Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:01, 7 August 2012

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

Plot Spoiler

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

Request concerning Plot Spoiler

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy 04:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Plot Spoiler (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

26 July long term edit warring without discussion, see below.

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

Notified of the case by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 6 April 2010

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Plot Spoiler has been, for several months now, repeatedly removing material from the lead of an article without making any comment on the talk page. He has removed this sentence the following times:

And then again 26 July. The user has exactly 0 edits to the talk page (see here)

The specific material was first added in June 2011, and discussed on the talk page at the time (see here). The user was directed to that talk page discussion following one of his other reverts, also involving this same sentence (see this edit summary). And there is in fact a discussion on the talk page right now that, among discussing the actual sentence, notes that the editor has yet to make a single comment on the talk page, despite repeated edit-warring. The material was unchallenged between June 2011 and this editors first revert at the end of December 2011. Since then, in what I can only describe as tag-team edit warring, it has been on occasion removed, with not one single editor having discussed its removal prior to my opening a section on the talk page on 23 July. It is unreasonable for people to have to debate the air as a user uses his 1 revert and leaves. At the very least, a restriction requiring the user explain and back up his reverts should be imposed, barring an article or topic ban. nableezy - 04:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ankh, the material you claim that somebody has "glossed" over is completely irrelevant to the topic of the article. Kindly try to stay on topic here. The use of "several" was discussed on the talk page at the time the material was added, something that you, up until making one glib comment yesterday, and Plot Spolier had never done. nableezy - 13:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@admins, I am sorry if you have ARBPIA fatigue. I dont know what you would have me do about that, other than not bringing such blatantly disruptive actions as long-term edit-warring and game playing to AE. nableezy - 14:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yall may be frustrated, but please trust me on this, your frustration pales in comparison to the frustration of people who deal with this crap. Since coming back from my last topic ban, I have done all that I can to correct any missteps I have taken in the past, and I have tried to be as accommodating to the complaints of "the other side" in articles. I have sought out compromise, and there have even been productive discussions with users that I am quite certain despise me, or at least did in the not too distant past. But things like this, if anybody is at all serious about correcting the problems with this topic area, cannot go unanswered. This material was in the article for 6 months, unchallenged, until Plot Spoiler first removed it without making a single comment on the talk page. Once returned it remained for another 6 months before Plot Spoiler, again without a single comment, attempted to remove it once more. At that point AnkhMorpork, who only even saw this article because he checked Nishidani's contributions, shows up to tag in, and, again without making a single comment on the talk page removed the material. After it was returned, AnkhMorpork waits for an opportunity in which the revert rules will favor him. After a revert was performed an an unrelated issue, AnkhMorpork steps in to immediately, once again, remove the material, knowing full well there is not anything near a consensus for such a removal. Two other users (Plot Spoiler and Noon (talk · contribs), neither of whom have said one word on the talk page) join, in true tag-teaming fashion, to expunge this long-standing material, material for which there was a talk page consensus for inclusion when it was first added, and not even a hint of discussion coming out of any one of them up to that point. Yall talk about "GAMING" and "BATTLEGROUND" non-stop. This right here, this is the game. You play it with your pals and systematically remove whatever happens to be on the agenda for the day. No attempt at seeking consensus, no attempt at even discussing the issue or saying, beyond "its POV", what the problem is. Yall want to fix the topic area? Then fix things like this. Thatd be a start at least. Just look at the history of the article, look at the talk page, and tell me how exactly you would have somebody deal with things like this. nableezy - 04:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And if you want a suggestion on a discretionary sanction that will actually do something to fix most of the "behavioral" issues in the topic area, here's one. Any edit that reverted may not be re-reverted by anyone without a talk page consensus, with the standard BLP exemption. This is the most frustrating thing about the topic area, it plays out like a numbers game. The 1RR did not change the game, it just changed the math. If you want to fix something, change the formula. nableezy - 05:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Spolier, AE is the board used for enforcing arbitration decisions. As you are well aware, the topic area is under discretionary sanctions as a result of an arbitration decision. Your actions violated that arbitration decision, and this nonsense about AE being my personal battleground is just that, nonsense. I have said, several times, that I do not want people who are said to be on "my side" to comment in these cases. I am not responsible for any of the comments in the section below (save for one short reply to NMMNG). You however have continued to disregard the requirement that editors justify their reverts. Days after this request was opened, months after you first attempts at revert-warring without consensus, and you still have yet to make a single comment on the article talk page. You have still yet to make even a token attempt at justifying your repeated reverts. Eluchil404 recommended an admonishment, and if thats how it is decided then fine. But the fact that even after being brought here you continue to refuse to justify your revert makes me believe that stronger action is required. The pattern of behavior of revert-warring without discussion is readily apparent to anybody who even briefly looks at your contributions. A useful exercise for any admin is to count the number of Twinke reverts shown here and compare that to the number of comments on a talk page. You routinely revert-war without so much as saying a word on a talk page. It is unreasonable to allow people to use their 1 revert and vanish into the wind, waiting for the next time to tag back in. That such actions constitute the majority of your contributions in the topic area should not go unanswered. nableezy - 17:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Plot Spoiler

Statement by Plot Spoiler

Under no condition does this belong under WP:AE. There are many other methods of recourse he could have pursued, like WP:AN/I. This is just another manifestation of Nableezy using AE as his personal battleground. This is silly and I will only respond at the request of the administrators. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy once again plays the part of the righteous victim when he is in fact the problem. He believes that the louder he screams (by taking more and more cases to AE), the more sympathy he can elicit from the admins... which I expect they can see through. I also request he immediately strike this offensive statement that violates WP:AGF and WP:Attack: "You play it with your pals and systematically remove whatever happens to be on the agenda for the day." He's directly leveling the charge that certain editors are colluding offline to "game the system." That is a very serious charge without any merit whatsoever of course. It is just a part of his delusional fantasies that he's fighting some sort of dastardly cabal. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear that Nableezy should have never brought this complaint to AE. AE should be the last stop and not the first stop to resolve issues. There are many other forums he could have used, such as WP:AN/I, but he chose not to. The admins must warn and dissuade Nableezy from continuing to use AE as his personal battleground in which he knows all his counterparts will come and bandwagon with him. If Nableezy sees that AE is effective in aiding his battleground crusade, the admins should be aware that there will only be more and more cases that they will need to adjudicate on this board... and these insanely long threads of bitter acrimony. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, I respectfully request you enforce WP:AGF and WP:NPA here. @OhioStandard's comments are malicious, false and out totally out of line (e.g. "radical Zionist, territorially expansionist POV"). @OhioStandard, I have barely interacted with you and I have not encountered you on Wikipedia for lord knows how long. Your comments about me reveal a lot more about you than they do about me. Please strike your malicious personal attacks against me. I edit far beyond the topic area if you bothered to look at my contributions or user page (User:Plot Spoiler). The same goes for @BaliUltimate's conspiratorial musings. Please close this case as soon as expeditiously possible so we don't have to deal with any more of this battleground nonsense... Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Plot Spoiler

Diff 1 and diff 3 removed the sentence "Several UN officials have said that Israel's actions are tantamount to apartheid and ethnic cleansing". This was agreed to be misrepresentative and Nishidani here specified that in fact it referred "two UN human right consultants".

Diff 2 is of no relevance and seems a 'padding' diff.

Diff 4 makes the valid point regarding well-poising and the stuffing in the lead of marginal views of two insignificant people to create an unbalanced picture. Currently the lead makes no mention of the EU's view, the UN's view but instead Nableezy is insistent that it specifically contains the view of these two human right consultants that are already mentioned later in the article. Despite my request for balance, he chooses to gloss over that the source he cites also states,"

"Dugard was appointed in 2001 as an unpaid expert by the now-defunct UN Human Rights Commission to investigate only violations by the Israeli side, prompting Israel and the US to dismiss his reports as one-sided." and that "Israel's UN Ambassador in Geneva slammed Dugard's analysis."The common link between al-Qaeda and the Palestinian terrorists is that both intentionally target civilians with the mere purpose to kill,""

Can Nableezy please explain:

Why the view of two UN human rights consultants are more lead worthy than the EU's or the official UN view?
Does he thinks "several UN officials" accurately describes two human rights consultants?

This is a serious breach in NPOV and an experienced editor should know that inserting sound bytes which mention the words "Israel", "apartheid" and "ethnic cleansing" into the lead of an article should be done in a very careful and balanced way and the presentation of the views of these two human right consultants was hardly that. Ankh.Morpork 11:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer not to waste my time on being drawn into this. But you are making this into a content dispute. It is a behavioural dispute, and (to reply to TCanens) there is specifically a problem in the use of 1R as an entitlement without the burden of doing some work to explain one's behaviour on the relevant section of the talk pages. That is the crux ARBPIA hasn't resolved, and concerns the creation of workable conditions in a work-hostile area. Both Nableezy and I and some others collegially spend a perhaps inordinate amount of time on talk pages (48 edits building that page) endeavouring to find common ground, or justify edits (84 edits). In this case a rapid sequence of reverts by User:Plot Spoiler, User:Noon, User:Brewcrewer took place after you challenged a piece of information in the lead, and I corrected it and named the two distinguished international jurists, John Dugard and Richard Falk, who held that view. Leads summarise sections, and they are in the sections, with others. The rapid mass reversion is commonplace, as is the fact that, save Brewcrewer, none of the reverters has deigned to explain their view on the talk page. This is not collegial. None of you appear to have contributed to the page either. You are all active in reverting on it. So please keep your comments, if any, focused not on the content you dispute, but the behavioural patterns, if any.Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"as is the fact that, save Brewcrewer, none of the reverters has deigned to explain their view on the talk page." False. I did explain my objection on the talk page. And as to your 'content dispute' obfuscation, the sentence in question was patently unbalanced and did not require a treatise to explain why that was the case. Neither of you have explained why your edit was not a gross breach of NPOV and

Why you consider the views of two UN human rights consultants are more lead worthy than the EU's or the official UN view?
Whether you think "several UN officials" accurately describes two human rights consultants?

Ankh.Morpork 13:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something obvious or does the first diff point to simple removal of unsourced content? I believe that's allowed per WP:V, specifically WP:BURDEN. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was sourced in the body of the article, as per WP:LEAD, and when it was restored sources were added to the lead. nableezy - 15:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ZScarpia

According to AnkhMorpork, the professors of law and United Nations Special Rapporteurs John Dugard and Richard Falk are insignificant individuals and mere human rights consultants advising the UN rather than individuals with official positions in the UN. A rather swingeing, begrudging assessment I think. ← ZScarpia 17:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it's relevant to this AE, or that you didn't bring it up for the sole purpose of mudslinging, but "human rights consultants" is Nishidani's wording [1], not AnkhMorpork's. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My response to AnkhMorpork's comment is more relevant than your cynical speculation about my motives.

AnkhMorpork is responsible for the arguments he is presenting here. One of the arguments he/she is presenting is that the Special Rapporteurs (and it's worth reading the Wikipedia article) are outside the UN (that is, it is incorrect to call them UN officials) so that, therefore, their opinion has no more value than its being their opinion. Although, in UN parlance, they may not be officials in a constitutional sense, the Rapporteurs are appointed and work for the UN, albeit in an unpaid capacity. They are very much part of the UN. Part of the confusion has arisen because of the use of the word 'independent' in a UN source used in the article. However, what the word 'independent' signifies, as the Wikipedia article on Rapporteurs explains, is not that the Rapporteurs are independent of the UN, but that they are independent of the governments of the countries constituting the UN.

← ZScarpia 21:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that a definition of several explictly states: being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind. That you can continue arguing in this being an accurate description of the two rapporteurs is baffling. What is even more worrying is that this inaccuracy was being used to make highly controversial claims in the lead of an article and several editors chose to restore this edit.Ankh.Morpork 10:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ankh. As I re-edited all ambiguity was removed. Since the point was stable, removing it required at least a minimal amount of discussion. If you consider that an edit brings controversial claims, normal civil practice is, (a) introduce an edit to balance that claim, a counter-claim (b) take it up on the talk page. Just sequential reverting gets us nowhere, except, unfortunately, to AE. Peremptory reverting without the courtesy of explaining it to editors perplexed by a vague editsummary is not helpful.Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you understood the point I was making when I reverted and you set about rectifying it without the need for lengthy discourse. Some edits self-evidently require fixing and the removal of these gross NPOV violations in the lead should not have led to their prompt restoration. Ankh.Morpork 11:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected your objection to (and misapprehension about) it (UN personel) by naming the people as, in fact distinguished jurists in international law, not a bunch of POV-hawks bureaucrats in that disreputable organization. Had you disagreed with me, a word on the talk page was all you needed to do to find me receptive to discussion. Instead 3 different editors blow-in and revert it, without discussion. I think this peremptory, basically silent swooping to drag editors into revert wars is what we need rules for to avoid. Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AnkhMorpork, with reference to your response to my last comment, you'll notice that the online dictionary page you linked to actually gives four separate definitions for the word 'several'. I should think Nableezy was using the third definition, separate or distinct, which corresponds with what seems to be the main definition of the word given in my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary. However, on Wikipedia it's best to be as precise as possible, so, if we mean two, it would be better to write two. From your point of view, what exactly is controversial? Are you trying to say that the comments by the two Rapporteurs aren't important enough to mention in the Lead? If that's the case, I've seen too many rent-a-bigots' comments being defacated onto articles to give you much sympathy. ← ZScarpia 17:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Spoiler wrote something very curious: "The fact that neither you nor your counterparts here can even being to understand why the views of two extremely controversial and dubious UN figureheads should be in the lead clearly demonstrates that. Bear in mind that nobody is trying to excise their statements from the article. It simply doesn't belong in the lead. That simple."
The Lead, of course, is supposed to summarise the contents of the article. Plot Spoiler seems to think that if the body of the article contains a description of comments made by people who he finds disagreeable, that disagreeableness is enough to proscribe mentioning those comments in the Lead. Using weight as an argument for not mentioning the comments might be reasonable, but Plot Spoiler doesn't mention that. In any case, the comments he doesn't like do figure fairly prominently in the body of the article. A second curious feature of what Plot Spoiler wrote is that it shows no awareness that, to successfully make the changes he wants, he would have to engage on the talkpage as requested and argue a case to try and establish a consensus in his favour. Instead, he seems to be driven by a sense of certainty in the correctness of his cause, that certainty making it desirable to ignore all opposition in order to make the necessary changes.
← ZScarpia 01:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you say the comments "figure fairly prominently in the body of the article", you mean a whole 3 sentences in the last section. Or in other words, less than a 1/5th of a section that's less than a 1/5th of the article. Fairly prominently indeed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then, that being so, you have a legitimate argument to bring to bear on the talkpage in favour of summarising the article differently. But, I think it's obvious, this is a dispute that should have been resolved on the talkpage rather than through edit warring. ← ZScarpia 10:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sean.hoyland

No comment on this particular case but I'd like to say something about the admin comments regarding the number of AE reports and ARBPIA3. Compared to the number of events in the topic area that seem to me to violate the sanctions, I think the number of AE reports filed is very low. If you maintain a sufficiently large sample of the articles in the topic area and check them often enough you are pretty much guaranteed to see something AE report worthy everyday. I could have filed plenty of AE reports but it's tedious to prepare them. A large proportion of them would have been against editors who come and go, people who wouldn't be within scope of ARBPIA3. You could indef block everyone who edited an article in the topic area over the past month and it would probably be just as bad next month because there is a seemingly endless supply of people who shouldn't be editing in the topic area + socks (e.g. a quarter of the edits to this article since the end of March are by socks. The topic area is broken but I don't think less AE report filing or having ARBPIA3 would make it better. I don't know what would. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to comment about socks I think new users without 500 non-minor contribs and one year of experience shouldn't edit this area at all or DS area in general.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestion, Shrike. Other practical things, any of us could give a list, as I've often suggested to Ed Johnson. One would be IR is not a right. (2)If you use IR you are obliged to add something uncontroversial and constructive to the article and (3) if your revert is questioned, you are obliged to explain it collegially on the talk page. It may look tough on admins, but check any talk page. The amount of work one has to do there is an enormous sacrifice of time better spent actually building this encyclopedia, and those who are writing stuff rather than engaging in unconstructive editwars by people using their revert rights and little else over numerous articles need some practical guidelines to at least make it a level playing field.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cla68

Here are the relevant "discussions": [2] [3]. I put "discussions" in scare quotes, because none of the editors participating in those discussions or involved in the edit warring appear to have managed any civil, productive discussion on the talk page about that particular line of text. All I see is unhelpful acrimony. Administrators, I think you know what to do. Cla68 (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I.e. permaban Nableezy, Nishidani and Tiamut? In link 3, Benwing argued his case fairly, and was answered fairly and civilly. There was no acrimony. On the other there was no 'discussion' because, when two pleas for discussion from the reverters were posted, only one of 4 reverters turned up (excluding Ankh who just repeated a claim/meme about 'well-poisoning' and exited). There was an edge of annoyance that unclear policy and misleading deductions were being raised by just one editor of the four, but you are effectively saying that people requesting that edit disputes be argued on the page, and that those who revert and disappear, actually return to help article construction, are being acrimonious and deserve banning. The one thing some appear to have learnt tactically from the earlier ARBPIA judgement is that the phenomenon of reverting will form the basis for banning people who are actively engaged on several talk pages. That can be gamed by only reverting and then disappearing so that your presence there is otherwise not noticeable when the talk page is reviewed by Admins engaged in arbitration, who will only see dispute, and link reverts to disputatiousness.Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benwing argued his case fairly, and you reverted him without participating in the discussion, in what you'd call "tagteaming" if it weren't you and Tiamut doing it.

Then in the next section, other than making accusations, you didn't participate in any meaningful way in the discussion either.

Also, somehow it seems that the fact Huldra reverted (to the version you like) without participating in the discussion either doesn't seem to bother you at all.

Your accusations ring quite hollow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does look evil, doesn't it. As I've always said, you can insinuate anything from diffs, ignoring context. Benwing came in editing out material with edit summaries like damn this article is full of bias, see talk page I restored yes, the deleted text because it contained three RS removed by previous editors, Moshe Ma’oz (no wiki article, but a very strong authority if you are familiar with his background and books), the IDMC and the ICAHD, with the edit summary Restoring improperly deleted RS. No policy motivation in the deletion. Benwing and Tiamut were discussing the issues on the page quite adequately. Where reverters start talking to one another, and do not miss essential points evident to a third party, I generally try as a rule not to intervene, because it can't help but look like swarming the argument. When Benwing, turned up after 9 days silence on the talk page, and remarked that he found my failure to show up 'frustrating', I duly turned up that day to discuss the issues. He disappeared, and the others did not show up. Please examine however who is actually building the page there, as opposed to those who appear to cancel or revert without actually showing up on the page often. That is the gravamen at issue. Hulda's revert restores well sourced information, with a plea that those who cancel it address their points on the talk page. That said, some way has to be found to avoid the mechanical use of 1R without due explanation if challenged. Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nishdani, yes, you've built the page in a certain manner and now you're clearly seeking to WP:OWN it to maintain a certain POV for a very biased article. The fact that neither you nor your counterparts here can even being to understand why the views of two extremely controversial and dubious UN figureheads should be in the lead clearly demonstrates that. Bear in mind that nobody is trying to excise their statements from the article. It simply doesn't belong in the lead. That simple. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't reply to the 'own'. It's silly. The article is certainly on a touchy issue. But it is one that is widely examined in mainstream newspapers, books and UN reports. First it was immediately up for deletion, and survived. When this happens, what those who dislike it should do is roll up their sleeves, and work on it, using the usual policy grounds. Very little that is bad, poorly sourced or POV-tilted can survive a master editor (which I am not)'s scrutiny. If one has a complaint of structural bias, just sitting and reverting something in the lead is no solution to the complaint, and silent reverting only engenders edit-warring.

(2) When now for the umpteenth time you join others in saying John Dugard and Richard Falk (please read the links) are 'two extremely controversial and dubious UN figureheads,' you should recall that John Dugard got banned under the Internal Security Act in South Africa in 1976 because of the government of the day regard his use of international law as not only 'extremely controversial' but subversive. You don't get to Princeton University (Falk) by being a 'controversible figurehead'. You get there by peer-review working your arse off in your chosen field. Rats, I've missed the opening of the Olympics.Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nishidani

Eluchil404. It is surely absolutely out of the question that User:Plot Spoiler be singled out for a ban or suspension type of sanction. I don't read much policy, but the 'discretionary' in discretionary sanctions I've always taken with the emphasis on 'discretion'. A general reminder to all editors, on whatever side, not to abuse the 1R by exercising it as a right devoid of an obligation to join the talk page, and respond to queries, is the maximum I would think any of the plaintiffs here would like to see expressed by admins. Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have said, several times, that I do not want people who are said to be on "my side" to comment in these cases

Since this may be doubted, Nableezy has my full permission to send a copy to any administrator of one of the few emails we have exchanged these past months, in which he more or less tells me to fuck off and keep clear of commenting on any AE dispute he is involved in. I probably owe him an apology as well.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im pretty sure Ive said the same on-wiki several times. nableezy - 17:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade. Just a minor note on a nicety. There are a lot of I/P reverts we all do uncontroversally, and I think none of us challenge them because they are patent examples of abusive, mostly one-off IP editing. This note just to refine the point. I don't think anyone here asks that that sort of anonymous POV stuff requires more than an edit summary, rather than a talk page, explanation. Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tiamut

Is anyone looking at Plot Spoiler's contribs here? While he has had time to revert twice (once since the opening of this case), and comment here four times, he has not made a single edit to the article talk page. That's part of the reason we end up here. There is no collaboration, only revert warring and then explaining why the revert warring is justified to admins. Also, any honest review of the article history shows that its not those removing material who open discussions, but those who revert to restore. And no discussion by those deleting takes place until after cases are filed here. again, part of the problem. As to NMMNG's allegations of tag teaming, I have made exactly one edit to this article, restoring material deleted Benwing (not the current material under discussion either). Throwing around false accusations isn't very collegial and prevents identification of the root problem. I think Nableezy's suggestion is a good one that might help change the formula. Tiamut^talk 20:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with your behavior here. You made the first revert, which is fine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Above, you state differently, but all of that is really beside the point. The text should be retained until a real discussion can take place about whether or not it should be in the lead. It should not be revert warred out and then when editors restore it and open a discussion on the talk page continue to be revert warred out without participating in the discussion. I mean its amazing ... the section on edit warring on talk was opened by Nableezy, commented in by Nishidani and no one else bothered to write a thing there for two days. Random editors just kept popping in to delete the same text again, without explaining why until after this AE was opened. I find that very revealing. I would have restored the text myself, but have been busy and unable to respond to Benwing's comments and did not feel I should intervene on this dispute without addressing his earlier points first. Those restoring the text are doing the right thing. Until a new consensus is forged, the old version stays up, as it did have consensus from a previous discussion. Tiamut^talk 20:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Bali

Just a drive by comment. Strategic reverting, coordinated by email, to put the other "side" in the soup for naughty, naughty "reverts" has been taken to an art form in this topic area (by one "side" far more persistently than the other). This is plain as day to anyone who's been paying attention. A new approach is needed, but the senior editors ("admins") are reluctant to take an empirical look at the reality, and craft appropriate, grownup remedies. So what has been going on for years, will continue for years. Account names come and go. The game remains the same.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear. Yes, blade my good man, I have a solution. But you won't like it, and if you did, the rest of Wikipedia would not allow it. Evaluate the use of sources, the commitment to representing both majority views of this matter (as reflected by a literature review) and a fair consideration of minority ones. Observe behavior - who is more interested in engaging the literature and higher quality news sources, who relies on marginal ones. Look for patterns of reversions by groups of editors without discussion (as I said, private coordination). And then ding the editors who come up lacking. Completely ignore shows of temper and OMG! 1rr violations in isolation. You're welcome.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have to level such extreme claims that there is some cabal that is using "strategic reverting, coordinated by email"? Please strike those statements which constitute a violation of WP:AGF and WP:Attack. You've heard of a watchlist before, right? Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you blindly revert without using the talk page [4]?

Comment by Ohiostandard

I used to be quite active in this topic area. I've stopped participating in it largely because of just the kind of aggressive, non-collaborative, anti-consensus-building behaviour Plot Spoiler has (yet again) demonstrated here.

More broadly, the topic area operates like the opposing parties in the historical film, The Gangs of New York. The level of disrespect, contempt, and blatant aggression is utterly ridiculous. In addition, throwaway sock accounts abound: used for only a few days, or intermittently, every few months, they constitute something like 20% of edits in the area. When coupled with the 1rr restriction, that means that the effect of edits by would-be contributors who refuse to sock, like myself, can very easily be negated. In addition, tag-teaming is very much the rule rather than the exception.

If admins are content with the status quo, and are willing to accept the continued domination of the topic area by what are, in effect, partisan gangs who care nothing for the goals of the encyclopaedia itself, and by the very aggressive behaviour Plot Spoiler and friends have demonstrated in this instance, then they should do nothing. The result will be that editors who have greater allegiance to the integrity of the encyclopaedia than to personal "pro" or "anti" POV re the Zionist cause will continue to shun the topic area in the mean time.

Full disclosure: I disapprove of Plot Spoiler extremely, and think the project would be much better off without him, and without similarly zealous partisans: It's my personal opinion that his interest in Wikipedia is exclusively in the platform it allows him for promoting a radical Zionist, territorially expansionist POV. It's been my unfailing perception that when it comes down to a decision between the best interests of the encyclopaedia and the best interests of the current Zionist-dominated government of Israel, that he will ALWAYS choose the latter. He was a close confederate of one of our most disruptive editors, now permabanned, thank goodness, Mbz1, and once labeled me as "psychotic", albeit indirectly, for having objected to his efforts to hide the fact that a book depicting Israel as a marvel of entrepreneurial innovation, much against other non-partisan evidence, was written by an extremely active advocate for AIPAC, the Israel Lobby in the United States, often described as one of the top three most powerful in the country. In fairness, I should note that he quickly reverted that "psychotic" characterisation after Ed Johnston noticed it, and warned him that it could result in a block.

If admins want to see the persistent problems in this topic finally resolved, and want to attract editors to it who are actually committed to the goals of project itself, instead of only being interested in the project as a platform to push their own POV, they'll need to exclude editors like Plot Spoiler, who lack one or more of the patience, collaborative ethic, or just the maturity to work collaboratively and respectfully with others of very different political perspective to develop mutually acceptable and balanced presentations of admittedly complex, controversial topics. And some effective measures to exclude day-use and sleeper socks will likewise need to be implemented. Otherwise, it's my opinion that our articles in this topic area will simply function as vehicles for propaganda, as so many of them do, at present.

I conclude this with an expression of my great respect, and my very (!) great appreciation for those of you who've tried for so long to regulate this extremely contentious topic area, and who have used the very limited tools and measures you currently have available to try to exclude the unscrupulous, POV-driven editors who make most of its edits. --OhioStandard (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Except for admins, if you want to reply, do so in your own section, via an "@Ohiostandard" comment. --OhioStandard (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

Perhaps the Golan Heights restriction should be considered? The main objection appears to be failure to engage in talk page discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Plot Spoiler

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

Am I the only one who is rather disturbed that the vast majority of AE cases we have recently involves ARBPIA? T. Canens (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thought crossed my mind as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And me three. I'm not overly fond of the thought of WP:ARBPIA3 turning blue, but if this continues, it might be necessary nonetheless. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Make me four. And I am sure that the ArbCom itself is probably even less fond of the thought of ARBPIA3. But it is beginning to look kinda inevitable, isn't it? John Carter (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy et al, we're not saying you did something wrong by bringing a complaint or discussing it, and we'll address it once we've had a chance to carefully research what's been said. But given the amount of trouble in this area, it does seem some discussion of next steps is needed as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Bali ultimate; if you have a solution here, by all means say what it is, but don't snipe at everyone here. That's not helping anything. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's more or less what I try to do already; that's why I haven't commented on the substance of this issue yet. I want to make sure I get the best solution; I can't guarantee success, but I strive for it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the comments on this request, I notice that quite a few are addressed to the underlying content dispute (i.e what the appropriate wording and placement of the sentence in question might be). Please don't do this. It adds length to the request without adding useful context. AE will not decide the wording of the article lead, it will decide what of any sanctions to hand out to Plot Spoiler and perhaps other editors. On that note, my initial inclination, having reviewed the diffs is not to block but to admonish Plot Spoiler to discuss article wording on Talk pages rather than in edit summaries. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order to uphold good focus in this complaint, I suggest that discussion about ARBPIA3 be moved to WP:WPAE or another appropriate venue. After this complaint is dispatched (which I hope will happen soon), more general discussions about long-term strategy will be easier to conduct. AGK [•] 16:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not terribly impressed whenever I see a revert-and-run, and in this area it's just gasoline on the fire. I propose that we first, then, offer a crystal clear final warning here—if you revert, you're expected to (preferably without prompting, at the very least upon request) explain why you reverted, be willing to come to the table to discuss what you saw as the problem with the edit, and make a good faith effort toward finding a way to come to a wording that satisfies both sides (or at least to some reasonable extent satisfies both). Slo-mo edit warring combined with refusal to discuss is disruptive, and is grounds for an article or topic ban. That being said, it's expected that all parties involved will negotiate in good faith, and we won't tolerate "I didn't hear that" type behavior, nor veiled (or outright) nastiness. I'm still weighing whether any sanctions beyond that are needed here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On this particular request, I agree broadly with Eluchil404 and Seraphimblade. I can go with either a warning, or a formal restriction to explain all reverts on talk page. T. Canens (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FergusM1970

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 [5], 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]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [6]

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 [[7]] 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]

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]

Comments by others about the request concerning FergusM1970

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 [8]. 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]

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 severe 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 [9] 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 [10][11][12][13] 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, [14][15][16][17][18][19][20] 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]

Another violation of 1RR by the same editor:

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".[[21]]. It was added on 19 March [[22]] and reverted by Fergus on 4 April [[23]]. 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")[24] 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 [[25]]. 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 [[26]] here [[27]] and here [[28]]. 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]

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[29] (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[30][31] (for clarity only the 2nd of these diffs is a revert the first is the original edit), DagosNavy[32], One Night In Hackney[33], a throw-away-account, Portugalpete (who's ONLY edit to WP is in this edit-war)[34], OldJacobite[35], and Son of Setanta[36]. 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[37][38][39][40][41][42][43]) 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]

Slovenski Volk

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

Request concerning Slovenski Volk

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Athenean (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia

August 5 Brightline violation of 0RR restriction
July 2 Brightline violation of 0RR restriction
July 2 Brightline violation of 0RR restriction, done as an IP.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Slovenski Volk is under a 0RR restriction in Ancient Macedonians since January of 2011. He has violated that restriction several times since then, sometimes getting blocked for it [44], sometimes not, at one time coming close to being banned from the article [45]. He again violated his revert restriction on July 2 2012, not once, but twice (the first time by editing unlogged). He again did so on August 5 [46]. While I don't necessarily mind the content, what I find disturbing is a certain I-am-right-therefore-I-revert-as-much-whatever-I-want attitude. In addition, I am disturbed by the way he baits editors on the talkpage [47] [48] [49] (the "deeply engrained nationalistic tendencies of certain editors" is clearly a dig at me), and especially this [50] (a reference about the ongoing Greek economic crisis - really below the belt).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[51]

Discussion concerning Slovenski Volk

Statement by Slovenski Volk

I cannot agree with Athenean's statements for several reasons. It is not I who has reverted, but I am the one who has 'been' reverted [52]. I made a good-faith, well- referenced edit which was blanket reverted by another used (and collaborater of Athenean) for no good reason other than his own, dislike of the content, under the guise that it was a "pointy edit". Whilst his action is unjustified and counter to Wikipedia spirit, I made an effort to appease his concerns by modifying the sentence by adding the qualifiers "could be interpreted" and adding further references (from another, excellent quality, specialist piece of literature). So this was not merely a re-reversion of his (blanket) revert, rather my actions clearly illustrate that I had recognized his concerns and addressed them by re-introducing the sentence in a modified way. I do not think this to be inappropriate action.

With regard to Athenean's examples from 02/07/12, he has again misrepresented the evidence. The first edit (which he calls a revert) was in my mind a primary edit (done by me under IP 152.76.1.244 - I had forgotten to log in). What had happened was: someone had added a second (redundant) geographical qualifier for the openeing sentence of the lede at some point (who know's when, I certainly did not know), repeating exactly what was already included at the very start of the sentence (Ie "The Macedonians (Greek: Μακεδόνες, Makedónes) were a tribe from the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula, in the alluvial plain around the rivers Haliacmon and lower Axios, nowadays in the region of Macedonia, Greece".) This is tantamount to my saying "I live in western part of Australia, in what is now western Australia" Now, any native English speaker recognises that this is grammatically poor, containing a redundant second geographic adjective. So I , in good faith, amended it; to be reverted. So again, it was I who reverted by a different user (" A Macedonian"), with edit summary stating that he could not see the initial error (" Where is the second one (ie geographic adjective)?") [53]. In my re-edit, I made him aware that what he wrote simply made no sense in the English language. Essentially, content was not removed, nor was the meaning of teh sentence changed in anyway, either. The sentence still stated what it had always stated, minus the circumlocution. This is not, as Athenean argues, a case of me arrogantly thinking I am right- the issue was not content or lay-out, but correction of frank grammatical redundancy. NB I have absolutely no issue with discussing otherwise more profound, complex content issues, as can be seen by the voluminous TP discussions here [54]

To re-iterate, I have not reverted any primary material added by the other editors, merely wish to be able to re-introduce material (which i modified to bridge an agreement) which had been unjustifiably blanket reverted without my being accused of reverting. Athenian seems to be unphased with the injustice and irony of his charge.

As for his other concerns, they're just silly. He is offended by "Well, as I have stated earlier, that wording ("generally considered")sounds WEASALish and somewhat counter to what a sizable, even a majority of specialists currently conclude". What's wrong with that ?? I think his accusations are becoming desparate and really undignified. Rather it is Athenean's henchmen who makes personal accusations agains me, and blindly revert and decline ideas proposed by me on the TP based on their personal viewpoints without an academic leg to stand on (in fact, i doubt those chaps have even read 5% of the literature with which I am acquainted). They are ill-equipped to debate in any academic, meaningful, content-focussed way with me because (i) the volume of literature supports my edits (ii) they simply lack the capabilities / effort to even read any meaningful literature; so they're entire appraoch has been to mass-block any of my efforts and make it nigh impossible for me to continue making meanigful edits. The very reason I was placed on the 0RR in jan 2011 (for a probable 3 month period) was due to their tag-teaming efforts at edit-reverting. I was guilty for succumbing to their tactics, however, I feel that i am a competent, non-disruptive, and in fact , very positive editor, and should be able to make minor modifications of edits within good faith and reason without the threat of being accused of reverting; and (as above) I am more than happy to first go to TP for more potentially contentious issues ( as I have been doing)

Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-> I wish to re-iterate, if I may, that in my view I do not see the action I performed a "revert". I made an edit, it was reverted. I then modified, changed and added extra references to my original edit to appease whatever original concerns were voiced in the revert notes, and re-submitted the contribution. Surely this action does not constitute a blind, malicious "revert" ? Moreover, if I might propose, I will happily take a break from editing the article in question, and related articles, for 3 months; yet my account be not blocked so I may be involved in other areas (I have had no 'issues' anywhere else except the article in question) Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Slovenski Volk

Result concerning Slovenski Volk

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

This appears to be a pretty straightforward 0RR violation, so I'm fine with either a 3 month block or an indef with the first year covered under ARBMAC. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the last block was one month, three months would be appropriate. Not particularly sure that an indef is needed here. T. Canens (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Slovenski Volk: What other articles/topics do you have in mind? T. Canens (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Slovenski Volk: please note that this section (as it clearly states at its top) is for uninvolved admin comments ONLY. Please do not comment here--Cailil ^talk 11:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is clear violation (3 times) of 0RR within 5 weeks by SV and a clear refusal to get the point re: reversion going on in their replies here so I'd concur with a 3 month block under the terms of ARBMAC--Cailil ^talk 12:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crystalfile

Blocked 24h. T. Canens (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Crystalfile

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy 21:30, 5 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#General 1RR restriction

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

Violation of 1RR at Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America

22:08, 4 August 2012, partial revert of this
22:19, 4 August 2012, straight revert of this

Violation of 1RR at Yasser Arafat

21:58, 4 August 2012, straight revert of this
20:39, 5 August 2012‎, straight revert of this

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

Informed of the 1RR and the violation at CAMERA here (the user did not self-revert)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Zero0000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) detailed several instances of distorting the sources cited at Yasser Arafat at the talk page (here). The user has not answered any of the concerns and instead reverted to include the poorly sourced polemic material. In addition, the user's edits in the topic area show very obvious signs of off-wiki coordination. No "new" user makes a series of reverts across a number of articles without being directed to (see the following series of edits, all reverts that were under discussion about material that was under discussion at article talk pages:

[55] restores, word for word, material removed here, first added here by Jiujitsuguy
Immediately followed by this, revert of this (listed above)
Immediately followed by this, revert of this
Immediately followed by this, revert of this (listed above)
Immediately followed by this, revert of this.

The editors 17th edit was to ANI in a discussion about topic-banning Shrike, a "pro-I" editor, from a different topic. I hate to break the news, but "new" users dont find pages like these out of the blue. "New" users do not go on a revert spree spanning multiple articles. "New" users do not use the exact same sentence that was inserted weeks prior without somebody telling them to. Besides the now two 1RR violations, there are several instances of distorting cited sources (as discussed by Zero in the talk page section linked above), and clear evidence, or as clear as possible, of meatpuppetry.

And immediately after being informed of this report, this "new" user makes this edit to a page that I largely wrote, reinserting largely the same material added here and discussed here. nableezy - 21:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After being reverted, the user re-reverted, making it now three 1RR violations in the span of one day. nableezy - 21:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, in response to the excuse making below, the user was explicitly notified of the 1RR, and explicitly told how their edits to CAMERA violated that 1RR. That doesnt even begin to get into the behavior of a spree of reverts, or the behavior at al-Azhar Mosque. nableezy - 22:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One last point. The 1RR violating edit at Yasser Arafat still can be self-reverted. The user has neglected to do so. 'nableezy - 22:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Crystalfire

Statement by Crystalfire

I am trying to help with the article and he is not helping me. I asked him which is undo number 2 but he ignored me. I never knew I was undoing anyone at Al Azhar. I did one undo which changed it because of Maliks comment. Where is the second undo? I am sorry and will be more careful to listen to the rules. Please help me as I am trying to be a good editor.

At Al Azhar I did one undo to fix a problem and not two. Nableezy is not being fair as I am editing properly after he told me this rule. I also asked him for help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasser_Arafat#Unacceptable_edits but he does not want to.

Comments by others about the request concerning Crystalfire

Comment by Activism1234

Crystalfire clearly didn't understand what he did wrong, and a simple explanation of it to him would've sufficed. Nableezy is also making assumptions that he's a sockpuppet, which I doubt he can back up, although is similar (but not exact) to accusations he made about me in this closed ARBPIA request. The admin there also advised Nableezy "to be more circumspect about what cases he brings here."

And actually, I can see how new editors wouldn't know about 1RR (the same was true about me when I first joined, but once I found out about it I stopped and self-reverted). That's not some out-of-this-world scenario.

Just explaining to Crystalfile what 1RR is and how it applies should be enough, and good-faith edits certainly shouldn't be brought here. --Activism1234 22:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't there big boxes on top of Talk:Yasser Arafat and Talk:Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America that warn editors about ARBPIA—including 1RR? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, yes there are. And their whole point is so editors don't violate 1RR. Unfortuantely, at least in my case, I just wanted to get into editing and ignored the big box at the top, which was very stupid of me, and I make sure not to violate 1RR after I was notified... It was a good faith edit, and that's what I brought up here - we should probably assume good faith for now, explain to him what 1RR is, and if he violates it again, then do the necessary whatever it is.

But that was just me... I don't intend to get overly-involved here, I was just giving my 2 cents. --Activism1234 22:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malik I only undid you because I thought I was fixing the reason why you undid me by making it clearer in the article. I thought I was helping and I only did one undo on this article after Nableezy told me about this rule. I am discussing this on the talk and will be very careful. I didnt understand this rule because I thought I only did one undo. Thank you.

Crystal, I think you need to comment in your own section, and also please sign your posts so Malik doesn't accidentally think your comment was from me. --Activism1234 22:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Crystalfire

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

Looks to me like a straight up case of a 1RR violation, so a 24 hour block would be in order here; I'll do it myself in just a couple minutes, because it looks like my connection is finally coming back and I can log into my admin account. I don't think we need to jump to topic bans just yet, though; let's see if a short block works first. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 23:01, 5 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]

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

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 [56], which three other users - Herkus Monte (HM), M.K. and an IP objected to because of WP:UNDUE and the lack of sources [57] [58][59]. My first edits were one minor c/e [60] and adding a reference to a corrected sentence [61]. 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 ([62])
31 Jul 2012 14:54 VM reverts HM ([63])
31 Jul 2012 16:41 VM reverts HM and IP ([64]), "battleground" accusation in e/s
1 Aug 2012 6:16 VM reverts HM ([65])

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.

VM also 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 [66] [67] [68] [69] [70], 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. [71].

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.

Volunteer Marek has also assumed bad faith, insulted and accused other people recently (Jimbo got annoyed too [72]) so it is not just me but a general problem, as his block log and these random reactions indicate [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81].

His behavior at Talk:Königsberg to other editors was no different, examples from his 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"
[82] accusation of POV-pushing and double standard
[83] accusation of bad faith and disruption
[84] accusation of tag teaming
[85] accusation of "instead of mindlessly reverting and removing sourced text you actually try and do some constructive work"
[86] accusation of "trying to sabotage good faithed attempts"
[87] "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

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:

[88] Molobo returned to editing on 4 Aug, reverting a move HM had made ([89])
[90] Molobo reverted an edit of mine ([91]) (breaking the ref fmt btw)
[92] then reverted some edits from an article where the EEML had attacked me before (was subject to the EEML arbcom and is in VM's FoFs of that case), last edit before Molobo was made by HM
[93] Molobo returned to previous article and makes another edit [94] to a talkpage
[95] Molobo arrived at the Königsberg article where also Piotrus, ex-(?)-leader of the EEML, had arrived even before [96]

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

In response to VM's post below:

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 [97] [98] and removed by me [99] (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 [100] 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 [101] is not the one he used in the article! This is the current protected article version. Please compare:

quote VM [102]: "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” [103]"

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. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VM's accusation [104] 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 [105]: "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]

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]

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 [106] 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 [107] 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.

[108] - statement of fact, that Herkus is spamming {cn} tags into what at that point is the best sourced part of the article.
[109] - 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
[110] - 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.
[111] - 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.
[112] - 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” [113]

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”" [114]

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”[115]

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)" [116]

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 [117]

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 [118]. 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 [119]. 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. [120]. I assume that applies equally to some vague affiliations from almost three years ago.

Please also see my comment at DA's talk page [121]. 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.

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

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

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[122]. 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[123]. And the topics discussed by VolunteerMarek were debated by me years ago on that page already

[124] 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 [125] 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[126], [127]

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 [128] , however Marek's answer was extremely aggressive [129] ("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 ([130]). 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]

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. [131]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." [132]

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]

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.

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]

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: [133]

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 [[134]] and here [[135]]. 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]

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 [[136]] and seems to now be agreeing with my making the same edit [137] 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]

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]

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]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by GoodDay

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay, I've been banned from the topic of diacritics across Wikipedia, the ban apparently includes my own userspace. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator imposing the sanction: Coren (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by GoodDay

I wasn't fully aware of the extent of the topic ban, concerning my secondary page (since deleted). Imho, the block can be ended, as I wish only to make gnome edits. I was blocked (see block log) after this report was tabled. It concerned content on m (now deleted) My stuff page. I will not make anymore direct or indirect posts concerning diacritics - period. I will not praise or condem editors involved with the 'said' topic. Also note, along with deleting my secondary page, I've removed my 2 conditions for which posts I'll allow on my talkpage. Furthermore, I've added links to my Rfc/U, ANI case & Arbitration case, for easier access & study purposes - in order to change my behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coren

Copied from GoodDay's talk page without comments on the substance. Given that I both expressed an opinion in the original AE request and closed that request, I'll recuse from further involvement. — Coren ^(talk) 18:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by snowded

I was one of the editors in conflict with GD on UK related issues. Overall the pattern of behaviour over the years has been that when he gets involved in a subject he has no sense of proportion. Edit warring, provocation of talk pages and the like are all well documented. One suspects however that Wikipedia is his life. However a brief examination of his talk page indicates that there is no understanding on his part that he has in any way done anything wrong. The opposite if anything, he blames his woes on politically minded editors against whom he stands as a martyr to whichever cause he is advocating at the time. Even now his reason for wanting to be restored is that he didn't understand the nature of his ban, which to any reasonably minded editor was very very clear.

My recommendation is that he should serve his time, it may be the only way he can start to understand the level to which the communities patience has been exhausted. As long as he claims martyrdom any readmission which just (as it has always done in the past) lead to a repetition of the same behaviour. To my mind the only reason he has escaped a permanent block is the mind numbingly trivial nature of his interventions. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Djsasso

He says "I wasn't fully aware of the extent of the topic ban". However the first time he violated the ban he stated "I still disagree with being barred from mentioning certain topics on my pages, but I will refrain from mentioning them in future". Which indicates he was fully aware of the extent of his topic ban since he was specifically told in his first enforcement request that he wasn't allowed to discuss them on his user pages. This is him just pushing the boundaries yet again and wasting editors time yet again. I wouldn't be opposed to reupping this to arbcom for a full out arb case on his behaviour overall not just in the topic of diacritics per the comment by Br'er Rabbit below. -DJSasso (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by GoodDay

In the discussion the led to this block two sitting arbs suggested that the issue be referred back to the AC for review. That's what should happen here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

Good grief, didn't we just finish this a few days ago? GoodDay says, "I wasn't fully aware of the extent of the topic ban." But shouldn't they have made themselves fully aware when they were originally topic-banned? Or when the first RfE was filed? Or the second RfE? Considering there was some support for a 6 month ban, I would say to let GoodDay complete the 30 day sanction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by One Night In Hackney

Suggest speedy decline as he was aware of the scope of the topic-ban per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive117#GoodDay, in particular "I still disagree with being barred from mentioning certain topics on my pages, but I will refrain from mentioning them in future". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 06:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Resolute

I'm sorry my friend, but you knew the range of your prohibition after your first AE block. I myself tried to impress on you what it meant: [138], [139]. Consensus at the first AE supported that interpretation. You need to accept that you are banned from this topic. That you may not comment on it, anywhere in any way. Please, just take the summer off, then return with a fresh purpose. As I said in one of those comments, I can think of plenty of projects for you to gnome about that won't put you afoul of your topic bans. Reso lute 14:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add, simply for the record but requesting no action, that I feel the four anti-diacritic editors on your talk page after you were blocked are doing you no favours by attempting to impress the martyr-complex on you. I think they would be well served to let you be as my impression is their comments led you into this appeal, which has no hope of success and can only further test the community's patience with you. If my impression is accurate, then they have done you a great disservice, even if their intentions were noble. Reso lute 14:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by GoodDay

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

For information: here is the RFAE discussion that ended with GoodDay being blocked on August 3, 2012. There seem to be two possible reasons why a RFAE might be overturned after 3 days. One would be that it was an inappropriate sanction: since a review of the discussion shows several editors suggesting a 6 month block, and a rare intervention at AE from two arbitrators suggesting it be sent back to ArbCom for more serious review (and perhaps even more severe sanctions) it seems that 1 month is a mild sanction indeed. The second possible reason would be because GoodDay convinces the assembled populace of administrators that the message has been received by GoodDay and that the block is not required to prevent disruption. Unfortunately, it is once bitten twice shy in this regard and there are a limit to how many epiphanies are convincing. After an editor has been told multiple times by arbitrators, administrators and other editors to leave a subject entirely alone saying "the ban apparently includes my own userspace" seems the epitome of I didn't hear that because I had my fingers in my ears. In short, I don't see any reason to overturn the block. It's good that you have the links to various pages of arbcom etc on your talkpage, GoodDay, but I suggest you simply take a good break from Wikipedia and enjoy the all too short summer. Read them and then act on them when you come back in September. --Slp1 (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Devil's Advocate

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - 20:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from the subject of the September 11 attacks, imposed at; Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive111#Request concerning MONGO, logged at; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Log of blocks and bans

Administrator imposing the sanction: WGFinley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [140]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

As this was a massive case I intend to focus on the substantive points raised about my conduct in the discussion as there was quite a bit of trivial commentary. For the sake of making things easier, as this is going to be long, I will summarize the main points and include evidence and commentary after that in sections. The main points of my appeal:

The alleged edit-warring on the September 11 attacks article was me attempting to undo a glaring error that resulted from another editor's manual revert of my changes.
Claims of tendentious editing in favor of 9/11 conspiracy theories are based on edits I made that were actually less favorable to a conspiracist view.
The case I filed against User:DHeyward was related to articles in the 9/11 topic area and did include serious conduct issues. It was not a frivolous request regarding any "personal dispute" between us nor an attempt to "silence an opponent" to my edits.

My reason for citing the case against DHeyward is because User:EdJohnston cited the case as a reason for his position on the MONGO case (the one that resulted in my topic ban). In that respect I would ask that User:Elen of the Roads, who made several comments on the DHeyward case, be considered involved as that case is related to the enforcement action.

Edit-warring

The first substantive allegation raised was by Tom harrison. He claimed that I was edit-warring over a "Warnings" section another editor had added to the article on 9/11 to "force in" a rewrite I did of the section. This is the initial revert of my changes by A Quest For Knowledge:

[141]

What should be noted about this revert is that it was a manual revert spread over two edits that tried to preserve some of my changes while removing others. The unintentional result was that two of the paragraphs in the section were essentially identical and sourced material about a well-known August memo was removed entirely. Here is exactly what was in the article as a result of this revert with the exact duplication bolded:

During the Bush Administration such warnings intensified due to an increase in intelligence from June to July of 2001, called "the threat spike" by National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice. At a July meeting CIA counter-terrorism chief J. Cofer Black and CIA director George Tenet informed Rice about communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. Rice listened but was unconvinced, having other priorities on which to focus. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld questioned the information suggesting it was a deception meant to gauge the U.S. response.

In July 2001, J. Cofer Black, CIA's couterterrorism chief and George Tenet, CIA's director, met with Condolezza Rice, the National Security Advisor, to inform her about communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. Rice listened but was unconvinced, having other priorities on which to focus. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld questioned the information suggesting it was a deception meant to gauge the U.S. response.

Both paragraphs were clearly the same with minor alterations to the beginning. When I reverted this change I was very clear that I was reverting the duplication of this paragraph: [142]. The editor responsible for the error stepped in to revert a second time by citing WP:BRD and restored the error: [143]. Once more I reverted the error to note that it had also mistakenly removed the information about the August memo as I believe AQFK's revert was not meant to completely remove material about the memo: [144]. At this point Tom harrison reverts it, citing BRD like AQFK did: [145]. However, he quickly notices the duplication and removes it: [146]. A few days later I restored the old structure of the August memo paragraph: [147]. That change was not reverted, unlike the others, suggesting the main objection was simply to the changes I made to the section.

Another note is the discussion I initiated immediately after my first revert that, despite me even suggesting possible problems in advance and seeking to address them, was up nearly four days with many comments from other editors about the need for discussion before anyone other than myself actually discussed any specific issues with the changes I made to the section.

Tendentious-editing

In suggesting the ban WG claimed I was engaged in tendentious-editing, which is defined as editing that is "partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole" and this was the main allegation of many editors in the case. However, to demonstrate from the above dispute, it is clear these allegations are at best misunderstanding the evidence if not cherry-picking it. One of my first edits to the Warnings section in the 9/11 article changed the characterization of Rumsfield's reaction to certain warnings from "dismissed the information thinking it was a deception" to "questioned the information suggesting it was a deception meant to gauge the U.S. response", which clearly put Rumsfield's reaction in a more favorable light. Then, after Tom removed an inaccurate quote from Rice, I inserted the accurate quote, which once more put the situation in a far more favorable light. Ironically, a piece of information added by Tom that was clearly a disservice to a conspiracist POV was actually removed by AQFK's manual revert, and re-added in my subsequent reverts. It is thus very hard to frame my edits regarding that section as tendentious.

During the case AQFK noted a separate dispute regarding the 9/11 CT article. Another editor, Ghostofnemo, added a section about the Able Danger program, and AQFK removed the section by stating that it was not about 9/11 conspiracy theories. I re-added the section with a sourced sentence establishing the conspiracy theory connection ([148]). Admittedly that was a lazy edit, but it did serve to address the objection. When AQFK reverted it a second time by arguing that this was not a major element of CT's, the matter began being discussed intensely on the talk page. After a few days of discussion where numerous additional sources were presented to establish this as prominent among conspiracy theorists, I inserted a substantial rewrite regarding the material. While Nemo's version was argumentative regarding the original claims, mine described the original complaint as "claiming the U.S. government was negligent in not heeding the information about the hijackers for fear of the political fallout", which presents a very non-CT explanation for the issue and follows it with "A six-month investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee was concluded in December of 2006 without finding evidence to support the claims." It is very hard to regard those new additions as tendentiously pushing a CT POV and they were in direct response to concerns raised on the talk page. Contrary to AQFK's characterization of the dispute, that change was described by JoelWhy on the talk page as being "on the right track" though he said more needed to be done to satisfy his concerns.

DHeyward case

To explain this one requires a bit of context. I had filed an AE case against Tom because of certain tendentious edits he made to the 9/11 CT article. All three admins that commented rapidly agreed the edits were so severe as to warrant an indefinite topic ban. Several editors, such as MONGO, were greatly displeased with that result and plainly expressed that I should have been sanctioned instead. During a discussion about that topic ban on MONGO's talk page is when MONGO insinuated that I might be a sockpuppet based on a misguided examination of my first edit, if he had looked that hard he would have noticed that all the templates were copy-pasted from a section directly above my edit. That is when DHeyward stepped in to suggest that I was a sock of Giovanni33.

While we had interacted before, his comment at MONGO's talk was the first time his conduct stuck out. Soon after that was the random vexatious delete vote at the AfD mentioned in diff #3 of the case I filed, which on its own was nothing, but clearly set the tone for his later conduct. One thing I did not note in the case is his comment at Timotheus Canens talk page a day prior to filing the AN report to have Tom's ban repealed. His motives for going after me, and its connection with the 9/11 articles were more than clear in that comment. It was my fault for not being clear enough about how DHey's conduct towards me was related to the 9/11 topic area, but there were still several serious issues that any admin should surely have noticed. Particularly, his comment at AN when appealing for the removal of Tom's topic ban (diff #6 on the case) comparing me to Jeffrey Dahmer should have been a giant red flag for any admin looking over the evidence in the case and I find the failure to notice or comment on it to be a gross lapse on the part of all three admins.

As noted above, my reason for mentioning this case is because it was explicitly mentioned by Ed as part of his reason for supporting a ban, indeed it constituted most of his comment at the MONGO case. He described the case as being "almost frivolous" and suggested it was an "attempt to silence an opponent", something I think the above clearly illustrates as a gravely mistaken proposition. One of the other admins who commented at the DHeyward case, Timotheus Canens, also subsequently commented at the MONGO case to support the topic ban against me. Amazingly, DHeyward's comment on that same case pointed to yet another serious conduct issue where he described dealing with me as being "like trying to deal with someone with OCD, Asperberger, paranoia and infinite time on their hands to constantly disrupt the project."

The conduct issues are all stale, so to be clear my point here is just that I was not trying to "silence an opponent" as Ed suggested. DHeyward's conduct was upsetting me quite a bit as it would reasonably upset anyone and the thought of having to deal with that conduct, not just in the 9/11 topic area, but anywhere I go on Wikipedia left me feeling like I had to request admin intervention to have any respite.

Conclusion

Given all the issues above I feel the admins who supported this topic ban were not very thorough in their examination of the situation and were too hasty in suggesting such an action. Honestly, I am not even particularly enthused about the idea of being able to edit in this topic area and will probably only be minimally or tangentially involved in the 9/11 CT dispute for some time should this be lifted, but I all the same would like to see some comment from uninvolved admins about the reasons given for this ban.

Replies

WG, as you were the first uninvolved admin to definitively suggest a topic ban and subsequently several other admins supported your suggestion with you then being the one to implement it, it is reasonable that I would name you above. Now, would you please provide a more substantive explanation of your reasons for suggesting a topic ban and why you think the above does not illustrate any issues with those reasons?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~NW, would you please put your comment in the involved editor section?~~--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WGFinley

Not sure why I'm being specifically named here, I was the closing admin moving on a consensus of admins and not independently.[149] That being said, I can't think of a single thing more to add to maintain this ban than TDA has said in his treatise himself. This is a signature case of someone who has a long way to go before contributing in a hot stove area like this. --WGFinley (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

The Devil's Advocate (TDA, for short) is in his second topic ban on this subject. This second topic ban is only 6 months. The examples listed above by TDA as far as content, clearly demonstrate why he is so difficult to work with in this venue...for TDA, anyone making a slight alteration to his preferred version is then subjected to an endless, mind-numbing talkpage discussion...by the time the discussion is sort of concluded, an entire new archive page is needed. TDA and lots of other folks seem to think the September 11 attacks article is supposed to be a coatrack for every piece of only mildly related information. The primary reason the article is a long way from featured status is due to this issue...anyone trying to misuse the website to promote fringe material over the known facts should seek out a new hobby.MONGO 13:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NuclearWarfare

I would recommend rejection of this appeal. TDA is a tendentious editor in this topic area, despite his protestations otherwise, and basically every uninvolved administrator who has scanned his edits agrees on that. Discretionary sanctions are meant to allow administrators to use their judgment. While I am obviously not the best person to comment on the discussing administrators' judgments, I would posit that ours was not so totally incorrect that it merits reversal. Furthermore, I see no indication that anything has changed since the March request. NW (Talk) 14:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by The Devil's Advocate

Result of the appeal by The Devil's Advocate

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

As a sysop who has commented on neither of the cases cited by The Devil's Advocate (TDA) I'll have a look at this. I've gone through the appeal and the previous case (but haven't finished the Dheyward case yet) and at this point I see no grounds for over-turning. I'll have a couple more run throughs before commenting further, but as TDA has based this appeal on the legitimacy of the sanction alone (not any change of his behaviour since it) the grounds are quite narrow--Cailil ^talk 14:58, 7 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]

@@ Line 835: / Line 835: @@
 Please also see my comment at DA's talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Devil%27s_Advocate&pe=1&#AE_comment]. 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.
 [[User:Volunteer Marek|<font color="Orange">Volunteer</font><font color="Blue">Marek</font>]] 05:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

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