Requests for enforcement

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

The Troubles

This is not a specific enforcement request, but a notification of an AE-related thread. At ANI, there is discussion about the community consensus from October 2008[1] that expanded the remedies from the October 2007 Troubles case. Specifically, how to define "1RR", and the level of warning required before an editor can be blocked under the expanded remedies. Interested editors are invited to participate at the ANI thread. --El on ka 19:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed addendum to the Troubles case restriction is now listed at Wikipedia:ANI#Addendum to community sanction. It would be appreciated if any interested editors could comment on whether or not they support the addendum, thanks. --El on ka 15:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtilein

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Kurtilein blocked for 30 hours for improperly reverting, and served with a discretionary sanctions notification. AGK 20:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Kurtilein

User requesting enforcement:
Cirt (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Editors_instructed (Note that the prior Scientology case remedy, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Article_probation, may also be applicable here.)

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

23:12, 25 October 2009 - Kurtilein adds unsourced info to the article. I removed it, with an edit summary saying it is unsourced info.
12:12, 26 October 2009 - Kurtilein adds the info back, claiming it is sourced to a primary source document - however I don't see how the text "Another passage that has been cited by critics of the organisation, especially in relation to cases of death where critics see connections to the organisation" is sourced to that document, and regardless the primary source document usage strays towards WP:NOR violation. I removed it a 2nd time, noting in the edit summary this specific portion that is definitely unsourced.
- In a post to his user talk page, I asked Kurtilein for independent reliable secondary sources, and noted the WP:NOR issue: [2].
- I then also specifically noted the portion of the text that he re-added that was wholly unsourced: [3].
13:17, 26 October 2009 - Kurtilein adds the material back, again, this time with a disturbing edit summary: undo it again, and i will not come back and redo this edit... i will call others to this article to redo it. many others.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
[4], [5]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Block, at discretion of reviewing admin.

Additional comments by Cirt (talk):
It is unfortunate that unsourced material remains in the article - but I am taking a step back from the article in order for this evaluation here to proceed, and to avoid disruption at the article itself. As I am involved with cleanup at this article, and have contributed quality content on the topic, I will defer review and admin action to another administrator. Thank you for your time. Cirt (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that at the very least a warning from another administrator at the user's talk page would be appropriate here. Cirt (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

(user notified) 13:42, 26 October 2009. Cirt (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Kurtilein

Statement by Kurtilein

The information i added to the article is NOT unsourced. I quoted from the document called "Keeping Scientology working", it is referenced. He reverted my edit repeatedly without giving any proper reasons to do so, and he reverted my edit while there would have been other options. he could have added one of those little "citation needed"-things if there really would be a citation missing. I consider it to be very rude when you just remove information that someone else added to the article, without having real reasons to do so, and without considering alternatives. Kurtilein (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how i experienced it: I stubled upon the article, read it, and then i read the whole original document "keeping scientology working". There i discovered the quote, and a part of the quote, the sentence about "We'd rather have you dead than incapable" is well known and often cited by critics. Now people keep removing it when i try to add it, INSTEAD OF trying to add the missing citations, INSTEAD OF adding one of those little "citation needed"things, INSTEAD OF doing something else (i am sure there would be other options). The option that has been chosen was to remove the quote from public view, to destroy the work that i have done. And now i know about this quote, i know that it should be in the article, i know that it would be easy to find sources, i know that Scientology would love to NOT have this quote in the article. This is one of the biggest differences between Citizendium and Wikipedia: on citizendium, deleting something someone else has written is not allowed unless good reasons are given, and while i now agree that the sentence i added to the quote would need a "citation needed"-tag or that deleting it would be justified, i see no justification for deleting the quote itself. it is much more difficult to get your account blocked on citizendium than it is on wikipedia, but repeatedly deleting the contributions of others leads to a lifetime ban really quickly. Because actions like this make people that care about freedom of speech, like me, so angry that all rational arguments fail and that the presence of this quote in the article is now the only thing i care about. instead of working together to find a way to use this quote for the article and to expand the article, this has instantly turned into a fight, because deleting what someone else has written contains in itself a big and loud "fuck you" together with a silent "what you do is not welcome here", which can be heared and understood by people that hate censorship on the internet, like i do. Kurtilein (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the following for Jayen466, but while writing it it turned into another statement that i would like to add here:

THANKS!!! hooray :) your recent edit to Keeping Scientology Working is great. Now it looks like the disputed quote can stay in the article. Actually i learned a lot from this. After my edit got removed for the first time, i should have reintroduced the edit either with sources or with a "citation needed"-tag, should have opened a discussion on the articles talk page, and should have pointed out that nothing in wikipedias policies says that sources and citations cannot be added a few days later. Tagging apparently does the same job that deleting does in cases like this, except when the person that got his stuff deleted does not come back, or doesnt want to start an edit war, in that case deleting has the effect of censorship. I admit that i really am quite inexperienced on wikipedia. I still think that just deleting edits that could be turned into something useful is unnecessary because there are alternatives, and that it is rude because it is unnecessary and somehow still tied to censorship. Maybe i also overreacted, i could have reacted in a much better way, but if i would not have continued to fight the deletion of my edit then the quote might never have ended up in the article. For me, it was about content all along. I think i will also add this to my statement on the arbitration request for enforcement against me. I hope im not the only one that learned something from this, many people had to waste time because of this, and none of this would have happened if someone would have considered using of those little "citation needed"-tags at the right place and time. Kurtilein (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Comments by Jayen466

I have taken the unsourced material out; User:Kurtilein failed to note that he way he framed the quote was unsourced, and failed to understand it even when Cirt pointed it out to him. Suggest warning User:Kurtilein per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Discretionary_topic_ban, explaining the arbitration remedies to him, and placing a topic ban if there is a repeat. --JN466 18:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[6], [7], [8], [9]. --JN466 22:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was a case of inexperience and excess enthusiasm, and Kurtilein seems to have recognised this now. --JN466 00:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Kurtilein

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

Kurtilein's behaviour concerns me. By edit warring and not being willing to engage in any form of discussion of his changes, he has edited the Keeping Scientology Working article with an approach that is unfavourable to collaboration. A topic area as contested as Scientology does not need such an approach. I am placing a 30-hour block on Kurtilein's account, in response to the edit warring, and serving him with a notification of sanctions (as provided for in remedy 4 of the Scientology arbitration case). AGK 19:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Nableezy

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Nableezy topic banned for 4 months. AGK 21:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Nableezy

User requesting enforcement:
Stellarkid (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[10]

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions

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

Nableezy has been involved in a systematic and longstanding attempt to insert POV material into the lead of a controversial I-P article in a non-collaborative way and without consensus, and gaming the system.

Numerous archives speak specifically to the conflict and lack of consensus for this edit, and other archives to the issue of POV, as does the current Talk:Gaza War page, particularly here and more than that to the lead itself. These earlier archives show that no consensus has been achieved for this edit. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

The following reverts are to his preferred version and were made in the last four weeks. The article was edit-protected [20],
and the last four reverts made after edit protection was removed. (with partial edit summaries)

[21] "you need to show consensus has changed, no consensus for removal of long standing text" 9/26
[22] "no consensus" 9/27
[23] "rvt using popups" 9/28
[24] other editor's beliefs "don't matter" 9/28
[25] "consensus" 9/29
[26] "amply sourced" 10/3
[27] adds dubious source claiming "this should end this" 10/4
[28] rvtd compromise solution with "nonsense, the text is directly supported by the citations" 10/6
[29]"move up, bold and capitalize per source" (reverted to the most contentious edit despite continuing argument WP policy re lede, re consensus, re Reliability) 10/15
[30] "removal of reliably cited and there is no consensus to completely remove gaza massacre" 10/15
[31] "no consensus" (for removal) 10/15
[32] "verifiable statement reliably sourced with no consensus for removal" 10/20

Here is a second set of diffs over a longer period of time for same article demonstrating POV or Battlefield mentality:

[33] maybe the Truth is antisemitic
[34] Believes Hamas over Israel
[[35] Hamas has a 'legal right to resist occupation
[36] The idea that Israel wants peace is proved incorrect
[37] "Because somebody is worried that international press will become pro-gazan upon seeing civilians rotting in the street is reason to endorse censorship?"
[38] After reverting to his preferred version, says "This was simple vandalism, and thus reverted. You changed well sourced information and added things to change the balance so that the Israeli side is represented in a disproportional manner."

Disparaging comments (violating WP:NPA) to other users' arguments in relation to this edit.

[39] Other editors refuse to acknowledge simple facts, editors who challenge are "disruptive."
[40] Doesn't matter what a fellow editor thinks
[41] Caps are irrelevant in Arabic
[42] "Beyond ridiculous"
[43] "Bullshit" argument
[44] Controversy is "Bullshit argument" & attempt to WP:CENSOR despite most of the editors' agreement that the material does belong in the article, just not in the lead
[45] "moronic"

Diffs from (some) other (established) editors demonstrating that there was "no consensus" for this insertion. They run from January -September.

[46] "Appalled" by massacre terminolgiy -- nothing short of racism
[47] "But I'm not sure any more that it is fair to say this is the usual name for these events in Arabic" based on a search that showed that "the term "massacre exsists in just eight percent of the articles."
[48] concerned about the effect on the naïve reader, encountering "'The Gaza Massacre”' in boldface in the opening line" will "potentially [create] an undue bias, before even reading the facts" [49] [50] not an official name
[51]" emotive and judgemental, irrelevant of its use throughout the world, the article should note this useage but not term itself the "Gaza Massacre"
[52] "highly emotive" "inflammatory language" and "These highly emotive terms have sources, but so do many other things that wouldn't be appropriate."
[53] notes that it would be grammatically correct as a description but not as a proper name. He supports disembolding and would allow "The conflict has been described as a "massacre" in parts of the Arab world."
[54] "there is no reason to capitalize "massacre" since the English sources don't." He also notes that reliable sources in the Arab world do not refer to it that way.
[55] If "massacre is indeed the most widely used term, provide proof and it will go without qualification" "the sources provided so far do not back the assertion, though they back the statement that in parts of the ARab world the event is described as a massacre, at least by some and occasionally." "following WP:common sense and the assumption that (most) Arabs are not flamers yelling martyrdom and massacre." [56]
[57] "no reason for the massacre title anymore" since 'evidence that common name in Al Jazeera, Syria, & for Palestinians is "Gaza War"'.

more recently:

[58]concerned about RS that made the claim of "massacre"
[59] "massacre" not used frequently. [60] RS show that Al Jazeera and Hamas chief use "Gaza War" and suggests moving "Gaza Massacre" to another place in the article. [61] Clearly propose to leave lead with Operation and War and move Massacre to Propaganda [62] Clearly propose to leave lead with Operation and War and move Massacre to Propaganda
[63] thinks "use of the word "massacre" here is inappropriate, non-neutral, and used only as a political tactic." based on his Google search. "The lead paragraph is too important to include something so contentious and unclear as the "Gaza Massacre."
[64] there is a "lack of consensus" and that it is in violation of WP:NPOV. Also warned on reverting " I'd like to note that using Twinkle in content disputes is frowned upon as are blind reverts and ignoring the perspectives and notes (as well as reliable sources) of fellow editors." [65] " Otherwise, we're giving an undue level of prestige of sorts to a fragment of one side's propaganda since it's clearly not "just a name""
[66] "The archives indicates that there's no consensus or "rough consensus" for its inclusion. Nor has the article been stable. See User:AgadaUrbanit's talk page, which is replete with your warnings that he nor remove the term again. I'm advocating for a clear consensus before controversial and defamatory material is placed in the lede of an article." [67] "Including 'massacre' in the lede is encyclopedic, NPOV-violative, and WP:N-violative. [68]' Mainstream sources do not say in their own words that "Hamas calls this war the Gaza Massacre"' [69] No RS available thus "use of the term apparently violates wp:or/wp:synth, if not wp:n" [70] offers a compromise to achieve consensus.
[71] "guess seeing the word "massacre" in boldface in the first line is what concerns me just a bit. It's a highly charged term, and do we really need that so prominently in the article?"

Links suggesting that Nableezy is gaming the system by bringing others up for charges,

[72] - Wikifan12345
[73] - NoCal100
[74] - Boatduty177177
[75]- RichPoynder
[76]- AgadaUrbanit
[77] -Rm125
[78] asking me to self -revert so that he will not violate 3RR]
[79] clearly demonstrating he understands the system and warning against adding material against consensus
[80]"discussed does not mean agreed. You need to stop warring in material over the objections of others." This is a direct warning to another user for the very same thing he is doing here.
[81] An editor has put forth an ArbCon request on behalf of Nableezy for sanctions on User:Cptnono one of the editors directly involved in this dispute- one who has not edit-warred the article. 10/10
[82] Though filed by another editor, Nableezy is also the principal in this ArbCon request re editwarring as well, for a different article. ([83]) 10/11

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

[84] I warned (or at least explained my concerns) response here [85]
[86] concerns also here; citing WP:CCC
[87] Nja247 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) "Final warning" "Essentially at this point you should be using a personal 1RR rule except for blatant vandalism" 4/28
[88] PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) warned of ArbCom sanctions 6/30
[89] Recent edit warring report 10/6
[90] warning by Tedder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 10/15
[91] Block log

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):

I am asking for a topic ban for some period of time. Considering that he has been warned a number of times in the past and has not seemed to be able to honor these warnings with the appropriate editing behaving, and considering that this behavior is tending to move further afield as is perhaps illustrated here: [92], to ignore it would give it permission to continue and thrive. Perhaps what troubles me most is the lack of respect I see for colleagues that take a different view from him. Some time off might allow Nableezy review his objectives here at WP. He is an intelligent and thoughtful editor in my view, and well liked on both sides of the aisle. I think he would be a great editor in areas that are not so personal for him.

I believe it necessary to send a clear message that this kind of behavior is unacceptable that it may discourage it in others as well, hopefully cutting down on reportage of incidents, and generally helping to foster a better WP editing environment in the sensitive area of I-P.

Comments by Nableezy

Stellarkid has been on a month-long mission to expunge from the article a common Arabic name for the conflict, a name that has been in the article for over ten months (and for which there was consensus for including), something that both has countless sources of actual use as well as two sources that flat out say that the name for the conflict in the Arab world is the "gaza massacre". He has made opposing arguments for including names that he likes (such as "war on hamas") as he has to remove this name (and he does so in the very same section as he makes the opposing argument). When this is pointed out to him his response is what I have to say is one of the all-time classic lines of a POV pusher when confronted with the fact that he is engaging in intellectual dishonesty; otherstuffexists. That said, I'm not touching that page again, there is no point in even trying to work with such people. People who say that even if it were true that the whole world except Israel called it "The Gaza Massacre" it would still represent the opinion or "point of view" of just one side and would not belong in the lead as the name used by one of the parties. I completely wash my hands of that article (I took it off my watchlist a couple days ago) as I think that trying to reason with Stellarkid is a mission in futility and I would much rather do something more useful with my time, like take a shit.

As for Stellarkid's half-baked proof I am "gaming" the system, reporting editors for 5+ reverts is not gaming. And picking quotes (and going back 10 months) completely out of context is what Stellarkid does best (please actually read the complete diffs and what they were in response to). Earlier he presented "sources" for "war on hamas". Not a single one of the sourcse he originally cited used anything approaching that as the name of the conflict, he simply googled "war on hamas" and added a bunch of links. Also, please look at Stellarkids removals, you will see he has also been edit-warring consistently. I am the only one to try any dispute resolution on this issue, I opened an RfC, went to the RS noticeboard and the NPOV noticeboard. Stellarkid's actions have consisted of nothing but making specious arguments and edit-warring something out that is a verifiable statement supported by a reliable source with another 10 sources presented on the talk page. nableezy - 06:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put diffs illustrating lack of consensus into the body of my request just now. Of course memory lane would include a trip to the archives, which is what I did. Stellarkid (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first one that you again quote out of context also includes the user saying "Yet, I can't see how we can ignore the fact that most of the Arab world does call it that way." JGGardiner has since changed his opinion on the issue, the third one also includes the user saying the would include it in the lead but without boldface, something that you agreed to and then decided you did not agree any longer. But I dont feel like dealing with you any longer, you have no idea what WP:NPOV means. It does not mean that we do not include what a significant POV because what they say is "inflammatory". We are obligated under WP:NPOV to include all significant POVs. You have repeatedly made dishonest arguments that shift depending on the POV. That is why I refuse to carry on talking with you, I have no respect for those who cannot be consistent with their arguments. That is the only thing I expect from an editor, that they apply arguments consistently. You do not do that. You consistently argue for a POV, and when that requires an inconsistent argument you take no hesitation to make such arguments. In the very same section you were arguing that the sources for "Gaza Massacre" were not enough you argue that the exact same type of sources are sufficient for a name you want to include. You have edit-warred over this term as much as anybody else. Here is a list of every non-minor edit you have made to the article:

[93] completely removes "gaza massacre" with source
[94] completely removes with source
[95] exactly the same as below, though you dishonestly call it "another" attempt at a compromise instead of a simple revert to the same edit you had made earlier
[96] changes to "known as a 'massacre'" when every source calls it "the gaza massacre"
[97] completely removes
[98] other
[99] removes from lead and places in media as "a 'massacre'" (none of the sources cited were of the media calling it that)
[100] completely removes
[101] completely removes
[102] other names you insert using the exact opposite reasoning as you used to remove gaza massacre

You have added nothing of substance to the article and have only added fallacious arguments to the talk page. You continually cite policies when it is clear you have not read them as they often say the exact opposite thing as you say they do. But again, I do not wish to continue arguing with you, there is no point. You have demonstrated a tendency to lie about the sources, to lie about policies, and to repeatedly lie by omission in your presentation of diffs. I have no use for such time-wasting tactics by somebody here to do one and only one thing. To removed what one "side" says while pushing what the other "side" says. I will engage with those who I have even the slightest bit of respect for, but for you and a few others at that page I am done pretending that you are acting in good faith. And as WP:AGF is a policy I will instead of saying that repeatedly simply stop engaging with you. You are not worth my time. nableezy - 18:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the cited diffs was a nice trip down memory lane, I had completely forgot about some of those gems. I have indeed soapboxed early on in my entrance in this area, but stopped, for the most part at least, some time ago. But they are for the most part taken completely out of context. Par for the course though, nableezy - 07:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, the diff you cited of me using 3rr as a tool was by User:LoverOfTheRussianQueen, a sockpuppet of the indefinitely banned User:NoCal100 (in which NoCal100 as LOTRQ cited a 3RR report against NoCal100 as proof of my using it as a weapon, good times). On Brewcrewer's report I had made 2 reverts, the exact same number as Shuki. About it having to be "my way", BS. I made several "compromise" edits, including changing it to "described by Hamas as" unbolded. That still was not good enough for yall so I found 2 sources that explicitly say it is the name used in the Arab world. Still not enough. Why you keep saying these things even though they are plainly bogus and that they are bogus has been pointed out to you a number of times. You presented a source using "War on Hamas". And you say that is enough. But many, many sources using "Gaza M/massacre" was not enough. Regarding the email from another editor, if that editor does not wish to actually say that to me then the only thing I can say would be incredibly vulgar. And "refusal to seek resolution in the Massacre title dispute"? Who opened the RfC? Who went to RS/N? Who went to NPOV/N? And for you to continue to say that I am POV pushing for wanting to include what sources show is a common Arabic name for the conflict, the irony speaks for itself. But I dont want to argue with you or Stellarkid anymore, its useless. No matter how many sources I provide (it was 10 using the phrase just by Hamas officials at last count and 2 explicitly saying it is the common Arabic name) it wont be enough. I have no energy for such foolish arguments, it is completely pointless. Nearly every article in this area is crap, one more wont hurt. Have fun making it happen. nableezy - 07:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My diff list does not include any banned or sockpuppet editors. Regarding the name "Israel's war on Hamas" Google news hits showed it being commonly used, much more so than "Gaza massacre," (with small letters). In fact, aside from unverifiable Arab sources (which violated WP:NONENG and thus did not belong in the lede -) your only source for "known in the Arab world as 'the Gaza Massacre' was one source by a reporter in a (reliable source) South African newspaper who writes and was writing about a current and local event. Even if this source was finally accepted as a RS for your insertion, WP does not require us to use any and every source, and asks for further sources if the edit is controversial, as it clearly was. All this was brought up innumerable times on the talk pages, but you continued to edit-war in your preferred version. Stellarkid (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, you cite NoCal100, the same banned editor. And Arabic sources are verifiable and they do not "violate" WP:NONENG, they are explicitly allowed by WP:NONENG. And only a few of the 10 sources provided were even in Arabic, but, again, an honest argument is not expected from you. Just one more example of lying about what a policy says. The other "Gaza massacre" ref from the SA Sunday Times (which a consensus of uninvolved editors at RS/N said was a reliable source) was in a report on an interview with Goldstone. But again, I have stopped expecting you to actually provide a truthful and accurate argument. The fact that you think your edit-warring out something that is supported by reliable, verifiable sources is acceptable but think I should be punished for edit-warring it back in is laughable. The fact that you present a collection of sources from google without even reading any of the sources which in fact do not support what you said they did is likewise laughable. But an honest argument is not expected from you, so a laughable one will just have to suffice. nableezy - 18:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Hicks, if you wish to interject here it would be wise of you to understand what it is you are writing. Turkish nationalists changing the Saladin article to say that he was a Turk and not a Kurd goes against countless reliable sources (in fact, every single scholarly work on the topic) that Saladin was a Kurd. Changing that, and on occasion vandalizing the references by changing the quotes within them, is vandalism, not a content dispute. Also, in your history list there are not 3 reverts in some of those. And looking through your contributions it is clear that nearly all of your edits are in fact reverts of other peoples. I have certainly edit-warred in the past, I dont deny that. But you and Stellarkid both only raise one "side" of reverts when it is clear on the settlement pages that Shuki continually reverted across a range of articles making us have the same discussion in a number of places, each time concluding with the undeniable fact that these places are called "Israeli settlements" before any other description, and often to the exclusion of any other description, in the vast majority of English sources. But then again, edit-warring is only bad when the "other side" is doing it, right? That said, I wont edit war anymore. It is difficult though to not click undo when a group of editors demand on imposing a fringe-sized minority POV (for instance that "Area C", a subdivision of the West Bank created under the Oslo Accords, is in Israel) before what nearly all reliable sources say. nableezy - 20:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Nableezy

Comments by Sean.hoyland

Or simply provide mentoring for Stellarkid until such time that he is a) able to understand what NPOV means and b) formally agrees to abide by the discretionary sanctions specifically the parts that say

"What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict".
"Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area".

That way Nableezy and other editors who understand that we are trying to build a neutral encyclopedia wouldn't have to waste quite so much time dealing with partisan nonsense which ever direction it is coming from. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cptnono

My primary concern is the continuous getting away with it. Here are some recent examples of edit warring that jumped out at me:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive112#User:Nableezy reported by User:Brewcrewer (Result: Stale, warnings, cautions etc.) - Brewcrewer made several allegations (including concerns with the "massacre" edit war) but the administrator saw that it was stale. Please note Shuki's comment at the bottom of the section regarding his disbelief and reporting more reverts. OCtober 5-7
[103] A diff showing frustration by an admin regarding edit warring between Nableezy and Shuki on October 11
User talk:nableezy#October 2009 An admin giving a caution for another edit war on October 15.

He also uses the system. Sometimes it is for the betterment of the article. Other times it has been questioned. Along with the Brewcrewer one on October 6 mentioned above:

An editor accused him of using 3rr against opponents in this edit
I actually received an email from another editor after a case was brought against me here for saying that he edits for the Palestine and not Wikipedia. Those were some harsh comments but I tried to give him constructive criticism. The email included the line "Incredibly said. Too bad it will probably get lost in the banter. I made a similar comment to him(?) a few weeks ago, about him not contributing anything but rather just around to police articles...". There is nothing wrong with policing articles. There is something wrong with the constant struggle when other options are available (being nice is something I need to learn, too!). There is also an acknowledgment that things do continue to get lost in a flurry of new subsections and incident reports and an editor sending an email like this smacks of an environment that is not collaborative and is full of battling.

We all screw up (I have for sure) but it looks like this behavior is being enabled since there have been zero consequences. I originally thought that a reminder from an administrator would be a good start but he has been warned more than once and their is so much concern that he has not addressed.

I provided a source some time ago discussing how "war on Hamas" was used by the media. Unfortunately, Nableezy has been a habit of asserting his arguments until challenges dry up. With "massacre", compromises were eventually offered which should have made almost everyone happy. It had to be Nableezy's way, though. Both Stellar and I have already expressed the reasoning behind our criticism of pushing a POV yet editors ignore it and claim that we have not. Stellar's comments during my AE case is one example. Another was when my allegations that he edits only contentious Arab based articles along with my concerns that he refused to seek resolution in the Massacre title dispute. Stellar has also attempted to do it right at the the talk page and has tried to improve the article. Was his view of consensus incorrect? Maybe, but his view that there was not consensus either way definitely was correct. I'm surprised and disappointed that Nableezy's response was an attempt to discredit Stellar.Cptnono (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loosely related but doesn't address primary edit warring concerns
Follow-up, Tiamut unarchived two discussions and inserted them below. The reasoning given in the edit summary is that they were not officially closed. I thought that was what the "results"section was but am open to further scrutiny. I have moved them up so the chronology of events is kept. I wanted to mention that this could be viewed as an attempt to influence the system in covert in a manner that is disruptive and sly. It obviously was done in a brash manner when a simple wikilink would have sufficed. I also hope that this wasn't an attempt to justify for edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
more hidden content

Response to Cptnono's

In the hidden note above, Cptnono accuses me of trying to, "influence the system in covert in a manner that is disruptive and sly." Why? Because I restored two threads that were archived by Mizsabot: one that asked for help in dealing with Cptnono's tendency to comment on contributors rather than content, and one that asked for help in dealing with Shuki's tendency to edit war across multiple pages (a thread that has already been re-archived by the bot again - does someone want to re-check those settings?).

Cptnono's insistence on making bad faith assumptions about the actions of his fellow editors is disheartening and disturbing. I hope someone will finally issue him a warning about this, as originally requested in the thread on him restored.

Regarding the request made here that Nableezy be topic-banned (?!?) for his edits at Gaza War, I would note that Nableezy has been passionate about defending NPOV in the face of single-minded opposition to the NPOV on the part of Cptnono and Stellarkid, among others. Stellarkid - whose only edits to Gaza War have been to remove sourced material he does not like, while it is being discussed - has succeeded in chasing away one of the foremost content contributors to that page. As Nableezy has admitted to edit-warring and has stated he has taken Gaza War off his watchlist, I see no reason for him to be topic-banned. Someone may want to look further into what exactly Stellarkid's purposes are here though. Tiamut^talk 14:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mr. Hicks The III

It seems quite undisputable that Nableezy has engaged, and continues to engage, in edit warring. Some of those edit wars have resulted in his being blocked, others in his being warned, and still others have had other undesriable effects (pages protected, drama on various boards). Let's start with the uncontested facts:

Nableezy has been blocked twice this year for edit warring:[104].
He has been warned by administrators to stop edit warring, as recently as two weeks ago: [105].

A quick glance through his contribution history to article space shows it consists almost exclusively of reverts of other people's edits - sometimes justifiably, but often as part of a content dispute, and sometimes misleadingly labeling other people's edits that he's reverting as "vandalism", when in reality it is a content dispute:[106]. There are many, many cases of his reverting exactly 3 times, as if 3R was an entitlement:

[107] 3 reverts October 22
[108] 3 reverts October 5
[109] 3 reverts October 5
[110] 3 reverts Sep 25

There are countless such examples, the above are from the last 30 days alone, and are not an exhaustive list.
I believe it is time for some sanction, as previous blocks and warnings have not had the desired effect. Perhaps a topic ban from I-P articles, as those seem to be an area where he can't seem to restrqain himslef, or a mandatory 1RR restriction. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mr Unsigned Anon

Nableezy did argue about the 'Gaza Massacre' out from policy and was more pedagogical than needed. See [111] and the split in subsections according to different policys. He also raised the question on RS on WP:RSN [112]. There is a majority leaning on policys supporting Nableezy on this.

WP:NPOV is not someting taken lightly and Stellarkid should himself closly study it before editing "in the sensitive area of I-P." [113]. Editwarring and at the same time complaining on admins talkside does not make the user requesting enforcement case stronger [114] [115] [116] Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dailycare

It's true that there was an edit war concerning the "massacre" term in the Gaza War article, however a key point is that Nableezy was the editor in favour of including the properly sourced term, and the other involved editor was responsible for removing the properly sourced material, and s/he could be a better candidate for enforcement action than Nableezy. --Dailycare (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jgui

I am an uninvolved editor, having never edited the Gaza war page and having never edited for or against the involved editors Nableezy and Stellarkid. It is clear from the evidence that Nableezy was the one who was trying to improve NPOV of the article by including not only the IDF name for the Gaza conflict, but also the Palestinian name for the conflict. As others have noted above, it was Nableezy who was attempting to maintain properly sourced NPOV RS material, and it was Stellarkid who was removing it. Stellarkid is not a new editor and he should know better, and he should be discouraged from filing spurious charges here against other editors and wasting the time of the Administrators. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nableezy

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

Considered on a long-term basis, Nableezy's presence on the Gaza War article is not a helpful one. Any editor who re-adds the same sentence twelve times over a period of weeks, even having been notified that an uninvolved administrator is free to (per remedy 1.1) sanction disruptive contributors, is not one who has a helpful influence on the article-building process. I am banning Nableezy for a period of 4 months from all pages (including both article and article talk pages) within those topic areas which relate to the Palestine-Israel articles case. If he violates this topic ban, his account will be blocked for disruption (for any duration less than the time remaining of the topic ban). AGK 21:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Re: Nableezy

I have asked AGK to review his decision as I believe it is needlessly harsh. Even assuming that one accepts that Nableezy's behaviour at Gaza War has been disruptive (which many do not) the fact Nableezy pledged not to edit that article again should have been sufficient to allay any fears regarding future disruptions. There is no need for a topic ban, nor was any evidence presented that would suggest one would be necessary.

I would ask that AGK as well as other admins please review this decision. Nableezy's contributions to articles related to the I-P arena have been valuable to the project and this decision seems needlessly punitive. We have suffered the loss of many good contributors over the last couple of years because of overzealous rulings done without sufficient investigation into the background of the disputes in question. Other eyes would be much appreciated. Tiamut^talk 09:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this ruling is way out of bounds, apparently made in haste, and I second the request that it be reviewed. Jgui (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to both editors above is=

"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."

(But I would strongly support any appeal of this ruling.) The Squicks (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Irvine22

User requesting enforcement: --Domer48_'fenian' 09:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Irvine22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Revert #1 Revert #2
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: 2 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 1RR
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Unsure
Additional comments: Irvine22 is well aware of 1RR since they have been an active participant [117][118][119][120][121][122][123] in this ongoing discussion here were this issue is outlined.

Discussion regarding this request

Left open for discussion.

The difficulty I see here is that the 1RR restriction is intended to force communication; but a number of editors seem to have decided that Irvine22 is a "disruptive editor" or "troll" and to decline to substantively engage (see edit summaries and talk page on the page in question, Pat Finucane (solicitor)). This is not how the restriction is supposed to work. If Irvine22 is indeed displaying a pattern of disruptive behaviour (there does seem to be a certain history of edit warring and excessive boldness on this sensitive topic, besides a now-settled sock-puppet issue), then that broader context needs addressing, perhaps via WP:RFC/U, rather than picking out a single infraction for Arbitration Enforcement. Rd232 ^talk 12:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do seem to be the target of tag-team editing, with the reporting editor a member of the tag team. However, I wouldn't make too much of that - I always prefer not to complain. In this case, I will say two things: first, there is in fact only one revert here. The first action within the past 24 hours was a manual deletion of an advertising link. This followed a discussion on the talk page that seemed settled. This was reverted by RepublicanJacobite, and I reverted the revert. That's one revert, surely? Second: my understanding was that the various revert rules did not apply to removing obvious advertising links, such as the one I removed, which was a link to the business webpage of a firm of solicitors.Irvine22 (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.--Domer48_'fenian' 15:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia is not supposed to be a venue for advertising the services of firms of solicitors. Irvine22 (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion regarding Pat Finucane was hardly concluded, and there most certainly was not consensus for the removal of the link. The last comment in the discussion was you saying that the website is amateurish, which is utterly irrelevant. Most of the discussion prior to that involved your use of a term that was wholly inappropriate and a violation of WP:BLP. There had been next to no discussion as to the merits of the link, in part because you seem to find it difficult to engage in serious, helpful discussion. In an article about a living person, an article which concentrates on his career as a solicitor, a link to the webpage of his legal firm is not at all inappropriate. Just as there is a link to the General Motors website in the external links of the article about said corporation, and so on in dozens of other articles about corporations. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should have made these points on the article's talk page. If you had done so, I would have pointed out that GM is a notable corporation. Madden & Finucane is a non-notable firm of solicitors. Irvine22 (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RJ, this is all they want another plathform! Irvine22 when on "Irish Unionist Alliance", where he's twice added a link to a non-notable organisation by the same name that was deleted per AFD, it shows his stance on "advertising" is dependent on who is being advertised. This is a 1RR report, and all we have had is excuses. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domer makes a good point, and here are the diffs for Irvine's repeated inclusion of that nonnotable and irrelevant link:

It seems "advertising" is all in the eyes of the beholder, eh Irvine? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose there is one connection between the non-notable political organization in question and the non-notable firm of solicitors: both have had Wikipedia articles about them deleted. But there is also a rather obvious difference between them - only the website of the non-notable firm of solicitors advertises fee-based professional services. That is what I find inappropriate to link to, and I thought that was the settled view of Wikipedians. Anyway, as Rd232 points out, this could all have been aired on the article's talk page if you had engaged in good faith, instead of playing the tag-team silliness.Irvine22 (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last things first, I am sick of your unfounded and bad faith accusations of "tag-team" editing. If you have proof that I and other editors colluded to revert your edits without cause, please present in this public forum. Otherwise, I suggest you drop it.

But, to the substantive matter here, you are incorrect in your facts. The Finucane Solicitors AfD concluded that the article should be redirected, not deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madden_%26_Finucane_Solicitors

There's a significant difference between a redirect and a deletion of a nonnotable political group that just happened to hijack the name of an earlier organization. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither the forum for discussing issues like accusations of "tag-team" editing and other matters of general behaviour (RFC/U, or possibly other dispute resolution) nor of the content issues (article talk page). Rd232 ^talk 17:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Rd as long as we use the talk page we can breach 1RR (1RR restriction is intended to force communication), didn't know that, thanks for the heads up. BigDunc 18:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunc, notice also how RD feels they must below, make a pathetic and pointed comment at me, despite the fact that the discussion was closed having to ignore the notice "Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section" in order to make it. They also ignore the notices on the top of this page which says "The Committee does not look favourably upon comments that are intended to provoke reactions in others, and being incivil or provocative is counter-productive," in addition to "The golden rule of contributing to the project is to make an edit only where it actively benefits the project." So why would their ignoring and excusing of the 1RR here surprise us? Lets see how long RD's brand new rule lasts, we use the talk page we can breach 1RR! --Domer48_'fenian' 19:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result regarding this request

This is a credible AE request, as there was a clear 1RR violation. There is no weight to the claim that the "first" removal wasn't a revert, as Irvine had removed the link another time a few days before.[124] The matter was under discussion on the talk page, and sure it had gone quiet ... but it was obvious opposition remained when the reversion from RepublicanJacobite came. Irvine reverted again. Sorry Irvine, you knew the rules and chose to assume the risks of violating them. I'm giving you a week. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Jdorney

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

User requesting enforcement: --Domer48_'fenian' 14:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Jdorney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Revert #1 Revert #2 Revert #3
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: 3 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 1RR. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Unsure
Additional comments: Jdorney is well aware of the 1RR, having been given a final warning on their talk page here, which resulted from this report here.

Discussion regarding this request

Left open for discussion.

The only edits between those cited two edits by Jdorney are a number by Rockpocket (amounting to minor changes apart from the key term), and Jdorney's second edit didn't (as far as I can see) undo any of those, including Rockpocket's change in the lead term. It's not obvious who the relatively minor second edit is supposed to be reverting. In any case it probably makes more sense to count the two edits as one for the purposes of RR counting, in the same way as if there were no intervening edits. Rd232 ^talk 15:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.--Domer48_'fenian' 15:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Domer. Your ability to quote policy at those who clearly understand what you're quoting is exceptional. Anyway, the edit listed as the third revert was at least the second, so clarifying the second became moot. Rd232 ^talk 17:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result regarding this request

Clearly at least 2 reverts on that article. Blocked 1 week for this editor's second violation of 1RR on Troubles. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

[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]