here editing, these individuals are not as readily able to tendentiously target articles/pages I would otherwise be editing, which ultimately results in less harm to the encyclopedia. That said, while I certainly felt less stress when I stopped editing, the behaviours clearly continued even in my absence, as even when I wasn't here they continued to target both my past contributions and other editors. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Carcharoth

I'm really not sure what else I can add here in addition to what I brought up on AN/I but I'll see what I can come up with in the next day or so.

I do wish these editors would stop with the personal attacks though. I don't really care to be called "paranoid", "delusional", etc and the semi-constant claims of WP:OWN and WP:COI are not in any way helpful.

I'm not really sure that a simple non-interaction restriction would help resolve things either. Jehochman and I discussed just such a potential solution before the original ArbCom case was filed. I have a strong feeling that if a simple interaction-type restriction were put in place, these editors would still follow my edits in order to remove content from or nominate articles and pages for deletion, or attempt to superficially involve themselves in related topic areas such as technology and computing where they did not edit previously (as they've already been doing) in order to block or restrict my edits while claiming they were already editing articles in those topic areas.

Sigh, I dunno... Seth Kellerman really is correct above where he mentions that I Plaxicoed myself when I fell into the baiting which was happening while the original case was open. I really want to be more careful with what I say here this time so as to not say the wrong thing and otherwise somehow make things worse. I think at this point I'd really like to see what the community decides in the AN/I discussion before we go too much further here. My own stress levels went down as far as the wikihounding goes when I simply stopped editing entirely, but it didn't fix the problem, it just meant I wasn't here to feel stressed out about it. If AN/I is ultimately unable to resolve things, I think I'd very much support reopening the original case. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Uncle G

I've found it largely counterproductive to argue with Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme, or attempt to edit an article they've nominated for deletion. They argue against reliable sources, revert/remove my edits, or otherwise attempt to discredit me in some manner, often claiming WP:OWN or WP:COI.

As for User:Tothwolf/List of Internet Relay Chat clients and User:Tothwolf/List of quote databases, I was advised not to participate in the MFDs that Miami33139 initiated, which seemed sensible to me given the past results of interacting with these three individuals. With Ircle specifically, I emailed an arbitrator to ask how I should handle this action by Miami33139 [43] but haven't yet received an answer. After the AfD was closed as keep, Miami33139 removed the bulk of the article stating "I have remove information that is uncited and is not found on product web page.". As far as I could see, every single fact there can be cited, with the reference that Miami33139 also removed easy to locate via archive.org [44] and also via a simple Google search. [45]

There are tons of things which I really should get back to editing. I still have a number of in-progress Template: namespace projects such as {{Cite IETF}}, {{External link}} (created for Category:External link templates standardisation work), and the reimplementation of {{LSR}}/{{LPR}} that I largely put on hold starting in November 2009 when the ArbCom case was initiated. As I've previously mentioned, I really do not feel that I can edit while the wikihounding and harassment is taking place and I found it much less stressful to instead focus on my work outside of Wikipedia.

Just as a general question to whomever wants to answer, wouldn't this [46], followed by [47] (history) be considered both disruptive and wikihounding? I created this LSR template on July 9, 2009 (using the same method we use in the majority of Category:Software comparisons) to make it easier for the anonymous editor to update the version information, which previously resulted in nearly daily edits to the large comparison tables. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG

When someone chooses to harass a person here, there are two things necessary in the target: some weakness that an be exploited as the basis for the harassment, and a tendency to sometimes reply inappropriately. In a sense, almost anyone meets these requirements to be a target: Any active editor has made mistakes, and very few people can be fully calm after sufficient insults--and, in particular, while being set upon by more than a single harasser. As applies here: some of the IRC articles were rather weak; the subject is not really among the best-controlled tenth of WPedians; the almost simultaneous actions from three people would be enough to infuriate almost anyone. As I see it, concerted harassment should be treated as a major aggravating factor or even as meatpuppettry, whether done by coordination or just from exploiting the opportunity. And one sure sign of harassment is when it takes more than one route, or when it continues after the success of the initial round; I see the MfDs in exactly these lights: carrying things to that extent is persecution. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G, by request

I've been asked to comment here, by two people. I've hesitated because I really don't want to get entangled in this. There's not much that I can add, strictly speaking, that isn't already available for perusal. Apart from the electronic mail messages sent to me by Tothwolf and two administrators, it's all on-wiki, albeit that there's not a central collection of diffs and links.

As I suggested at the ACN talk page, it does look like things are being gamed here. This request to mute Tothwolf is more such. I'm not sure that we should be continuing to buy the self-descriptions that aren't borne out by actions over the months, or the It's-not-interaction-if-I-nominate-a-user's-draft-article-userpages-for-deletion-just-before-the-previous-restrictions-are-set-to-expire-as-long-as-I-don't-mention-the-user-by-name argument. I think that, as I questioned before, it was most unwise of JBsupreme and Theserialcomma to jump on Miami33139's bandwagon there. It was particularly unwise of Theserialcomma, who otherwise has mostly lifted xyrself out of this, it appears to me.

This leaves us with Miami33139, Tothwolf, JBsupreme, and all of the people who have, variously, interacted with them over the months.

Whilst Tothwolf has apparently resisted temptation to blow xyr top this time around, xe still hasn't done xyrself any favours. Actually rolling up xyr sleeves and editing User:Tothwolf/List of Internet Relay Chat clients (MfD discussion), User:Tothwolf/List of quote databases (MfD discussion), User:Tothwolf/MIRCStats, or even Ircle (AfD discussion) would have probably resulted in snowball closures of the discussions that Miami33139 initiated, with Miami33139, JBsupreme, and Theserialcomma more clearly standing out as the dissenting trio, instead of the more mixed reaction that occurred. So there is some fault for the continuance of this whole mess to be laid at Tothwolf's door. But extending restrictions doesn't address it in the slightest. All that the restrictions have done is supply parties to the case with something to game.

Which brings me to the best practice reminder in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf. It, too, doesn't appear to have worked. If anything, things are worse now than they were at the time. Neither Miami33139 nor JBsupreme are following best practices, or indeed deletion policy, despite the attempts of myself and others to persuade them to do so, time and again. I know that for at least one other editor the assumption of good faith has been negated by months of evidence, here; and as Seth Kellerman points out above, Miami33139's "I vote delete on everything." rings much truer than the statements to the contrary on xyr user page, given what can be found in Special:Contributions/Miami33139 in the project namespace over and over again. What we really have here are two accounts that have failed to follow good practice for a long time, and have reached what is probably an all-time low (more on which later) quite recently, primarily in conflict with an editor that in turn does xyrself no favours by not actually getting down to writing.

I can understand why the assumption of good faith has gone out of the window for that editor that I mentioned. It's fairly clear from the actions by JBsupreme at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tothwolf/List of Internet Relay Chat clientsuser that there's action in bad faith occurring. Here's the sequence:

JBsupreme says that the page is close to "an abuse of userspace".
After the MFD discussion has run for several days, Tothwolf requests speedy deletion, which xe notes on the Administrator's Noticeboard and Village Pump.
JBsupreme, some 45 minutes later, renames the page into xyr own user space and removes the speedy deletion request.
When asked about these actions by DGG, xyr response is "Do you really not know? I think you do."

Yes, I think that we really do know. We really do know that JBsupreme is acting to always oppose whatever Tothwolf happens to want here, rather than in pursuance of xyr stated position, and not acting in good faith. It flies in the face of reason to assume that an editor who declares something an "abuse of userspace" one minute is acting in good faith when xyr next actions, in relation to the editor who is, supposedly, abusing that userspace, are to then attempt to re-claim, and prevent the deletion of, the page in xyr own user space.

There's plenty more evidence to be found. I'm not going to provide an exhaustive list because, as yet another editor has said, doing so is a large task (and I really want to get around to society page, which I keep getting distracted from, some time this century). Here are some of the highlights, therefore:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lazarus Effect (film) — I mentioned snowball keep decisions where single editors stand out, earlier. Here's one such. The editor standing out is JBsupreme.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients (2nd nomination) — JBsupreme and Miami33139 reiterating their argument, presented numerous times before to sound rejection by many people, that it's not up to the two of them to put in the effort of looking for sources for information that has no sources cited, but that that's Someone Else's Problem.
(Of course, this is a re-nomination of an article that Tothwolf actually did work on, by the same editor as before, and, as can be seen from Special:Contributions/JBsupreme, one made a mere two hours after the messing around at User:Tothwolf/List of Internet Relay Chat clients.)
edit to Ircle — Miami33139 demonstrating this attitude in action, even though some of the information removed (dealing with the authorship) is directly sourceable to page 58 of the very book cited in the AFD discussion.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaicho — Another piece of evidence that putting deletion and content policies into action correctly is at a new low. At the point of this discussion contribution by JBsupreme, the article in question had stood like this for just over 12 hours. Not only is no effort being put into looking for sources, it's fairly clear that little, possibly no, effort is being put into even reading the articles themselves before joining in deletion discussions.
"PENDING REVISIONS WINS AGAIN SUCKERS" — Even the note about decorum in the arbitration case has failed to register.

So it seems to me that nothing particularly good has come out of the previous arbitration case. The interaction restrictions are being gamed, the taunting continues, and the behaviour in deletion discussions is even less an example of good practice than it was those several months ago. I think that it's time that the arbitration committee, or the community at large, address some of the clearly unaddressed problems here, that we are being deflected away from by motions such as this one, more directly. If Tothwolf were subtracted from this entirely, there would still be concerns to answer on the parts of the other accounts. Tothwolf hasn't behaved well, and clearly could have garnered more sympathy by writing and contributing, rather than arguing. But Tothwolf being the focus, or the entirety of the cause, clearly isn't correct. As observed, Miami33139's actions are serving quite ironically here to show that the spotlight should be shining on other accounts a bit more than it has done.

To that end, I suggest that it is in Tothwolf's best interests to concentrate upon article writing, rather than this, for a time. I suggest, for starters, getting ircle past stub status.

Uncle G (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, ominously

I will take resolute action next time Tothwolf complains to me about baiting, taunting or bullying by the folks who've already been warned. Those folks would do well to steer a wide path around Tothwolf, and to scrupulously avoid committing similar abuse of any other editors. You have the chance to make exactly one more mistake. I especially like DGG's analysis.Jehochman ^Talk 11:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Collapsing earlier comments

Having read the ANI thread that led to this, I think what we have here is a case of WP:BOOMERANG. From what I've seen so far, I'm more inclined to propose amending the case to restrict User:Miami33139 (who filed this request). I'm particularly unimpressed by the "Waambulance" and "whine one one" taunts. I would like to see statements from Tothwolf and JBSupreme and theserialcomma, and also (if he is prepared to make a statement) Uncle G, who left a note about this on an arbitration page somewhere recently saying that things were boiling over in this area again. I'm also concerned about comments that the civility restriction passed on JBSupreme is not having any effect. Possible ways to proceed here would be a wide-ranging non-interaction restriction between Tothwolf and JBSupreme, theserialcomma and Miami33139, or even reopening the case in light of this continuing behaviour. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Miami33139 I'm saying I'm unimpressed with your conduct at the ANI thread and the comments you left. You seem to be under a mistaken impression about the conclusions of the arbitration case. Changes in conduct was expected from all parties, and returning to the conduct that led to the arbitration case is likely to see a re-imposition of sanctions and/or warnings. Currently I'm waiting for my colleagues to comment on this amendment request, but in the meantime it would be good to see some more statements here. Tothwolf has mentioned Uncle G above, so I will ask him if he is able to make a statement here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Uncle G for the statement and thanks to others for their statements. There should be enough here now to allow an assessment of what to do here. Currently waiting for further comments from other arbitrators before deciding where to go from here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Carcharoth. Miami, the comments you have made are over the line and cross into NPA. You are apparently unable or unwilling to see that. I agree with Carcharoth that this area may need to be reopened, or an amendment passed here. SirFozzie (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Tothwolf is the wrongdoer here. I don't know whether this requires an amendment, but it does appear to be hounding to me. Move on, Miami. Cool Hand Luke 14:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We may need to reopen this matter for some form of review. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have two issues to address here - Miami33139 and JBSupreme's behavior towards Tothwolf and in deletion discussions. Shell ^babelfish 21:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Update: I've proposed some motions, 2 new remedies in the case and one minor update to reflect what appear to be the prevailing concerns. Due to confusion over interaction restrictions in the past, I've attempted to flesh out the restriction a bit more and wouldn't be adverse to other Arbs tweaking it if I've missed the boat there. Shell ^babelfish 08:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shell, thanks for advancing the discussion. Re the section below, are these ideas you are raising for discussion purposes or are you asking that they be voted on as motions. If the latter, someone (I'll do it if I'm here, or a clerk, or anyone really) should set them up with the support/oppose/etc. paraphernalia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops :-) I've added in the bits I completely missed since they were meant as motions, but I'm certainly open to discussing any of the motions and changing them as needed. Shell ^babelfish 10:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

1) Tothwolf (talk · contribs · logs), Miami33139 (talk · contribs · logs) and JBsupreme (talk · contribs · logs) are banned from interacting with each other, broadly construed. This includes things like not editing each other's userspace, not becoming involved directly with each other in discussions, and not nominating articles for deletion which another one has started. This does not prohibit commenting in the same discussion without directly interacting or editing the same articles so long as they are not directly in conflict. They may request enforcement of this restriction at the Arbitration Enforcement board or by email to the Arbitration mailing list; they may not request enforcement or action against each other for any other reason or at any other venue. Attempts to game this restriction should be treated as a violation of the restriction.

Enacted - Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There being 10 active Arbitrators, none of whom are recused, the majority is 6

Support

Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell ^babelfish 20:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SirFozzie (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies ^talk 07:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 13:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can try this regime and see if it helps. If not, we may need to reopen the original case for a more thorough review of recent developments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 20:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KnightLago (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

2) Miami33139 (talk · contribs · logs) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Miami33139 make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith or disruptive to deletion discussions, Miami33139 may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement portion of the case. The six months starts from the day this motion passes.

Enacted - Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

Abstain

The reason for the motion is understandable, but I think (1) might well be sufficient and my preference would be to try it alone first. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3) Remedy 2 (already updated once) is changed to "JBsupreme (talk · contribs · logs) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, or disruptive to deletion discussions, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." The six months is reset to start from the day this motion passes.

Enacted - Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Per my comment on (2). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.