Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Shortcuts

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346

FergusM1970

FergusM1970 is topic banned from WP:TROUBLES articles and discussions for 6 months. User:Son_of_Setanta is topic banned from WP:TROUBLES articles and discussions for 4 months. One Night In Hackney, User:TheOldJacobite, User:DagosNavy & User:Domer48 are topic banned for 3 months from WP:Troubles articles and discussions. User:Flexdream is cautioned that further misconduct in the areas covered by WP:TROUBLES will result in sanction; and a request that ArbCom consider implementing Mandated External Review for WP:Troubles will be made first by way of a request for clarification and then by request for ammendment if necessary--Cailil ^talk 12:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning FergusM1970

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 18:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: FergusM1970 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

18:30, 2 August 2012 Revert #1
18:42, 2 August 2012‎ Revert #2, within 24 hours (12 minutes to be exact) of revert #1
21:00, 2 August 2012 Revert #3, within 24 hours of reverts #1 and #2 (revert due to re-addition of this information added earlier)

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Warned on 09:43, 6 December 2011 by Mo ainm (talk · contribs)
Topic banned on 16:44, 6 December 2011 by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Today's edits are essentially repeating these edits made by the same editor back in April, making it a revert. There's also obvious POV pushing with this since they weren't in possession of a bomb at all. Editor was previously topic banned for disruptive editing in this area, as noted above. Comments on his talk page of "Now get the fcuk off my talk page. I don't like Provos" suggest similar action may be needed.

It would appear FergusM1970 doesn't actually know what a summary execution is, and how it differs from an actual execution. His claim that there was bomb found in Marbella is also false. Bomb making components including explosives were found, but that isn't a bomb. Given Marbella is over 80km from Gibraltar and the components weren't found until afterwards, I struggle to see how any reasonable person could possibly consider that the presence of bomb making components in Marbella after the fact somehow doesn't make the three people killed in Gibraltar "unarmed"? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly what a summary execution is, and I don't just mean a war crime. It is an execution carried out without a full trial. Therefore it is a subset of executions, which are a state-conducted legal process. Therefore only a state can carry out summary executions, although of course they're prohibited by the Geneva Conventions which all real soldiers have to obey. If a non-state actor kills someone without a trial that isn't a summary execution; it's just an ordinary murder.--FergusM1970 (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, just checked and it was actually a bomb not just components. However the car was only found due to keys in the handbag of one of the people who had been killed, so the larger point still remains. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flexdream this isn't a content issue, that's just included to show how part of the edit is obvious POV. The issue is disruptive edit warring by an editor previously topic banned for the exact same. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I declined to answer your off-topic attempt to use your own original research to say it wasn't a summary execution when a reliable source (and more available) says it was. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. What crime were Howes and Wood accused of and which state carried out their "executions"? Answer please.--FergusM1970 (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that, in this instance, the complaining editor has made a seemingly malicious and false accusation of original research when in fact User:Flexdream was quoting from the complaining editor's own source, namely the Wikipedia article on summary execution. There is clearly a group of editors intent on pushing their own POV by insisting that the term "summary execution" is inaccurately applied to this article, and as the defendant in this arbitration I request that this is taken into account in the solution to the complaint. Thanks.--FergusM1970 (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no end to the revisionist waffle from Flexdream? FergusM1970 was blocked and topic banned for 3 months after a Troubles 1RR breach in December 2011. So quite where you get "I think in good faith they deserve the benefit of the doubt that they didn't realise at the time they were in breach of a rule" is anyone's guess.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll put my hand up and admit to having forgotten about that; I don't edit WP all that much as a rule and don't keep track of what's allowed and what isn't. My sole concern was to revert the repeated insertion of an inaccurately used term, namely "summary execution" for two killings carried out by a non-state actor without any legal justification whatsoever.--FergusM1970 (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great, now we have a claim that the IRA planned to bomb a "public music performance". Could this be any more POV and misleading, since it was allgedly a changing of the guard which is obviously a different thing entirely. The sooner this editor is topic banned again the better in my opinion based on that. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's misleading about it? The target was the band of the Royal Anglians and the plan was to spray them and their audience with shrapnel by detonating 140lb of Semtex in a car. You are attempting to gloss over the fact that this was an attempt to detonate a large bomb at a public event frequented by tourists.--FergusM1970 (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FergusM1970 claims "the planned location of the attack was at the band assembly area which was right next to a large residential building, not at the steps of the Governor's residence where the guard would be changed, and that is in the source". The only source currently being referred to is Brits by Peter Taylor. I've got my copy in front of me right now and there's nothing in the source that says that as far as I can see. Exact quote please? Should you fail to provide the quote, I think we can draw our own conclusions.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False. The Taylor book is the reference currently numbered (2) in the article. Reference (3) is the ECHR report into the shootings. It clearly describes the terrorists carrying out reconnaisance and dry runs on the band assembly area.--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the exact quote from the ECHR report that supports your comment of "the planned location of the attack was at the band assembly area which was right next to a large residential building, not at the steps of the Governor's residence where the guard would be changed, and that is in the source"? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read Para 38-45. Here are some extracts:

"38. Detective Constable Viagas was on surveillance duty in a bank which had a view over the area in which the car driven in by the terrorists was expected to be parked. At about 12.30 hours, he heard a report over the surveillance net that a car had parked in a parking space in the assembly area under observation. A member of the Security Service commented that the driver had taken time to get out and fiddled with something between the seats... 39. Witness N of the Security Service team on surveillance in the car park in the assembly area recalled that at 12.45 hours a white Renault car drove up and parked, the driver getting out after two to three minutes and walking away.

A young man resembling the suspect was spotted next at about 14.00 hours in the area. Witness H, who was sent to verify his identification, saw the suspect at about that time and recognised him as Savage without difficulty. Witness N also saw the suspect at the rear of John Mackintosh Hall and at 14.10 hours reported over the radio to the operations room that he identified him as Savage and also as the man who had earlier parked the car in the assembly area.... 45. At about 14.50 hours, it was reported to the operations room that the suspects McCann and Farrell had met with a second man identified as the suspect Savage and that the three were looking at a white Renault car in the car park in the assembly area.

Witness H stated that the three suspects spent some considerable time staring across to where a car had been parked, as if, in his assessment, they were studying it to make sure it was absolutely right for the effect of the bomb."

Will that do?--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to read the question? It was - So what's the exact quote from the ECHR report that supports your comment of "the planned location of the attack was at the band assembly area which was right next to a large residential building, not at the steps of the Governor's residence where the guard would be changed, and that is in the source"? Would you like to answer that question, as opposed to an entirely different question that I didn't ask? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did answer your question. If you read the quotes I just provided you will see repeated mentions of the words "assembly area," correct? You will see a description of actions consistent with a reconnaisance and dry run, correct? On the other hand there is no surveillance reporting of similar PIRA preparations for an attack on Main Street at the Governor's residence, correct?--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As everyone can see, FergusM1907 is unable to provide a quote that supports his claim of "the planned location of the attack was at the band assembly area which was right next to a large residential building, not at the steps of the Governor's residence where the guard would be changed, and that is in the source", instead relying on the vague use of "assembly area". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 06:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's vague about it? The area referred to "vaguely" as the assembly area is, duh, the assembly area. What's hard to understand about this? Do you see references to "Main Street" or "The Governor's residence" anywhere in the surveillance reports?--FergusM1970 (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see Flexdream is attempting to revise history again. He's ignoring revert 3 (which was already in the report) which happened after FergusM1970 had supposedly accepted he couldn't revert further. 19:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Slp1's comment below. We are dealing with a previously topic banned editor who makes comments such as "Now get the fcuk off my talk page. I don't like Provos" to an editor who he is in dispute with. And for the sake of transparency, "Provos" refers to the Provisional IRA and in the context it was used can only be assumed to be referring to the editor concerned. So good faith doesn't really apply to this editor in my book, given the circumstances. I further note the claim that "1rr reports. In the first, concerning Flexdream, a fairly infrequent editor, who reverted as soon as the 1rr problem was brought to his/her attention" has been claimed. There is the history of the page in question. Flexdream emphatically *did not* revert "as soon as the 1rr problem was brought to his/her attention". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know about Fergus, but you are correct about Flexdream. He didn't revert. He immediately came here and acknowledged the 1RR problem [1], and 3 minutes later he was reverted by another editor (somebody who has also participated in this dispute with Fergus), which meant that he couldn't revert. But thanks for pointing out my error, I will correct my post below. --Slp1 (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So on an entirely new article we have reverts at 21:30, 4 August 2012, 22:51, 4 August 2012 and 04:04, 5 August 2012. That's in addition to a POINTY campaign on many other articles. For example after not getting his own way on piece of content where the whole point of the incident was that three unarmed IRA members were killed (and that being pointed out by dozens of reliable sources) he's adding unarmed to every article he can find where people were killed by the IRA. unarmed three-year-old, really? Can nobody see we've got a serious problem here? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 06:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That "the whole point of the incident was that three unarmed IRA members were killed" is very much your personal opinion. As far as I'm concerned the whole point of the incident is that a major terrorist bombing was prevented, and the fact that Savage, McCann and Farrell weren't carrying guns is not important. Clearly different people have different opinions, which is why Wikipedia depends on editors discussing their differences on the talk page in good faith rather than using tag-team reverts and manipulative 1RR complaints to get their own way.--FergusM1970 (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice Jonchapple claims to be uninvolved and alleges I have "non-collegial, bad-faith attitude towards editing here". I would suggest his comments of "Adolf Hackney and his pathetic cabal are untouchable" suggest the former is untrue, and the latter is better applied to himself. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the uninvolved part, even though I'm not involved in this particular dispute. And how you choose to interpret comments made to other users on their personal talk pages is up to you, but even if there is some bad faith tucked in their somewhere, unlike you and your 14 frivolous AE reports a week I don't let it spill over into my editing. — Jon C.^ॐ 20:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil, could you explain how reverting some (but not all, as that demonstrates) of the changes I disagreed with, including the addition of blatant original research and posting on the talk page (something SonofSetanta didn't bother doing I notice when he reverted my edit 24 minutes later) about the OR is somehow topic ban worthy? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear some people have rather selective reading. My original comment was "Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions please provide a diff where "Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning" was given, in particular including "Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways". Me simply being aware of the existence of discretionary sanctions is insufficient for a ban to be imposed". I never disputed knowing about the existence of discretionary sanctions, but knowing about them is insufficient for a ban to be enacted. Please provide a diff for the second passage quoted, you know the one where you identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways. Obviously after doing that you'd need to provide problematic edits dated after the diff to show the ban is justified. I'll be perfectly reasonable and agree there's no need for a diff that includes "a link to the decision authorising the sanctions", just one identifying misconduct and advice on how I may "mend my ways". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can nobody read round here? Once again I'm not asking for a diff where I was warned about the existence of discretionary sanctions, but the part in bold from "Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways". That's required before sanctioning an editor, or are you just planning to ignore that because you think you can? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [2]

Discussion concerning FergusM1970

Statement by FergusM1970

The use of the term "summary execution" for the abduction, beating, stabbing and murder of Howes and Woods is straightforward POV pushing. An execution is a killing carried out with legal sanction by the state which PIRA, itself an illegal group, most certainly did not have. A killing carried out without legal sanction is murder, although I would accept "killing" in this article. I will not accept "summary execution." Ever. This is not because of my POV; it's because it's not accurate. Allowing it to be inserted is to give PIRA an implied level of legitimacy that they never in fact possessed and it has no place in an unbiased encyclopaedia. I request that this be made clear to everyone who edits this article in future to prevent further issues.

As for the three terrorists killed in Gibralter, they had a bomb. It contained 140lb of Semtex, it was in a car parked in Marbella and the car keys were in Farrell's handbag. To call them "unarmed" is as weaselly as a large bowl of weasels in weasel sauce. Their intent was to kill or injure several hundred innocent people and they had the means to do it.

As for my actual 1RR violation, I forgot about this rule and my previous sanction for it, and for that I apologise. When FlexDream reminded me of the rule I immediately accepted that and have carried out no further reverts to the article. Nor will I do so in future except in accordance with 1RR. However I request that, whatever the consequences of this complaint for me personally, a decision is reached that prevents the promotion of a pro-PIRA POV on this article and forbids the inaccurate use of the term "summary execution" to refer to these murders.--FergusM1970 (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: The editors on the other side of this dispute, however, are systematically inserting false information into the article to advance their own POV and tag-teaming to make sure that nobody can revert it without breaking 1RR. Needless to say if they weren't doing that I wouldn't have violated 1RR...--FergusM1970 (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston, somebody has to rule on it. Attempting to discuss it on the talk page appears to be futile, as the reply is always "You don't know what summary execution means." Luckily, for anyone who really doesn't know what it means, there's a handy online resource called Wikipedia that will tell them, and it bears no relation to what happened to Howes and Wood. The editors who want the wording to stay refuse to justify themselves or discuss alternatives - both Flexdream and I tried the NPOV "killed," but got reverted - and appear to be gaming WP rules to make sure it stays there. I realise that this doesn't grant an exception to 1RR and I shouldn't have violated it - although I genuinely did forget; I tend to edit WP in fits and starts, and don't keep up to date with the rules - but what's really more important here? That I was a bit naughty or that a blatantly POV and thoroughly inaccurate term is being repeatedly put back into an article?--FergusM1970 (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is what is happening here. The article in question hadn't been touched for five weeks. Then Flexdream changed "Summarily executed" to "killed." He was immediately reverted. He attempted to discuss it on the talk page and was brushed off. I changed it to "murdered" (which is accurate according to WP's definition of "murder," but may be wasn't the best choice.) I was immediately reverted. I then broke 1RR and changed it to "killed," which is NPOV. I was reverted. I also attempted to discuss it on the talk page and was brushed off. The editors in question are simply not willing to discuss the wording in good faith. The fact is that 1RR is being gamed to keep false and POV wording in the article, and any resolution through the talk page is impossible because the reply is just going to be "Please don't ask irrelevant questions. Reference for summary execution added, good day to you," "Why don't you try reading what a summary execution actually is?," "Simply reading what a summary execution actually is should have addressed this" and so on. In fact of course a summary execution is a type of execution and an execution is a killing carried out by a state and as punishment for a crime. Neither of these applies to the abduction, torture and killing of two men by a banned paramilitary organisation. As I said, I put my hands up and admit to breaking 1RR. I forgot; my bad. However the rule is being used to prevent this article being improved and personally I think that's a more important issue.--FergusM1970 (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting pathetic. User:One_Night_In_Hackney is now arguing here that a summary execution is not in fact an execution, although amazingly enough he won't explain why not and in fact has repeatedly cited a source which begins "A summary execution is a variety of execution." His only aim appears to be to maintain a pro-PIRA POV on the article; he has shown no sign at all of being willing to look for a good-faith solution, which of course is why we're now in arbitration. If content issues aren't actually important then so be it, but I was under the impression that we were trying to edit an encyclopaedia here rather than simply attempting to be even more narrowly legalistic than a Haredi rabbi in a delicatessen that isn't quite kashrut enough for him. The current situation is just as Heimstern said; 1RR can be used to ensure that the side that wins the dispute is the one who can out-revert the other without breaking the rules, rather than the one that's actually trying to improve the article. Howes and Wood weren't executed, saying they were makes WP look about as reliable as Andy Schlafly's little toy wiki and I was attempting to fix the problem. Sorry that I had to break a rule in the process of trying to bring the article into line with WP's policy on POV, but what exactly was the alternative? Leave it wrong? So fine, I violated 1RR. Block me if you must, but next time I see something that can be improved I may just not bother my hoop to do it. Frankly an encyclopaedia that thinks revert violations are worse than inaccurate and biased content has problems I can't even begin to fix.--FergusM1970 (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my previous statement, what this issue boils down to is: Is 1RR more important than WP:NPOV? I admit to having inadvertantly violated one in pursuit of the other, but attempts to resolve this issue on the article talk page were not exactly productive and the other side of the dispute continues to ignore the dispute resolution request I initiated. The article is now locked with a blatantly POV phrase still in place, which may prevent 1RR violations but isn't doing a whole lot to help remove POV-pushing. As I have already said, I accept my error and that I may be blocked for it, but the status quo where POV is preserved for at least the next three months looks a lot like cutting your nose off to spite your face.--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil, if you check the article talk page you'll see that I asked for protection, with the intention of seeking a solution to the POV issue, before this complaint was even made against me. The reason I didn't go to DRN until last night was that until then I didn't know it existed.--FergusM1970 (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you remind me what Troubles-related sanctions I received in 2009? I can't even seem to find any relevant edits I made that year, never mind sanctions for them. Of course I may have missed one, but I don't recall making any.--FergusM1970 (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm implying tag-team reverting or anything, but an edit I recently made to Harrods bombing was reverted by User:TheOldJacobite. I changed it back (once, in accordance with 1RR) and it was immediately reverted again by User:One_Night_In_Hackney. Previously TheOldJacobite hadn't edited that article since 21 September 2009, when he and Hackney again carried out the same revert in the space of 39 minutes.--FergusM1970 (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnson, Heimstar, Seraphimblade, Slp1 and The Blade of the Northern Lights - For my part I am perfectly willing to engage in the DRN process and will abide by its results; if it concludes that "summarily executed" is appropriate wording I will accept that and not change that wording again.--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I shouldn't be commenting here and I accept that you will move it, but I am doing so to make sure that it's noted as I'm sure you all have better things to do than continually re-read this page looking for changes. The DRN volunteers have closed the request due to User:One_Night_In_Hackney and User:TheOldJacobite's refusal to participate. I would prefer that the request remain open for at least a few days, but if not I'm willing to go to mediation and accept their ruling. Is this helpful?--FergusM1970 (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Son of Setanta

I have been uninvolved in this discussion until now but have read the DRN case and note that some parties involved in the discussion do not actually wish to discuss anything. I reverted the information to what I believe it should be here [[3]] but it was immediately reverted by Domer48. Fergus reverted it back to his/my version and that was immediately reverted again by Hackney. What we have here is a numbers game folks. An edit war which will be won by the grouping with the greatest number of reverters and that's the version which wil stay unless there is some form of adjudication on this. My opinion is that one set of followers are determined to subvert the article to reflect the fact that a stateless, banned, terrorist organisation, had the authority within the United Kingdom to authorise summary execution and was exercising its own form of law. That also appears to be the case here. Supporters of that banned organisation (which is now defunct) are determined that their heroes be shown in the most romantic light possible and not as the murderers they were/are. It's POV pushing at the most extreme and enforced by a posse of minions. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

I have now filed a request for mediation on the underlying content issue, which can be found here.--FergusM1970 (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and all the involved editors have now agreed to take part.--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested a different form of wording on the mediation page, namely the NPOV "killed," and have asked the other involved editors to give their opinions and any objections to this wording. It seems that as a number of editors clearly object to "summarily executed," and if nobody provides any valid objections to "killed," this change (back to wording which was in the article for six years without controversy in any case) would be the most consensual way ahead.--FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 23:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The request has now been accepted by the Mediation Committee, so hopefully progress should be made soon.--FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 13:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This is rather frustrating. I have proposed a solution to the content dispute here, but Hackney, Domer and TheOldJacobite are refusing to discuss it or even to explain why they object to it. I think this illustrates the point that they are not interested in concensus-building.--FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 20:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Continued refusal. Both Hackney and Domer48 have expressed a concern that "killed" doesn't make clear that the killings were illegal, so I have proposed another solution that addresses this. They still won't discuss it. To me it is now absolutely clear that they have no interest in reaching concensus and want the words "summarily executed" in the article for other reasons which they are not willing to disclose. I suggest that these reasons involve giving a false impression of legitimacy to the killings by implying that a death sentence for a crime was being carried out, and that is POV-pushing. As for TheOldJacobite, he has taken no part at all in the discussions at the mediation request except to complain about the admins involved here. How is anyone supposed to reach concensus with ~~this editor~~ these editors when they aren't even willing to explain why they want their preferred wording or to discuss acceptable alternatives? Is it any wonder that, in frustration, I breached 1RR?--FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 00:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Confession

I have possibly just violated 1RR again. I did it because someone reverted my sourced edit stating that the casualties of PIRA's campaign included Irish security forces (six police and one army.) I raised this on the talk page when I made my edit, and got flannelled. PIRA murdered six Irish policemen and one Irish soldier. This is a matter of record. I confidently expect that one of about six Wikipedia ~~reverters~~ editors, who I will willingly name if asked, will shortly submit a 1RR complaint against me for this. I note, however, that nobody is disputing the fact that six Irish policemen and one Irish soldier were killed by PIRA. Therefore the reversion of my edit should itself be regarded as a breach of WP rules, namely WP:NPOV. Thanks.--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, apparently removing my edit was not a revert. Fine...--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further Allegations

User:One_Night_In_Hackney has now also raised a sockpuppet complaint against me, apparently based on nothing more than the fact that other people disagree with his "stable concensus" to use a POV term. Given that concerns have been raised below about his use of 1RR to push his POV, I think some more concerns about his behaviour in general are warranted.--FergusM1970 (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil, actually I have initiated both a DRN and a mediation request in an attempt to resolve this. However despite being asked several times One_Night_In_Hackney refuses to explain why he insists on using the wording "summary execution," why he thinks it does not mean "execution" or why he will not consider the NPOV wording "killed." He also deleted information I added to the PIRA campaign article on the grounds that it was "policy violating" and "incorrect," whereas they were in fact sourced and I don't see what policy is violated by stating the level of public support for PIRA's aims.--FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 19:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

@Cailil (again,) my apologies for canvassing, as I wasn't aware this was an offence. My belief was that admins who were already involved in my case would have a fuller understanding of the issues raised by Hackney's further complaint against SonOfSetanta and would be better able to judge the merits of it.--FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 22:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Final Comments

I realise that I'm going to get sanctioned here and I accept that; although the initial 1RR violation was minor I shouldn't have made pointed edits to other articles and I shouldn't have let myself get drawn in to other issues initiated by the tag team. However in mitigation I would like to say this: I make no secret of the fact that I thoroughly detest PIRA and all their vile offshoots, but I have not attempted to push a POV in any Troubles-related articles. The POV pushing has been done by the tag team, who instantly pounce on any edit that shows PIRA in a less than rosy light and use 1RR and weight of numbers to remove it and keep it removed. I initiated both a DRN (which was ignored by the tag team) and a mediation request, which they grudgingly agreed to, in an attempt to resolve the underlying content dispute that sparked this whole mess. Throughout I have patiently explained why their preferred wording was both inaccurate and POV, and have had no response to my suggested compromises and questions about why they prefer this wording. In addition I have made many edits to a wide range of articles at Wikipedia, in a sincere effort to improve content, many of which have been accepted and even complimented. On the other hand a look at TheOldJacobite or One Night in Hackney shows that they contribute essentially nothing; the vast majority of their activity is in reverting edits to their pet articles. The same applies to a lesser extent to Domer48, although he's not quite as egregious. I would only ask that, in deciding sanctions, you bear in mind who brings more to the party and who is likely to contribute more productively in the future.--FergusM1970^{The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on.} 00:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning FergusM1970

Comment by Mabuska

Would just like to point out that Domer48 appears to hounding FergusM1970 and his edits as well as making misleading edit summaries that border on outright lying on the Ulster Defence Regiment article:

Initial addition by Fergus. Despite his edit summary, he doesn't input into the article anything that actually mentions the IRA.
Domer48 fully reverts it despite stating "par revert", and misleads with the rest of his edit summary as the content added is supported by the reference and no mention was made of the IRA.
FergusM1970 re-adds the information with a new source and actually states in the article this time who the intimidation was by.

Seeing as FergusM1970 and Domer48 only made one revert each neither is in violation of 1RR however what reason was there in the first place for Domer48's revert at all? If anything it may have been an attempt to instigate FergusM1970 into another edit-war and 1RR violation, but came to nothing due to Fergus actually providing a better source. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was fairly stunned at Domer's blatantly misleading edit comment, and it does look as if he's following me around trying to provoke something else. However I have learned my lesson about 1RR and he's wasting his time.--FergusM1970^{The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on.} 19:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, misleading Arbcom is really not advised. This is FergusM1970 edit here and this here is the reference they used. FergusM1970 made two additional edits here and here. Please note their edit summary on the initial edit. Please check out the source they used again and note, no mention of the IRA. Now check out my revert again, note that I only reverted one edit. That is called a partial revert. Apart from the fact that you have made unfounded accusations against me, you did it here at Arbcom. Having made a frivolous accusation, you then revert me here after I removed the addition of more unsourced text on an unrelated article and then it would appear followed me here and also here. This would appear to be an obvious case of tit for tat or at the very least harassment. Are you familier with the term Boomerang.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, if Arbcom find the time (I know you did do "content" until now) could you at the very least review the edits on the article that Mabuska has used in their frivolous complaint. Having reviewed the edits I've cited above in my defense, review the latest addition here and here. Now check out the sources used here and here and count the number of reasons given for the reduction in numbers. How many reasons are given in the editors here and contribution here. It certainly lacks balance, and the weight seems to be a little off a lot of undue weight and in the lead of all places. Like I said, if you have the time. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, so I made a mistake in the edit summary. Did you bother reading my actual EDIT? As Mabuska has pointed out, it did not mention PIRA, so your grounds for a revert were spurious. However my current one does, and is properly sourced. Please leave it alone unless you have a legitimate argument with the sources.--FergusM1970^{The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on.} 19:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Domer, what are you talking about, "undue weight"? The main reason for Catholic numbers in the UDR falling was PIRA intimidation, up to and including ringing people's doorbells then shooting them in the face when they answered. Catholic (and Irish) recruitment in other British Army units was only marginally affected by the Troubles, so where you get undue weight from is beyond me.--FergusM1970^{The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on.} 20:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually Domer48 citation needed tags were created for unsourced statements in articles. The removal of the text outright for something you yourself said was "While it has always been suggested, a source would be required to support it", then surely adding such a tag makes sense especially when the next sentence which you didn't remove isn't sourced either and the very next paragraph contains a citation needed tag and has done so since April. Also James Connolly and the Orange Order articles are on my watch list and the edits are none controversial. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact none of my edits can be considered controversial but rather following policy on citations and in the Orange Order article doesn't even involve an edit you made. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Flexdream

Before this AE was raised I reverted Fergus' edits and they have accepted that. That would seem to be that. Subsequently this AE has been raised over what is really a content dispute and can be discussed in the article. Is it really necessary for editors to raise an AE every time they can? Shouldn't some judgement be shown? --Flexdream (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It would appear FergusM1970 doesn't actually know what a summary execution is" according to Hackney. According to that link a "summary execution" is where "a person is accused of a crime". Hackney has not been able to say what the crime was when asked [4]. Is this really the forum to get into discussing content? Although it does explain why Fergus made their edit.--Flexdream (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hackeny - I'm pleased you've now conceded that it was a 'bomb'. As for allegations of POV - they are easy to make but I don't see the relevance or helpfulness here. I thought my term in the article of 'killed' was less POV than your term of 'summarily executed'. But doesn't this discussion belong on the talk page? When I reverted Fergus' edits and told them about 1RR they didn't undo it or come back at me, they accepted it, so I think in good faith they deserve the benefit of the doubt that they didn't realise at the time they were in breach of a rule. I know I didn't when it was me.--Flexdream (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- how is it 'original research' to link to the very same wikipedia article Summary_execution that you do? Anyway, I think this is just clouding the issue now and getting verbose. Give the admins and others a chance to comment.--Flexdream (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, Fergus breaks the 1RR rule. I revert the edit and inform Fergus they can't make a second edit. Fergus accepts that. However, Hackney then files a complaint. And now its being proposed that Fergus gets a 6 month topic ban? For a 1RR breach that I corrected, and they accepted, before the complaint? Have a look at the discussion between Hackney and Fergus, and the discussion between Sean Hoyland and Fergus for a contrast in how discussions can go.--Flexdream (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cailil. You seem to be saying that because Fergus is the subject of an AE claim, that because of that his attempt to resolve the issue by going for mediation is an attempt to avoid AE? Or have I misunderstood you? If I have then it would be helpful for me if you could rephrase it. Fergus has said that they did not know about DR at the time of the AE - and they have tried to discuss the issues previously. You can judge for yourself how they have tried to discuss the issues on talk pages, and how others have responded there and to his two attempts to get mediation. I also suspect that Fergus is not aware of the wikipedia rule on canvassing, as if they were aware it seems unlikely they would canvass the admins involved in a current AE raised against Fergus - that behaviour would be inexplicable.

I thought the whole point of AE is that it is a last resort for problems which undermine wikipedia. I also would hope that discussion is preferred to mediation, and mediation is preferred to arbitration but I don't know enough about how wikipedia works. Fortunately I suppose I have not had much experience of AE till recently, and I am learning how it operates. You say that "Processes of this site should not be used to undermine or otherwise attempt to evade policy or arbitration remedies" and I agree. I'd also say that this applies to the process of AE which should not be used to attempt to evade the policy of NPOV. Regards.--Flexdream (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cailil - I have misread you. You said Setanta has opened the DRN. But isn't it Fergus who opened the DRN [[5]] and [[6]]? Or are you and I at cross purposes? Regards. --Flexdream (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Setanta has opened a separate DRN about a different issue (PIRA's illegal use of the name of the Irish Defence Forces) here. I assume that's what Cailil is referring to rather than my attempted DRN about the Howes/Wood murders.--FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 20:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Fergus, thanks for that. I am puzzled by what relevance a DRN which Setanta has raised elsewhere has to the mediation which you have asked for in this case. I don't see the link. 'Your' DRN and mediation stands or falls on its own merits I'd have thought, I don't see why it should be judged based on someone else's DRN on another topic. I see we're both listed in the other DRN but I haven't looked at it and I see you haven't made any contribution to Setanta's DRN. So, as I say I'm baffled by what relevance it has. In fact, having now read a bit of Setata's DRN on IRA naming I'm even more puzzled than I was before about why Cailil has mentioned it here. In fact, I don't even see it's relevance to the AE case brought against Setanta, as that relates to interpreting whether the London 7/7 bombing article is Troubles related and subject to 1RR. I don't think any AE case involves the IRA naming issue.--Flexdream (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened my own DRN about nthe Irish naming convention of PIRA because I would rather have calm discussion than be frustrated by constantly being reverted on articles when I put in what I consider to be truthful and accurate information. All it has earned me is bullying tactics by an experienced tag team who sit like vultures hoping you will make a 1RR mistake so they can get a complaint raised at the first opportunity to get you banned, off the scene, and unable to contribute to the articles they have established their POV on. The only way forward in all contentious zones is to identify the bullies and curb their intent. I don't believe Wikipedia has formulated the correct policy yet but I'm convinced they will when all the facts are tasken intyo consideration. In the meantime we seekers of truth have to be content with the procedures in existence and try and use them as they were intended. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil. You write "The behaviour here on this board by a number of the parties here has been just as appalling as their conduct in articles" and you then propose that I be banned. Can you please give me any example where my behaviour has been appalling and merits any sanction? What's changed since you posted this [[7]]? Unless I've missed it I don't think any of the admins either here or in Setanta's AE have criticised my behaviour. Thanks. --Flexdream (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil. You write "Flexdream was already warned and has continued to edit war". Where have I done that?--Flexdream (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Uninvolved comment - Regarding the edit here that said that the IRA planned to bomb a "public music performance", the source actually cited in the article, Peter Taylor's Brits: The War against the IRA, says that the intended target was the changing of the guard ceremony (as do many other sources), so the edit is inconsistent with the source and apparently deliberately so. I think it's exactly the kind of edit that in a topic area covered by sanctions should result in a sevesup>re warning or a temporary topic ban. Tampering with what sources say is far worse than a 1RR violation and the fact that the editor is trying to defend it suggests that they probably need a reminder that it's not okay. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except the changing of the guard was right outside the entrance to the Governor's house and the planned location for the bomb was right beside where the band would be parading. This was a planned mass atrocity at a public event and would have resulted in heavy civilian casualties. They were planning to set off 140lb of Semtex wrapped in a ton of steel right beside a block of flats.--FergusM1970 (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, and I've been close enough to IRA bombs to feel the blast wave twice and seen what they do plenty more times than that, so please don't try to lecture me about it. What you added isn't in the source. That is all that matters here. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No offence intended, I've been too close to a couple of CIRA bombs and a couple more Taliban ones myself. However the planned location of the attack was at the band assembly area which was right next to a large residential building, not at the steps of the Governor's residence where the guard would be changed, and that is in the source. The issue here is editors pushing a POV by trying to grant some sort of legal respectability to the murders of Howes and Wood and simultaneously trying to minimise the scale of the atrocity planned by Farrell, McCann and Savage. Unfortunately they're very good at using WP rules to push this agenda, but hopefully the admins will see through it and come to a ruling about terminology to be used in this article.--FergusM1970 (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's easy to find more details about the intended target. There's no reason for editors to put their editing privileges at risk by making unsourced edits, edit warring over stuff like this or having to spend time filing reports about it. It's all avoidable with a bit of searching and collaboration.

"They are reported to have planted a 500lb car bomb near the British Governor's residence. It was primed to go off tomorrow during a changing of the guard ceremony, which is popular with tourists." BBC -here
"The target of the car bomb was apparently the band of the Royal Anglian Regiment, which was to have performed on March 8 to mark the changing of the guard outside the Governor's office on Main Street, an area surrounded by a school, a home for the elderly and a bank. If the bomb had exploded, there would have been many civilian casualties." - The New York Times here. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for the link. It's not actually relevant as the target of the bomb seems to have been the band assembly area, where Savage was seen making a dry run in a parked car, but either location would certainly have caused mass civilian casualties.--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Domer48

That the violation of the restrictions is clear and unambiguous goes without saying. That the editor, despite this report continues to flout it [8] is inexcusable. It also makes this statement by them here at best misleading at worst completely dishonest. That they are deliberately provocative simultaneously on a number of articles [9][10][11][12] is blatantly obvious. That Flexdream having just been placed on notice, could even suggest that this is simply a content dispute is quite inexplicable, having offered the same excuse in their case above. This needs to be addressed. I agree with Sean above, having the same sources. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The target of the bomb was the band, either during their performance on Main Street or more likely at their assembly area beside a residential block. This is made clear in a number of sources, including the ECHR report which is one of the sources listed. The repeated attempts to remove this information from the article and minimise the nature of the planned attack is the real provocation.--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having been warned, topic banned, and being reported again you then go and revert again despite this report dose not bode well. That I will not be entertaining you goes without saying. That ONIH has illustrated above that you have been deliberately miss quoting sources supports Sean's comments above, which leaves nothing more to be said. Bye. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misquoting sources? Where? Please give examples of misquotes.--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that since they have no excuse for their flouting of the editing restrictions, and attempting to suggest that it is a content dispute has been debunked with nothing else to lose they have decided to insert as much POV claptrap as possible before sanctions are imposed which will have to be removed. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight: I'm being accused of inserting "POV claptrap" by someone who claims a lynching is a legal process and signs himself "Fenian"? Yes Domer48, your neutrality is on display for all of us to see.--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Domer is correct. Since the topic ban is still in place, all of Fergus's edits to Troubles-related articles should be reverted on sight, regardless of 1RR. By administrator decision, and with good reason, he has been banned from editing those articles, hence all of those edits should be regarded as vandalism. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban isn't in place, the previous one expired. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, its the 1RR restrictions that are being blatantly flouted. That they are now seeing things that aren't there, such as me making "claims" of some sort, should be seen for what they are, delusional. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reverted anything since Flexdream reminded me of the 1RR rule last night. It's a one REVERT rule, remember, not a one EDIT rule. Anyway, why the eagerness to rush straight to EA rather than try to find a form of words that's acceptable to everyone? Is anyone going to finally explain why they think "summarily executed" is the appropriate wording for what happened, or are you just going to keep on gaming WP rules to keep it in there despite the fact that it's embarrassingly POV? The rules are there to assist the WP project, not stifle any disagreement.

As for me "seeing things that aren't there," your comment about me inserting "POV claptrap" is five comments up. Are you seriously arguing that your determination to describe this incident as "summary execution" isn't connected with the POV implied by the word "Fenian" in your signature?--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1RR prevents editwarring and invites editors to the talk page, promoting discussion. Ignoring the talk page discussion, using a disruptive IP possibly socking to get round the 1RR and then filing a baseless AE report and then reverting with a misleading edit summary, can all be addressed here. Content disputes have no place here, and trying to conflate this into one dose not change the facts behind this report.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except the editor in question has not discussed it on the talk page until now and has ignored the dispute resolution request I opened. To suggest that I have ignored the talk page discussion is frankly delusional. I removed my AE request against TheOldJacobite when I noticed that his reverts were in response to an anonymous editor's 1RR violation and were thus justified, EXACTLY as I said in my edit summary. Otherwise I'd have left it open, wouldn't I?--FergusM1970 (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was the intension of Admin's when holding off closing this case, that the time would be used to extend the scope of whats described as Pointed editing. The editor clearly indicates their willingness to continue this type of tit for tat editing. The articles effected now are, [13][14][15][16][17][18][19] all covered by the restrictions and what appears to me at least as point of view editing. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find this edit very offensive and Saville himself acknowledged that all those who died were unarmed when they were killed by British soldiers saying "there was no point in trying to soften or equivocate" as "what happened should never, ever have happened". Cameron apologized on behalf of the British Government by saying he was "deeply sorry".--Domer48_'fenian' 22:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you find it offensive is utterly irrelevant both to me and to Wikipedia's mission as an encyclopaedia; as the dead were all civilians it could reasonably be assumed that they were unarmed, and I see no reason why it is any more necessary to state it than it is to state that the victims of, say, the Harrods bombing were unarmed. Insisting on the use of "unarmed" in respect to victims of the British security forces - even when by PIRA's own admission they were terrorists in the process of carrying out a major bombing - while objecting every time it's applied to victims of PIRA, is POV-pushing.--FergusM1970 (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another violation of 1RR by the same editor:

On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of any editors.

1st Revert here of John. John had reverted their edits.
2nd Revert here of ONIH.
3rd Revert here of DagosNavy
4th Revert here
5th Revert here

Despite the good grace being shown here. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're stretching the definition of "revert" a bit now. I left the flag in, as per ONIH's revert, but re-added the Garda as a belligerent. As they carried out operations against PIRA, and lost men in the process, I don't see a problem with that. I'll shortly be adding the Irish Army, as they fought PIRA and lost a man in the process too. I also initiated a discussion to sort out the flag issue with ONIH.--FergusM1970 (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting the intelligence of editors by allowing blatant POV editing and violations of editing restrictions "While bright-line violations of restrictions like 1RR are easy to address" but are being ignored. That is what I find offensive!--Domer48_'fenian' 10:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Slp1 having omitted my reason for the revert, which I gave in this post here in full you have grossly misrepresented my edit.

Having checked the source, you will notice: All kinds of intimidation followed. Businesses were boycotted, shopkeepers refused to serve soldiers while children faced insults and bullying at school. Before a ruthless enemy UDR soldiers were restricted in their response and highly vulnerable living in sectarian communities or isolated areas. So the attacks and intimidation were applicable to both sections of the community, not just one side, as the edit suggested otherwise it was unsourced.

Slp1 you go on to say that The topic area needs people are exceptionally careful with their edits; not people, who are quick to revert and revert, and inflame the situation which is just Domer48's (and the many others') pattern. In contrast, I don't see evidence that Flexdream has reached that point based on the edits of the last few weeks. So this is the type of editor who fits your criteria, I also noted this is my rational for my edit which you neglected to mention.

Review the latest addition by the editor here and here.Now check out the additional sources used here and here and count the number of reasons given for the reduction in numbers. How many reasons are given in the editors edits here and contribution here. It certainly lacks balance, weight, gives a lot of undue weight, is as far from a NPOV as you could possibly get, and you miss that? You also miss the fact that While the Irish New is a reliably source Slp1, and Roy Garland is a newspaper columnist for the nationalist Irish News he is also a member of the Ulster Unionist Party. Their views would at the very least need attribution. So we have an editor who's edits are "exceptionally careful" in the selective and biased manner in which they omit copious amounts of information. Did you also note how they deliberately misrepresented sources here and this was not the first time, did you even read this discussion?. This is there latest issue here and like everyone one of the other ones, you will not get any source from them, and if you do, based on previous experience it will be misleading. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did check your explanation, and found no valid reason given for what I am talking about.... your revert. That's what we are discussing here; I'm not commenting on your critiques of any subsequent edit and its sourcing, which you are entitled to have, but which belong on the talkpage (where I notice they are entirely absent). You have given no credible explanation at all for using an edit summary "unsupported by the reference, no mention of IRA at all" when there was no mention of the IRA in the edit. The edit actually added "this together with intimidation and attacks on Catholic soldiers"; and in your highly selective quoting of the source above, you missed out quoting"Up to 25% of early recruits were Catholics, some courageously defying intimidation to serve the community as they saw fit.... Internment brought threats to Catholic soldiers who were sometimes told to leave their homes." It's ironic that you call out another editor for the "selective and biased manner in which they omit copious amounts of information" in the same post that you do exactly the same. On the other hand, if you don't like Roy Garland as a source then discuss that on the talkpage, attribute the opinion to him or even revert with that as the reason if you must. Don't revert with an incorrect edit summary. Don't try and justify it later with wikilawyering flannel. If you do make a mistake, which we all do once in a while, apologize. Frankly, this post and its attack is the best form of defense approach makes it even clearer to me that you need a break from this topic area.--Slp1 (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic. You misrepresent my edits, I respond and its an attack. I explained my edit at the time and you omit to mention it and because I raise it you say that I'm "justify it later with wikilawyering flannel." My revert 20:52, 11 August 2012 explained my edit, it was a partial revert and responded to the editors edit summary. Now you want to get into a discussion about content despite the fact that Arbcom don't get involved in it. When you deliberately leave out information that is relevant, you are misrepresenting the source. The information is logically therefore unsupportable by the source, its that simple. This is not the first time that they have done this, and claims like that need to be backed up, and I have. The editor who reported my edit here, I addressed in full against the accusation. That you see nothing wrong with the edit despite my detailed critic and see nothing wrong with this editors editing, regardless of the links I've provided in response to you claims. Now you raised a number of issues in your first post, all of which I addressed. The editor misrepresented the source, I've backed up that claim with diff's. What we are discussing here is your comments on me, and not just one edit I made. You have studiously ignored the issues I raised and that is the issue. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mo ainm

It would appear Flexdream and Fergus are trying to make as much noise as possible to try and turn this into a content dispute on this noticeboard, when we should be just focussing on the 1RR breach from an editor with a documented history of problematic editing in this area. Mo ainm~Talk 23:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mo ainm. This seems like smoke and mirrors to distract from Fergus's disruptive editing, refusal to show good faith, and his all around nasty attitude in an area where he is already topic-banned. I really have to wonder what more needs to be said here. He claims to have forgotten the 1RR rule and that he was topic-banned in any articles related to the Troubles? That beggars both imagination and credulity. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What seems like smoke and mirrors is the determined effort to use a narrow and legalistic interpretation of WP rules to stop anyone removing the inaccurate term summary execution from an article about the murder of two British citizens by a mob.--FergusM1970 (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have invented a content dispute to distract from your problematic editing. And your repeated claims to both ignorance and innocence are laughable. Even as this discussion has been ongoing, you have continued to edit war and push your POV in the article. So, pull the other one. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't invented anything. This whole issue has come up because of the repeated insertion of inaccurate content.--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To expand: This whole problem has arisen solely because of a content dispute. Multiple editors are repeatedly inserting the term "summary execution" into this article when it is quite clearly incorrect according to Wikipedia's own articles on executions. This is being done solely to push a fringe, pro-IRA POV; the idea that torture and killing by a mob is an execution - "a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime" - is bizarre to say the least. All attempts to change this wording have been frustrated and the editors responsible have been extremely quick to resort to AE to preserve their POV, while refusing to discuss the wording or even explain the reasoning behind it. Any attempt to ask why they want this wording is brushed off with "You don't know what a summary execution is" - we do; it's right there in the relevant article - and any attempt to change it to anything else, even the neutral "killed," is immediately reverted. We can get caught up in the letter of 1RR here, but I think it also may be beneficial to look at the spirit of trying to create an accurate, unbiased reference source.--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or to expand properly: FergusM1970 has been edit warring to remove a long standing term from the article, one that he attempted to remove in April and was reverted at the time. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy: Argument from antiquity. It doesn't matter how long-standing it is; it's still POV and wrong.--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been identified "summary execution" was not a 'long standing term".[[20]]. It was added on 19 March [[21]] and reverted by Fergus on 4 April [[22]]. I make that 16 days later, and Hackney claims that is 'long standing'? I think from an experienced editor who can check these things that is misleading.--Flexdream (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd class April to August as long-standing. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I will repeat that that's irrelevant. It's only survived because you have been edit-warring to keep it there, and it is both POV and factually incorrect.--FergusM1970 (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hackeny, you said it was long standing at the time Fergus attempted to remove it in April i.e. "remove a long standing term from the article, one that he attempted to remove in April and was reverted at the time." It was not long standing in April. --Flexdream (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And... *crickets* --FergusM1970 (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved My very best wishes

I never edited in this subject area, but just looking at the edit/revert in question by FergusM, one can easily see that it is his edit that complies with our basic NPOV policy, which is not negotiable. I believe the filer of this request is attempting to subvert WP:CONSENSUS to promote their personal POV. Worse, he is trying to use this noticeboard as a weapon against his content opponent. If anyone needs to be sanctioned here, this is filer of this request (and not FergusM) per "boomerang" rule. My very best wishes (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hackney is now stating that the term "summary execution" gives more information to the reader than "killed" does. I agree that this is his intention. However the additional information it implies is that Howes and Wood were legtimately killed as punishment for a crime, which is in fact not the case. Therefore the repeated inclusion of this wording is POV-pushing.--FergusM1970 (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I's not only "murdered" versus "summary execution", but also IRA "members" instead of IRA "volunteers" and the removed word "unarmed" ("unarmed IRA members preparing for a bomb attack")[23] what makes your version obviously more neutral. This is not really a big deal, but the attempt to sanction an editor for following WP:NPOV policy makes this case ~~interesting~~ so common. Admins think they should not rule at all on the content. Let me politely disagree. I believe in the simplest cases like that, they must rule if they care about the project. Of course they should not rule on the more complicated matters that require very good understanding of the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to explain how a bomb found in a car boot after the event (found due to keys on the body of one of the people killed) about 80km away doesn't make the three people killed "unarmed"? The whole point of the long controversy over the event is that they were indeed unarmed. As after all it's FergusM1970's contention that "Terrorists in possession of a bomb are not unarmed" when the bomb was 80km away. Obviously that they were indeed unarmed is backed up by quite a few dozen sources. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 18:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Unarmed" means "not in control of a weapon," not the narrow definition you seem to mean of "not carrying a firearm on their persons." The dead terrorists were in control of a weapon, specifically a large IED. The exact location of the IED itself is not all that relevant; they had control of it. I suspect that you want "unarmed" in there to give the impression that they were somehow innocent victims. They were not. They were planning to detonate a large explosive device in a public location, and their decision to do this led directly to their deaths. If they hadn't taken a car bomb on holiday with them they would not have ended up dead on a Gibralter street, so the inclusion of "unarmed" is at best unnecessary and at worst misleading. --FergusM1970 (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the dozens, if not hundreds, of reliable sources that state they were unarmed. Your own opinion of whether they were unarmed or not is irrelevant, except for being evidence that you were not trying to adhere to NPOV at all but to push your own POV. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What POV was I pushing? I didn't edit the article to say that they were armed, after all. However I don't see what's gained by having "unarmed" in there. It gives an unwarranted impression of innocence to them. Unless you're OK with me adding the word "unarmed" to every one of the IRA's victims who didn't actually have a gun in their hands when they were killed? Of course as PIRA murdered over 2,000 people who fall into that category it might take me a while, so perhaps you'd like to help out.--FergusM1970 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have edited 1971_Scottish_soldiers'_killings to include the word "unarmed." I assume you're fine with that. --FergusM1970 (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, apparently not.--FergusM1970 (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They may or may not be armed at the moment, but insisting that a group of bombers must be described as "unarmed" is a POV of enormous proportion. I did not see that level of POV even in the subject areas related to Chechen wars. But this is not why I commented. This case clearly shows the problem with the system of discretionary sanctions. A group of editors with whatever ridiculous POV can easily take possession of such areas and rule with an iron fist by (mis)using this noticeboard. That's why I am not really contributing in such areas any longer, just like many other editors better than me who were banned or stopped participation. My very best wishes (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is your account still inactive?--Domer48_'fenian' 14:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ebe123

I also think, as a DRN volunteer, not a sysop that we should wait for the result of the DRN discussion. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 17:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steven Zhang

Hi. I'm also a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Given the fact that at least two out of the five listed participants have made their lack of intent to participate at DRN clear, either implicitly or explicitly, I don't think AE should wait any longer. Whether the decision to not participate in content dispute resolution should be seen as stonewalling and addressed by the AE admins here is another matter, but it probably should be considered. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steven. I see your point, but seeing as I requested dispute resolution on a Friday night and it's now Saturday night, the editors in question may have social commitments that mean they don't have time to participate in WP beyond making a few more ~~reverts~~ edits to their favourite articles. Maybe we could leave the DRN open for another day or two, just to give them a chance to take part.--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified here 19:55, 4 August 2012, are you seriously suggesting that I'm stonewalling? The discussion was closed by you here 22:42, 4 August 2012. I have a RL, and was away from my PC. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Domer48, I don't think you were one of the editors he was referring to, but I tend to agree. It's too early to close the DRN. The other two were notified last night but apparently you didn't get the message for some reason. --FergusM1970 (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think you were stonewalling - my point is that there were two people mentioned in the DRN thread that declined on their talk page to comment in the discussion. For DR to be worthwhile (especially in the face of AE) all need to participate. As this will not take place, there's not much alternative. Mediation could be tried, but if all don't agree to participate, then again, it's pointless. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to go to mediation if there's a chance it can solve the issue. Obviously that is going to require that the other editors participate, and that's problematic. I think Domer48 would be willing to, but ONIH and TheOldJacobite are dubious. However anything has to be better than this stupid wikilawyering, and I'm sure most of the admins who've looked at this case would agree, so if they keep stonewalling DRN until, say, Tuesday I'll ask for mediation and see how it goes. My aim here is to improve the encyclopaedia, not score political points, so I'm happy to put in the effort if others are.--FergusM1970 (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously that depends on the DRN being open, so I'd be grateful if you could open it again. Thanks.--FergusM1970 (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@all the admins. OK, both DRN volunteers now concur that DRN will not work due to the refusal of ONIH and TheOldJacobite to participate. While I personally think DRN should be given more time, I am willing to take this to mediation instead. Comments?--FergusM1970 (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't declined to take part, I frequently clear my talk page. I was actually planning on adding something today, re-open the thread and I'll be happy to do so. I'll also add that I've continued discussing on the article's tslk page since the DRN thread was opened. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 06:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your "discussion" consists of repetitively saying "Read the summary execution article," over and over again. You declined to explain why you think your preferred wording is more appropriate than "killed," you declined to explain what additional information you think it gives the reader and you declined to explain why you think a summary execution is not in fact an execution. Not really helpful, I'm afraid.--FergusM1970 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Domer - you may have been notified about the DRN at 19:55 but you were aware of it earlier when you replied to Fergus at 08:31 [[24]]. I still think you should be given more time though. @Hackney - you're usually very quick to comment, but I think you should be given more time also. Similarily OldJacobite is welcome to change their mind and contribute.--Flexdream (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite aware that I am free to change my mind. But, frankly, I would consider this all laughable if it weren't so disgusting and offensive. We are to be lectured on NPOV and dispute resolution by Fergus, who has, without question, violated 1RR, who has repeatedly demanded that he be allowed to have his own way (his idea of a resolution, as suggested on the article talk page, was that we editors who disagree with him simply change our minds, or shut up, and allow him to make the changes he has called for since the beginning), who has moved from article to article making POV changes, and who has repeatedly displayed an arrogant attitude toward those he considers "Provos." We are to enter dispute resolution with this man, who has a track record of disruption in Troubles-related articles, who has been topic-banned in this area of Wikipedia, and who is currently being considered for another topic ban in this same area. And yet, the admins, in their wisdom, have decided that resolution of the "content dispute," invented out of whole cloth, should precede enforcement of the long-standing rules that resulted from the Arbcom. We are to take this seriously? We are to trust that dispute resolution will now solve this matter? And we are to believe that this man, who has shown no good faith in the last 96 hours, is going to engage in discussion with a straight face? And, if he does not, are we to trust that the admins are going to do their job, which they have shown no sign of doing up to this point? He violated 1RR, and now emboldened by their refusal to act, he has expanded his campaign to multiple Troubles-related articles, including deliberately pointy edits. Yes, Flexdream, I am free to change my mind, but, given these facts, I'd say there isn't an ice cube's chance in hell of that happening. You will all have to forgive me for now regarding this entire process as a fucking joke. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, I don't know where this leaves the DRN process. I have a lot of sympathy for you and Ebe as volunteers trying to facilitate a discussion between editors with strongly contrasting views. I honestly don't know now who wants to contribute to the discussion but I think it's still worth a shot, but if you decide otherwise I'd understand. Personally I think it would be best if several editors just wrote less and calmed down a bit. --Flexdream (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the DRN process can be salvaged, but if not we need to find some other way to get an impartial judgement about what is or is not NPOV on the article. This back and forth reverting and refusal to discuss the issue is just stupid.--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jon C.

As far as I'm concerned, the fact that One Night In Hackney filed two AE reports over a content dispute in quick succession and declined to participate in the DRN shows his own non-collegial, bad-faith attitude towards editing here. This should be taken into account when deciding the outcome of the request against FergusM1970. — JonC ^ॐ 09:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, in fact he doesn't edit here. All he does is revert any change made to Troubles-related articles which is intended to promote NPOV. The actual content he's added to Wikipedia is minimal if it isn't actually nil.--FergusM1970 (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil

I must take issue with you regarding your claim that I am edit warring. I have removed POV material from the articles I have edited on. My most recent edits have a concensus here [[25]] here [[26]] and here [[27]]. I have edited the Wiki in accordance with what has been accepted as fact that the assumption of the name Óglaigh na hÉireann by stateless, banned terrorist organisations is 'styling' and in no way an official representation of usage of a name which belongs to a body of the Irish state. If you, along with the others disagree with this or any of the other edits I have made I am more than willing to enter into dispute resolution and to abide by the concensus arrived at. As Steven Zhang has already pointed out on this page however there are parties who are refusing to enter into DR and appear to be "stonewalling". Their only objective can thus be seen as an attempt to manipulate adjudications on this page and to force a POV onto articles. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Calil. Your note about my DRN discussion is unwarranted on this occasion in my opinion. The DRN does not discuss any of the subject matter on this page AFAIK but rather deals with a naming convention. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scolaire

I would like to draw attention to these four posts by FergusM1970 in the last 24 hours: one, two, three and four. At a time when he is aware that he is likely to be sanctioned for his behaviour, he is using words like "scum", "murderous criminals", "saddo terrorist wannabes" and "actual PIRA terrorists" in a calculated attempt to raise the temperature of an already heated discussion. I think it is not innapropriate to describe this as trolling, and I think it should be taken into account when sanctions are being considered. Scolaire (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "scum" is POV, no debate there. However PIRA as an organisation used terrorism as its primary tactic while both CIRA and RIRA have committed murder and are criminals, therefore these are factual descriptions. The fact that they may not be to everyone's taste is unfortunate, but if a group doesn't want to be described as murderous criminals they may want to consider not breaking the law and murdering people. "Saddo terrorist wannabes"? Well, what sort of person decides to dress up in a German Army uniform and balaclava and pose with an airsoft AKM?--FergusM1970^{The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on.} 15:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The worrying thing is that you think (or pretend to think) that it is a POV issue. It's not, it's a trolling issue. Scolaire (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested two edits to the article, one of which (use of PIRA) has already been done anyway and the other being getting rid of that appalling image and replacing it with one actually relevant to PIRA. I don't see how that's trolling.--FergusM1970^{The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on.} 21:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ban from mediation

@AGK, Cailil and KillerChihuaha: I initiated the mediation case in question as an attempt to end the cycle of edit warring that has led to this whole mess. Before that I initiated a DRN in an attempt to find a concensus. Before that I tried to discuss the issue on the article talk page. However all I got was repeated instructions to "learn what a summary execution is" despite the link provided by the complaining editor making it absolutely clear that a summary execution was not what happened. Those other editors, as can be seen here, showed no interest in discussing the issue and simply stonewalled by referring all objections to the summary execution article, which does not support their argument. Whatever other errors I have made, I have been willing to look for a compromise solution throughout and have suggested alternative wordings to the other editors, all of which have been rejected without explanation. ONIH, TheOldJacobite and Domer48 went into the mediation process making it quite clear that they considered it pointless and irrelevant, whereas I have tried to work towards a solution and remain willing to do so.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by Steve Zhang

I note that the possibility of excluding mediation from the topic bans has been discussed and supported by some below, opposed by others. Putting my dispute resolution hat on for a minute, I am in favour of allowing the parties to participate in the mediation. I agree that there has been disruption caused by the parties and this requires sanction, but if we impose time-limited topic bans then we are just kicking the problem down the road. Allowing them to participate in mediation allows for the possibility of some sort of dispute resolution to take place. This sort of action does have precedent (AE discussion, ban modification) and while the mediation stalled in the end due to slow participation, discussion was civilised and constructive. So, here's what I propose for sanctions: all the sanctions as discussed below are implemented, and the formal mediation proceedings are excluded from the scope of the topic ban. If the participants fail to maintain order, their topic ban is reset and doubled, and they lose the ability to dispute the outcome of the mediation - this prevents them from deliberately disrupting the mediation in order to torpedo a result later. I don't see the harm in giving this a go - otherwise the content issues will just re-arise when the topic bans expire. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning FergusM1970

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

FergusM1970 broke the Troubles 1RR restriction at Corporals killings. The question of how to describe the planned bomb attack in Gibraltar is a side issue. The editors on the other side of this dispute did not break 1RR. Meanwhile, since Fergus's last topic ban was for three months I suggest imposing a new topic ban for six months. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@FergusM1970: Do you believe that admins should rule on whether 'summary execution' can be used to describe killings by the IRA? I share your distaste for that language but it falls into the realm of content disputes, so far as I can tell. In any case, removing those words is not an exception to the 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@FergusM1970 this section is for uninvolved sysop discussion of the case *only*. PLease do not comment here.--Cailil ^talk 17:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Ed says above, content is not relevant to ArbCom enforcement. The diffs speak for themselves FergusM1970 has breached the WP:TROUBLES single revert restriction. Concur with Ed that ban of 6 months length for FergusM1970 is appropriate under the terms of WP:TROUBLES--Cailil ^talk 17:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of thing arbitration, and Wikipedia in general, is terrible at. Things like 1RR can minimize disruptive edit warring but don't succeed at resolving the actual dispute; instead they result in the side with the numerical advantage winning by default. In a better Wikipedia, I would say "hold off on sanctions, let's find a way to resolve the content dispute via actual consensus first." But Wikipedia refuses to provide a method, so I guess sanctions it is. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is already tl;dr for me, but you might have: do you see anything by any party that looks like it would be called poor editing (POV writing, misrepresenting sources, etc.) by any objective observer? Who knows, maybe we will actually get an agreement to go after that. NW (Talk) 23:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd tend to agree with NW (including that I just skimmed the above), but if there's clear POV editing, baiting, nastiness during discussions, or the like, we can certainly act on those things. I definitely do not want to open up the can of worms of arbitrating content disputes here, but just because bad behavior happens while editing content doesn't mean we can't address that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer, no, nothing is blatantly obvious. I'm a bit concerned about the use of "summary execution", but I haven't looked closely for fear of getting too involved, content-wise. As far as closing this, I think it's clear that, while sanctioning Fergus will deal with the specific problem of his edit warring, it won't solve the problem of content. And no, I haven't got any better ideas. I just think this is a really sucky weakness of our dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It also won't solve the problem of the use RFAE and 1rr as a blunt instrument to "win" over opponents and remove them from the arena. I'm concerned that User:One Night In Hackney has used this board twice within 9 hours to open 1rr reports. In the first, concerning Flexdream, a fairly infrequent editor, who ~~reverted as soon as the 1rr problem~~ acknowledged that they had broken 1RR as soon as it was brought to his/her attention[28] (and the report closed as a warning); and here we have FergusM1970 also acknowledging that he had erred too. I think Flexdream had a point that the collegial, WP:AGF thing to do would be to assume that breaking 1RR was an error, and remind them on their talkage, and only report them here if they refuse. I've seen this done by other editors in other dispute areas. It is clear that strictly speaking FergusM1970 has broken 1RR, but I am concerned that the 1RR rule as written and applied rewards editors who have the bigger group of allies to revert and who use battleground approaches to get their way in a topic area. Slp1 (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case Slp1 where FergusM1970 has already been topic-banned a breach of WP:TROUBLES is recidivism. I do see your point vis-a-vis gaming but don't see it here. FergusM has a history of bans and blocks over edit-warring ~~in the WP:TROUBLES area (going back to '09)~~ an "oops" is not going to cut it--Cailil ^talk 17:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Fergus' issues all have been Troubles related (in fact, I think only the last one was), but yes, he does have a history in this area, and yes, an "oops" doesn't cut it. I wasn't defending Fergus' actions but rather seeking to take a look at this whole situation. It seems like editors (on both sides) seem to prefer to revert and report rather engage with the evidence and with each other. The suggestion below seems a possible way forward. --Slp1 (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to clarify my comment above. FergusM1970 has a long history of edit-warring blocks and bans going back to '09 in a number of national topic areas (Israel-Palestine 09-'11 & Britain-Ireland '11-present) but also at BLPs. Per my remarks below I, at this point see what you were concerned about Slp1 (ie gaming) but I also see a lot of gaming from the other side too--Cailil ^talk 12:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with Heimstern that the underlying issue is deeper (I think perhaps fully protecting the page for a while might do some good, but that seems hamfisted at best) we can at least resolve this specific problem with this editor. I concur that a 6 month topic ban would be in the works here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FergusM1970 has now opened a discussion at Wikipedia:DRN#Talk:Corporals killings. Does anyone object if we hold off closing this AE request until we see if DRN can do something useful? My guess is that this report would have to kept open as much as five more days, if other admins agree with that idea. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually think that's quite a good idea, and would like to caution everyone involved there that for anyone who chooses to participate, negotiation in good faith and in compliance with our behavioral requirements is expected. While bright-line violations of restrictions like 1RR are easy to address, they are generally a symptom rather than a root cause, and we will in due course address patterns of misbehavior like stonewalling discussions, tag team reverting, or chronic incivility/sniping. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved statement by Ebe123 to section above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]
- Also think it's a good idea; at the very least, worth a shot. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it too; if everything goes well and we don't have to resort to sanctions, that'd be great. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So do I; I'd also like to emphasize that all the participants in this dispute are very strongly encouraged to participate. As Seraphimblade says, stonewalling behaviours are not appropriate or helpful when it comes to writing an encyclopedia --Slp1 (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment moved to proper section. Please don't deliberately make work. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With this cases referral back here & Steven's comment above, I'd move that at this point we consider conduct of ALL parties. FergusM1970 has breached the WP:TROUBLES ruling but in light of the conduct of all parties at WP:DRN and here I must retract me above and agree with SLP1: there is stonewalling here and I'm concerned that there are battle-lines being drawn by both sides, rather than attempts to find source based consensus--Cailil ^talk 15:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I more or less have to agree with Cailil here. Unfortunately, that leaves the editors here to determine what kind of sanctions to be levied, and which editors to levy them against. John Carter (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK enough is enough. There are games being played on Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997 with a current edit war including FergusM1970[29][30] (for clarity only the 2nd of these diffs is a revert the first is the original edit), DagosNavy[31], One Night In Hackney[32], a throw-away-account, Portugalpete (who's ONLY edit to WP is in this edit-war)[33], OldJacobite[34], and Son of Setanta[35]. I'm suggesting a topic-ban for all the above (except Portugalpete who is clearly a sock) from WP:TROUBLES related topics for a duration of 3 months (none of them heeded repeated urgings from a series of admins to engage in constructive discussion and have within the last 24 hours begun further disruptive behaviour), with a 6 month ban for FergusM1970. The reason for the higher sanction on FergusM1970 is recidivism (as well as numerous conduct issues including an attempt at canvassing[36][37][38][39][40][41][42]) but I'd support a 3 month ban as minimum. However given that FergusM1970's dispute withDagosNavy (which I consider them equally at fault for) has spilled over from Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade to Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997 (both of which began within the last 24 hours) and considering the level of caution he has recieved above his behaviour is showing no signs of change or recognizing what the issues are--Cailil ^talk 16:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need to look into the edits further before commenting on the merits of the proposed sanctions, but if the situation is as you described, we might want to try importing WP:ARBFLG2#Mandated external review into this topic and see how that works out. T. Canens (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this has become ridiculous. It is ironic that Tim comments that the only RFAE come from Palestine-Israel ArbCom and discuss whether it needs to go back, and here we are overrun with Troubles requests. I am starting to wonder if this whole thing doesn't need to go back to ArbCom, though possibly the WP:ARBFLG2#Mandated external review would be worth a try.

As far as what to do with all these requests, I am learning towards Cailil's suggestion, as so many editors are behaving badly. The history of 7 July 2005 London bombings] which has been slow (and fast) edit warred over for 2 weeks now), with this reversion by User:SonofSetanta of unsourced contentious material today, being particularly ridiculous and unhelpful. To add to Cailil's comments, I was appalled by FergusM1970's pointy editing about being "unarmed" (some egs [43][44][45]), but slightly mollified by the fact that he did take the point and initiate the two DR resolution attempts,[46][47] and one of them actually seems like it might be a go. On the other hand, I find clear gaming and wikilawyering in One Night in Hackney's editing. Here, and here, here here and here, s/he, quite reasonably, asks for sources for edits which s/he opposes, but when an independent editor on the mediation page makes the same point about the absence of any good sourcing for a phrasing s/he supports (and lots of good sources for what s/he has opposed}, ONIH wants to argue on, based on the merits of the phrasing, rather that the clear WP:V and WP:UNDUE policy issues. --Slp1 (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the last negotiations breakdown, I've been doing a review of the major players involved here, and I agree with Cailil that all their behavior in the area has been, frankly, appalling. I was quite unimpressed with the canvassing message left on my talk page, and regardless, Fergus has pretty unequivocally breached 1RR. However, I don't think at this point that the further participation of any of the editors Cailil mentions is constructive in this area. I suggest a 3-month topic ban for all from Troubles articles, broadly construed, with a clear warning that next time is not likely to have an expiration date. I also have no objection to Cailil's suggestion of a longer sanction for Fergus, given the 1RR violations and further misbehavior. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Son Of Setanta has opened a DRN discussion after 2 sysops have commented in the thread below that his edits have breached WP:TROUBLES and 3 of us here have highlighted their general misconduct in the topic I am inclined to look very wryly on the mediation. Processes of this site should not be used to undermine or otherwise attempt to evade policy or arbitration remedies--Cailil ^talk 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

The behaviour here on this board by a number of the parties here has been just as appalling as their conduct in articles. This thread has been open 10 days. There is no reason for it to remain open as there is a consensus above to:
a) Topic ban FergusM1970 for 6 months from WP:TROUBLES articles and discussions.
b) Topic ban Son of Setanta, One Night In Hackney, Old Jacobite, DagosNavy & Flexdream for 3 months from WP:Troubles articles and discussions.
c) Block Portugalpete as a WP:SPA used to editwar and harass (and probably also a sock- or meatpuppet per WP:DUCK).
Since August 7th User:Domer48 has engaged in battleground behaviour with Son of Setanta. At this point in time I believe a final warning to Domer48 that further battleground conduct will result in sanction. Given that Domer48 was on a 6 month probation any further sanctions would escalate from that (ie year-long or indefinite). I think a reminder of that should be sufficient
These sanctions take into account the bahviour of multiple parties in this thread at WP:DRN and in the articles space. It also encompasses the consensus of discussion in two threads on this page (both filed against Son of Setanta), please see below.
Unless there is disagreement here from other sysops I will implement the topic bans in 48 hours. If anyone else wants to do so before that, please feel free--Cailil ^talk 19:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's close this. However, I would prefer 3 months for everybody, as they all have been as bad as each other, including Domer48, but a strong warning only to Flexdream.

Reasoning: Domer48's continuing battleground mentality is shown by yesterday's events where it that s/he thinks it is okay to revert based on a incorrect edit summary. This edit of Fergus' [48] mentions PIRA in the edit summary but nowhere in the actual edit. Domer reverts [49] claiming that "unsupported by the reference, no mention of IRA at all", when, as I and Mabuska have noted, the actual edit was well-supported by a reliable source, the Irish News. The topic area needs people are exceptionally careful with their edits; not people, who are quick to revert and revert, and inflame the situation which is just Domer48's (and the many others') pattern. In contrast, I don't see evidence that Flexdream has reached that point based on the edits of the last few weeks.

I would also like an exception to be made for the topic-banned editors to participate in the mediation,which AGK says should should start within 2 weeks. I think this would provide an opportunity for the various parties to learn to discuss an issue and come to an agreed-upon solution with each other, a much preferred method that the current approach. I think we can also give a strong warning that this is a final chance for many editors.--Slp1 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Flexdream was already warned and has continued to revert this group I have my concern that continued warning is insufficient but if you're happy with a warning I wont quibble. I see where you're coming from re: Domer and have no issue with that. However I'll just not that One Night In Hackney (a party to the original WP:TROUBLES rfar) claims that he has no due warning re: discretionary sanctions and so I've asked for the input of yourself T Canens and Seraphimblade before closing. I'll also note that there has been yet another thread opened on this same issue, this time by Son of Setanta - I'm suggesting WP:Boomarang there and consider it an aggravating circumstance and would consider increasing the ban for them from 3 to 4 months in light of that--Cailil ^talk 12:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noting here the response not only of Tim Canens but also KillerChihuahua and EdJohnston to One Night In Hackney's assertion that they have not received appropriate warning under WP:AC/DS[50]. There is overwhelming consensus supporting action against ONiH and TheOldJacobite and supporting the view that this is, as Tim is a case where "presumed notice is appropriate". ONiH was a party to the original WP:TROUBLES RFAR and both parties have been involved in this topic area, editing on articles with large boxes notifying users of the RFAR remedies and/or have been involved here either discussing or bringing cases under WP:TROUBLES--Cailil ^talk 12:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In specific reference to One Night in Hackney and The Old Jacobite's claim that they were never properly "warned", and therefore may not be sanctioned, I find this ludicrous. The current state of affairs is that Troubles articles are under standard discretionary sanctions. The warning required from discretionary sanctions is so editors are not blindsided by restrictions they didn't know existed—not everyone follows ArbCom cases, and there are a substantial number of editors who are only dimly if at all aware that the ArbCom even exists. But ONIH and The Old Jacobite are clearly aware of the sanctions, because they participate in their enforcement! There's also the fact that Troubles articles carry a prominent notice on them regarding them.

In conclusion, then, I find the objection to be baseless and border on an attempt at gaming and lawyering. If anything, that reinforces my belief that the sanctions are necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, I should also state that the top of this very page states that editors coming here with unclean hands may well face sanctions themselves. I haven't seen too many clean hands in this request. What I see are battle lines drawn, and ownership taken of articles by the side with numerical superiority or best able to game the restrictions, and reverts just being used at a slightly slower pace due to 1RR. Negotiation in good faith is almost nonexistent, and when anyone bothers to hold a discussion about their reverts at all, it is full of mudslinging and namecalling rather than any attempt to come to an understanding. That behavior has been shown by everyone who faces sanctions here, it is unconstructive and drives other editors away who might actually be able to make improvements, it has been going on for a long time, and it is enough.

I do agree that any editors sanctioned should be allowed to participate in the mediation, with the caveat that if their participation there is disruptive or not in good faith, we'll not hesitate to remove them from that either. I hope it works, I sincerely do, because what's been happening in this area to date is totally unacceptable. After the mediation is done and the topic bans expire, hopefully we won't have to see anyone involved back here again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I would add is, maybe, asking ArbCom how they saw the Mandated external review would be applied in other cases, specifically, whether it would be possible for AE editors to impose such sanctions, or whether only ArbCom could do so. I'm not sure that the conduct issues of some editors indicated above, and taking place above, would not maybe be sufficient for those individual editors to be at least temporarily completely banned from the related content for some period of time, and I would probably support such a temporary ban in some cases. But I would also like to know if the MER option would be one that could be used in this context, and/or whether it could be applied by AE enforcers. John Carter (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the specific case in question, exempting an open mediation case from any topic-ban is an inherently flawed idea. I strongly encourage you to reconsider. AGK [•] 12:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree with AGK here; how can it possibly be a good idea to include topic banned editors in making a decision about the topic they are banned from? this makes zero sense to me. Please explain your rationale. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Slp1 & Seraphimblade are arguing that they should learn to co-operate. I think this is laudable but it's not something I see working either. IMO even if we ban them and send them to MedCab when the ban expires we're looking at a repeat of the same behaviour. I'd favour the straight forward topic ban, with the possible imposition of Mandated External Review if the Committee approves it--Cailil ^talk 12:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the should cooperate, no argument there. But they have not been cooperating, hence the topic ban. Mediation will be difficult enough without topic banned editors repeating the behavior which got them topic banned to begin with muddying the waters, and I see absolutely no reason to think they won't do just that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AGK has been on MedCom for a while, and has seen many of these tough ones go through. If he thinks this is a bad idea, I'll defer to his judgment and favor implementation of the topic ban without exception. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. It would be nice if it could have been a stepping stone to better communication, but if AGK doesn't think it is workable then I am very happy to accept that and simply have a full topic ban. Slp1 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the inclination to help the respondents work together, but believe rehabilitation has no place in arbitration enforcement. Topics subject to AE are demonstrably problematic areas of the encyclopedia, so misconduct reported here needs to be dealt with swiftly and effectively. If a user cannot contribute constructively to a topic which is subject to AE, then frankly you need to remove them. (Oh, and please understand my intention is not to try to chastise anybody here :-). Rather, I simply want to share my own experience—as a sysop who worked this noticeboard, and as a contributor to similar processes.) AGK [•] 22:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the level of consensus and the time that this thread has been open, I'm closing this with the result:

Topic ban FergusM1970 for 6 months from WP:TROUBLES articles and discussions.
Topic ban Son of Setanta for 4 months from WP:Troubles articles and discussions (increased from 3 months in light of conduct on this page below).
Topic ban One Night In Hackney, Old Jacobite, DagosNavy & Domer48 for 3 months from WP:Troubles articles and discussions.
Indefinitely block Portugalpete.
Warn Flexdream that further "tag team" edit warring or any misconduct in the areas covered by WP:TROUBLES will result in sanction.
Request ArbCom look at Mandated External Review for WP:Troubles: I'll open a request for clarification if we can impose this via the existing ruling (ie discretionary sanctions) or if an amendment needs to be made if so I'll request that in due course--Cailil ^talk 12:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In before this thread closes: my view is that you can authorise MER under the authority of discretionary sanctions, but I agree a clarification request is probably needed to confirm. AGK [•] 12:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Skäpperöd (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sig to prevent premature archiving by bot: Skäpperöd (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Discretionary sanctions (DIGWUREN)

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Summary

Volunteer Marek (VM) and Molobo have already been subject to many sanctions (sysop decisions, 3RR, EEML arbitration remedies and AE) for disruptive behavior, including blocks, 1RRs, civility paroles, a topic ban (VM) and a permaban (Molobo). Some of these sanctions resulted from them harassing me, and/or offline coordination. I edit this project since 2007, my record is clean. From April to July this year, I was taking a wikibreak.

When I returned, I received a wikimail from VM, calling me a shithead and making a reference to Molobo getting annoying when encouraged. I had not interacted with VM after returning from my break. Molobo was still taking a wikibreak. On the day I received the mail, me and another editor (HerkusMonte) who was harrassed by VM and Molobo before, edited the article "Königsberg."

VM then came to the article, reverted a lot (incl 3RR breach), assumed bad faith from the beginning, and insulted me on the talk page. Later, Molobo returned from his wikibreak to revert articles where I or HM had edited before to ultimatively arrive at the Königsberg article.

Details and diffs

Volunteer Marek (VM) has e-mailed me via wikipediamail on 28 Jul 2012 and called me a "shithead," said that he missed me, and that I'd encourage Molobo to get annoying. I am willing to forward this mail to a sysop, but I want to know first how this appropriately (i.e. legally) works. When I received this mail, I had not come across VM or Molobo for months, I haven't even edited between 5 April and 19 July at all, Molobo has not edited during the last months either. I had (?) however been a target of a subgroup of the WP:EEML, where VM and Molobo were (?) active members.

On the same day I received the e-mail, I edited the article Königsberg. VM has only edited this article before to twice revert an IP and do a minor edit on 11 Dec 2011, 2 Jan 2011, and also 2 Jan 2012, so I did not interfere with him at that point. A user had added a large, unsourced piece of text to the article [51], which three other users - Herkus Monte (HM), M.K. and an IP objected to because of WP:UNDUE and the lack of sources [52] [53][54]. My first edits were one minor c/e [55] and adding a reference to a corrected sentence [56]. Then HM made a few other edits.

Thereafter, VM came to the article and already in the first 24 hours violated 3RR:

31 Jul 2012 6:52 VM "joins" editing with a revert of HM ([57])
31 Jul 2012 14:54 VM reverts HM ([58])
31 Jul 2012 16:41 VM reverts HM and IP ([59]), "battleground" accusation in e/s
1 Aug 2012 6:16 VM reverts HM ([60])

More reverts followed.

My further edits to the article were:

[61] (reverted/altered by VM [62] re-introducing wrong refs, and [63], alterations not in source)
[64], [65], [66], [67], [68]
[69] (reverted by VM [70], reintroducing wrong refs)
[71] (reverted by VM [72])
[73] (reverted by VM [74])
[75] (reverted by VM [76]).

That means that VM reverted half of my edits. I stopped editing the article.

What triggered this AE request is the following talk page posting I read this morning, where VM attacks me as follows:

3 Aug 2012: "You're lying your ass off," "little fake-diff," "you engage in these kind of deceitful tactics regularly," "*YOU* are misrepresenting the Bock source," "you're mistaking 'UNDUE' with 'IDONTLIKEIT'," "it's the same nationalist little group that's been running rough shod over Wikipedia content policies for years," "tag teaming," "your knee-jerk mindless support of your fellow POV pusher," "ganging up on me just to gang up"

I have not responded to that anymore and withdrew from the article.

Examples from VM's first talk page contributions directed at various editors, showing that ABF was there from the beginning, are

31 Jul 2012 VM's first post to talk page: attacks HM with "tendentious and battleground-y," "battleground" and motivated by "IDONTLIKEIT"
[77] accusing HM of POV-pushing and double standard
[78] accusing HM of bad faith and disruption
[79] accusation of tag teaming
[80] accusing M.K of "instead of mindlessly reverting and removing sourced text you actually try and do some constructive work"
[81] accusation of "trying to sabotage good faithed attempts"
[82] "Sorry to get all bad faith on you, but I know bait when I see it - this is just mindless tag-teamed reverts trying to draw me into a 3RR violation"
and so on

Volunteer Marek has also assumed bad faith, insulted and accused other people recently (Jimbo got annoyed too [83]) so it is not just me but a general problem, as his block log and these random reactions indicate [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92].

I also can not accept the addition of references which do not support the sentences referenced to them: In this post I compared in detail sources VM added to four sentences, and they do not match. VM did look in the source again, as is obvious from the diff before, and still restored it after my removal, so that it is now in the protected version - making wp not only unreliable, but misleading.

VM further engaged in a kind of retaliatory tagging: He announced that unsourced sentences of the newly added section could only be removed when all other sentences lacking references would be removed, too (31 Jul 2012 16:40), and started to tag as cn various sentences throughout the article which did not have an inline ref [93] [94] [95] [96] [97], thereby overlooking the fact that there are a lot of references given, just not inline but in the section for sources, and that most (all?) of these sentences have been in there and stable for years. Just before the article was protected, he started to remove sentences tagged by him, e.g. [98].

Molobo, VM's tag team partner from the EEML, who was mentioned in VM's e-mail (28 Jul) as getting annoying when "encouraged," has not edited since 7 April. Let's look at his first contributions upon returning one by one:

[99] Molobo returned to editing on 4 Aug, reverting a move HM had made ([100])
[101] Molobo reverted an edit of mine ([102]) (breaking the ref fmt btw)
[103] then reverted some edits from an article where the EEML had attacked me before (was subject to the EEML arbcom and is in the evidence and in VM's FoFs of that case), last edit before Molobo was made by HM
[104] Molobo returned to previous article and makes another edit [105] to a talkpage
[106] Molobo arrived at the Königsberg article

I do not believe that Molobo returned from his break by coincidence just to revert HM, then revert me, then go straight to the Königsberg article, given the content of VM's email and the recorded history of VM's and Molobo's cooperation within the EEML.

I do not want to have to put up with all that again and again. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

both editors have been subject to EEML

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The evidence submitted by me shows that

(1) VM's and Molobo's attitude towards me (and others) is confrontational and bad faithed.
(2) The confrontation with me was unprovoked.
(3) The confrontation with me was announced.
(4) The confrontation with me goes along with massive insults.

Further, as the (largely off-wiki) evidence of the EEML case shows, this bullying of mine primarily by these persons (VM and Molobo) has been going on for a long long time, and I can not accept that my return from a break is answered by these two editors with an announced attack. I am an editor in perfectly good standing. I have created numerous articles for the benefit of the project. My block log is clean. The editors bullying me on the other hand have a long history of disruption.

This goes straight against the very idea of wikipedia and heavily impacts my ability to edit. I ask the sysops here to consider scenarios to change that. One scenario would be re-instating Molobo's permaban and VM's EE-topic ban, making it permanent this time. Another scenario would be to prohibit VM and Molobo from interacting with me (and possibly others, e.g. HM; M.K asked for that too, below) in any way, i.e. prohibit them from talking to me, editing the same articles, talking about me.

History of disruption by VM and Molobo

Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was already in 2008 identified as the alter ego of the nationalist forumtroll Shade2 [107] (IPs and behavioral evidence) [108] (behavioral evidence) [109] (confirmation by meanwhile retired sysop). He was identified as sockpuppeteer [110] [111]. He has an extensive block log [112]. He was permabanned [113]. The permaban was lifted only conditionally [114]. He was active in the EEML, especially with respect to hounding and harassing me, but not blocked as he was at that time already blocked for socking (1 year for socking with a throw-away account used to harass me [115]). He is subject to the general remedies of the EEML case though [116], his contrary statement is false. (placeholder)

In response to VM's post below: This is not a content dispute, but a behavioral issue, and sysops should, in this respect, consider the WP:EEML case where Volunteer Marek aka Radeksz was subject to, especially with respect to hounding and harassing me (evidence is largely off-wiki, but part of it is accessible in the "Disruption"-FoF at Wikipedia:EEML#Radeksz), the conditions under which his remedies were eased, his block log, and previous AE requests where he was sanctioned:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Radeksz "Radeksz blocked 12 h"
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive54#Radeksz "Radeksz warned not to leave aggressive messages related to topics from which he is banned."
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#Russavia "Radeksz blocked for 72 hours, all editors with Eastern Europe-related sanctions banned from the article at issue."
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive40#Matthead Radeksz subject to voluntary 1RR, "and may also become subject to formal sanctions if he does not."
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive85#Jacurek Volunteer Marek "six months renaming ban as described below; warning for expressing what sounds like nationalist prejudice on this page"
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive89#Volunteer_Marek "Volunteer Marek warned for incivility."
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive111#Russavia "Volunteer Marek blocked 2 weeks."
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive41#Smith2006 "also warned Radeksz for edit-warring on the same article, Jan Dzierżon"
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive101#Russavia "Volunteer Marek blocked for interaction ban violation."
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive42 Radeksz "placed on 1RR" - later vacated in error (evidence in the EEML case)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive86#Leidseplein "warning Leidseplein to abide by the following principles enunciated by the Arbitration Committee. They apply, of course, to Volunteer Marek and others as well, and this warning is not to be construed as an endorsement of any inappropriate conduct by Volunteer Marek or others." (principles listed include "atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors." "Uncivil behavior by others should not be returned in kind." "Personal attacks are expressly prohibited." "Noncompliance with these principles and other rules of conduct may result in sanctions."

Re: Misrepresentation of sources

I provide some response for that "misrepresentation of sources"-thing only for sysops to evaluate whether I actually did so or not, and whether my insistence is justified on the instance that VM's references were not actually sourcing what they were supposed to.

VM insists below that the references added by him were fine. I encourage sysops to evaluate the following analysis of mine to decide whether I am "lying my ass off" as VM said or not. Diffs, quotes and links to the sources are included:

Response to VM, detailed analysis of his references not sourcing the sentences they had been added to

lines sourced to Wodecki/Krasovec by you [117] [118] and removed by me [119] (e/s "per failed verification for the most part") were

quote 1st sentence: "In 1545 in Königsberg the first Polish catechism was printed by [[Jan Seklucjan]].<ref name="bibel">{{cite book | title=Interpretation Der Bibel | publisher=Continuum International Publishing Group | author=Krašovec, Jože | year=1988 | pages=1223 |isbn=1850759693}}</ref>":

failed verification: Given ref Wodecki p. 1223 does not mention 1545 at all, neither does it say anything about the first Polish catechism.

quote 2nd sentence: "In 1551 the first translation of the [[New Testament]] in [[Polish language]] came out, issued by [[Stanisław Murzynowski]].<ref name="bibel"/>":

failed verification: Given ref Wodecki p. 1223 however says that "[p. 1222] in 1551 published [p. 1223] first the gospel of Matthew, some months later all four gospels, in 1552 other New Testament books, and finally in 1533 [sic!] the whole new Testament in one volume." Either the 1533 date or the preceding dates are most certainly a typo, as the sentence makes no sense as it is > not a good source for these dates. Nonetheless, even though the source on the (not attributed!) page 1222 states that "the publishing of the first printed non-Catholic translation of the New Testament was procured by Jan Seklucjan" with M. "as translator" (ibid), the source does not say that happened in 1551, but as shown above gives the conflicting, not trustworthy date of 1533; and it does not say that M "issued" the NT. The source thus contradicts the sentence except for the rump where it says that the translation came out.

quote 3rd and 4th senternces: Murzynowski's collections of sermons were delivered by [[Eustace Trepka]] and in 1574 by [[Jerome Malecki]]. The works of [[Mikolaj Rej]] were printed here and [[Martin Stryjkowski]] announced here the publication of his ''Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Żmudz and all Rus''.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=jiukF7F_r3cC&pg=PA1222&lpg=PA1222&dq=Murzynowski+Krolewiec&source=bl&ots=9TiODAifoy&sig=JsFC3nCJ-LNkrS_LmUJ2ZWzhXk4&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Murzynowski%20Krolewiec&f=false]</ref>":

failed verification: No reference to these sentences in the given ref at all: neither cited names nor cited dates are on that (or the next) page.

Obviously, the source does not support what you sourced to it. Apart from that, it was not published in 1988, the author was Wodecki not Krašovec, and bare urls are not recommended as refs.

Since you cited the source here, you should have noticed at least when you revisited the source that nothing in that source supports the sentences you sourced to it as I have shown in detail above. You failed to do so not only when you added the source in the first place, which is not good, but you also failed to do so when you went through the source again for your above post [120] to quote the only line from the source referencing at least something from the text (rump of the 2nd sentence), which is far worse. And then you even accuse me of being "misleading" and "not true" in my e/s about that...

Note to VM's response, quote "Compare the text of the article, to the text of the source as I've done in the section right above. Do they match up? Yes?". The "section right above" referred to in VM's post is this one, titled "Illustrative example of Skapperod's misreprentations". This is however the current version, not the one that was debated by me above. The current version differs, VM is comparing apples and oranges here. Also, sysops need to closely examine this, as "the source" he used in his response here [121] is not the one he used in the article! This is the current protected article version. Please compare:

quote VM [122]: "The relevant current text of the article states: “ In 1545 in Königsberg a Polish catechism was printed by Jan Seklucjan” The source states: “In 1545 Seklucjan published a “Simple Text of the Catechism for the Simple People” [123]"

Compare the source given here by VM (i.e. Frick) to the reference given in the article (i.e. Krasovec, ed.), it is a completely different one! The reference in the article is still the one I analyzed above and does not mention 1545 at all! In his quote from the source for the second sentence "[...] and finally in 1553 the whole New Testament in one volume", he misquoted "1533" (in the source) for "1553," which was part of my criticism above. The rest of the paragraph was rewritten/got other sources in the meantime, so no comment on that.

VM's accusation [124] that I had misrepresented a source is also a serious PA. I encourage sysops to compare the source to that allegation:

"Comparison of VM's allegation to actual quotes from the source showing that I did not misrepresent the source"

quote VM below [125]: "And the info itself added by Skapp is true enough, but what it fails to mention is that Weinrich was invited to Konigsberg with the specific purpose of printing Polish books and that the first translations of Luther Small Catechism were made by Jan Seklucjan, a Pole."

source: online preview

quotes regarding the reason for Weinreich to settle in Königsberg: "[p. 127] Die Einrichtung der ersten Druckerei im Deutschordensland und nachmaligen Herzogtum Preußen ist auf das Engagement Albrechts zurückzuführen. Die Dokumentation der Geschäftsbeziehungen zwischen Hans Weinreich und Albrecht von Brandenburg-Ansbach beschränkt sich allerdings nur auf die aktenmäßige Überlieferung der Zustimmung Albrechts zur Königsberger Druckerei [... about Weinreich in Danzig...] bevor er 1524 den ersten [p.128] nachweisbaren Druck in Königsberg publizierte. [...] Ebenso wie viele andere Drucker seiner Zeit profitierte auch er von der Reformation, [...] Weinreichs erster Königsberger Druck ist dementsprechend die Weihnachtspredigt des samländischen Bischofs Georg von Polentz, der mit dieser den religiösen Wandel in Preußen einleitete und legitimierte. Die Gründe für die Verlegung der Druckerei Weinreichs in die herzogliche Residenzstadt sind vielfältig, aufgrund fehlender Quellen jedoch auch Gegenstand von Spekulationen. [...] [p.129] Wann Weinreich nach Königsberg wechselte, ist nicht genau bekannt. Ausschlaggebend für seinen Umzug dürften sowohl seine bereits zuvor bestehenden Kontakte in das Umfeld Albrechts als auch die religiöse Entwicklung im Ordensland gewesen sein. [... about early prints of W in Kbg. and church orders ...] [p. 130] Hans Weinreich entschloß sich jedoch erst nach einer ersten Absatzkrise um 1528, polnische Drucke zu fertigen."

--> Weinreich was not "invited to Konigsberg with the specific purpose of printing Polish books" as VM says, but came there for multiple reasons, printed several German works, and only in 1528 decided for economic reasons to publish Polish prints in addition. I did not misrepresent the source.

quotes with regard to Seklucjan and the first catechism: "[p.130] Als erstes verließ ein noch anonym verfaßter »Kleiner Katechismus« 1530 seine [i.e. Weinreich's] Königsberger Offizin." This first Polish translation of the small catechism is also listed on p. 144.

---> the first translation of Luther's Small Catechism were NOT made by Jan Seklucjan. I did not misrepresent the source.

quote regarding "Seklucjan, a Pole:" "[p. 132] Seklucjan war während seiner Tätigkeit als deutscher Pfarrer in Posen zum Luthertum konvertiert und mußte schließlich vor der Gegenreformation in das Herzogtum Preußen fliehen, wo er 1544 der erste Prediger der polnischen Gemeinde [...]"

---> Seklucjan was a German priest in Posen before he came to Kbg., and "failure to mention" him and that he was a "Pole" should not be an issue here. The quote however provides inside how dangerous it is to apply modern national categories to the 16th century. I did, however not misrepresent the source.

--> Can a German-speaking sysop please evaluate and clear me from the accusation that I have misrepresented the source and take the accusation as what it really is, a PA. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding misrepresentation by omission"-allegation: Ext. preview link to the book. Numerous authors discuss numerous details of libraries and printeries in Königsberg. That I did not include the whole book in an overview about the history of Königsberg is not misrepresentation.

Re: Cn-tags

re VM below: "Herkus and M.K and also Skapp where at this point adding "citation needed" tags": I have to the best of my knowledge not added a single cn tag. Please provide a diff. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: VM has now clarified below that I did not add a single cn tag and thus his assumption was false. To the contrary, I have added sources to previously unsourced sentences, responding to the justified "unreferenced" and "undue" comments of three other users. M.K has alo denied below that they had added cn tags. About VM's own retaliatory tagging - see above.

Re: "Outing"/username

re "outing:" A month ago, VM himself pointed out that his former username is Radeksz in a still open arbcom thread. That Radeksz is VM's former username was also often mentioned at AE, and VM said just now on my talk that it is no secret [126].

What VM referred to below is an old discussion comment by NYB in an AN/I thread, my response to that comment still stands [127]. I encourage sysops to follow that link and actually read the whole AN/I thread. VM claimed there that using his former username was outing him, and NYB in good faith made a comment w/o investigating the issue (quote NYB: "I've accepted Volunteer Marek's statement of concerns on good faith at this time; I hope that it will not be necessary to delve more deeply into the matter."). The thread however took a very different turn when I posted my response:

Actually, I had had a dispute with VM and had asked for a 3o that was provided by no other than Molobo. I protested, because I wanted an outside comment. I pointed out the on-wiki identity of VM and Molobo prior to their username changes (which happend during/after the EEML case) on my talk. Then VM ran to AN/I, called pointing to his former username "outing" and asked for an indef block of my account. If that story illustrates anything, then only that VM and Molobo have a long history of harassing me, which did not stop after the EEML case.

That Shade2 and Molobo were identified as being the same person by on-wiki revealed IP-adresses and behavioral evidence is on-wiki since 2008, I just linked it here, the RL identity of the respective user is not revealed in any of these diffs [128] [129] [130].

Even more "outing" allegations"

re VM's comment below: "I accidentally posted some personal real life info on wiki, including info about my family and friends (names, email addresses etc). This was oversighted. However, Skapperod “captured” the info before it was oversighted and spread it around on Wikipedia. This was oversighted as well."

1st sentence - true, that happened while proxying for blocked Molobo, and revealed, in the final phase of the EEML case, that you continued offline coordinating with Molobo and others.
2nd sentence - true
3rd sentence - false. I took the diff (not the RL infos!) to arbcom (not "around wikipedia"), nowhere else!, and they oversighted it. Never have I "“captured” the info before it was oversighted and spread it around on Wikipedia." That is a very serious, completely unfounded charge.
4th sentence - false. There was nothing to oversight.

I request that the allegation contained in the 3rd and 4th sentence is withdrawn at once.

I also request that Volunteer Marek is forbidden to claim that I outed him. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: previous "unfounded" AE

The AE VM referred to, concerned with what I perceived as ABF, insults etc at the Kołobrzeg article, was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive43#Radeksz. It is true that the sysop then judged this as a content dispute requiring no action. What the sysop did not know then was that all this was part of a larger, coordinated attack by the EEML, i.e. by VM, Molobo and others, to expel me from that article (note: it is the same article where Molobo reverted just after leaving his last wikibreak, diffs above). The evidence is largely off-wiki, some on-wiki [131], part of it is accessible in the "Disruption"-FoF at Wikipedia:EEML#Radeksz.

Digging up that AE again and declare that my "standard modus operandi" does not reflect well on VM.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount

Statement by Volunteer Marek

This statement by Skapperod consists of his usual tactic of "diff-padding" - of providing lots of "[diff]" which are either completely irrelevant (my argument with Jimbo over unrelated matters quite some time ago), or which simply don't support what he claims they show. I'm getting a little fed up with this behavior by Skapperod which happens in relation to both sources (sources don't support what he claims) and his perennially filed AE requests (diffs don't support what he claims.

My statement was a response to a direct nasty personal attack made by Skapperod

This diff, which Skapp gives above is in response to a statement by Skapperod where he said to me and remember that you first provided false sources. This was a straight up, false, personal attack, as I had NOT provided any false sources. What happened was that User:HerkusMonte was disruptively tagging every other word of a particular section of the article (one which he didn't like) with "citation needed" tags, while the remainder of the article sat there mostly unsourced and written like crap. As a result I was trying to get the sources he was asking for into the article. He kept moving and re-adding the "citation tags" which resulted in edit-conflicts and loss of a good time's worth of work, as I had to retype numerous citations again and again (anyone who's formatted citations knows what a pain in the ass that can be). As a result, I just started adding relevant diffs to end of paragraphs rather than particular sentences, standard practice for DYK articles, just to get them "down on paper".

What Skapperod is lying about is that just because a ref I provided was at the end of the paragraph and didn't support every single claim in that paragraph (I was still working on this), I "provided false sources". I explained to him several times what had happened, and he responded, ergo, he read the explanation (and seemingly understood it). Yet here again he makes this nonsense accusation, which is soooo bad faithed that yes, I referred to it as "lying your ass off". What is worse, lying your ass off in a dispute in order to win it, or, driven by frustration, to point this out?

I take sources, and my reputation for integrity in using those very seriously, and it was clear that Skapperod's attack was completely unwarrented, bad faithed and false (false + bad faithed = ?)

This is typical battleground behavior for Skapperod.

Abuse of a source by Skapperod which prompted this exchange

Keep in mind that the section under dispute is "Poles in Konigsberg". Skapperod added this German language source to the article, although in a completely different section. I went and retrieved the source and then spend some considerable time translating it from German. As it turns out the source itself is very reliable and high quality. Unfortunetly Skapperod's edits based on the source [132] do not reflect what the source says or what it is about.

Specifically, Skapperod's edit says Duke Albrecht thus called in a Danzig book printer, Weinrich, who was soon joined by other book printers, to publish Lutheran literature not only in German and (New) Latin, but also in Latvian, Lithuanian, Old Prussian and Polish. Königsberg thus became a center of printing German- and other language books: In 1530, the first Polish translation of Luther's Small Catechism was published by Weinrich

Note that in the citation provided Skapperod explicitly says pp. 127-155; esp. p. 127-131. Pages 127 to 131 are the ones which I specifically translated. And the info itself added by Skapp is true enough, but what it fails to mention is that Weinrich was invited to Konigsberg with the specific purpose of printing Polish books and that the first translations of ~~Luther Small Catechism~~ New Testament (corected) were made by Jan Seklucjan, a Pole. In fact, Skapperod then edit warred to remove any mention of Seklucjan (or other Poles mentioned by his source) from the article, despite the fact that the very (German) source HE provided talks about him at length. More generally, pages 127 to 131 of the source he provided are all about Polish printing and religious life in the city at the time, but somehow he managed to pull out of all that just the fact that a print maker with a German name was invited (from Danzig/Gdansk, which was part of Poland at the time) to the city.

I tried to point out similar problems with the mis-use of the Bock source (again, the source itself is perfectly reliable) on the talk page [133] but Skapperod has not bothered to respond. VolunteerMarek 22:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive tag teaming by the same old group

The users involved in this dispute, User:M.K, User:HerkusMonte, User:Estlandia (only active on the talk page) and Skapperod himself have long history of supporting each other in POV disputes involving Polish and German topics. In this instance the first two, as well as an anon IP, tag-team edit warred on the article while simultaneous refusing to participate in meaningful discussion on the talk page, aside from empty "IDONTLIKEIT" statements or simple "I support the other guy" claims.

As this was going on, I repeatedly raised issues on talk and tried to add in references which HerkusMonte was demanding (for like every other word of the section) with his citation needed tags. As I mentioned above in several instances, Herkus would add a {{cn}} tag, I would spend a good chunk of time looking up a reference, go to the article to insert it, only to find that the text had been removed by one of the other tag teamers - how are you suppose to provide a reference, to a piece of text that has been removed?

But no, I did not break 3RR on the article (unless you count adding references after someone slaps in a "cn" tag "reverting"). So Skapperod is making stuff up again. Instead, extremely frustrated (especially for having my time wasted) I asked for advice at [3RR talk].

The behavior of the above users, including Skapperod on the article has been extremely disruptive. In particular this practice of first adding a "citation needed" tag to a piece of text, then after another person (myself) spends considerable time finding citations, removing the text all together is very very very annoying. It is also obviously done in bad faithed - why are you even adding "citation needed" tags if your intent is to remove the text anyway? Unless you are *trying* to waste people's time?

The ... "misrepresentative" diff padding by Skapperod

This diff - as my comment clearly states, HerkusMonte started removing several portions of the article very shortly after they've first been added, but well after I've began the work of providing sources (my first additions of sources were at 6:51 July 31, Herkus' comment was 15:12 July 31). It was clear that I was working on providing the sources so why was he trying to make my job harder by removing stuff in the middle of this work? Additionally, as I point out, ALMOST THE WHOLE article was unsourced at this point, yet Herkus chose to pick on just this one section - so yes, this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT kind of thing.

Actually, you know what, I don't want to make this any more tl;dr then it already is. So here I am just going to relist the diffs Skapperod provides as "evidence". Please click them.

[134] - statement of fact, that Herkus is spamming {cn} tags into what at that point is the best sourced part of the article.
[135] - me pointing out to Herkus that he just wasted a whole bunch of my time by causing edit conflicts by adding {cn} tags to every other word in the section at the same time as I was clearly busy finding and adding sources
[136] - the anon IP involved in the tag team reverting responded to my comment with a comment which clearly indicated that s/he had not read the sources I provided. It was a knee-jerk denial by the anon IP. And yes at this point the tag-teaming was in full swing.
[137] - again, my post just describes what has happened. M.K had not bothered to provide any sources, to participate in discussion, just kept hitting that revert button, as if it was a button on a game controller.
[138] - yup, at this point I was extremely frustrated. Herkus and M.K and also Skapp where at this point adding "citation needed" tags, then when I would add the requested citations, just remove the now sourced text. Wouldn't you call that "disruptive"? Isn't it a bit like purposeful sabotage? At the same time, minimal to no participation in talk page discussion, except "I don't like it" stuff.

Illustrative example of Skapperod's misreprentations

Skapperod says:

VM also added references he found on the web. I can not accept the addition of references which do not support the sentences referenced to them: In this post I compared in detail sources VM added to four sentences, and they do not match. VM did look in the source again, as is obvious from the diff before, and still restored it after my removal, so that it is now in the protected version - making wp not only unreliable, but misleading.

First, these were not "references found on the web" but rather academically published works. Skapp doesn't tell you that and instead insinuates that I ... I dunno added links to blogs or something.

In his post he notes his objections, sure. But, as it has already been explained to him, there was a simple misunderstanding - the relevant diff was at the end of the paragraph rather than the end of the appropriate sentence.

Now, let's look at this super-wrong-evil text that got protected into the WP:WRONGVERSION, which makes Wikipedia oh so unreliable and misleading.

The relevant current text of the article states: “ In 1545 in Königsberg a Polish catechism was printed by Jan Seklucjan”

The source states: “In 1545 Seklucjan published a “Simple Text of the Catechism for the Simple People” [139]

The relevant current text of the article states: “ In 1551 the first translation of the New Testament in Polish language came out, issued by Stanisław Murzynowski.”"

The source states: “(Seklucjan) used a very modest but talented humanist Stanisalw Murzynowski from Krolewiec as translator, and in 1551 published first the Gospel of Matthew, some months later all four Gospels, in 1552 other New Testament books, and finally in 1553 the whole New Testament in one volume”" [140]

The relevant current text of the article states: “Murzynowski's collections of sermons were delivered by Eustace Trepka and in 1574 by Hieronim Malecki. The works of Mikolaj Rej were printed here by Seklucjan”

The source states: "Source:”Seklucjan also published the works of Mikolaj Rej, the father of Polish literature”[141]

Note the previous source also discusses Malecki and I was about to add a source for Trepka – part of the difficulty is that his name was misspelled – but the article got protected before I had a chance to do so

The relevant current text of the article states:

“ Marcin Stryjkowski announced in Krolewiec the publication of his Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmudzka, i wszystkiej Rusi ("A Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Samogitia and all Rus")”

The source states: "Source: In 1582, Stryjkowski published his chronicle at Konigsberg (Krolewiec)" [142]

So please, tell me, is there any truth to Skapperod's contention that I was using 'false source' (which I "found on the web") and that these references do not support the text referred to? Is Wikipedia really going to lose all credibility because this material is included in the WP:WRONGVERSION that got protected?

If not, then just keep in mind what's going on here and that this kind of ... mischaracterization, well, characterizes Skapperod's entire report.

--> Response to Skapperod's "Response to VM, detailed analysis of his references not sourcing the sentences they had been added to"

Look, it's not that hard. Compare the text of the article, to the text of the source as I've done in the section right above. Do they match up? Yes? Then your accusations that I was "presenting false sources" is ... well, "untrue".

What you are doing is very typical - you're picking on minor points, like the fact that I included the name of the editor of a work rather than the author originally, and hanging your whole "you're misrepresenting sources" on that very feeble peg. All the issues you raised were answered and addressed on the talk page and the section right above makes it clear that the sources do indeed align very well with the text. And since you acknowledged that by responding, why do you turn around and keep making this accusation that I "presented false sources". Since you know what is actually going on, yet you insist on making these accusations, is that not "lying"? VolunteerMarek 07:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---> Response to Skapperod's latest

re VM below: "Herkus and M.K and also Skapp where at this point adding "citation needed" tags": I have to the best of my knowledge not added a single cn tag. Please provide a diff. - my bad, you weren't the one adding {cn} tags, you were just the one removing text that had first been {cn} tagged by Herkus, which I then apparently wasted my valuable time finding sources for [143]

Seklucjan was a German priest in Posen before he came to Kbg., and "failure to mention" him and that he was a "Pole" should not be an issue here. - nope, Seklucjan was a "German priest" only in the sense that he spoke German and was a priest for the German congregation in Poznan. Sources clearly call him a Pole ("Ducal Prussia provided refuge for Poles such as Jan Seklucjan from Poznan". He was born in Stare Siekluki deep within central Poland (not even in any of the "disputed" areas). So this is just more typical misrepresentation.

The bottomline here is that the very source YOU added, Vanessa Bock, discusses Seklucjan at length, including his role in translating works into Polish, with help from Weinreich.

the first translation of Luther's Small Catechism were NOT made by Jan Seklucjan. I did not misrepresent the source. - a small mistake on my part, Seklucjan was the first to translate the New Testament not Luther's Small Catechism. Which I already explained on article's talk. The misrepresentation of the source involves completely omitting Seklucjan from the article (whether he was the first to translate NT or LSM) and additionally to mention the first translation by Liboriusz Schadlika. Yes, it is perfectly possible to misrepresent sources BY OMISSION.

Overall, here are the relevant passages from the source which are very relevant but which Skapperod just... "skipped" over (he did mention the Seindammer church):

Die Kirchenordung legte zudem die Bereitstellung von Buchern zum Lesen und Singen fur die Gemeinden fest. Durch den Druck reformatorischer, religionspolitischer und fremdsprachiger Literatur wurde diese Forderung vom ersten Konigsberger Drucker erfullt. Fur die Wirksamkeit landesherrlicher Verwaltungs- und Kirchenordungen und die Verbreitung des neuen Glaubens war die Existenz dieser ersten Offizin unentbehrlich. Auch Herzog Albert selbst forderte die Predigt in der jeweiligen Muttersprache. Die Polen und Litauer, oftmals Glaubensfluchtlinge, hielten ihre Gottesdienste in Konigsberg in der Seindammer Kirche, spater auch in der Elisabeth kirche; zudem wurde vierzehntägig im Dom und in der altstadtischen Kirche eine polnische Mittagspredigt gehalten, wodurch die Reformierung des Gesindes gewahrleister werden sollte.

and:

Als erstes erliess ein noch anonym Kleiner Kathechismus 1530 seine Konigsberg Offizin. Die eiligst angefertige polnische Ubersetzung des Kathechismus wies jedoch sprachliche Mangel auf, die dem Herzog durch Liborius Schadlika, einen polnischen Philologen aufgezeigt wurden. Schadlika selbst nahm sich der Uberarbeitung an, so dass 1533 ein zweiter, sprachlich verbesserter polnischer Kathechismus in der Druckerei von Weinreich entstand. Zwar sind diese ersten polnischen Drucke auf Initiative Weinreichs (und somit durchaus auf Geschaftsinteresse) entstanden, sie erfullt jedoch zugleich die in der Kirchenordung geforderte und von Herzog Albert aktiv unterstutze Ubersetzung zentraler evangelischer Schriften in die jeweiligen Volkssprachen.

1543 und 1544 wurden in Preussen erstmals staatliche Verordnungen ins Polnische ubersetz und ebenfalls von Weinreich gedruckt. Dem Herzog und seinen Beamten ging es zugleich mit der religiosen Unterweisung seiner polnischen Untertanen um deren Intagration in der preussischen Territorialstaat. Allerdings bleibt ungewiss, warum nicht bereits fruhere Landes -oder zumindest Kirchenordnungen ubersetz und gedruckt wurden. Die Notwendigkeit, liturgische und religiose Grundtexte in die Sprache des Volkes ubersetzen zu lassen und dafur zunachst Tolken einzusetzen, hatte bereits die Kirchenordnungen von 1525 betont, doch herrschte im sakularisierten Ordensland offensichtlich zunachst noch ein Mangel an sprachkompetenten Predigern.

Herzog Albert personlichem Engagement war es zu verdanken, dass aus Polen viele Pfarrer, die sich dem Luthertum zugewandt hatten, nach Preussen ubersiedelten. Seit 1530 wirkten in Ostpreussen u.a. "seit 1537 Johann Maletius in Lyck, und seit 1544 Johann Seclutian an der Polnische Kirche auf dem Steindamm in Konigsberg als Pfarrer in herzoglich-preussischen Gemeinden" Ihre Berufungen waren fur die Entwicklung des polnischen Buchdrucks in Konigsberg ausserst folgenreich. Nach wie vor war die Zahl der polnischen Pfarrer jedoch unzureichend. Mit der Grundung der Universitat im Jahre 1544 wurde deshalb auch das Ziel verfolgt, die Versorgung v.a. der landlichen Bevolkerung mit polnischen - aber ebenso litauischen - Pfarren zu verbessern:

Herzog Albert hatten sieben Stipendien fur Studenten mit guten Polnisch - kenntnissen gestiftet und zugleich Universitatsbehorden angeordnet, solche Studenten desto eifriger zu suchen und aufzunehmen, weil solche Pastoren und Kirchenleute auch die Schule in preussischen Landen wegen Unkenntnis der deutschen Sprache besonders notig haben.

Die polnischen Pfarrer spielten die entscheidende Rolle in den Anfangsjahren des polnischen Buchdrucks in Konigsberg. Drei Jahre nach der Publikation der Ubersetzung von Schadlika verliess ein weitere Ausgabe des polnischen Katechismus die Presse Weinreichs. Ob dieser Druck eine zweite Auflage von der Schadlika bearbeiteten Ubersetzung war, ist nicht nachweisbar, doch wurde auf Veranlassung von Paul Speratus 1545 in eine Auflage von dreihundert Exemplaren diese Ubersatzung in Wittenberg erneut gedruckt.

Again, this is misrepresentation by OMISSION, not your run of the mill pretend-source-says-something-it-doesn't kind that only newbie POV pushers engage in. How can you take source whose title is "Beginnings of Polish Printing in Konigsberg" and write about it so as to almost completely fail to mention anything to do with Poles?

Skapperod says This is however the current version, not the one that was debated by me above - yes, 1) you were complaining that the WP:WRONGVERSION got protected so I discussed the current "wrong version" and 2) the first version was "debated" and I explained what was going on to you, then made corrections.

Skapperod says sysops need to closely examine this, as "the source" he used in his response here [88] is not the one he used in the article! - let them examine, please! The source I gave is the one I suggested on the talk page, along with a statement about Trepka [144]. Keep in mind that the article was protected shortly thereafter. Since you were participating in that discussion YOU KNOW THIS. Additionally that source was being used elsewhere in the article already. You know this as well. Does the source support the text? It does, which you are also well aware of. So why are you playing these games?

VolunteerMarek 08:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is standard MO of Skapperod for which he has been warned before

This AE request bares an uncanny resemblance to this one filed a while back by Skapperod, (as well as numerous others of his). In that AE request Skapperod was trying to get me blocked for stating that Skapperod was behaving "disruptively" (he was). Here he is trying to get me sanctioned for pointing out that several users, himself included, were behaving badly on the Konigsberg article, by spamming {cn} tags (while remainder of the article was unreferenced), by removing text and making it hard to actually provide the citations they requested, and then by removing the text which was now sourced, as well as misrepresenting sources (Skapperod in particular with the Bock source, as outlined above). All the time not bothering to participate in talk page discussion.

In fact, User:Sandstein's closure of that AE request is worth quoting in full:

This looks like a misuse of WP:AE (by Skapperod - VM) in order to win the upper hand in a content dispute. The edits cited in the request are not objectionable; rather, they reflect routine disagreements about content. In particular, it is not disruptive to state one's opinion that "Removing a large chunk of text without discussing it first is generally seen as "disruptive"". Unless other administrators disagree, I will close this thread with a warning to Skäpperöd that AE is not a substitute for, or part of, proper dispute resolution, and that he may face sanctions if he files more unfounded enforcement requests. (my emphasis -VM)

and then this comment made by former arbitrator Shell Kinney

I am in complete agreement with your reading of the situation Sandstein. (consequently Skapperod would attempt to get Shell in trouble, possibly in retaliation)

and then Sandstein concluded:

No action. Skäpperöd is warned not to file more unfounded requests.

That's all that is going on over here. Again. In fact, Skapperod has been trying to "get me" for quite awhile now. I had the hope that he turned a new leaf and was ready to participate in a constructive manner in improving the relevant articles, since he is somewhat knowledgeable about sources (how he uses them, is another matter). But I guess not. Same ol' same ol'.

I have no comment on anything by MyMoloboaccount and I haven't even really looked at his edits. I did not ask him in any way what so ever to comment, edit or otherwise become involved in this article.

@Devil's Advocate

Actually, MyMoloboaccount's first edit since returning WAS NOT in support of any edit I have made. His first edit was to Konigsberg but it was not related to any issues I have been involved in [145]. In fact, I disagree with him in this regard - he thinks the article should be moved/merged to "Kaliningrad", I'm ok with where it is.

His second or so edit was to the Battle of Dirschau article (btw, Herkus is now move warring on that page). I actually have no strong opinion as to what name the article should be under either (though I find this tendentious insistence on German names for places/events in Poland annoying and a waste of time).

So actually, two of MyMoloboaccount's first couple edits are not even ones with which I agree with. Skapperod is just paranoid/trying to use imaginary non-happenings as a way of winning a content dispute.

Anyway. If you're involved in Polish-German topics, you come back from a four month absence and you look at your watchlist what are you gonna see? Well, people are discussing Konigsberg a lot, so you go there to check out what happens.

And seriously, don't you just see how dripping with bad faith statements like "where EEML attacked me before" by Skapperod are? Just because someone reverted him once somewhere. This is just the usual "oh noes they won't let me push my POV in peace" complainin'.

And with regard to this EEML well-poisoning (which Skapperod also has been warned about in the past) let me just point out a Principles from a recent ArbCom case:

Editors are expected to comment on the substance of other's edits, and not attempt to use editors' affiliations in an ad hominem method to attempt to discredit their views. Attempts to do so may be considered a Personal Attack. [146]. I assume that applies equally to some vague affiliations from almost three years ago.

Please also see my comment at DA's talk page [147]. Bottomline is that if there's supposed to be some kind of tag-teaming by me and MMA then ... well, where is it?

Response to MK's post

All that M.K does is throw the at-this-point-ridiculous EEML boogeyman around (if there's an EEML around these days, which I seriously doubt, I am not part of it nor am I even aware of it) and then throw in some completely irrelevant diffs about how one time I told somebody who was harassing me on my talk page (whom I asked not to post there half a dozen times) to "fuck off". Note that none of these diffs resulted in any kind of sanction (though the harassment by the other user was discussed by admins). It's just tired old battleground mentality and poisoning the well.

Again, M.K and others *were* behaving disruptively on the Konigsberg article - spamming {cn} tags, then after citations were provided, removing the relevant text altogether, and they were tag teaming to do so. To refer to that behavior as "disruptive" is perfectly valid.

What exactly is this report about anyway? That MyMoloboaccount posted a short comment to the talk page (he did not make any edits to the article itself)? That I said the users were behaving disruptively? This is a content dispute which, as he has done numerous times before, Skapperod (and his friends) is trying to win via WP:AE instead of discussion on the article talk page.

One more time @ Skapperod

Skapperod, this is getting ridiculous. Your evidence doesn't show anything of the kind.

Your own attitude towards me (and yes, also MyMoloboaccount) is what is causing all the problems. I have tried numerous times to be friendly and nice towards you "thank you" "sincere thanks" "much improved" etc. And each time you have responded with completely out-of-the-left field battleground behavior, of which very report is an excellent example.

There was no "confrontation" with you - just discussion. Then you initiated a confrontation by accusing me of "presenting false source", which as I've shown was complete nonsense. If the atmosphere on the talk page deteriorated you only have yourself to blame.

There were no "massive insults" against you, nor anyone else. You're making stuff up. All I said is that some of you were behaving disruptively on the article. Adding {cn} tags, then removing text after the citations were provided *is* disruptive (and it wasted a whole bunch of my valuable time)

Molobo aka MyMoloboaccount was already in 2008 identified as the alter ego of the nationalist forumtroll Shade2 - thank you, thank you, thank you, for providing a clear example of your entrenched battleground mentality. In that one little sentence you manage to combine 1) an egregerious personal attack, which, if made anywhere else would get you immediately blocked, 2) an attempt at WP:OUTING someone, which, should get you immediately blocked even if it is made here, and 3) more unsubstantiated accusations - your evidence is two posts by your former friends (one of them posting anonymously - gee, I wonder why? Online harassment is no fun when you put your name behind it?) which are just more accusations. There is no substance there.

As to my block log, since that keeps getting dredged up and misrepresented (yes, you are being dishonest again). I have ONE block for incivility (recent) which has nothing to do with any WP:AE areas, I just mouthed off to an admin for abusively blocking someone else. I have three blocks which were due to mutual violations of the interaction bans with Russavia (he got blocked much more than I did) which were due simply to the confusing wording of that interaction ban. And I have one, very very very old block for edit warring with Malik Shabazz, whom I am currently friends with. So don't make stuff up. And I have been on Wikipedia for seven years. If you really want to entertain yourself by dwelling on my block log - which has nothing to do with WP:DIGWUREN - then I suggest you bring this up on AN/I. Let's have a community wide discussion there. Of course your own hijinks might be examined as well.

Volunteer Marek aka Radeksz was subject to, especially with respect to hounding and harassing me, the conditions under which his remedies were eased - this is complete nonsense. Notice no diff. YOU however where reprimanded several times for engaging in disruptive commentary at WP:AE, and at ArbCom pages, as well as your continued attempts to WP:OUT me, for instance by User:Newyorkbrad. That one actually is worth looking at seperately:

Skäpperöd, from now on please refer to Volunteer Marek on-wiki only by his current username. This appears to be a reasonable request on his part given the history and circumstances. Please see the ANI thread for more comments. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk)

You've violated this injunction at least several times on this request, including for no apparent reason except intentional harassment. And it is worth reminding everyone WHY you were required to not mention my former username (and hell, the main reason why I changed my username in the first place): you were one of the two users who posted my personal information, all over Wikipedia and spread it around (the info had to be oversighted later on).

You seem to be stuck in the same entrenched, tendentious, win-at-all-cost, battleground mode just as when you used that tactic to mess with my real life, two years ago.

Just one diff which speaks volumes

Skapperod refusing an arbitrator's request

VolunteerMarek 05:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VolunteerMarek 22:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A not short enough summary by Volunteer Marek

I'm sorry, it's hard to keep this short. This issue is both simple and complex. Please read the following carefully.

The simple part is that this is just Skapperod’s special way of fighting a battleground action. He’s done this many many times before. The complex issue involves the associated details, the history of my interaction with Skapperod and the participation of other users. This AE report by Skapperod is a spurious attempt to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. Skapperod has been instructed in the past not to file these kinds of AE reports, specifically with regard to myself, and has been told that any such reports will result in sanctions against him [148]. The essence of Skapperod’s report, once you strip away the irrelevant diffs and ranting, the innuendo, the scare mongering and conspiracy theories is that:

MyMoloboaccount posted a comment to the talk page of the article. Here it is [149]. Ooohhh, scary, isn’t it? Seriously, MyMoloboaccount is not under any sanction, he can post comments to any talk page he pleases (or the article themselves) and I have not asked him to make any edit on this or any other article. How can you in good faith ask that somebody be sanctioned for making a single, simple, civil, constructive talk page comment? Where is the objectionable action? The fact that Skapperod reacts this insanely to a simple talk page comment is about as much evidence as is needed of Skapperod’s entrenched battleground mentality
That I replied to Skapperod’s repeated hounding and false accusations by saying that he was “lying his ass off”. He was. A citation was added to an end of a paragraph rather end of a sentence. Based on this Skapperod, despite numerous explanations, kept taunting me that I “presented false sources”. He knows what the actual situation was. He knows that his own sources support the text cited. Yet he continued casting false aspersions, and actually has continued doing this on this very report – the whole experience has been extremely frustrating to deal with. This is a cheap attempt to score “points”, to intimidate and once again perfectly illustrates Skapperod’s battleground mentality.
Skapperod has a pretty extensive history of misrepresenting sources. See here for another example (there are many more). Unfortunately this is the kind of Civil POV pushing that is hard to show unless someone is also familiar with the topic area and is willing to go to the trouble of acquiring and often translating, the relevant sources. The way he misrepresents sources parallels the way he misrepresents diffs and individuals he’s waging a crusade against in noticeboard discussions. These WP:AE reports of his ALWAYS are filed right after someone convincingly challenges him on his use of sources on some article’s talk page.

Additionally

On the article HerkusMonte first tagged a section as “unsourced”, despite the fact that remainder of the article is mostly unsourced as well, then when I began adding sources tried to remove chunks of the section itself. When I kept adding sources he began spamming ^{[citation needed]} tags into every sentence of the section in some kind of “I can add ^{[citation needed]} tags faster than you can find references” game. This was disruptive, annoying (it led to much wasted time due to edit conflicts) and violation of WP:POINT. However, to his credit, he desisted after I raised the issue on another venue and warned him.
Other users, M.K, anon IP 93.220.172.210 and Skapperod began removing text which Herkus had previously tagged with ^{[citation needed]} per some kind of tag-team WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is the text that I spend a considerable amount of my time (I estimate about 20 hours overall) referencing. How frustrating is it when somebody asks you to do something (provide citations), you spend time doing it, only to have one of their friends come along and completely destroy your efforts anyway? A confounding factor is that Skapperod was removing text which his own sources supported, as he was well aware (he indicated “especially pg xx” in his citation).

The history with Skapperod

Skapperod has been explicitly warned about filing spurious and battleground-y WP:AE reports, specifically with regard to myself, and was threatened with sanction for it.
In his report above Skapperod strings together a series of diffs where, supposedly, I was “incivil”. None of these resulted in any admin actions and some are outright false misrepresentations. For example, in one of them I made a joke, which was perfectly understood by the other party ([150] - I was made a mentor to a potentially problematic user), but Skapperod pretends that it was some serious offense. And all of them are completely irrelevant to this dispute, to the topic area and did not involve him in any way. Additionally he manages to even pull in obscure comments I made at Commons, on Jimbo’s talk page and other hard-to-find-and-irrelevant places. This is, frankly, super creepy –it’s obvious he keeps some kind of file on me, watches all my edits, even ones which don’t concern him in the least bit, looking for some “dirt”. This is explicit evidence of ‘’’long term, sustained, stalking’’’.
Skapperod has long “pursued” me, as well as Piotrus, across Wikipedia, having shown up to many discussions always trying to stir stuff up. His comments have generally been ignored by admins, by arbitrators and by uninvolved commentators, if he has not actually been explicitly warned about them. Some of the “funnier” instances include the time he tried to get me (or Piotrus) sanctioned because… Piotrus gave me a barnstar! Or when he tried to get Arbitrator Shell Kinney into trouble because she went to the same Wiki-meetup as Piotrus.
More seriously, during the EEML case (more than 2.5 years ago), I accidentally posted some personal real life info on wiki, including info about my family and friends (names, email addresses etc). This was oversighted. However, Skapperod “captured” the info before it was oversighted and spread it around on Wikipedia. This was oversighted as well. Due to some real life harassment resulting partly from these actions of his, I changed my username subsequently so that it would no longer be connected to my real life name. I asked a number of users I was familiar with, including Skapperod, to please use my current user name (VM) – all of them ‘’’except Skapperod’’’ said they had no problem with that.

Over the next months (years?) Skapperod made a WP: POINT of it to keep using my former username (the one connected to my real life identity). After repeatedly requesting him to desist, exasperated, I finally had to risk a Streisand Effect and raised the issue on ANI [151]. As a result Arbitrator Newyorkbrad specifically instructed Skapperod to please refer to Volunteer Marek on-wiki only by his current username... given the history and circumstances.

Skapperod responded belligerently then and now he has violated Newyorkbrad’s injunction by spamming my former username in this very report. I have asked him to refactor [152]. He is now making crappy excuses about how it’s ok for him to keep up with the harassment because recently I used my former name myself (in an ArbCom appeal to change that username in ArbCom pages!).

This sorry story is yet another example of how seriously battleground minded Skapperod is on Wikipedia. Basically, any tactic appears to be fair game.

Bottomline

This is just a disruptive use of WP:AE as a battleground. Skapperod has been warned about this before. In regard to myself and MyMoloboaccount there’s absolutely nothing here. Skapperod has a long history of weird obsession with myself. Skapperod has played a role in outing me in the past and has used my former username as an intimidation tactic. Skapperod has a history of misrepresenting sources and usually files WP:AE reports like this when he’s called on it.

Statement by MyMoloboaccount

UPDATE:Only now I realized what trick Skapperod used. He flooded his request with so many links, that one crucial element is missing. What exactly should be enforced ? I am not DIGWUREN of sanctions nor was I subject to EEML sanctions. In fact Skapperod falsely claims: Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) both editors have been subject to EEML. I haven't been placed on EEML sanctions. If Skapperod disagrees then he should give a link to the post where I am placed on any sanctions regarding EEML. In fact he failed to provide any diff for such thing. This is a typical shotgun shooting for sanctions, especially as the case open against VM, block wall of links which lead often to unrelated things provided then casually another user(me) thrown in, even when I am not on any sanctions mentioned, and no link is provided to any sanction to be enforced. Now to continue

First of all, this yet again another part of never ending saga regarding Skapperod's constant attempts to get me or VM blocked, and which probably started somewhere around when I discovered Skapperod was using Nazi propaganda as sources for Polish history[153]. Since then he behaved aggressively towards me while occassionally repeating attempts to introduce sources of such nature into Wikipedia.
Second of all I was present at the article about Kaliningrad/Konigsberg since years ago, as the history of the city is part of my interests, any brief search of the history of the article will discover my edits there since at least 2008[154]. And the topics discussed by VolunteerMarek were debated by me years ago on that page already

[155] In fact in 2008 I already wrote 'In the meantime still gathering research to NPOV the article, extermination of Jews whose population count I added above, discrimination of Polish minority(classified as lower then animals by German state in WW2), use of slaves to develop a city within 1000 year planned Reich, local Nazi movement, and post war revanchist role the city played in contrast to other Germanised territories that underwent degermanisation after the war are interesting subjects which need expansion. --Molobo (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Third of all the revert I did to HM was regarding a move of an page name to Germanised version of Polish location without end of Request for Move-perfectly in order as per Wikipedia rules.
Fourth of all my long absence is due to my sickness and stay at hospital, to which I am returning tomorrow, and won't be able to respond further this week and probably throughout the next month as well.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC) PS:I love the title "Ex-leader of EEML". Actually we title ourselves Silver, Red Dragon. And the leader is titled the Golden Egg on Emerald Throne. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC) BTW: What is exactly that I am accused of? Of editing articles that aren't even subject to any discussion between Skappoerod and VM?:"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treaty_of_Bromberg&diff=prev&oldid=505787635] Molobo returned to previous article and makes another edit [156] to a talkpage? This is ridiculous, and seems just shotgun shooting of Enforcement request in hopes that somebody doesn't even follow the links that lead to nothing of substance or anything controversial. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Advocate-I was present on the page for years and took part in many discussions there. The topic is close to my interests.I edited the page as Molobo before that account was hacked. Do feel free to see history of talk and page history-you will find me there debating those things before Skapperod arrived to that page[157], [158]

What Skapperod mislead here(among many other things) was both editors have been subject to EEML-I haven't been subject to ANY sanctions in EEML case. This very typical-he usually throws numerous accusations that are baseless, eventually someone doesn't double check what he writes or doesn't follow the links, so something manages to go through. Note that he avoided giving link to support his statement-because there isn't any. In any case I performed all my edits on my own, and I haven't been in contact with VM or Piotrus in any way, either by email, or by any other means.

Molobo's first edit is to comment on the talk page of this article in support of Marek.- Where? I commented on other issues. As far I remember I didn't comment on the issue VM was debating at all, can you provide a diff supporting this claim? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

It is rather conspicuous that after nearly four months Molobo's first edit is to comment on the talk page of this article in support of Marek. To Molobo's query, the DIGWUREN case has since been renamed to be consistent with its function as an Eastern Europe arbitration case and that case allowed admins to issue sanctions at their own discretion against anyone editing in the topic area in violation of policy. The EEML mention appears to be referring to the admonishment to all members of the mailing list to avoid off-wiki collaboration. So there is nothing inappropriate about Skap's report in that respect.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by HerkusMonte

I don't have the time and the patience to go into detail, just a short comment

1. Marek's claim:

"The users involved in this dispute, User:M.K, User:HerkusMonte, User:Estlandia (only active on the talk page) and Skapperod himself have long history of supporting each other in POV disputes involving Polish and German topics. In this instance the first two, as well as an anon IP, tag-team edit warred on the article.."

This is absurd, I didn't even know M.K. before and we never made any edits on the same article. To call this "Extensive tag teaming by the same old group" leaves me speechless. The whole tag team allegation is completely absurd and just shows Marek's persistent assumption of bad faith.

2. I (not Marek) tried to start a discussion about the lack of sources [159] , however Marek's answer was extremely aggressive [160] ("Tell you what Herkus..." followed by the ususal allegations of "disruptive","tendentious" and "battlegroundy" editing, hardly a constructive way to react). Honestly, I don't see a reason to discuss on such a level of bad faith.

3. Maybe I missed something, but Marek doesn't deny he called Skäpperöd a "shithead" in his email, does he? HerkusMonte (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Piotrus

I try to avoid getting involved in AE, but seeing as Skapperod mentioned me already "Piotrus, ex-(?)-leader of the EEML", I would like to point out that dragging an old (2009) ArbCom case is not only a case of poisoning the well, but of a personal attack; I do not enjoy seeing my name dragged through ancient mud, and I'd very much prefer if Skapperod would try to move on from the old battlegrounds. What's more, Skapperod uses a single diff to imply I am still a leader of EEML; this is a slanderous claim without any basis in fact, to say the least, and I request that it is refactored, and apologized for.

Further, VM cites an example of an AE where Skapperod was warned not to abuse AE to win content disputes. It is worth noting that complaining about VM seems to be a popular pastime of Skapperod's: March 2012; September 2011, and others I don't have time to find. He has also been warned about outing VM ([161]). Back in 2011, when the last of EEML remedies were amended and discarded by the Committee, he was very active in campaigning against them; see my comment here, where I list close to a ten of examples of Skapperod either requesting sanctions against VM and other EEML members, or commenting in support. And almost always, his requests have been denied.

I don't want to get too involved here; I'd suggest that both VM and Skapperod are asked to be more civil in his on-wiki comments, and that Skapperod's engagement with AE is scrutinized by the admins; I feel it may be a time that a restriction from filling AE requests is served here, or perhaps an interaction ban would do more good, as it seems clear to me that Skapperod still feels the need to drag out old incidents and relive old battlegrounds. As most of us have no wish to join him in those reenactions, some remedy is clearly needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Skapperod has refactored his comment to remove the comment about myself I complained above. This is commendable. Now, if only he and VM could see past their differences... they are both productive editors, but I don't see how they can be made to behave without some community sanctions. I wonder if the we don't need to do as follows: interaction ban on both, civility warning for VM, and ban from AE for Skapperod? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Lothar von Richthofen

Few things here annoy me more than unwarranted resurrection of EEML (“curly quotes” and dynamic IPs might trump that). Really what I see here is the standard back-and-forth of two "national interest groups" which is typical of basically anywhere in the topic realm of Eastern Europe. The phantom mailing list stopped being spooky a long time ago, and invoking its name nowadays just comes off as petty mud-slinging. But neither side has clean hands here. A stern and final warning would be my prescription for this, given that both sides have a lot to contribute to the project in spite of their at-times problematic behaviour. I'm not too keen at all on an interaction ban, given that those have tended to compound problems in the past *cough*Polandball*cough*. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by M.K

Wherever VolunteerMarek goes there will be trouble. I don't like being dragged into these types of his quarrels, least of all involving him. Initially I decided not to comment here, however after noticing user: Volunteer Marek (aka user:Radeksz) insinuations regarding my character I can’t be mute.

VolunteerMarek’s claim of tag teaming is fiction

It seems that I am only editor who edited Königsberg article back in 2008, but still VolunteerMarek is filling various pages emphasizing that I am in some sort of tag team ending with various editors. [162]Herkus, M.K, Skapperod and now you {Estlandia}? We've got a full house here. Have you guys EVER broken ranks and NOT supported each other mindlessly in these discussions?

Then Estlandia is actually Miacek, one of the former members of tag team. Only user: Miacek now renamed user account to user: Estlandia. This clear illustration how desperate this guy to mud other editors and fuel another battleground.

VolunteerMarek’s actions are below any reasonable standard

Just look into his block log and various reactions which this person had. I just scrolled down of the recent VolunteerMarek’s “contributions” and Königsberg article’s talk page is not exception . Behavior like You're lying your ass off, Oh and btw, my query on RSN in regard to your knee-jerk mindless support of your fellow POV pusher is became a standard to this user:

the *real* nationalist edit warriors, like M.K above.
and you're an abusive asshole
fuck off. I could make even more comprehensive list however I am lack timing to searching those diffs.

On the Königsberg article’s talk page past few days VolunteerMarek brought my name at least 9 times if I counted all, in negative context included, like in “disruption”, “tag teaming” etc. Then I brought this name ZERO times. And this is not the isolated article I am afraid. Mostly due to this type of harassment I limited my time on Wikipedia to minimum. Thus I requesting that VolunteerMarek would be placed on interaction ban towards me as I am disgust to see my name all over the place, spammed by this editor. Re-institution of his topic ban should be considered as well, which had only been lifted on the false expectancy that "any relapse is likely to be poorly received." [163]

Good standing editors should be protected

My clean block log perfectly well shows that I am following good editorial practice from all my heart. Yet, I had to limit my time on WP as good standing editors are not protected from similar harassment and mistreatment (most Lithuanian editors departed unable to withstand such level of harassment). I understand that uninvolved administrators are sick and tired from EE conflicts, but failure to act or comparing the EEML to people targetted by them only bolsters such editors like VolunteerMarek. Action should be taken at least now that “knee-jerk mindless support” “you're an abusive asshole” “*real* nationalist edit warriors” harassment would never show up again.

Old WP:EEML is not gone, at least the most of it

I belive that no one can honestly say VolunteerMarek, Piotrus and other members have changed their ways. The same behavior which was stressed during WP:EEML arbitration. Everyone wanted to believe the EEML was gone immediately after the revelation in September 2009. In December new mails leaked again. When does that blind-believer crowd vanish? Apparently, Abd, who had joined the EEML, admitted only last year the EEML still exists. I say it is time to end this now. M.K. (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to VolunteerMarek misleading information

I hoped that with my statement I could point to VolunteerMarek his pastern which is troubling me and hoped that he would knowledge his mistakes and distance himself from them. However after seeing his reply I have no even slightest hopes. As he continuously falsely accuses me of behaving disruptively on the Konigsberg article - spamming {cn} tags among others. In fact I applied no more no less then ZERO {cn} tags in that article. This is another example of desperate VolunteerMarek tactics, to make false claims towards various editors, in hope that neutral editors would not investigate those diffs and take drastic actions involving all parties at least. Not surprisingly that VolunteerMarek is already found to abuse of dispute resolution processes. I kindly suggest neutral editors to be very careful and disregard completely such insinuations. And this is only prove my previous request that I need to be protected form this editor, as his behavior would not change . M.K. (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Vecrumba

I have some knowledge of Königsberg. All VM did was expand content on the role and contribution of Poles to Königsberg as a cultural and intellectual center, content which was all perfectly valid, and which VM kept in its own section, not to glorify Poles but simply to better manage working on expanding content. Rather than other editors expanding the contributions of other ethnic or religious groups, said other editors set upon VM mercilessly, culminating in the crap here.

Lastly, I am FUCKING TIRED of hearing about EEML. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Estlandia

The mere length of the measures already implemented with regard to Volunteer Marek (listed by Skäpperöd under History of disruption by VM and Molobo) reveal, that a more permanent solution is needed. In the light of this, the lifting of Volunteer Marek's topic ban in 2010 has not justified itself. I suggest considering an indefinite topic ban from Eastern European articles for this user, as he is constantly disruptive and edit warring (just on 25 July he broke 3RR, as explained here, followed by a similar violation on 31 July, as explained by Skäpperöd above). Add to this his constant incivility [164], [165], [166], [167] and the harassment of users with a clean blocklog and in good standing like Skäpperöd to get the full picture. Where battleground is, there's Volunteer Marek. Where Volunteer Marek is, there's incivility. Users like that we can do without. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 14:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shrike(uninvolved)

If he really abused Wikipedia email system then to avoid further disruption his email should be blocked.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Verbosity is not equivalent to correctness. If you really need to put that much forth to present your case, please provide a brief summary along with all the detail, so we know what to look for in the detail section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to those who have provided summaries. There's a lot to look through here, I'll try to get to it over this weekend. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SonofSetanta

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning SonofSetanta

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: SonofSetanta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

15:11, 6 August 2012 Revert #1
16:33, 6 August 2012 Revert #2, within 24 hours of the first
12:04, 7 August 2012 Revert #3, within 24 hours of the first
15:30, 6 August 2012 Revert #1 on a different article
11:59, 7 August 2012 Revert #2 on that article, within 24 hours of the first

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Previously blocked 3 times under this remedy.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Since I'm sure I'll get cries of "content dispute" from the usual suspects, I'd better explain this fully. Flexdream initially removed content on 29 July, and was reverted by Nick Cooper. Flexdream then decided to add this content on 31 July, and was reverted by me. In the discussion at Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings#Relevance of IRA bombings I made it clear the addition of the new content was problematic, as was the existing content, but that you don't solve problems with bad content by adding more bad content. I further made it clear why I hadn't removed the prior content at the same time, as the removal of that had already been reverted by Nick Cooper. Nick Cooper hadn't participated in the discussion and no sources have been produced as requested, so the existing problematic content was removed by me. SonofSetanta has restored the new problematic content in revert 1, and the existing problematic content in revert 2. Quite why he's doing this when my removal of the existing problematic content is supposed to solve the dispute is anyone's guess? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No 1RR breach from me, since a self-reverted edit by JonChapple makes my edits consecutive. You'll find reverting content relating to the IRA is very much covered by the Troubles restrictions, try reading them. And there's no "harassment" inolved, you turn up again after months away and revert on two articles without any attempt to take part in the ongoing discussions. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be bothered to correct the laughable attacks and assumptions of bad faith below, except to point out the restriction is "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles" and if that information has got information in it relating to the IRA during the Troubles then, yes, edits to that information are covered by 1RR. That's a long-established principle of what "related" actually means. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 06:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a terrorist bombing carried out by islamists. It has nothing to do with the Troubles. This is blindingly obvious. The 1RR rule only applies to articles about the Troubles, not to any mention of the IRA anywhere on Wikipedia.--FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 08:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If it mentions the IRA, editing those parts of the article is covered by 1RR. That's what "related" means. Or are you suggesting the phrase "More people were killed by the bombings than in any single Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) attack during The Troubles" is nothing to do with the Troubles at all? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3rd revert added. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation added for another article. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has self-reverted that. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to SonofSetanta's spurious allegations below, it seems he is totally unaware of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Corporals killings and the lengthy discussions on that page's talk page. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make that lengthy and pointless discussions, seeing as you have refused to give any reason why you think your version of that article is superior to the suggested alternatives which are backed up by a majority of WP:RS. I asked two days ago for any reason why "killed" is not a suitable NPOV wording for that article, and despite the fact that you've had plenty to say elsewhere your response to that request has been *crickets*.--FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 01:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for editing an article three hours within the time restriction for 1RR. As noted I have self reverted. It is nice to know my mistakes will be pointed out quickly. I feel quite privileged to have my own watchkeeper. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [168]

Discussion concerning SonofSetanta

Statement by SonofSetanta

Firstly: the article 7 July 2005 London bombings is not covered by the 1RR restriction, it is under the 3RR rule. Secondly: If I am guilty of breaking 1RR so is the complainant for his reversions here [[169]] and here [[170]]. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: It needs to be noted that this complaint is part of a campaign of edit warring which the complainant and several others are part of and has resulted in the complainant making three separate cases on this page against me, FergusM1970 and Flexdream. What we are seeing here is gaming on a major scale with the intended result being the subversion of the Wiki. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning SonofSetanta

Statement by Domer48

All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.

The editor is well aware of this.--Domer48_'fenian' 16:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume he's also well aware that the 7/7 bombings had absolutely nothing to do with the Troubles, what with them being carried out in London by islamic terrorists rather than in Londonderry by Irish ones. To apply the Troubles 1RR rule to this is simply absurd.--FergusM1970 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per both NW and Cailil: The diffs presented here show clear and unambiguous breaches of the 1RR and therefor discretionary sanctions apply here. That SonofSetanta, is being discussed above in the thread about FergusM1970 as they have been involved with ongoing problems only compounds the violation. Application of 1RR would prevent the type of disruptive editing at articles such as this. Were having reverted two editors, both of whom have used the talk page to explain their edits, they not only fail to respond on the talk, but cynically attempt to open a dispute resolution process, and then what I consider to be canvassing support from like minded editors [171][172][173], bizarrely giving notice to two Arb's also two of whom have not edited the article? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition:The editor when filing their Dispute resolution notice when asked: Have you discussed this on a talk page? They replied: Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. When asked: Have you tried to resolve this previously? they replied: I, and others, have made all editors aware through the talk page what the facts are and have tried to include the information in the article. This has sparked an edit war with several opposing editors.

However, the editor has never used the talk page, ever and if they did it was not under their current user name? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Domer. It's possible that Fergus and Setanta's apparent bizarre canvassing of Admins is because they don't know about the canvassing rule. Has anyone actually told Fergus or Setanta about it do you know? Regards --Flexdream (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Flexdream, I wasn't aware of it. Now that I am I won't do it again.--FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 01:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea. I didn't canvas however as instinctively I felt that would have been wrong. what I did do was place a notice on Calil's page that a discussion he was involved in had been raised at DRN, in case he wanted to provide input. It was an honest mistake, very much regretted and which won't be repeated. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: This is will probably not endear me with Arbcom, but can I just say this: The 1RR is an Arbcom imposed sanction! Now Arbcom was not set up to police the articles that have editing restrictions, the editors do that. When like now we have editors who repeatedly violate Arbcom imposed sanctions, it is the editors of these articles who come here with a report and Arbcom do the rest. A simple rule for those who want to avoid snactions, is simple, don't violate them. I've engaged in the discussions with these editors, and its a lot more frustrating than anything on this page. If Arbcom had of addressed the first report, I seriously doubt that we would have had the continued disruption we have now. No offense! --Domer48_'fenian' 15:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC) @Cailil: RE: "boomerang" I've no problem with that, if in fact the report is frivolous and there was in fact no violation. But it would seem very arbitrary to sanction an editor who filed a 1rr Arbcom imposed sanction. If for example I was a returning editor, with a clean slate, fresh start an all that, and I acted the maggot, I could understand were your coming from. But my less than glowing record, most of which were reversed, is something I have not ran away from, and I've edited away without a report or any sanctions. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jon C.

This is getting beyond a joke. You're a big boy, Mr Hackney, can't you settle your own disputes without constantly running to the admins? This is not what AE is supposed to be used for. — JonC ^ॐ 19:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is a clear pattern here. ONIH goes straight to AE without any attempt whatsoever to find a compromise. It's also obvious that every 1RR violation he complains about involves the same small group of editors who repeat his reverts. It's very hard to escape the conclusion that a tag-team is operating on anything that might cast Irish Republican terrorists in a bad light.--FergusM1970 (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FergusM1970

This is the third time this editor has gone to AE in the past four days, all to do with 1RR violations and all to do with edits which have presented an image of the IRA which he happens not to like. On no occasion has he engaged in any attempt to find a compromise or discuss meaningfully on talk pages, preferring to accuse the other party of not knowing what they are talking about. When I raised a DRN in an attempt to solve a content dispute he ignored it, and only became involved in mediation after admins dealing with his complaint against me began expressing a desire for a resolution to the dispute rather than AE action. At the same time he contributes little or no content to Wikipedia himself; his edit history consists almost entirely of reverts. It seems likely that his only aim is to push his own POV regarding the Troubles and that he is not above gaming WP rules to do so.--FergusM1970 (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Flexdream

Domer quotes that "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related." An article on the London 7/7 bombings, which has no Irish connection or dimension, cannot reasonably be construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland. 1RR does not apply. This rush to AE is an abuse of process and should be treated accordingly. --Flexdream (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused now. The complainant has removed from the London 7/7 article the references to the IRA [[174]] and seems to now be agreeing with my making the same edit [175] when I made the comment that the IRA was irrelevant. So the complainant seems to agree with me that the IRA is irrelevant. The London 7/7 article is not Troubles related for 1RR, and even the complainant seems to think that by the edit they have made which is a repeat of the edit I made. And now they raise an AE on the basis that the article is Troubles related for 1RR? I don't follow the reasoning. --Flexdream (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@NW I find your analogy hard to follow. Your analogy seems to be taking two incidents in Japanese/American relations and comparing them. The attack on Pearl Harbour is obviously relevant to Japanes/American relations - but was the sinking of the USS Maine relevant? What if you had an editor trying to insert the sinking of the USS Maine into an article about Pearl Harbour? How does an article about an Islamic terrorist attack on London, relate to IRA attacks when there is no link of Irish or IRA involvement? I think its better to keep it simple. Whether the article is Troubles related determines whether it is subject to 1RR determines whether, which and on whom sanctions should be applied. I wouldn't preclude other admins expressing an opinion. Regards. --Flexdream (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the simplified version: Pearl Harbor is of course relevant to US/Japan relations. 9/11 is not, normally. If someone is trying to push material about US/Japan relations into the 9/11 article, then their behavior is sanctionable per US/Japan discretionary sanctions. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter on which articles the edits were made; what matters is whether the edits themselves are related to the Troubles dispute. And here they clearly are. NW (Talk) 22:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@NW Thanks, that's a much clearer explanation. I always thought the Troubles restriction applied to articles, not the edits which may have been inserted into articles. That's how I interpret "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland". I still don't see how the London 7/7 article can be reasonably construed as Troubles related because someone had inserted an IRA link into it. I doubt that I'm alone in my understanding. The complainant and I both agree the IRA link does not belong in this article. So I repeat, how can an article be Troubles related for this complaint, when the complainant does not think it should have an IRA reference? I'd welcome comments from others on what their interpretation is now that you and I have established what we think it is. Regards. --Flexdream (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade. It's an assumption to say of Setanta that they were "disingenuous to then claim they had no idea the restrictions applied there". Setanta thought 3RR restrictions applied, if you assume good faith. They were never made aware that 1RR applied and given a chance to accept that. Instead this AE was raised against them. I am not the only editor to have pointed out here that even the complainant, Hackney, has edited to remove all mention of the IRA from the London 7/7 article [[176]]. I think Setanta's position is credible.--Flexdream (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Son of Setanta

I would call on adjudicating editors to be aware of the Statement by Steven Zhang above (under the FergusM1970 complaint) which states clearly that the editors in opposition here, including the complainant, have refused to take part in dispute resolution regarding the complaint against Fergus. With this knowledge it should be obvious to anyone that resolution is not the agenda of Hackney and his associates. Rather we are seeing attempts to subvert the Wiki to their own aim - the glorification of the Provisional IRA. This has been going on for years but so far the well intended volunteers who do their best to police the Wiki have been unable to find a solution to it. I would respectfully suggest a very long term ban on Hackney for a start and perhaps the same for Domer48. These two seem to be the main exponents of the bullying which stops other editors from removing POV from articles which contain references to the Provisional IRA. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* I also respectfully submit that perhaps adjudicators might examine the number of 1RR complaints made by all particpiants in this discussion on articles relating to the Troubles. I believe the results would be quite interesting. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Crystalfile

How does this have anything to do with IRA? One night in Hackney claims this one sentence is the link - "More people were killed by the bombings than in any single Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) attack during The Troubles" and even he removes this from the article! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=7_July_2005_London_bombings&diff=prev&oldid=506086508 He is trying to get editor in trouble unfairly.

@Calil

I have not breached 1RR. The London Bombings are a 3RR page. On the other occasion where I inadvertantly breached 1RR on another page I reverted myself with an apology. Could you outline please anywhere where you allege I have actually breached the protocol? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution has now been requested by me here [Republican Army] to try and resolve the issue I am involved in. I respectfully suggest that adjudication here be suspended pending the outcome of such resolution. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Calil I honestly can't see how claiming the London Bombings page is wikilawering and request you withdraw such a spurious comment. The page is not about the Northern Ireland Troubles. Simple as that. The reference to PIRA was simply a bit of interest and I couldn't understand why it was continually deleted. I've lost interest in it now anyway. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Calil. I included your page on the DRN as a courtesy. You are involved in a discussion concerning the subject matter. No disrespect is intended, just courtesy. I am truly sorry you have misinterpreted my efforts. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully request comment from other sysops on this matter. I feel I am being corralled because I made one mistake which I immediately reverted. The other issue is abundantly clear. I made two or three edits on a 3RR page - nothing to do with the Irish troubles. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Seraphimblade. I did not however bring a Troubles related item to a 3RR page. I reintroduced a fact which did not alter the status of the article in any way. We have to accept that the Troubles happened and there are statistics out there concerning the general British public which, while referring to the Troubles, do not make the article Troubles related. I could have used statistics from the Blitz but it wouldn't make the article Blitz-related. I feel that's a better analogy. The fact remains that this is, in my humble opinion, a spurious complaint by someone who regularly uses 1RR complaints to control editors whose prose he doesn't like. I request that the matter be closed and warnings issued. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Calil. I do not wish to appear disrespectful but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that you are an Irish editor and whilst I extend every good faith to you, as I hope you do to I, your input could be misconstrued, as mine is. I would also respectfully ask you to note that every case here has been made by a certain group of editors who have violation histories of their own. My own opinion is that I, Fergus and Flexdream should be guided through this difficult time in our editing history with Wikipedia. The people making the complaints should receive some guidance as well to avoid turning minor infringements into complaints in the future. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Calil. I have no wish to breach any Wikipedia etiquette but I would like my own edits to be taken in good faith. The people who are complaining about me here are the same people who hounded me on the Ulster Defence Regiment page when I was a novice editor just six months ago. I have returned to edit in my areas of interest and whilst I may have made one or two silly mistakes my intentions are good but I have been set about by the same people, all of whom have long histories in edit warring on Troubles articles. As you can see by the way I've engaged recently my behaviour pattern is not the same as it was eight months ago. I have taken deep breaths and not become personally involved. I am less quick to react and taking on board every piece of advice given to me. I would appreciate your guidance too in adapting a style of editing which suits the more controversial articles. I can't do that however when my every move is watched and my every mistake reported as a misdemeanour. Have you looked at some of the articles I have written, or the ones where I have successfully edited without difficulty? That is the type of effort I am bringing to the table here - not an edit warring style. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Seraphimblade. With respect but you are mistaken. There is no battleground mentality on my part. Just a fear that I am being gamed into a corner for these marginal difficulties. All my edits are being made in good faith and I'd like to see evidence from the other particpants on the articles that they accept this rather than reporting me for every little thing and refusing to take part in DRN. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the other complaint has been closed I request that this one be as well. The comments by sysops on the other one were clear, these were marginal errors held up by the complainant as deliberate edit warring. There has been no perpetuation of that by me and I respectfully seek closure. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After a six month voluntary break I was expecting an easier ride but hey ho. If sanctions for all are what it takes to calm down this gaming then I volunteer to be included to show fair play. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning SonofSetanta

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I'm not going comment yet on whether I feel sanctions or 1RR is warranted. But here's my position on whether the article falls under sanctions or not in the form of a thought experiment:
Imagine that in 2050, relations between America and Japan have deteriorated significantly. The attack on Pearl Harbor is no longer seen just as a surprise military attack in violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact but nothing less than state-sponsored terrorism. An anti-Japanese editor goes to September 11 attacks and repeatedly inserts into the lead the phrase “while the attacks killed more people than any previous incident in American history, it was not as damaging as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (1941).” This edit is opposed by the normal editors of the page, who feel that comparisons with Pearl Harbor are too much of a stretch to include in the lead. But our anti-Japanese editor is insistent and opposed to all reason and is acting in a nationalistic fashion that we see today in Israel-Palestine or Eastern Europe disputes. I would hope that you would agree with me that the root cause of the dispute is not anything about September 11 but is instead about America-Japanese relations (broadly construed). If there were discretionary sanctions on that topic, I would not hesitate to apply them.
That’s my position anyway, that discretionary sanctions apply here. The rest of the analogy is not to be taken as stated; I haven’t more than glanced at SonofSetanta’s edits. But any further comments from other editors should focus on whether he should be sanctioned, not whether the article falls under WP:TROUBLES. NW (Talk) 17:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a procedural note. This editor, SonofSetanta, is being discussed above in the thread about FergusM1970 as they have been involved with ongoing problems being examined in that request. Besides that the diffs presented here show clear and unambiguous breaches of the 1RR - a 3 month ban for SonofSetanta is being mooted above taking in to account both the conduct presented here and other issues--Cailil ^talk 12:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SonofSetanta: NuclearWarfare has explain this above my comment. Putting it very simply: WP:TROUBLES and its remedies cover any and all edits relating to that topic (widely construed) in any article anywhere on en-wikipedia. Your edit referenced the Omagh bombing - an event from The Troubles and thus your edits are covered by the ruling. End of story.
Also please desist from wikilawyering it will not help your case - if other sysops disagree with me they will say so-Cailil ^talk 17:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to warn you SonofSetanta edits like this[177] look a lot like you are trying to muddy the waters. I am commenting here as a sysop in determining wether you have breached an arbitration remedy. I am not in any way involved in any edits relating to this topic. You cannot use WP:DRN to evade sanctions and/or otherwise grief process--Cailil ^talk 17:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with NW and Cailil that the Troubles restrictions clearly are intended to cover Troubles-related areas and edits, wherever those may lie. If an editor is bringing Troubles-related edits to a previously unrelated article, I think it's pretty disingenuous to then claim they had no idea the restrictions applied there. I fully endorse NW's 9-11 example as an analogy to the situation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those who recall my telling someone (under topic ban sanction at the time) not to edit an article about a bird found in Ireland if they wanted to be absolutely certain not to edit Troubles related articles will not be surprised when I concur with NW et al; this falls under the Troubles and is subject to the sanctions therein. That said, I am willing to concede that it may not have been clear to the editor at the time that this article would fall under such sanctions, and advise applying limited 1RR moving forward, with no further sanctions. Should SonofSetanta or any of the other editors involved in this case appear here again, of course, we will have to consider stronger measures. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KC just BTW Son of Stenata is being discussed above in the thread on FergusM1970, and below for further (borderline) violations. Given the full panoply of behaviour here the time for warnings is past. Furthermore they have once again been edit-warring. I am of a mind that Son of Setanta and all the parties listed above in the FergusM1970 thread should be topic banned for 3 months at a minimum. I'm not precluding boomerang for inappropriate reports either (in reference to the below). There is a morase of inappropriate behaviour in this topic by the 5 or 6 same editors for the last 10 days--Cailil ^talk 15:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add further that SoS was topic banned under WP:TROUBLES for 90 days this January--Cailil ^talk 16:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SoS: It is highly inappropriate to equate a person's place of birth with a point of view, that kind of ad hominem has no place on this site as it is a breach both of our talk page guidelines and civility policies. I will remind you that british sysops like HJ Mitchell also enforce WP:TROUBLEs because where any us come from has ZERO bearing on the issues. None of us are "involved" in a content issue related to the subject, none of us have ever edited in that topic area, and our decisions are being made as a group rather than individually. Anyone's place of birth has precisely zero bearing on your conduct, and you are not helping yourself by engaging in such remarks. I will advise you that no matter how politely phrased a personal attack is it remains incivil--Cailil ^talk 16:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And SoS, in case you need to hear it from someone else, I'm American, and have no opinion regarding the Troubles other than that it's a terrible shame they happened at all. If I saw an "uninvolved" admin acting with bias or malice here, I would not hesitate to call them out for it. Not only have I seen Cailil act very fairly in many areas including this one, but I had no idea Cailil was Irish until you said so, so I think that pretty much answers the question of bias. Implying that someone should recuse because of their nationality, apart from any actual display of bias, is indicative of a battleground mindset and totally unacceptable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pristino

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Pristino

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Netoholic @ 14:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Pristino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3#Remedies - User:Cantus was banned from editing certain articles (like developed country), was reminded to provide adequate edit summaries, is limited to one revert per article or other page per 30-day period, and an admin may ban him for up to a month if found using a verifiable sockpuppet. There were also 2 prior cases Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco#Remedies & Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus#Remedies. Some additional known ban-evading sockpuppets are Gznorneplatz, Cantus2, Wikified, Yangun and Kiw.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Establishing Pristino as the current sockpuppet of Cantus (and CieloEstrellado as interim sockpuppet)
1. Cantus (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) edited almost exclusively on articles related to Chile and various lists related to country populations and economies. Here are examples of some articles that are highly edited by Cantus, Pristino, and CieloEstrellado (notice how their first and last edits dovetail): List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, Public holidays in Chile, Chilean presidential election, 2009–2010, Michelle Bachelet to name only a few.
2. 2006-04-23 - Cantus "leaves" Wikipedia after recieving a one-month ban for being found using a sock puppet to evade other editing restrictions.
3. 2006-05-06 - CieloEstrellado (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) begins editing on the same topics as Cantus.
4. 2009-07-13 - CieloEstrellado is blocked for edit warring on Public holidays in Chile and posts a "Leaving Wikipedia" message. CieloEstrellado's actual final edit is later on 2009-07-19 to revert Chile.
5. 2009-07-15 - Pristino (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) begins editing on the same topics as Cantus, CieloEstrellado, and other known sockpuppets.
6. 2009-12-19 - Pristino updates File:Chilean presidential election 2005 October November 2005 opinion polls.png which was created by Cantus.
7. 2011-08-02 - Pristino updates File:Chilean notes.jpg which was created by Cantus and also updated by CieloEstrellado while he was active.
Pristino (Cantus) has violated specific page ban on developed country 77 times (and 162 times as CieloEstrellado).
Pristino (Cantus) continues to not provide adequate edit summaries, especially for major changes.
Pristino (Cantus) maintains his hawklike vigilance over the pages that interest him, reverting without explanation, and often reverting multiple times per month in violation of prior ArbCom remedy. Citing only a couple very recent examples:
1. Tomás González (gymnast) was reverted by Pristino 3 times in August: [178], [179], [180]. This page has also had a couple of move wars ([181], [182]) which he reverted again recently and then locked the redirect with an edit to "win".
2. List of countries by GDP sector composition was reverted by Pristino 3 times in July: [183], [184], [185]
3. List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita was reverted by Pristino 6 times in July: [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191]
4. List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita was reverted by Pristino ~10 times in July/June over the entry for Hong Kong in the list (full page history).

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

This is (I think) the first time that its being revealed that Pristino is Cantus, there've been no warnings related to his specific Arb Com restrictions. Creating a new sock puppet to evade bans and those ArbCom remedies is a flagrant act in itself.

Warned on 2012-08-01 about edit summaries by Diego Grez (talk · contribs)
Warned on 2012-07-24 about edit summaries by Chzz (talk · contribs)
Warned on 2010-01-09 about edit summaries by Neon Sky (talk · contribs)
Warned on 2010-01-08 about revert warring by Neon Sky (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Pristino is the latest name in a long series belonging to the editor Cantus, who was the subject of 3 prior arbitration cases. Every time one of the harsher bans is imposed, this person creates a new account and begins to do precisely the same activity they were banned for. In exposing this, it is my hope that his status as a sockpuppet becomes documented and well known, that he be held to the same restrictions and remedies of the previous cases, or perhaps that his disregard for those previous cases by creating new sockpuppets will result in an even more permanent remedy. Netoholic @ 14:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I have notified Pristino about this. Netoholic @ 14:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Pristino

Statement by Pristino

Comments by others about the request concerning Pristino

Result concerning Pristino

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

After looking through everything here, I have to agree that Pristino is way too much like Cantus to be a coincidence. I don't really know what the best course of action to take is, though; thoughts on that would be appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the other Blade that the similarities are almost certainly not coincidental, and the Cantus account is too old to checkuser. Given that Pristino has not explained what's going on here, I suggest we move forth under the presumption that Pristino is the same editor as Cantus. Cantus has a history of socking already and is clearly aware that evasion of scrutiny is unacceptable, so I would have no objection to indefinitely banning Cantus from Wikipedia. If that does not happen, I would suggest an indefinite requirement that Cantus must use one and only one account to edit from, must link that account clearly to Cantus so that other editors are aware of the sanctions Cantus is under, and that Cantus be clearly notified that any further socking is almost certain to lead to an indefinite ban from editing at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alssa1

Blocked 48 hours for 1RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Alssa1

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Domer48_'fenian' 13:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Alssa1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

15:22, 9 August 2012 Revert #1
12:04, 10 August 2012 Revert #2, within 24 hours of the first
12:43, 10 August 2012 Revert #3, within 24 hours of the first

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Warned on 12:24, 10 August 2012 by Domer48 (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I made the editor aware of the 1RR which the instantly removed. They have been inserting their opinion into the article, without using the talk page at all. With all the nonsense going on at the moment, this is very disruptive and flouts both 1RR and the Arbcom who instated it to prevent editwarring.

The editors comments below, after blanking some of the report suggest that they are well aware that they violated the 1RR. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having blanked some of this request, the editor made the following comment here which I removed while reverting their blanking. I replaced their comments here noting its removal. The editor now claims not to have made this comment. With the arrival of the same two editors here and their offers of support and the suggestion of yet again oops my bad, followed by their assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks I'll simply allow the report to take its natural course. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the editor seems intent on escalating this dispute by targeting other articles here and here.--Domer48_'fenian' 17:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion does not bode well. This from an as we say uninvolved editor. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [192]

Discussion concerning Alssa1

Comments by Alssa1

If someone would someone like to explain what the problem is, it would be greatly appreciated. Alssa1 (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOVED by KillerChihuahua from the Results section. Allsa1, keep your comments HERE. Do not comment in other sections. KillerChihuahua 18:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested information about what the fuss is about and I have received nothing. No one has told me that I had to stop editing entirely.

What are you wanting me to say? Alssa1 (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored content: part of a botched edit[193] which was reverted[194]

It is "flippent" because I have no idea what the problem is and rather than explaining it to me you reprimand me for putting my question in the wrong section. Alssa1 (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Alssa1

Statement by Flexdream

It seems to me that Alssa1 has broken 1RR. I suggest they be advised by an admin of the rule, warned not to breach it again, and asked to open a section on the relevant talk page to discuss the proposed edit. Then I suggest that this case is closed and we all go back to what we were doing before.--Flexdream (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant article talk page amended for discussion [[195]]. I suggest this AE now be closed as above.--Flexdream (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Domer has accused me of "offers of support and the suggestion of yet again oops my bad, followed by their assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks" [[196]]. Where have I done any of that? Quite the contrary. --Flexdream (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@KillerChihuahua. I think Alssa just doesn't know how the system works. I've found them responsive to guidance[[197]]. There is now a discussion there which I started, and the 2 editors are participating [[198]]. Although either editor could have started this earlier, I think it might be an idea to see how that goes before imposing any sanctions. Regards. --Flexdream (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Son of Setanta

I agree with Flexdream. Here we have an ordinary Wikipedian being set upon by a known gamer who has raised more 1RR requests than I've had hot dinners. There has been no discussion on the article talk page about this and no attempt to guide Alssa1, just a bludgeoning by 1RR. As someone who fell victim to the very same trick once I would appeal to sysops to issue guidance rather than a ban. The Wikipedia experience needs to less stressful otherwise we will lose some good editors when they stray into contentious zones they have no experience of. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

I'm not really following this dispute closely, but I am disturbed that Alssa1 is marking (some) contentious edits as "minor".[199][200] Contentious edits should not be marked as minor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Alssa1 has responded to my comment on my user talk page.[201] I consider their response a positive step forward. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by aprock

Given Alssa1's contribution history [202], only 237 edits over the last three years with none in "WP" space till now, it appears that WP:BITE applies here. Given the cryptic nature of the enforcement request ("1RR", "AE Case", "Arbcom", communication through templates, etc), I suggest treating Alssa1 to clear guidance, offering a clear explanation of what the problem is and what the editor should do in the future. aprock (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Alssa1

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I note with some concern that Alssa1 has removed[203] the notification of this discussion at least twice[204] without making it clear whether he or she plans to respond. Has the need to respond been made clear? Are we certain Alssa1 is aware that non-response will almost certainly lead to more serious sanctions? If we have no response here from the editor, we must assume that the editor is not taking this seriously and has no plans to cease any possible problematic behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the concerns KC brings up, Alssa1 also attempted to blank a part of this request: [205]. Choosing to attempt removal of the request, rather than response to it, does not give me a lot of confidence that a warning alone will do any good here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting that, I did not see that. This does give me pause. I will attempt to explain the seriousness of this to Alssa1. KillerChihuahua^?!? 07:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a notice here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved comment by Alssa1 to the appropriate section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Alssa1 has continued to edit on other topics without responding to KillerChihuahua's warning. It seems to me that a 48 hour block is a reasonable way to get their attention. This might persuade them to wait for consensus before making controversial changes. Check their recent contributions for a small edit war on articles about various Saudi notables. Alssa1's changes to those articles seem to have been reverted by others. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with EdJohnston. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allsa1 has asked a question, which seems a bit flippant, but which also leads me to believe s/he has not even read the complaint against him or her. Allsa1: please scroll up to the beginning of this section, just below your name and just below "Attention: This request may be declined without further action if ..." and read all the written AND linked content. If you are still confused, ask a specific question regarding the charges against you, and do not ask for someone to "explain it" as though detailed information were not already provided here. Meanwhile, I advise you cease any editing which might be considered at all controversial, and concentrate on this AE case until it is resolved. You must take this seriously and give it your attention and efforts in order to provide us with a workable response which addresses the allegations. Failure to do so may be met with sanctions, as you can see by the comments above in this section. Do NOT comment in this section. Comment in YOUR section, above, which I made for you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that prior to placing a complaint that I failed to explain to her the issue, I did not only advise her to read the content contained in this AE request, but also took the extra step of linking to that precise edit here[206] on her talk page, to ensure she was aware of it. I'm beginning to think we're being trolled. She clearly read up to the word "flippant" but apparently doesn't want to be bothered reading the case, the allegations, or bothering to respond to the charges against her at all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Ed a 48 hour block might help here. I don't think Alssa1 is taking any of the RFAR remedies seriously. Their behaviour here as well as their continuing inappropriate conduct in the topic demonstrate either a lack of competence, or an unwillingness, to abide by site standards for behaviour--Cailil ^talk 21:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closing with a 48-hour block of Alssa1. See also this edit, in which Alssa1 blanked part of the AE discussion at 19:49 on 12 August. Someone who has trouble editing a talk page without doing damage should not be making aggressive changes to multiple articles. They should get more familiar with Wikipedia first. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SonofSetanta

Request declined. NW (Talk) 13:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning SonofSetanta

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Domer48_'fenian' 14:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: SonofSetanta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

17:01, 10 August 2012 Revert #1 To their preferred version here
11:41, 11 August 2012 Revert #2, within 24 hours of the first. Again to their preferred version.

"...reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of any editors."

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Previously blocked 3 times under this remedy.
Subject of a report currently being discussed above and who violated additional 1RR sanction while that report is still open.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: There really is not much more to say about this editor. At the mediation discussion they misrepresented sources on two occasions, again at the DNR were they filed another report they were told there that they were using WP:OR and despited the diff they editor claims that they did not say it?

Arbcom will notice when looking at the edits just how contentious they are, and likewise just how disruptive the actions. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The editor is again being very misleading by suggesting that this edit was discussed, it was not, quite the opposite infact. The edit was simply reverted because of its contentiousness.--Domer48_'fenian' 15:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: The IRA has called a complete cessation of military operations but have not disbanded. Dissident republicans have used this vacuum to initiate a military campaign in a challenge to the IRA in what some would call a futile attempt to get the IRA to react i.e. Bring down the peace process in Ireland. Maybe your understanding of the issue would dictate your reasoning. Regardless, 1RR is an Arbcom imposed sanction, and this is a violation of that sanction. The third in fact in the last number of days, by an editor who has been sanctioned 3 times already. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I can fully understand that to you " it seems like such an utter non-issue" I get that. But I also understand that this is not the place to discuss it. All I will say on it is this, on an Article on the IRA, for an editor to come along and say that they no longer exist, well that is a big claim to make. Big claims need very good sources, on that I hope we can agree. Edits like that on Articles covered by Arbcom imposed sanctions, make this all the more relevant, as noted by Arbcom. I hope we can agree on that much also. Thanks again.--Domer48_'fenian' 21:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@KillerChihuahua: I agree, for frivolous complaints sanctions are correct. However, sanctions for editors who file a report at Arbcom Enforcement, for a violation of an Arbcom imposed sanction (1RR) seems, well wrong to me some how. If an editor has a history of violating Arbcom sanctions, even while there is an active report, twice, were should an editor go? If however, you don't see just how disruptive the difference between "is" and "was" in the context of the IRA, well pointing it out to you will not make a blind bit of difference. Anyhow, Arbcom don't do content disputes? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: Just so I'm sure, what is a "technical violation"? You described this report and the reverts as "(borderline) violations" and the report itself as inappropriate" while "not precluding boomerang for inappropriate reports". For example, in the report above, on the same editor, we have these reverts which violate the 1RR:

15:11, 6 August 2012 Revert #1
16:33, 6 August 2012 Revert #2, within 24 hours of the first
12:04, 7 August 2012 Revert #3, within 24 hours of the first

The context here being that we have, despite the ongoing report on another editor which this editor is a party to above, violates the 1RR. Having violated the 1RR and having this report filed against them, they then violated the 1RR again a second time with these edits:

15:30, 6 August 2012 Revert #1 on a different article
11:59, 7 August 2012 Revert #2 on that article, within 24 hours of the first

Now having violated the 1RR on two occasions since this started and the report on them still open, and discussions still ongoing on the report at the top of this page, they then violate the 1RR for a third time with the edits I provided for this report which you have taken issue with. In the interest of fairness, could you explain to me what the differences are between these violations, so I don't make any error in the future. Thanks,--Domer48_'fenian' 13:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is my understanding of a revert based as it is on WP:REVERT: On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of any editors.

I would for example consider these edits as reverts made today, am I right or wrong?:

12:38, 13 August 2012 This I will assume is a clear revert?
13:49, 13 August 2012 Would this one be a revert.
14:08, 13 August 2012 Or would this one be a rever?

The view of DRN is illustrative of the editors edits. These comments should also be considered, here [207][208][209][210].

Clarity would really help, I'd rather be told how I'm wrong now, then be told like now and possibly later. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the above post by myself I consider this relevent. This editor has now been told that they are editwarring to insert their changes by the volunteer at DRN. They were told the same on their own talk page that they appear to be forcing your changes despite the DRN being open... and were told on the volunteers talk page that they were forcing your changes through anyway despite the DRN thread. They were told out straight that they ...have made...changes despite them being reverted, then...made them again, that is edit warring (some support is not enough, you need consensus). --Domer48_'fenian' 16:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Domer if I waited for your permission to edit the article it would never happen. As things stand I have removed very little from it but added much, including an image which was desperately needed. I have invited you to join in on the talk page but you haven't. I ask you to show good faith and I apologise to sysops for engaging with Domer here but it seemed like the right thing to do. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning FergusM1970

What's so disruptive about it? The IRA is gone. Gerry Adams says so. Or is he not a reliable source? Do you think he might be lying?--FergusM1970^{The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on.} 03:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [211]

Discussion concerning SonofSetanta

Statement by SonofSetanta

This is not a 1RR violation. The content within the revert is one word - just one word and it refers to a piece within the article which clearly states that my revert is correct and I quote that on the revert. This complaint is frivolous and shows that the complainant is policing my activities on Wikipedia. The 1RR rule was established to stop edit warring on these articles, not to stop editing on them. Self revert carried out whilst complaints procedure is under way and subject introduced to talk page for discussion. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might also add that my revert on this article was both on a new day (for me) and as part of a larger rewrite which I have announced on the talk page whilst inviting others to take part. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The complainant is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill. He has studiously ignored the fact that Scolaire (talk) and I are engaged in meaningful discussion regarding the article and that he has tidied up other edits I made on the page yesterday which I have not modified in any way. If Domer wishes to join the discussion on the article talk page then his opinions could be noted. He has chosen to make contentious comments however trying to damn particular editors (mostly me). I don't feel I'm being shown much in the way of good faith here. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To all visiting sysops: Before taking my block list into consideration I invite you to examine the complainants block list here [212]]. while he may have modified his behaviour recently he is refusing to acknowledge the help, guidance and chances he had from various sysops and denying me, the less experienced user, the chance to modify any aberrant behaviour which has been committed incidentally to my good intentions when editing. In fact he has been on my case since the day I joined the wiki. Notwithstanding that I have not yet even revisited the article where I had so much difficulty in October 2011 and January 2012. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Calil. Thank you. I applaud your appreciation of the situation, it mirrors mine. You, and other sysops on this complaint, have shown me the depth of wisdom I was hoping to find. I respectfully request that you note the complainant's absence from the discussions here [[213]] and at DRN here [[214]] where I have invited discussion on these very issues and the article in question. My own belief is that it is very difficult for sysops to get an overall picture unless one is allocated to every article under dispute but I am very keen to point out that I for one am trying to discuss the issues I have opinions on and wish to make edits to reflect. It is difficult however when so many gang up on one to try and force their own POV through. This does lead to some frustration and errors. If an AE complaint is made everytime an edit is tried it stalls any movement on the article and my own personal opinion is that this is deliberate. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I request it be noted that the complainant has failed to engage in discussion at DRN about the article where I have been accused of violateing 1RR - here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the real reasons for this complaint and the one above in the first place I would ask sysops to note that no further marginal violations have taken place. I have raised a DRN which the complainant and others (including the previous complainant) did not join. I am currently working on one article only at Provisional IRA which is one of the most contentious concerning The Troubles and, apart from protests on the talk page from the complainant, the discussion is going well and has been productive both in terms of resolution and to the benefit of the article. I respectfully suggest then that this complaint WAS frivolous, as was the above one against me, and request they both be closed. I note the comments of the sysops regarding this page being used as a weapon and hope this has been noted by the complainants as it echoes my feelings. I give an undertaking here not to engage in any form of edit warring in the future. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning SonofSetanta

Result concerning SonofSetanta

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I have to agree this strikes me as making a mountain out of a molehill; I'm really not seeing it here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Domer48, my understanding of the situation on this issue isn't what's dictating my view; it's that it seems like such an utter non-issue. Yes, a user violated 1RR, but it was very minor and caused no real major issue. There's a reason we don't have bots to automatically hand out blocks if someone reverts more than once; that's why they're called discretionary sanctions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur, and remind complainant that sanctions can and do occur for frivolous complaints, and advise s/he be less hasty to run here next time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is a technical violation here, I agree with TBotNL that discretionary sanctions should not be subject to a blind robotic logic. Given the context that there have been warnings to others about using this board as a weapon and given that the behaviour of all parties involved in this tit for tat dispute on and off this board the topic area would better off with you all "out of the pool". I would also note that tit for tat editing is itself noted as an issue in the WP:TROUBLES ruling (even if that kind of 'tit for tat' is slightly different). Suggest closing without action but adding this incident to wider issue in the FergusM1970 thread above--Cailil ^talk 14:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crystalfile

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Crystalfile

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy 16:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Crystalfile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

09:25, 12 August 2012 BLP violation, essentially a revert of material removed on BLP grounds and discussed on the talk page, without the user saying one word on the talk page

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Blocked for violating 1RR, logged as a notification of the case

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In the last weeks, Crystalfile has amassed a collection of terrible edits. Edits that demonstrate his inability to do anything other than push a rabid pro-Israel or anti-whatever-he/she-thinks-is-anti-Israel POV in a range of articles. In the above edit, the user writes that Amira Hass, a Ha'aretz reporter working in Gaza, "falsely reported" what Palestinians relayed were eyewitness accounts. No source says that Palestinians did not say what Hass reported. A similar edit was reverted, with an explicit claim of BLP, and discussed on the talk page. The user has previously been informed of WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content when he tried to edit-war such violating edits at Ahmed el-Tayeb. Among other such terrible edits is this in which he labels a reporter (and a living person) an anti-Israel activist on the say-so of one reporter. Such defaming edits should not be acceptable in any topic area, much less one covered under discretionary sanctions. If one were to compare his edits to Khalil al-Mughrabi, or Faris Odeh, or Muhammad al-Durrah incident, with articles such as The murder of Yehuda Shoham they will quickly see a pattern of attempting to remove anything that reflects poorly on Israel and magnifying anything that reflects poorly on the Palestinians. Purely agenda-based editing without even the semblance of an attempt at neutrally covering the issues. We do not need more editors like this, we need less. The past weeks with this editor active have been much worse than most of what I remember from the last several years. I am not the only one seeing a problem here, see for example User_talk:Zad68#Wiki_voice. nableezy - 16:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And a note for the below, WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content is about as clear as any policy that Wikipedia has. It is rather short as well. Feel free to give it a read. nableezy - 16:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blade, I think the biggest problem in the edit is that it says that a professional reporter falsely reported material that she attributed to Palestinian accounts. No source says that she made any of this up, and it approaches libel for somebody to say that she did. nableezy - 17:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crystalfile, Im sorry, but the court found that the accounts were false, not that Hass made up the accounts, which is what your edit says she did. And further, you reverted an edit made on BLP grounds, something that is specifically prohibited under policy, a policy that you had been informed of prior to this incident. nableezy - 17:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that piece was an op-ed written by CAMERA executive director Andrea Levin. Not a reliable source, and certainly not one to be used to make such accusations against living people in Wikipedia's voice. nableezy - 17:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Activism (perfectly descriptive username by the way), I attributed an op-ed to the author. You want to change the cited source, go right ahead. Id love to get a CAMERA op-ed out of a BLP. And that second edit is not a revert, not even a little bit. It is so very nice to have such attentive admirers, but making such silly claims is simply a distraction. nableezy - 18:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crystalfile, I do not want you punished for no reason. I would like you removed from the topic area because you make terrible edit after terrible edit. That can be seen in your edits to, for example, Ben White (journalist), Ahmed el-Tayeb, Al-Azhar Mosque, Khalil al-Mughrabi (including the deletion discussion), 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle, and Yasser Arafat, and probably every other article you have edited. You routinely engage in tag-teaming edit-warring, you follow people from article to article, and your talk page comments are a collection of assertions without evidence and unintelligible rambling. You are, to put it bluntly, the exact opposite of what the topic area needs. Your view of policy shifts 180 degrees depending depending on, and only on, whether the subject is Palestinian or Israeli. Your endless supply of "me too" reverts is plainly disruptive. Your repeated dragging up of settled disputes is beyond annoying. I have little patience for people whose view of policy is so malleable that they can simultaneously make two opposing arguments depending solely on which argument benefits their favored "side". That is pretty much all you have done here. That doesnt even begin to get into the obvious meat-puppetry, what with you reverting edits, word for word, from weeks and months prior to you registering this account. nableezy - 18:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list of my "reverts" and "false attribution" demonstrate that Crystalfile lacks the competence to edit in this area, and perhaps any. It is exceedingly difficult for him or her to understand the most basic arguments, and he repeats bogus claims endlessly. This may not have been the best example of his disruptive behavior, but the totality of his edits demonstrate that he should not be allowed near these articles. nableezy - 15:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Crystalfile

Statement by Crystalfile

The previous source showed Hass was convicted for libel for wrong information -

"The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court yesterday ordered Ha'aretz journalist Amira Hass to pay NIS 250,000, plus NIS 18,000 for court costs, to the Jewish community of Beit Hadassah in Hebron for publishing false accounts that vilified the residents..."

"Judge Rachel Shalev-Gartel concluded in favor of the residents' claim that the report - disproven by several televised accounts of the incident - damaged the community's reputation."

I added this source which says:

"Reporter Amira Hass, for example, has recently been ordered by the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court to pay NIS 250,000 in damages to the Jewish community of Beit Hadassah in Hebron for her false report that Jewish residents there had abused the corpse of an Arab shot dead by the Border Police during a hot pursuit. The allegations were disproved by multiple televised accounts of the event."

This is frivilous POV complaint. This was:

first time I ever edited this article and I didnt revert anybody not even once!
All i did was changed language according to that of sources and added a new source.

I see he was recently told by KillerChihuahua that "advise Nableezy to be more circumspect about what cases he brings here" and "We do not sanction people for making good faith edits and then abiding by the decision they did not improve the article." Crystalfile (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy reverts

Nableezy made this edit undoing activism1234 and this edit which wrongly changed attribution from JPost and undid me within 24hr

Nableezy false attribution

Here he attribute the fact that is disproven to Levin and an opinion piece. However the news article says that "Judge Rachel Shalev-Gartel concluded in favor of the residents' claim that the report - disproven by several televised accounts of the incident " and this is misleading as it isnt just Levin opinion but proper news story.

@The Blade of the Northern Lights - Which edit was I reverting? i changed language according to that of sources. I didnt revert anyone not even once. This was first time I ever edited this article and now Nableezy wants to punish me again for no reason. Both sources say "disproven" and this I changed to which u agree means differnet. Crystalfile (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Crystalfile

Comment by Activism1234

Looking at the edit on Amira Haas (which is what this request is about), it seems most likely that Crystalfile wasn't trying to claim that she incorrectly reported what Palestinians said, but rather fix a previous version of the page in which a POV made it sound as though what she reported was true, and it was just really settlers who said it was false and the judge just ruled against her as well, and The Jerusalem Post just also said her report wasn't true. I think what Crystalfile was going for was trying to clarify that although she may have reported what Palestinians said, this wasn't necessarily true eyewitness accounts (as seen from the fact there's an opposing side and a judge ruled against her as well as JPost), and were rather false (better would've been to write as a claim). I don't think he would actually try to make it sound as though she made up that Palestinians told her something - just doesn't make sense. And it should be reminded, that although journalists can interview people, a good journalist should strive to make sure that's the real account, and not take everything as true.

Grammar-wise, it's incorrect and is a different meaning. But some editors who aren't that advanced in English (which we have plenty) may not realize this otherwise, and simply explaining to them how it changes what it says should suffice, in my opinion, and seeing whether they acknowledge that and revert. In addition, the user's English and speaking has improved greatly since the last AE, which you can see on some talk pages and some edits as well.

And obviously, it makes sense Crystalfile didn't see the need to go on the talk page, since it's not disputed that the judge ruled against her and many others said it wasn't true, hence making it a claim.

Also, as far as I can tell, the editor has not violated 1RR here, which would seemingly show he understood the concept of 1RR since the last AE, and has not repeated it here.

Cheers. --Activism1234 16:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While this AE about that page was going on, Nableezy just edited that page, ignoring this reference as well, and part of this AE. --Activism1234 18:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but may be WP:1RR, since his/her edits (1, 2) are part of a dispute that is going on in the talk page and on this AE. --Activism1234 18:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit perturbed at Nableezy's insinuation that my username means anything other than a desire to be active on Wikipedia. --Activism1234 21:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, while this AE was opened, Crystalfile and I were seeking a compromise and colloborative change to the wording of the article that Nableezy is complaining about, which has now been changed by someone outside the dispute after reading the dispute, and which everyone (Nableezy, Crystalfile, and I) now agrees is fine and supports. That dispute is over and was finished in a matter of a few hours since the AE was opened. --Activism1234 15:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shrike

I don't see anything terrible in the edits all of them supported by sources.I think user:Nableezy abuse WP:BLP policy to WP:CENSOR information that he don't like. Moreover this complaint is classic WP:BATTLE behavior that he was already warned against by admins [215],[216] [217]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy It was printed in JPOST a WP:RS.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was an op-ed, read WP:RS again. Most especially the lines Editorial commentary and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (opinion pieces) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. nableezy - 17:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and first source said "for publishing false accounts that vilified the residents...". I said falsely reported. Why are you saying this is bad?

Result concerning Crystalfile

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

As of writing, the source being used doesn't have a link anywhere; is there any way someone could do that or at least give the wording used? "Contradicts" and "disproves" would communicate different messages, and I'd need to see a pretty solid source to justify reverting to the latter. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user known as 71.191.., 96.231.., 96.241.., etc.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Anonymous user known as 71.191.., 96.231.., 96.241.., etc.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Cal Engime (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Anonymous user known as 71.191.*.*, 96.231.*.*, 96.241.*.*, etc. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

2011-09-15 POV-pushing in violation of topic ban; the "strong circumstantial case" for de Vere has only failed to take off because of censorship, and "many otherwise intelligent people adhere to the orthodox view of the man from Stratford as the true author of the plays."
2011-11-21 POV-pushing in violation of topic ban; "plenty of evidence" for Oxford, Shakespeare "amply demonstrated" to be a pseudonym
2011-12-18 POV-pushing in violation of topic ban; plenty of evidence for Oxford, case overwhelmingly demonstrated, and so on
2012-05-17 POV-pushing in violation of topic ban; most Shakespeare scholars "refuse to see that "Shake-speare" or "Shakespeare" was probably a pseudonym", and Oxfordians "use common sense and logic to deduce that the author likely was someone of Oxford's background".
2012-05-17 Changed first sentence of article from "The Oxfordian theory of Shakespearean authorship proposes..." to "The Oxfordian theory of Shakespearean authorship convincingly demonstrates..."
2012-07-14 Raising Oxfordian fringe views on dating of the plays on Talk:William Shakespeare in violation of topic ban
2012-08-13 POV-pushing in violation of topic ban; a large majority of scholars dismiss the authorship question "because acknowledging an alternative candidate would ruin the reactionary fantasy held by these scholars for so long," and there are "clear connections between [de Vere's] life and the plays".
2012-08-13 One of several reversions in violation of both topic ban and 3RR, leading to semi-protection of the page and an immediate ban of user's account User:Paull Barlow, named in imitation of User:Paul Barlow

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Warned on 2011-03-25 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)
Warned on 2011-12-18 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) (in an edit summary, twice)
Warned on 2012-07-15 by Cengime (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Ever since their topic ban was instated, this user has continued to make extremely POV edits on the subject, denouncing administrative action against him or her as censorship and insisting on promoting a fringe view over the view of all reliable sources. Their numerous edit wars and ranting on the talk page have been extremely disruptive to Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship in particular, and further action needs to be taken to help this user become a productive member of the community. - Cal Engime (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship&diff=507497597&oldid=507493333

Discussion concerning Anonymous user known as 71.191.., 96.231.., 96.241.., etc.

Statement by Anonymous user known as 71.191.., 96.231.., 96.241.., etc.

Comments by others about the request concerning Anonymous user known as 71.191.., 96.231.., 96.241.., etc.

Note that this user has created many other accounts with names that copy, parody or attack the user-names of editors he opposes. See Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_HenryVIIIyes. The user is utterly impervious to argument or to appeals to policy. He adopts the manner of a quasi-religious fanatic. Paul B (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't think administrators can effectively prevent the user from editing due to his constantly changing IP, I understand that a series of token blocks could pave the way for escalation to action with his ISP through WP:ABUSE if the abusive behaviour continues. Correct me if I'm wrong. - Cal Engime (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Anonymous user known as 71.191.., 96.231.., 96.241.., etc.

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

It's pretty clear it's him again, and he's about as banished from the topic as Falstaff from King Hal, but what exactly can we do about him, apart from semiprotections and short-term blocks? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Engime, if you see him editing any of the WP:ARBSAQ articles again, I suggest going to WP:RFPP to request a month of semiprotection based on the topic ban that is clearly visible in the ARBSAQ log. My guess is that all of his registered socks are currently blocked, but if you find any that are not blocked let us know. Further socking can be reported at WP:AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One Night In Hackney

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SonofSetanta (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army&diff=507513144&oldid=507419621] Multiple reverts in one edit constiting a severe violation of 1RR.
15/8/12 Explanation
Date Explanation
Date Explanation

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&action=edit&section=67

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has a history of agressive editing on articles concerning The Troubles. He has recently made several frivolous complaints on this page about editors whom he wishes to remove from articles concerning the Troubles. He is therefore well aware of the Arbcom sanctions and the path of conduct necessary to allow discussion and concensus on articles. Instead of joining the discussion on the talk page he made a sweeping condemnation of the work of three other editors here Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army#Totally_disagree_with_the_new_lead and removed approximately 40 edits by the three editors involved in discussion on the article. I am aware of recent discussions concerning using this page as a weapon to resolve contentious disagreements. I can assure admins this isn't the case. I am greatly concerned that this one man seems to believe he can exercise such ownership of an article that he can make such sweeping changes without discussion with others who were working hard to arrive at concensus.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:One_Night_In_Hackney&diff=507515098&oldid=507430509

Discussion concerning One Night In Hackney

Statement by One Night In Hackney

Frivolous. SonofSetanta tried the same flawed argument that one edit equals several reverts at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive107#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SonofSetanta. It appears my comment from there of "If, for a second, we accepted SonofSetanta's notion that one edit equals four reverts if it happens to revert four edits at the same time, surely that would mean by making four edits in one day he is attempting to game 1RR by making so many edits they cannot be reverted without breaching 1RR? Food for thought..." needs to be repeated just so it isn't missed. The same archive also contains similar frivolous reports at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive107#One Night in Hackney and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive107#Mo ainm where anyone who dares to make a single revert of SonofSetanta's edits are reported, and it was making frivolous reports such as that which resulted in SonofSetanta being banned from filing AE reports. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sectarianism section referred to is this which was added very recently by SonofSetanta. As anyone remotely familiar with policy knows http://theirishrevolution.wordpress.com isn't a reliable source, and it was used repeatedly. As I explained on talk there was no point leaving what was left after removing that, especially since the main source apart from that was being cherry picked. Those wanting to include information from it are welcome to discuss on the article's talk page, but instead chose to restore material in clear violation of WP:SPS then cry "foul" here. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the DRN thread (which doesn't even relate to the current changes!!) was opened and closed while I was not editing, I fail to see how I can be expected to have participated? Let's just get the true sequence of events here in chronological order. Extensive bold changes were made, particularly to the lead of the article. I posted on the talk page with extensive reasoning as to why I objected to the new version, reverted the changes I objected to, removed the addition of unsourced and factually incorrect commentary I objected to (I forgot to do this is the previous edit, both edits were consecutive). SonofSetanta then reverted to his preferred bold version, then made this talk page post which while acknowledging I have made specific objections to the new lead, basically dismisses them in a "and see if I can put anything in which addresses your concerns" way. He's not actually attempted to discuss my objections, and neither did he make any changes to the article when reverting. It was bold, reverted, reverted back to bold version. I started the discussion, there's been no attempt to actually discuss it yet despite a request. SonofSetanta can easily try resolve the dispute by posting in the discussion section in question, instead he's continuing to argue here. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning One Night In Hackney

Comment by Son of Setanta

In addition to the complaint I note that User:Mo aimn has again reverted the article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army&diff=507516697&oldid=507514709). This appears to be tag teaming and although I am continuing in the discussion I do not think it is the correct way to behave on contentious articles. I request that sysops who look at this complaint take an overview of the work which has been done under discussion and the forcing through of Hackney and Mo's POV. I will not edit war but I do not wish to be gamed. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Calil. In all sincerity if I didn't think there was a case then I wouldn't have taken the risk of posting a complaint. One edit (shown in the diff above) by Hackney culled about 40 edits by three editors who were calmly and productively improving the article. At best that's 2 violations of 1RR, at worst it's 39 (approx). I restored the last discussed version and opened dialogue on the talk page. Mo aimn immediately reverted my changes with no attempt at discussion - that's edit warring and deserves a sanction. It's very difficult to show good faith in this situation. The edits removed were largely well written and well sourced or, as in the case of the lead, taken from the main body of the article. I see that Flexdream made a change to retore the information under the heading "sectarianism" which was immediately reverted by TheOldJacobite. Forgive me for asking but my understanding of the sanctions imposed by Arbcom is that they are to stop edit warring on articles and to encourage editors to discuss and agree. Can you see this happening here or do you think, as I do, that there is a gaming strategy in place to prevent honest editors from including information which doesn't show the Provisional IRA in a good light? As things stand the article is uneditable by editors who don't have a Troubles POV as there will be more minions standing by to revert their edits. I want nothing to do with behaviour like this but the only remedy open to me is to raise the problem here. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Calil. Concerning your comment about sanctions: if that's what you think it needs then I accept that. I don't feel I breached 1RR deliberately and I reverted myself when it was alleged I had. I didn't on the London Bombing article because I felt (and still feel) it was 3RR. You're the sysop though and I think I've done all I can to announce my good intentions. Furthermore I successfully resisted attempts to game me into an edit war on the PIRA article vis-a-vis this complaint. If that doesn't demonstrate my preferred behavioural pattern I don't know what can. Plus, as you can see, another complaint on this page about me was closed as it was frivolous but it had the effect of establishing me as a troublemaker to sysops. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that WP:BRD applies here and in any case the reverts by Hackney were after bold editing had been done by DagosNavy, Scolaire and me. Plus the ARBCOM sanctions call for care on editing contentious articles. The naming issue had largely been dealt with and although I expressed dissatisfaction had accepted Scolaire's edits That is arriving at concensus by discussion. You correctly note I had opened a DRN which was not entered into by ANY of the editors involved here. I hope you can appreciate my frustration that having attempted DRN, discussed my edits with others on the talk page and accepted changes willingly by other editors, I now find myself gamed by another contrived edit war - which I stress I am NOT involved in, as you can see. I would accept page protection but I request that you restore the page to the discussed version (prior to Hackney's edits) so that the work of the editors who haven't engaged in editwarring isn't dismissed. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC) moved out of my comment for clarity. IRWolfie- (talk)[reply]

Comment by RolandR

Even if this had been forty consecutive edits, it would still not have been forbidden. "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." It is genuinely hard to see how the initiator of this request misinterpreted policy so wildly. RolandR (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is under 1RR, not 3RR and is subject to discretionary sanctions for editwarring. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by IRWolfie-

The diff shown of removing bold changes (that he reverted a number of small edits is irrelevant, it's still only a single revert), is not particularly contentious, and is standard operating procedure per WP:BRD. What is not standard is re-inserting changes [218] after they are reverted (particularly after I asked him not to do that in a previous discussion: User_talk:IRWolfie-#Provisional_IRA). For example, SonofSetanta has been quite adamant about changing or altering the common names: "The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) (Irish: Óglaigh na hÉireann)", despite a lack of consensus and a lack of significant discussion, and has made the changes a number of times recently. [219][220][221][222].

My involvement with the topic is that I was (briefly) a DRN volunteer for a filling about the topic. The DRN didn't get off the ground as not many participated. In summary, I think this particular filing is a case of blowing something innocuous out of proportion over a content dispute.IRWolfie- (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering all the edit warring at the article, I suggest temporary page protection. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Τασουλα

May I suggest that the two editors simply keep their distance from one another..? Unless they agree to stop coming here and filing reports and just try to resolve conflicts on talk pages. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning One Night In Hackney

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

There is no case here. The diffs provided so far show precisely nothing[223]. And I am inclined to say that this is frivolous. Given the context of the disruption by Son of Setanta (2 open threads above about to sanction them) this is significant misuse of this page. The FergusM1970 thread (open for nearly two weeks) has a pending decision related to the editwarring discussed in the above thread and all of this disruption needs to stop. I will advise you in the strongest possible terms Son of Setanta to STOP, disengage and drop the stick - you are making matters worse. Suggest close and WP:BOOMARANG--Cailil ^talk 11:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore while yes I see further issues with editwarring at that page I believe the decision above covers all of this. This thread is just being used to add emphasis in retaliation for the other threads opened--Cailil ^talk 12:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Son of Setanta: You are all about to be sanctioned above. None of you are being singled out. The fact that you all continue to dig is only wasting everyone else's time and making it worse for yourselves. This particuar instance is a non-issue in comparison to the generalized conduct of you all--Cailil ^talk 15:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full agreement with Cailil. Would close the discussion myself right now were it not so closely related to those above, but, under the circumstances, I think that they should probably all be closed at once. The only thing I could see coming from this might be some additional sanctions against the filer for conduct issues, but I'm not sure that would be particularly useful. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historylover4

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Historylover4

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Historylover4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Standard discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

August 1, 2012 Removes picture of Israeli without explanation
August 13, 2012 Again removes picture of Israeli without explanation (after adding pictures of Palestinians and Turks)

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Warned on June 26, 2012 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A review of Historylover4's Talk page shows a history of edit-warring on articles related to Israel and Palestine that dates to September 2011. Historylover4's contributions to this discussion also make for interesting reading. I believe a topic ban would be appropriate.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Historylover4

Statement by Historylover4

Comments by others about the request concerning Historylover4

I think this diff proves that the user hasn't come to edit here in neutral and collaborative way [224]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historylover4 (talk · contribs) has already been blocked three times at the 3RR noticeboard since July 7. The last time was a one-week block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many of his edits concern, in one way or another, Ashkenazi Jews. I reverted an addition of his where he just used a google books link with no page number, as his interpretation of sources can be quite different from mine to say the least. Last night he replaced it here with the edit summary "Steinberg refutes the claims of "jewish horatio alger" of people advancing the "master race of holy people" ideology)". If you search for "master race of holy people" on the web, you will see that this isn't exactly an academic phrase but one usually used only by anti-Semites. This was 5 edits and 23 minutes after he removed the notice about this AE discussion from his talk page. This and his edit removing the image of the Israeli doctor and when it was replaced removing it again and adding images of Palestinians and Turkish aide seem clear indicators of his pov. A six month ban seems in order. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi Jews and other Jewish topics are not in the scope of WP:ARBPIA but he clearly use this to WP:COATRACK his POV in I/P conflict.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While Jews and Judaism are outside the scope of ARBPIA, Historylover4 seems somewhat enamored with the Khazar theory that most European Jews do not originate in the Middle East. Perhaps an uninvolved administrator could comment on whether that would make Historylover4's edits to Jewish articles part of the subject area "broadly construed". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Historylover4

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Recommend a six-month topic ban from the I/P area. Historylover4 has managed to get himself blocked three times for 3RR violations since April 29, and is active on I/P articles. I was asked to issue a topic ban in July, but declined since I wanted to see if he would improve his editing style. His career since then is quite unpromising, since he managed to refer to Daniel Pipes as a 'racist hack' on the talk page of Dome of the Rock. His comment was removed by another editor as a BLP violation against Pipes. Historylover4 is free to disagree with Pipes' opinion about the significance of Dome of the Rock, but Pipes' view of the history needs to be weighed against other evidence according to our usual sourcing rules. POV vituperation on an article talk page is not helping Wikipedia create better articles. Another example of Historylover4 venting his strongly-held personal animosities can be seen at Talk:Y-chromosomal Aaron#Disputes, where he refers to a particular academic opinion as 'completely farcical.' In response to an editor who disagrees with him, he says "your attempts to exclude sourced information simply shows your clear biases and personal views not mine." EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards