Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:42, 14 October 2008

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

Edit this section for new requests

1RR breach on UDR article

Resolved

– Already being handled

The Thunderer has breached 1RR again after his block for a previous breach ended here and here. BigDunc^Talk 21:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This reallydoesn't look good against the accusation of "system gaming" now does it?--Tznkai (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being handled down below. Cut this out, Dunc. SirFozzie (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xasha on Moldovan/Romanian linguistic and historical issues

Xasha is the subject of a topic ban. He continues (recent examples):

Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic: [1], [2]

Bălţi: [3], [4]

History of Moldova: [5], [6], [7]

Moreover, the user follows editors on unrelated, technical topics, and performs edits with apparently the only aim to do an edit against a certain editor, e.g. Administrative divisions of Moldova ([8], [9], [10]) Note for example that he cancels other work by introducing incorrect wikification of older links, e.g. changing Bender (Tighina) back to Tighina (Bender), which he perhaps does not even notice that he does (it is very easy to press "undo"; it is much more time consuming to verify all the implications)

In the latest edit, plesae note that the user, not only changes the text, but also does one extra thing: tacitly removes the sources that contradict it. Cummulatively, in time, such behavior has serious effect: by pushing away users that dislike confronting editing, the article is stripped of sources and might look to an outsider as a content dispute when both parties fail to provide sourses, or provide only 1-2 doubious ones.

Please, remember that the topic ban does not exceed the area of history and linguistics of Moldova and Romania, and that the user is free to post in the talk pages of the articles related to history and linguistics, or to place comments related to history and linguistics in any talk space.Dc76\^talk 20:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For my reply, including real motivation for the above request and claims regarding articles not relevant to the topic ban (i.e. 3 of the above linked articles), see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Xasha.Xasha (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize for posting here while the issue was rased also in the Noticeboard by other people. But I did not know that, I do not follow the contribs of the editors that edit the same articles as me... The issue is however standing, and I believe the proper place to discuss it is here. I want to be also more specific, that while in some articles Xasha has edits that do not fall in the area of the topic ban, they are done together with those on the edit ban, in one edit everytime. If Xasha would make those separately, I wouldn't mention them. I have no way to link to diff and point out which 10 of the 20 red things are outside the topic ban. One has to read throught the whole diff. It falls upon the editor who has a topic ban imposed upon himself to perform edits in a more visible manner (normally, you would expect him not to do baned topic edits at all, but at least do them separately from the rest). Dc76\^talk 22:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the continued accusations of following other editors' edits, I would like to remind Dc76 that Wikipedia has a facility called Watchlist and an option in preferences that adds every page you edit in your Watchlist. And I would like to see someone reading his name in an edit summary on ANI or AE (on the Watchlist) waiting for an invitation from the complainant to reply.Xasha (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster Defence Regiment

I believe there is gaming on this page at the moment. Domer and BigDunc are again trying to introduce a false concensus to introduce political material. In addition BigDunc has just removed information which I included with reference to a notable member of the regiment who has published a book. This was not discussed on the talk page. I have already reverted once on the page today and am unable to take further action however with two editors against me it looks as if I am again being gamed. I request admin support and decisions please. Thunderer (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(sighs). As soon as I can, I'll go drop the hammer down on all of this. If someone can get to it sooner, please do. SirFozzie (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed infromation regarding a non notable member who wrote a book that is not even listed in the British Library I dont see anything being said about the major moves made by The Thunderer all without any discussion and as regard false concensus if four editors are involved in whether something should be added and three say yes then that is consensus is it not? BigDunc^Talk 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunc, I'm typing something up on the UDR page right now. Patience, padawan, please? SirFozzie (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no two ways about this. The old team is up and running. I am being bullied and every attempt is being made to ensure this article is flooded with anti-crown sentiment and the neutrality is being compromised.Thunderer (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, STOP. All of you. Right now. Back to your corners. I have attempted to try to start discussion on the UDR page. Let's end this right now. I have replied on the talk page, and will try some dispute resolution there. SirFozzie (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is all of you the only one making accusations again is the Thunderer it is his usual well poisoning. BigDunc^Talk 20:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the AE every single edit I’ve made has been reverted. There has been no dispute. Rather than revert, I’ve gone to the talk page and initiated a discussion. Currently there is a discussion titled “Proposal, History section.” Editors, bar one, have agreed that the information is relevant and should be included. Despite an open discussion, and no feed back, the information was reverted, and only then was the discussion resumed. In an attempt to avoid the editor again breeching the WP:1RR I’ve opened a discussion titled “Options for Change and amalgamation” rather than simply putting the information back in the article. The flip side of this has seen major edits, with the removal of whole sections, without any prior discussion on sections to be removed. This is despite being asked to slow down. The article is now blocked with the rational “Edit warring.” Only to be then informed that there is no actual edit war? I have again been reverted, suggesting that their was no prior discussion, however, no discussion was considered necessary for its removal. No discussion for example on what sections should be moved? I being informed that this discussion was held on a completely different talk page? I’d welcome some advice and opinions, because I’m at a lose to understand what is happening? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's this much hassle at that article? move on to other articles. I've had to do this at European born NHL player biographies with diacritics in their names. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a superb suggestion. Leave the military history to us amateur military historians in other words?Thunderer (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming to be a military historian now, if so what are your credentials for such a claim? Or maybe your buddy Ronnie is a military historian is he the same historian that wrote this tome for door men. BigDunc^Talk 20:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military historian or not, all editors are equal on each article. Wikipedia is for the layman, not the professionals. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now now Dunc. Keep yer wig on. Life's too short to get so annoyed about these things. Thunderer (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent)Two notes. One, the relevant article page is protected. Two, the involved editors managed to escape personal sanctions last time because they implied they had found a way to move forward, work together, fairness issues, etc. It would probably be a good idea to start showing a commitment to working together (perhaps using dispute resolution) instead of continuing the comment about each other on here. --Tznkai (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that all sanctioned editors avoid the articles that got them sanctioned. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tzankai may I respectfully suggest you have a look at what I have contributed to the article since then. The advice I've sought, the opposition I've faced and the constant attempts to introduce more controversial elements to the article by my learned friends despite me posting the guildines for raising the article to A Class, which is my ambition. Have a look at the gaming of today and other days and how it has affected me. After you've done that, if you've not fallen asleep, I'd be very grateful for your opinion. Thunderer (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very tempted to agree here. I encourage all interested administrators to review the events of today. I'm trying to encourage all folks to talk to me on the article, instead of at each other (there's a difference between talking TO folks and talking AT folks). Not much luck so far at least with at least some folks, but hope springs eternal. SirFozzie (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the Thunderers comments are all very helpful Fozz are they he has admited above that he is trying to drive editors from the article as they are not military historians like him. BigDunc^Talk 21:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I told him via email to back off on those comments, to not let tempers flare up.. SirFozzie (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And therein lies a major problem IMO a lot of stuff appears to be happening off wiki I didn't receive a response to the email I sent you all I seem to get from you is assumptions of bad faith on my behalf. BigDunc^Talk 21:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone listen to SirFozzie here. He is making the most sense to me on this one. I was going to full protect the article and found SF had already done so. Editors need to chill out and think of what brought these sanctions into being in the first place. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Topic Bans

Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
The Thunderer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BigDunc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

For continued disruption and arguments on articles related to The Troubles, the above three editors are hereby topic banned from any article relating to The Troubles, broadly construed, for one month. They are allowed to contribute to talk pages, but must relate any and all edits to the topic at hand.

Quite frankly.. everyone here has had enough of all sides here. Thunderer has let his temper slip. He's admitted such to me via email. He says, and I agree with it (to a point), that he's being provoked and stonewalled at every turn. Therefore, I'm removing the disruption at the source. At ALL sources. This is a mininum, not a maximum. The two sides will either get along with each other, or the temporary topic bans will become permanent. SirFozzie (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a very good idea, although it may be extraprocedural. In the meantime, I'd suggest that Domer48, The Thunderer and BigDunc immediately seek informal mediation from MedCab or an agreed upon neutral party, with an eye towards formal mediation if that doesn't work. Other editors working in area should also considering working within the agreed upon mediation as well.--Tznkai (talk)

No arguments from this quarter. Although frankly I doubt it will be sufficient. This entire topic area has become so poisonous I'm starting to think that a mass bonfire alone will solve the problems. There's no particular reason for this: UK-Irish relations are perfectly fine at the moment; there's no pressing geopolitical crisis, and while The Troubles will always be a contentious area this should get better over time, not worse. What has happened here is simply that a whole bunch of tendentious POV-warriors on both sides have allowed to become entrenched. This set of topic-bans is long overdue. We do the encyclopedia no favours by mollycoddling those with severe WP:TIGERS problems. Moreschi (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is inadequate where Domer48 is concerned. Neither of the others has his track-record of problematic behaviour: Troubles arbcom, Famine arbcom, Famine topic ban. Assuming the worst, Domer48 simply switched from disrupting the Famine article, where now no work is being undertaken, to disrupting another instead. There could be a conspiracy to make Domer48 look bad by having trouble follow him around, but there is a simpler explanation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles : Users User:HighKing and User:TharkunColl

This underlying dispute is related to Troubles in a way, so I feel like the remedies there could be useful. One user (TharkunColl) adds the term "British Isles" (referring, in general, to the area on the map that is primarily of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland) to articles, and the other user (HighKing) opposes the term completely and utterly, and they've fought battle after battle for months about this issue. They both have tried various parts of dispute resolution in the past, and it hasn't stopped them. The latest war at Wikipedia:WQA#TharkunColl shows how intractable the two are in this matter, and the sheer vitriol and argumentum ad nauseum shows that things won't change unless they're made to change. Therefore, I propose the following two remedies:

A) Both TharkunColl and HighKing are placed under 1RR on any article that has to do with the area of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland and the related geographical area.

B1) In addition to A), HighKing is hereby restricted from removing the term "British Isles" or any such related term from any article. TharkunColl is hereby restructed from ADDING the term "British Isles" or any such related phrase to any article.

B2) Any new account or IP address that starts these battles up can be placed under the restrictions in remedies A and B1.

I think we have a strong case for both.. A) seems to be necessary no matter what, we've gone through edit after edit war, because these two people can NOT agree with each other.. and quite frankly, the reason I am calling for B1, is to be quite even handed, to take away the reason to edit war between the two of them SirFozzie (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope we look at this very carefully and act with judgment. Even the diffs raised by User:HighKing against User:TharkunColl at the WQA, viz. European Green Party, Cup and ring mark, Old-time music, Drovers' Road, Derry and [11] and Saint David make it appear that HighKing is using this "dispute" (which I strongly suspect to be near enough artificial) in order to damage articles. In at least 4 of these cases, it seems to me that TharkunColl's use of British Isles was necessary to an understanding of the article topic. Removing "British Isles" in those places appears to be disruptive. PR^talk 12:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to SirFozzie) HighKing has removed the term from literally dozens and dozens of articles, both under that name and under his previous account, User:Bardcom. I have added it only to about 3 or 4, though have also reverted many of his deletions - especially those that degrade the article in question by removing useful and legitimate information. The area described by the term is not restricted to the United Kingdom and [sic] Northern Ireland, but includes the whole of Ireland plus the Isle of Man, and no other term is available in the English language for this. HighKing has repeatedly refused to explain his reasons for removing the term wholesale from Wikipedia, though he claims they are non-political. ðarkuncoll 12:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to all IMO. Completely nip the problem in the bud. Viridae ^Talk 12:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though the final one shouldnt used used to get in the way of consensus. Hence the specification "new" Viridae ^Talk 12:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that I have attempted discussion and compromise on numerous occasions. See, for example Wikipedia talk:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force#A_proposal - and notice HighKings' refusal to even answer. Also note Talk:Alexander Thom for an example of how, when engaged in a discussion on any particular article, no amount of references are good enough for him and he continues to revert regardless. Personally, I think it's unfair that I should be penalised for attempting to put right the damage caused by his single-issue campaign. ðarkuncoll 12:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This ArbCom case has been opened in a very one-sided non-neutral way, and I would like to ask SirFozzie to provide, with diffs, the evidence of his accusations. Stating that HighKing opposes the term completely and utterly is wrong and I vehemently strongly disagree with this assertion. It is a bald lie. I don't, and I'm working at the British Isles terminology taskforce to create guidelines to usage of this term. In addition, I supported the use of the term during a recent edit war over the river Shannon. All of my edits are being reverted and being made the subject of controversy as a tactic. I have not edit warred over the recent articles, remained civil, and followed policy. I find it disconcerting, odd, and also one-sided that the WQA opened, to discuss Tharky's behaviour on reversals and personal attacks, has been let slide - effectively his behaviour is being sanctioned and condoned. If SirFozzie is referring to edit-wars, I believe other editors should also be asked the same questions - namely User:Blue Bugle, User:MidnightBlueMan, User:LemonMonday, and the numerous anon IP addresses - perhaps a checkuser would shed some light on why this has occurred. I'm very happy to be reasonable, but these accusations against me are the result of "marketing" and false claims by other editors, not based on fact. --HighKing (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that not only does HK revert addition of the term that TharkunColl has made, and disagree with them, he also removes them from articles TharkunColl is not involved in, and seems determined to remove it from anywhere he sees it on the project. That was the bulk of his editing a few months ago, anyway. He recieved a block specifically for this in July. These proposals seem fair enough. I am pretty sure a checkuser will not find anything amiss as far as TharkunColl himself is concerned. Could it be that more than one editor disagrees with HK?:) Wikiquette board is not the place to discuss sanctions on people's behaviour IMHO, it is an early step in dispute resolution, and as I understand it is just meant to alert the person accused and other editors to a person's behaviour and let them know more formally that it is considered bad form. HK has his own conduct issues such as templating people with warnings if they question his edits. Sticky Parkin 13:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also feel that neither Tharkuncoll nor Highking have probably used any socks themselves, but I feel that the sheer number of different IP editors who pop up and make highly inflammatory messages on a wide range of articles' talk pages about these issues needs attention. If it were possible, I would like to see a systematic investigation of every anonymous IP editor who has made inflammatory comments to see if they have been used by registered editors hiding behind this screen of anonymity to be disruptive and abusive. I think this kind of blockable behaviour may well have happened on both sides in this dispute, and possibly involving some old well-known sockpuppeteers who have been disruptive in this area before. They are merely inflaming the entire area. However, I realise that this mass checkuser action will never happen, but I think it is important to express a gut feeling I have by stating it here. DDStretch (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw people's attention to the comments and exchange I have had on this matter here. I believe some of the comments are highly relevant to the issue, but it would be tedious to reproduce them here (because it would also involve reproducing a message from Highking). A large part of the problem is the use of fallacious arguments (on both sides) coupled with a biased interpretation of messages and actions that attempt to allow the real underlying issues that need resolving be ignored in favour of deficits like "fragility" in other people's reactions, or that other editors do not work to high standards of evidence or proof. Both these problems mean that unless both editors can be persuaded to change, or have change enforced upon them, disruption in my opinion is likely to be maintained and grow in intensity and scope. DDStretch (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the articles to remain stable & I don't want to see Tharky & HK getting blocked over this issues. The 1RR solution? will save them from themselves. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Oppose as it appears Tharky & HK have reached an agreement to halt edits/reversion, while Taskforce is in progress. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is in any doubt about how WP:LAME this warring is, have a look at the history of Glowworm from September 30 onwards. I would add User:MidnightBlueMan and User:62.40.36.14 (which I've just blocked again per WP:DUCK) to HighKing and TharkunColl. There are probably a few more as well. Actually, thinking about it, just indefblocking anyone who adds or removes BI repeatedly without a good reason would be a good way of fixing the problem. Black Kite 15:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like that automatic block idea for veteran IP accounts, on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of IPs about, though. Some, like the mobile phone IP that I've blocked above, are easy to deal with, but others, like the Eircom dynamic addresses from Ireland and the BT Broadband dynamic addresses from the UK, are impossible to deal with permanently as the collateral damage from rangeblocks would be too big. Black Kite 15:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding my comments, a couple of more general points - 1) Is this the right place for this proposed action? Reading the guff at the top of the page it seems as though it isn't, but maybe I've misunderstood. Is there a sanction already in place against HighKing and TharkunColl? 2) GoodDay, will you stop banging on about IPs at every opportunity. It just deflects contributors from the point at issue, as has happened here, yet again (see above). Take up your arguments elsewhere. So, regarding the subject of this "enforcement"; It's simple. HighKing is a tireless deletor of British Isles. The reasons he's given for removing it are many and varied. So far as I can see - correct me if I'm wrong - TharkunColl hardly ever inserts the term; just one or two examples recently. I don't insert the term, I only revert HighKing's deletions when he has no justification for the deletion (nearly all of the time). I am quite happy to abide by a sanction preventing the addition and deletion of BI right across the encyclopedia, apart from where there's a clear, agreed error. I'd put money on it that TharkunColl would do likewise, and all other editors would as well; apart from HighKing. He will not agree to any compromise; he reserves the right to delete British Isles wherever, and whenever, he thinks fit, and it seems that no amount of persuasion will change him. Why then, is the "enforcement" directed at HighKing AND TharkunColl? In consideration of British Isles addition and deletion, and not about civility or any other side issue, only HighKing has a case to answer. Other editors are merely reacting to his continuing antagonistic edits. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the main sentiment that this is not the place to handle this issue, but I also believe that something must be done sooner rather than later. To that end, perhaps an Arbitration forum is the correct place to have a proper analysis done on edits and conduct. The recent examination and overturning of Sarah777's block gives me hope. MBM's attempt to paint Tharky in the glowing colours of sainthood, complete with halo, is comedic value at it's finest. You get a "You Made Me Laugh" barnstar! (ask me and I'll grant it, I wouldn't want it to be interpreted as a taunt if I just put it on your Talk page) Seriously though, it seems that editors are more concerned with making stuff up than with looking at the truth. How many times today have I seen editors (usually British editors) refer to me a "tireless" and my edits as being wrong - yet if you check my edit history and the articles in question, it shows that my edits are reasonable. In fact, measured against any yardstick you'd care to put up, even by the draft WP:BISLES, my edits are reasonable, as is my conduct (more than reasonable). It appears to me that some editors regard any tampering with the term British Isles as a form of vandalism. And yet, still, no comments on Tharky's behaviour. Or the fact that MidnightBlueMan is continuing to revert articles. --HighKing (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may interest admins to check back a few months to find the time that - on a previous occasion - the term "British Isles" was removed from a bunch of places that it didn't belong (i.e. it was incorrect) and it was serially reverted by TharkunColl and similar editors. I can't comment on HighKing's edits. I haven't followed them. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would like to cite some actual evidence. On no occasion have I restored British Isles to an article where it was incorrect. ðarkuncoll 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have always been loath to make official complants about anyone - I value freedom of speech too much for that - this has now gone too far. I would like to inform HighKing that I've just done precisely that at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#British_Isles_and_User:HighKing. ðarkuncoll 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Freedom of speech' or getting your own way? --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman has reverted the section, stating quite correctly, that a discussion is going on here, and it smacked of forum shopping. SirFozzie (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm not even allowed to complain now, am I? Well this is what I said, anyway: For months and months now, both under the name User:HighKing and User:Bardcom, this editor has been systematically removing the term British Isles from as many articles as possible, and is virtually a single-issue account. Any reversions are greeted with cries of vandalism, plus a large number of spurious and time-consuming official complaints. He says take it to talk, but as this example will show Talk:Alexander Thom no amount of references are good enough for him, and he will continue to revert regardless. And when people tire of discussing it with him, he accuses them of breaking the rules. I have many times tried to engage him in discussion, to suggest compromises, and to enquire after his reasons for this campaign of removal, but on no occasion has he ever acceded to such requests. In my opinion his campaign is a form of serious vandalism, because by removing this information the articles - many dozen at least so far - have been degraded, sometimes ridiculously so. Furthermore, those of us who have been trying to revert him have ourselves been accused of edit warring. Those who revert serial vandals don't usually get this sort of treatment. ðarkuncoll 19:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1RR on these editors, and maybe on the dispute over BI in general. I am confused about one thing, User:HighKing is User:Bardcom? If that is true, why are we allowing it? I had no idea I was in a debate with the same editor when I was discussing the Alexander Thom removal of BI by HighKing (who denied having any political motivation). Doug Weller (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my username, and I do not have any political motivation. Funny how everyone tries to pin that one on me :-) Would it make you feel better perhaps, if you thought of me as a rabid republican British-hating ginger-haired irish-dancing Louis Walsh lookalike? BTW, I'm still waiting for your response on the Alexander Thom ... --HighKing (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He changed his name after he was blocked by User:William M. Connolley for "vandalism" for removing instances of the term British Isles. Make of that what you will. However we're all allowed to change our name within reason/policy at WP:CHU. Sticky Parkin 19:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Doug Weller (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So just how would 1RR work then? HK takes out BI, TK puts it back, HK takes it out again - BLOCKED. Or perhaps, MBM inserts BI, HK takes it out, MBM puts it back - BLOCKED. If that's how it's supposed to work - it isn't going to work. Much as I don't like what HK is doing, the scenario I've just described is unfair. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best, that you didn't get involved with a HK/TC edit dispute. It would be seen as though you were taking advantage of one of the editors 1RR restriction. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is a dispute about a naming convention. I suggest somebody creates a subpage to the relevant page, perhaps Talk:British Isles/Usage and then everybody goes there to discuss when to use this term in Wikipedia. To me, an American of East European heritage, I cannot see the reason for all the fuss, but I can understand that this must mean a lot to those who are British or Irish. Rather than playing ping pong with a bunch of articles, why don't we go get a consensus as to how this term should be used? Jehochman ^Talk 20:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've got one, British Isles naming dispute & a Taskforce on British Isles usage, in progress. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. We've got a task force WP:BISLES which I've signed up as a participant from the start. The draft so far is at BIDRAFT2 and comments are invited at BIDRAFT1. I would readily accept the guidelines and recommendations made by this task force, but I also worry that the taskforce has been bogged down in the past by arguments and stonewalling by a few editors, and I am concerned that the intention of some editors would be to ensure that the task force never finished... --HighKing (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of stating the obvious: there is no reason to change British Isles usage in existing articles until such time as the task force completes its work. Why make temporary changes that won't stick, and will only encourage edit warring? If anybody is stonewalling the discussion, please report them at the appropriate venue and somebody will deal with it. What would be good is if everyone here agreed not to take provocative actions, such as changing Great Britain and Ireland to British Isles, or vice versa. If some other editor unknowingly steps on that land mine, I think anybody can revert them, and point them to the taskforce discussion. Does that sound like a plan? Jehochman ^Talk 21:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to agree voluntarily not to add the term to an existing article, if HK agrees not to remove it from any existing article. ðarkuncoll 21:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to wait until the taskforce completes it's work and I also voluntarily agree not to edit any article that results in the removal of the term British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, that's what I like to read. If you both feel ya's don't need to be restricted (1RR), I may just remove my support for it (the 1RR). GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya see guys, If HK paved half my road green & Tharky paved the other half blue? It'll be great, 'cause my entire road is paved. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

e/c - I'm not sure if this is resolving itself, but I'm going to add it as I've written it, and I wan't to defent HighKing regarding Wikialerts etc:

I'm going to offer my experience of each editor and make a couple of points on the background of this. I think all this is borne out of frustrations elsewhere.

A few months back now, HighKing, when he was Bardcom, went through articles that used British Isles and removed many cases of the term - some of which did go too far, and others were, in my opinion (and the opinion of other users 'pro' the term, such as User:CarterBar) - a genuine service to Wikipedia: the term was indeed over-used in a number of people's opinions. Unfortunately, HK didn't initially 'get' the strong reaction against him making his changes on such an 'ordered' level, no-doubt as he saw himself as doing a simple service. He was far too defensive about his actions for a while, objecting too strongly to people's protestations. When a user called Crispness started to 'back up' his edits on the revert table, things got complicated, and a few people started thinking in terms of a taskforce. Around this time HighKing stepped back, and has supported the ensuing BI taskforce (WP:BITASK) 100%. The taskforce is currently at a lull, and I'm sure the recent edit flurries are frustration with this. It seems that HighKing is testing the drafted guideline out (I think he has a right to at least try this), but Tharkuncoll sees the entire guideline as 'censoring' his notion of free speech.

In my interaction with Tharkuncoll, he seems to want to use the term whenever he sees fit, and have no form of guideline at all. It is very frustrating to argue with him as he used terms like 'censorship' and 'freedom', which I personally find a cynical convenience, and very weakly argued on the occasions he does argue it. IMO, we simple need some sensible guidelines, and Wikipedia is full of these: it is not an total anarchy where people can do what they want.

In my eyes HighKing has (thus-far) been the strongest contributor to the proposed WP:BITASK guidelines as they stand (excluding myself, as I broadly structured the proposal we currently have). DDStretch contributed significantly to begin with, and around 5 others have contributed to some degree. It has to be said Thurkuncoll 'backed out' of the taskforce before contributing at all, and steadfastly refuses to do so. But HightKing has been the most consistent and enthusiastic of the contributors - he has been continually positive, and has contributed a number of textual additions. Tharkuncoll has made no contibution at all, and has completely blanked various questions to him surrounding details of the guideline on perhaps a dozen occasions now - he is not easy to deal with at all, as he simply ignores what he doesn't want to address.

Tarkuncoll says that he has only inserted the term completely afresh on a few occasions, but his clearly calculated insertion of it at the River Shannon (the major Irish river) was a significant act for everyone involved - and was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and even Tharkuncoll signed up for the subsequent BITASK taskforce. As another BI-inserting act, he then immediately released an 'Islands of the British Isles' Template as his self-designated 'first act' of the taskforce, making it awkward for us from the very outset. So regarding Tharkuncoll's propensity to use the term, my argument is that if HighKing edits in a way that removes the term, and Thurkuncoll replaces it without actually improving HK's change in any way - then that IS an act of adding the term. I would add to this that HighKing is editing according the drafted proposed guidelines at the taskforce, while Tharkuncoll is typically doing as he sees fit.

So for me it's not a case of 'six of one and half a dozen of the other'. Tharkuncoll is very much 'pro' the term, and wishes to see it on Wikipedia to a far greater extent than HighKing wished to remove it. HighKing is trying to follow some rules, Tharkuncoll has shown (me at a least) a number of times that he simply doesn't care who he upsets, and will play the 'freedom' card to justify himself like the most cynical of right-wing tub-thumpers IMO - John Lennon he is not. On the whole I am for using the term (and class myself as a 'British' editor), but extremism on both sides simply makes life impossible. In my eyes Tharkuncoll is one of the extremists, HighKing isn't.

I think a real problem here is that people are loathe to get involved simply because Tharkcuncoll alone is so hard to deal with. He has a real-life friend called StickyParkin who often appears as an apologist for him, but he stands by himeself as far as I'm concerned.

Another reason I feel that so few people are getting directly involved in some of these recent burst of edits (apart from general worrying about edit wars), is that people could be generally waiting to see what happens at WP:BITASK. Some people want a BI guideline that uses only 'Ireland' (and not 'Republic of Ireland') for the Irish state. This 'Ireland' issue is the why the BITASK guideline is at a current lull. An Irish disambiguation taskforce (WP:IDTF) was consequently made to try and find a conclusion over Ireleand disambiguation, which had a flurry of interest at the time across all the main Irish spaces. Unfortunately WP:IDTF is at a lull now too, as some users want Brown Haired Girl to chair the difficult opening debate, and she isn't answering her email and seems to have switched Wikipedia off at present. So it is extremely frustrating times for all of us who believe in these taskforces and guidelines. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to endorse this summary by Matt Lewis. It seems quite accurate in the estimation of the relevant degrees of willingness on the part of HighKing and TharkunColl to engage with the community on the British Isles Taskforce. I still think there are problems in both of their actions, and in some, but not all, of the actions of their supporters. I particularly want to say that in my experience StickyParkin has not demonstrated any problem behaviour in these areas. DDStretch (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dd.:) The erudite subject areas that these people edit I find very impressive as it's a subject about which I'm quite ignorant.:) I should probably disclose that my interest in any of these debates is those of a slightly common English person who can find sources with google news, who also happens to consider myself an IRL friend of User:TharkunColl. He has never notified me of any of these debates- you know how nosy I am on matters of the wiki and I usually notice them before TharkunColl does himself.:) I think you're wrong about HK though. He had this crusade on the BI front, which other editors have noticed, before he ever came across TharkunColl's edits. TharkunColl has been here well over my three years and has made many prior, different edits. TharkunColl (and this is just my personal interpretation and not anything he's said to me) finds HK's edits irritating but he was not the initiator of this BI insertion/extraction feud- he just finds HK's edits bizarre and irritating and sees the obvious POV and wants to do something about it. Sticky Parkin 22:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, HighKing has contributed (or at least he did when I was involved in it) to the British Isles taskforce, whereas TharkunColl ignored it, and spoken against restricting him in any way on the matter. However, I do feel both have their problems, as I stated. Some of the links I gave above show some of the problems I think are present in HighKing's actions (including some that have occurred after I posted the link to User talk:Snowded.) The problem in all of this is that both assert that they are working within the rules of wikipedia (I know, there are matters concerning edit-warring that cause us pause for thought on these claims, but let us accept that they are working within the rules for the sole purpose of the point I am making here.) What it is important to realise is that a rigid adherence to rules may not be possible, because the rules are messy, may be inconsistent in places on close examination, and some rules and guidelines have a precedence over others, such as the requirement to realise that we are trying to work in a collaborative, helpful, and friendly environment. In this case, although one is perfectly entitled to, say, remove a term from an article if it is not referenced, and if it is not patent nonsense, it is by far better to ask about it and discuss it on the talk page, or tag it, instead of mere removal which can cause unnecessary drama: by talking about it, the reasons can be given full exposure and all parties have the potential for learning in a way that mere and abrupt removal doesn't easily allow. Also, even if one's messages are responses to prior sub-optimal behaviour on the part of another, one is still obliged, unless it is patent vandalism, to not act so as to inflame further the matter: in other words, saying something along the lines of "they did it first" may explain the reasons for one's reactions, but it doesn't excuse one's actions. To sum this up: we need editors to show consideration and a willingness to consider the effects their actions have on other established editors, and not to behave in what I, a UK citizen, would call a "jobsworth" rigid adhering way to specific rules.

That is why I think both sides need to be brought to a realisation that the current state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue, and that both sides should make real and positive steps to examine their own behaviour, carefully listening to what others say, rather than counter-attacking anyone who raises possible problems in their actions, or ignoring them, or accepting restrictions through gritted teeth (I'm not saying all or any of these have happened). Even a small move in this direction may well help even if all of it is not possible. DDStretch (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting how the fact that we are friends in real life seems to be such an unusual situation amongst Wikipedians as to actually be worth commenting on. ðarkuncoll 22:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I never noticed (giggle). Anyways, the adding/removing British Isles on Wikipedia? begs the question. Is it being added/removed for the benefit of innocent & less knowledgeable editors? or the benefit of all editors who adde/remove it. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol goody:) Yes T, people tend to get banned as socks or meats, there have been socks who pretend to be friends, but I've heard the joke (no offence other wikipedians, just joking) that wikipedians are suspicious/jealous of real world friends because they don't have any.:) Sticky Parkin 22:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe yes. Perhaps we should write an article explaining what they are. ðarkuncoll 22:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I usually see my friends down the pub, who's going to buy me a drink on the computer! ;) Jack forbes (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're both skint and lazy though lol:) Anyway, on with the 1RR show...:) Sticky Parkin 23:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Tharky & HK have agreed to work things out at the Taskforce (while not adding/removing BI on related articles). Can this AE report be put on hold? GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I would fully endorse Matt's analysis here and support a 1RR on both editors. HighKing does appear to be attempting to follow some form of guidelines while TharkunColl is a strong advocate for the BI term. So while I don;t think its a 50-50 issue we need some form of action as this has been going on too long. Looking above we have conditional statements not undertakings which would itself justify some action. --Snowded TALK 23:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Matt's analysis, but conditionally oppose 1RR (see above). GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its gone on too long, all three solutions proposed by SirFozzie make sense. If the editors have reached agreement then they will not be affected by it. There are two many conditions especially the "If does X then I will do Y" which is mealy mouthed. --Snowded TALK 23:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna wait and see (what HK & TC do). I still have a little faith in them, yet. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see. As long as neither side continues this disruptive war, I'd be willing to consider suspending any discussion for remedies.. I do warn both users that the community's patience is rapidly running out with the BI wars. You have your chance. Make the best of it. SirFozzie (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you guys (Tharky & HK); don't disappoint us (the community). GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be emphasized that it is not just the two main editors (HighKing and TharkunColl) who need to take care, but also the people who have been indulging in similar behaviour on similar articles as well. This includes anonymous IP editors as well as registered editors, some of whom appear to have been registered for only a short period of time, but who seem behave as if they have an immediate and wide-ranging knowledge of wikipedia's policies, and who should therefore know better. But I wish everyone success in modifying their behaviour for the better. DDStretch (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm very glad it has now been resolved amicably on all sides. ðarkuncoll 09:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late perhaps, but I generally support the summary by MattLewis. I didn't realise that HighKing was Bardcom but indeed, this has been going on a long time. If anyone wants to see TharkunColl's typical approach, the recent attack at the main British Isles article is eye-opening. The page is still blocked as a result. HighKing/Bardcom's approach seems to be to remove "British Isles" references where it's inaccurate (e.g. the Storm of 1703), not necessary or appropriate, or just not unambiguously true. On at least some occasions his edits have perhaps been a little biased. A sin, but hardly a mortal sin. TharkunColl, on the other hand, is a determined troublemaker on many articles. He'd edit the article on The Netherlands to describe it as a country east of the British Isles. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - here's a classic TharkunColl edit [12] on the British Isles talk page. I believe that saying that a country is uncivilized might qualify as a little bit uncivil. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that is exactly one of the problems that has plagued this whole area. However, I'm not agreeing with this comment by 79.155.245.81, but criticizing it. Tharkuncoll does not say that a country is "uncivilized", because that is a biased interpretation of what he wrote. He did write: 'I think the only thing I can be bothered to take issue with is your characterisation of Irish society as a "civilisation". ' The wording he uses makes your interpretation unlikely in my opinion, as he uses the phrase and form of words 'a "civilization"'. Instead I think the more likely interpretation is that he was saying that he disagrees with the idea of an "Irish civilization" in the sense of a culture and society associated with the Irish which is distinctive and notable enough to be called a civilization on its own merit, separate from other related cultures and societies: go and read it again. So, there are interpretations other than the one you have given, and I believe that there is a more likely interpretation that does not approach being uncivil in the way you are attemptimng to pin on him here. It is not an act of good faith to take the most uncharitable interpretation to describe and interpret what he said in a biased way. This kind of inflammatory interpretation needs to be countered strongly in thjis area. I imagine that some would think a formal warning would be in order for you for making such a potentially inflammatory interpretation. DDStretch (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's very tempting. I agree, Tharkuncoll is not saying anything is uncivilized. 'Civilization' is very different from 'civilized' and I am sure Tharkuncoll knows that. Doug Weller (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reduce indent) Perhaps you're right. However, that's how I read it. As I've said before, I have long ago stopped assuming good faith with TharkunColl. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd suggest people start re-assuming good faith. This is just a chance to let all parties show they CAN edit under WP's rules, not ollie ollie oxen free. SirFozzie (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP's main rule is verifiability. As soon as TharkunColl starts backing up his opinions with references I'll be delighted to start to assume good faith with him again. Meantime I have seen plenty of reasons not to. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've only been around a month. On those grounds, you might have said the same thing about Bardcom/HighKing if you'd looked at their edits as closely as you seem to have looked at TharkunColl. Tharky can be a right pain, don't get me wrong - I've had real disputes with him before. HighKing/Bardcom is much more civil (although agressive at times), but they aren't that different in what they are doing. Which is a political argument, no matter how much either one of them claims it isn't. Doug Weller (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't let that slide. Let me be very clear. I AM NOT EDITING POLITICALLY, OR WITH A POLITICAL MOTIVATION. Don't go around making that accusation again. I've always made it clear that I'm interested in accuracy. Your attributing of motivation to my actions, especially trying to politicize them, is not fair, not accurate, and most importantly, not true. My edit history will also bear that out. Which reminds me - I'm waiting for a response on the Alexander Thom article from you, as the references you have provided do not appear to stand up to scrutiny. I've been patiently waiting for nearly a week. --HighKing (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my experience that a lot of people aren't aware that they are acting politically (with a small 'p' please note, not a thinking that if someone is focussing on something like this "to make it accurate" they must have a reason other than accuracy to do so many edits). I think my references stand up enough to show 'interest', by the way but I also don't think anyone will convince you. And an interest in accuracy should have meant that you took enough time in removing 'British Isles' to make sure that the deletion didn't leave obviously ungrammatical sentences. That was some time ago and I'm not suggesting you are still doing that, but I remember a number of examples. Doug Weller (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is more my experience that a lot of people are unwilling to accept that one can edit articles for accuracy in a non-political way. It is also more my experience that people continue to believe in an easy lie rather than do some hard work to uncover reality. Whatever. --HighKing (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, there should be no problem with pipelinking: [British Isles|Britain and Ireland]. That the link stays intact with the British Isles article & while presenting the growing usage of Britain and Ireland. Nice compromise, eh? GoodDay (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone roll this up? --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breach of sanctions

The Thunderer has reverted here and here this is in breach of the 1RR sanctions on this article. Also he states here that he wants the article protected which is a device he has used previously when somethig in the article he doesn't like. BigDunc^Talk 11:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first look, I do agree wtih the core request. Thunderer has reverted twice withing the span of 17 minutes. I have blocked him 24 hours (he was specifically warned previously that he was skating on thin ice with regards to multiple reverts of different material previously). I have reminded him of the proper way to handle things, IE, seek a neutral administrator. SirFozzie (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I consider Thunderer's last edit a breech of the 1RR, this is the first block under the new sanctions. As this is in breech of AE, in my opinion his last edit should be reverted, and Thunderer unblocked. This is a learning curve, and I still do not understand about "Multiple single reverts" being not "strictly against the working of the 1RR." I'd like that explained to me. Any text added should be discussed on the talk page first, likewise content removal. Since every edit I made was reverted, with the introduction of AE sanctions, to re-add it was pointless IMO. If I had of re-added would I have been in breech of 1RR? As you can see, I have to get my head around the 1RR and no doubth Thunderer also. I would suggest unblock and they self revert, and lets move on? --Domer48_'fenian' 13:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just some friendly advice to the editors who are under 1RR. There's a way to avoid accidently breaching? one shouldn't revert at all, but rather use the respective talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm able to edit again I would like to say that while I believe every involved admin has acted in good faith I think this could have been handled better. The first reversion of information here by user:BigDunc took away the work of several days which had been discussed on the talk page and an offer to self revert any agreed items was in place. A complaint had been made here by Domer and as you can see the admins who reviewed it agreed that although the changes by myself were bold, they breached no sanction. In view of this why did user:BigDunc feel it was appropriate to remove them? In the circumstances I felt it was correct to revert him. That should have been the end of it but then Domer steps in again to re-revert. Now I don't know about anyone here but I saw that as vandalism and gaming. When two editors are ganging up on another to force something into the page, whether they believe they're acting in concert or not, is gaming. Given the recent discussions and sanctions both of those editors should not have pushed the matter. I have placed a new heading here on the talk page which sets out my objectives and what I object to. Given the discussions over Troubles articles I would be very grateful if all interested and involved admins were to give my comments, both here and on the talk page a little consideration. The wiki should not be used as a platform for political point scoring. Particularly in view of the sensitive nature of Irish articles in some cases. It would be nice to have some support in this case to ensure that what the reader is getting for reference is verifiable fact devoid of POV. Thunderer (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Eupator with regards to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2's decisions

This user has been engaged in persistant and continuous wholesale reverts in a Turkey related entry (Hemshin peoples), taking the entry back to an ancient version (of more than a year ago). The following are notable about this user’s approach:

1) (Directly quoting from my recent appeal to admin Khoikhoi who has not yet responded)

"User Eupator has again engaged in a wholesale revert taking the “Hemshin peoples” entry back to an ancient version for the fifth time on October 7th Wholesale Revert 5.

Just to remind you about Eupator’s attitude, this user has not done a single contribution to the entry and the relevant discussions… He/she has appeared through a wholesale revert taking the entry back to an ancient version (of about a year ago) on July 4th, 2008 Wholesale Revert 1. He/she has then repeated this action on July 5th Wholesale Revert 2, August 3rd Wholesale Revert 3, September 11th Wholesale Revert 4, These reverts have basically taken away an entire section plus a big amount of fully referenced material. This user never presents what he/she objects in the version he/she persistantly erases. In response to Eupator’s reverts, I have asked for his/her arguments on the talk page, to no avail.

This user was joined by 3 others who took turns making such wholesale reverts. (Here is a link where you might see one of my appeals to you earlier about the developlment of the Hemshin peoples entry, in case you want to refresh your memory).

Following your protection of the entry in its ancient version and pursuant to your advice I have also asked for mediation which was blocked by Eupator and users who have the similar attitude (Rejection Report).

If you recall, in our last exchange with you, you had told me that you would talk to these users . In fact in the time period between September 12th and Oct. 7th, no such wholesale reverts were made. Well, now Eupator is back with the same attitude.

This is now without doubt a clear and persistant violation of wikipedia rules and policies and I ask your help in this issue. This user now needs to be warned seriously on his/her talk page and/or be blocked from editing the entry considered. Thanks for your help."

2) This user has removed my warning to him/her on his/her talk page asking him/her to stop such wholesale reverts (diff).omer182 (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non issue as far as this report is concerned. Omer182 is an SPA that has been owning an article for over a year now, refusing to accept the simple fact that his additons have no consensus whatsoever. See the relevant discussion. He has ignored our concerns constantly, never directly addressing them and when doing so (with user Meowy fruitlessy) never actually compromising. Recently another spa account showed up supporting Omer, User:Cihsai. I'm sure that everyone will agree that the odds of there being two spa's with the same pov on one obscure article are slim to none.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every new user starts somewhere. It is not against policy to be a single purpose account. Do you have evidence that the user is running an invalid alternate account? If not, assume good faith and explain your view on the content dispute and use dispute resolution as needed. Jehochman ^Talk 01:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omer182 is not a new user, he has been editing that article and no other article for over a year, nor do his edits there suggest anything in common with that of a new user. The whole matter has gone well beyond the capabilities of neutral editors to sort out. The Hemshin Peoples article is a disaster. Nobody can usefully edit there thanks to Omer having taking possession of it.

As background, back in July I wrote in the article's talk page Talk:Hemshin_peoples#Edit_war:

Omer182 has taken "ownership" of this article in order to POV war his opinion – an opinion that is not supported by any sources. He has, through a process of reverting or removing anything that he has not personally written and by actively distorting sources and altering text written by other editors, created an article that is not only extremely misleading but is almost unreadable.

Omer182's edits appear to have the end goal of muddying the waters mostly in order to create the impression that the Hemshini are not Armenian in origin, and that claims of their Armenian and Christian origin are disputed and unproven.

He initially went about this by trying to POV fork the article. He argued on this page for removing two of the three recognized Hemshinli groups from the article and moving them to separate entries: the Christian Armenian-speaking "northern Hemshinli" and the Muslim Armenian-speaking eastern or "Hopa Hemshinli". This was presumably because the Armenian origin of those two groups would be obvious to everyone. That initial attempt failed, and he has subsequently been engaged in rewriting the article to suit his POV and editing out any other editors' contributions. Any editor adding new material will find, often within hours, that Omer182 has reverted the article to a previous version, that version invariably being Omer182's version.

Omer182 has persistently removed fully referenced material from the article. He does not discuss beforehand his edits (most of which are reverts) to remove referenced material, and he does not justify their removal when asked. On a number of occasions he has said that he will, quote, "consider the additional information suggested" after removing the material from the actual article - an example of him behaving as if he owned the article.

The methodology of Omer182's edits is to discredit or marginalise mainstream academic opinions about the Hemshin peoples. He does this by using four primary methods.
1/ He will use weasel-words in his text
2/ He will exclude all material that strongly disagrees with his POV.
3/ He will deliberately falsify or cherry-pick source material in order to manipulate the source to suit his POV.
4/ He uses sentence stuffing: making accepted facts appear vague or uncertain by disguising them within overly convoluted and unreadable sentences.

As a result of edit warring the page got protected and after discussion it was agreed a way out could be to revert the entry to a "pre-Omer" version and then discuss what changes should be made. Personally, it meant losing a lot of material that I had contributed, but as a solution it seemed to make sense. That "pre-Omer" version is the version Eupator has recently been reverting to. Omer has been reverting to the "Omer version". As for the discussion, thanks to endless nit-picking by Omer, it never got beyond making proposed changes to the article's introduction section and the process became a grinding war of attrition that no decent editor should be made to go through. I left to go on a long holiday, both literally and as a break from the article. I think that the only solution is to restrict Omer from editing the article for a period of time, say two months, in order to let the article advance to a decent state of development. Meowy 16:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Meowy's above appeal, please note the following:

1) This page is not for content discussion. I have opened the topic to report on some user conduct which I do not think is in coherence with the remedies of the relevant arbitration.

2) My answers to the claims that Meowy has quoted above can be found under the link Meowy has provided. Further, the linked section was created by the admin whom I had invited to help in creating a reasonable discussion environment. His brief comments can also be found there.

3) Meowy mentions a consensus that surfaced after a discussion on the need to take the entry back to it's "pre-Omer" version. There is no such discussion/consensus on the talk page of the article. Is it possible to have clarification on this?Omer182 (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that this is not about content, I was trying to explain the context and the reason for the reverts by User: Eupator. I'm not unquestioningly in agreement with his actions because in the long term I don't think constant reverting will get the article anywhere. However, if you still are not willing to get over your ownership issues, there is no progress going to be made anyway. Remember, you have been doing as many reverts as he has, and your reverts are to a version that you substantially created and that many editors have had difficulty with (so you are not neutral in this issue). I took the de-facto consensus to be that discussion is better than edit warring and the article should go back to a neutral version (i.e. one that existed before the current edit disputs started) while that discussion took place to decide on new wording and content for the article. I had assumed that you had also agreed to that, given your participation in that discussion and on your apparent willingness to let the "pre-Omer" (for want of a better term) version to remain the current version until recently. The discussion may have broken down for now, but that does not give you the right to now return the article to the "Omer version". Meowy 23:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason, why the violation of 1RR by an ArbCom paroled user requires such a lengthy discussion on AE? And why does Meowy always appear in any AE or other board debate related to Eupator? Someone complaining about ownership, should check out Sahl ibn-Sunbat and Khachen, as well as Osroene and Edessa, Mesopotamia. Anyone disputing Eupator or Meowy gets banned from editing them. Atabəy (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's called paranoia, Atabəy. Meowy 01:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to Meowy's statements above; I do not want to contribute to the digression we are having here from the topic at hand, namely whether or not there is a violation of the remedies by user Eupator. Therefore I will not dwell on the details.

Let me, however, merely point out the following: the entry was protected in its ancient version for some time following a period of wholesale reverts by 4 users taking turns (including user Eupator) and my reverting back..I then tried to initiate mediation. This issue is touched in my opening plea above. Meowy declares this protected period as one where I am supposed to have shown consent to that ancient version...Trying to assume good faith I believe Meowy's mind played a trick to him/her.

I strongly encourage the interested parties to have a look at the article talk page (including the archieved one) to see for themselves if what Meowy has stated above is factually correct. Omer182 (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed you had consented. However, though you didn't, the general consensus was to revert back to the version before the controversial edits were made and to discuss things from there. Meowy 01:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my earlier comment above. Omer182 (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Nevard with regards to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland's decisions

This account, which was a self-identified alternate account [13], has been invested on editing a number of articles covered under the above named Arbitration case, including Short (finance), and Overstock.com. I made an attempt to warn him of the Arbitration Committee's directive that all editors must edit these articles under their main account, and he rebuffed it. [14]. User:Lar attempted to discuss the fact that John Nevard had previously self-identified the account as an alternate account, and John Nevard rebuffed that as well, see: [15].

So, per: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland#Editors_instructed (I've copied the section that directly applies here)

1) Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to naked short selling, Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, Gary Weiss, or closely related pages or discussions on any page is directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This may need CheckUser involvement to determine if the John Nevard account IS the sole or main account in use here, but until such time as that has been confirmed by either a checkuser or ArbCom member, I am formally asking that User:John Nevard be topic banned from articles covered under the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case. SirFozzie (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Nevard contacted me by email (as this edit summary indicated would happen) and asserted that the "real name" account referred to in [16] was no longer in use, had not been for some time, and that JN was now the sole account being used, and thus was not in violation of the multiple account restriction. I carried out a CU investigation but I want to consult with at least one other CU about what the results indicate before I'm willing to discuss it further than to say I was puzzled by it. A topic ban may not be warranted, although JN's bedside manner isn't the greatest. ++Lar: t/c 10:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar reached similar views as I have. In light of Mantanmoreland's past I would not like to definitively rule out anything, and I would suggest close watching of the articles (nothing new there)... but overall at present the evidence tentatively (and subject to change if needed) tends to support that John Nevard is probably a separate person. To underline, technical tools are not "magic pixie dust"; watchful eyeballs are one of the best safeguards of quality. I would like to also check with Lar any extra matters he may be aware of as he has looked into it further.

I also concur with Lar in a second area. As JN is surely aware by his edits, the whole Overstock/naked shorting area is high profile and has been the focus of considerable disruption on Wikipedia. If you continue editing this area, please be very careful to ensure you do so to a high standard of editing quality, and focus on the content, not removal of matters concerning Mantanmoreland. To be direct, this does not show good judgement in such an area. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nod. That removal is perhaps not directly the subject of an ArbCom sanction but it's terrifically bad form to remove a notice of something that way, and also rather bad form to repeatedly be snarky about it in responses, as JN was. John Nevard may not, in the end, fall afoul of this particular restriction but he's sailing close to the wind, in my view, to ending up being viewed as a (at least mildly) disruptive and tendentious editor by a significant fraction of our userbase. Which is not a good spot to be in if your goal is reasonable edits that stand review by your peers. ++Lar: t/c 15:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, there is no indication that John Nevard is close to "ending up being viewed as a (at least mildly) disruptive and tendentious editor by a significant fraction of our userbase"; unless, of course, by "our userbase" you mean the userbase of a certain off-wikipedia attack site that seems obsessed with him, among others. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean a significant fraction of the editors of Wikipedia. I make no reference to anything else. I hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 04:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Will points out, it's probably best not to speculate that an editor in good standing, who has no history of problematic edits, might "end up" being viewed in some pejorative way. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, as FT2 points out, statements like, "an editor...who has not history of problematic edits" with regard to Nevard are false. Cla68 (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since FT2 never "points [that] out", it is actually your statement that is false. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that coming into a discussion with BADSITES attacks is not useful, and can also be considered "(at least) mildy disruptive and tendentious" by a significant part of Wikipedia as well, Jayjg. SirFozzie (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I suggest that injecting the spurious "BADSITES" meme into the conversation is not useful, and can also be considered "(at least) mildy disruptive and tendentious" by a significant part of Wikipedia as well, SirFozzie. Anyway, isn't that Dtobias's job? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... how dare anybody bring up the BADSITES meme without getting my permission first... I WP:OWN it! *Dan T.* (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that Nevard user is viewed as a "disruptive and tendentious editor"? Has he been reverted frequently? From the edits of his to articles that I watch he appears to be helpful and to follow WP norms. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No there is not. But that's not what I said. What I said was a prediction, that if John Nevard continues "sailing close to the wind" he will end up being viewed that way. It was not a remark about current state. I stand behind that prediction, based on my experience. I hope that clears up matters. ++Lar: t/c 04:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying your statement. But predictions like that may not be the best way of resolving a problem. I suppose someone could predicting that I, or you, would come to be viewed as disruptive, and they could brushing aside requests for evidence since predictions aren't accusations. How could we respond? By claiming our crystal ball was clearer? By making a bet? If there is sockpuppeting here let's focus on that. If we have evidence of disruption and violations then WP:AE and WP:AI are appropriate places to discuss them. If all we have are gut predictions of future disruptions by an editor in apparently good standing (no blocks or paroles) then the appropriate places to discuss those would be, um, somewhere off-wiki. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nod. However, as others point out, it's more than just a gut feeling... FT2 is spot on in pointing out that there are problematic comments that are clear warning signs here. You may not agree, but I find that one rather troublesome. Quibble about what it is exactly, if you like (tendntious, disruptive, or just snarky) but it's not good. Normally I don't get quite this analytic but this is a special case. Editors who edit in this area should try to be LESS snarky than average, rather than more. ++Lar: t/c 11:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say FT2's comment: To be direct, this does not show good judgement in such an area. would point to disruptive and tendentiousness, as well as his edit summaries, Will. Have you familiarized yourself with his interactions with other editors? SirFozzie (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it tendentious and disruptive to delete comments from one's own talk page? I so we need to change WP:USER to reflect that standard. (I'd endorse it, as I find it annoying, but it appears to be a common practice.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it's the edit summary. --NE2 01:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A rude edit summary on one's own talk page makes one uncivil, not disruptive and tendentious. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that spreading discredited "WR vs. WP" memes can be disruptive. --NE2 02:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Yes, that's right, WR is also trying to build a great encyclopedia. Good one!! Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're helping less than I am. --NE2 02:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC) I just realized that that could be misinterpreted; my intent is to say that you're not helping in this discussion. (Unless your idea of help is to inflame a dispute, in which case you certainly are helping.) --NE2 02:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how making a negative remark about WR in an edit summary on one's own talk page makes one a tendentious and disruptive editor. We're not allowed to make comments about other websites anymore? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come off it. The remark was negative towards Lar and Cla68, two editors in good standing. --NE2 03:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool down. I asked for evidence that the user is disruptive and tendentious and was given that diff as proof. I said that it might have been uncivil but not tendentious or uncivil, and you replied that talking about WR is disruptive. I disputed that and now you say that the original comment was uncivil, which is pretty much what I said before. Getting back to the assertion that the user is "tendentious and disruptive" - is there any evidence of that? So far all that's been offered is one uncivil edit summary. By the Giano standard, it wasn't even uncivil. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay guys, enough please. All of you. Jayjg, given the Mantanmoreland enforcement and John Nevard's early declaration that he was an alternate account, it was reasonable to make inquiries. Will Beback, it was reasonable to expect those inquiries to be responded to in a reasonable way rather than blanking with mildly rude edit summaries. Sir Fozzie, please don't rise to the bait - more light, less heat. Risker (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balderdash. To begin with, this has nothing to do with the BADSITES strawman; rather, this has to do with a very specific attack site, which has taken a disliking to John Nevard, and started trying to tie him as a sockpuppet to its usual targets/victims. Rather unsurprisingly, soon after the thread about Nevard there heats up, one of the forum's regulars shows up on Nevard's Talk: page "advising" him to behave better, and soon after that another forum regular warns him, then opens up this section. The causality is clear as day, there's no point in pussyfooting around. However, the fact that that attack site is obsessed with Nevard (and no doubt working itself into a frenzy over this exchange) doesn't mean that "a significant part of Wikipedia" cares what it thinks, much less agrees with its conclusions. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, there is nothing to say that other Wikipedians hadn't noticed this dichotomy some time in the past and were simply more discreet in their inquiries. While that may seem, on the surface, to have been more diplomatic, the end result is that since there was no public discussion, John Nevard is now being discussed on a public noticeboard. Let's try to keep the heat down and focus on the fact that there is apparently nothing at this time to link John Nevard with any of the known sockpuppeteers who have been known to haunt this series of articles. To my mind, that serves to dispel the cloud that has been following John Nevard around for a while, which can only be a good thing. Risker (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was the whole point of my first comment; to refute the claim that John Nevard was close to "ending up being viewed as a (at least mildly) disruptive and tendentious editor by a significant fraction of our userbase". There has never been a "cloud" following John Nevard around; rather, an insignificant attack board started advancing various idiotic theories about John Nevard, as is its wont. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, unless you have been following these articles closely (and there is no reason to expect that you would), you would likely be unaware of the concerns of those of us who have been watching them. From my perspective, I am relieved that this issue is now openly resolved. Risker (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this "us who have been watching them" you refer to, and where were you discussing it? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question for clarification - was the other/prior account disclosed, and did you confirm that this account is indeed long dormant? Neither Lar's replies nor FT2s replies give me an indication either way on the first half of the question, which prevents me from reaching a conclusion on the second half. Also, I know of at least one prior checkuser request related to this Arbitration case that came up with puzzling results, so it might be worth discussing your puzzlement with the checkusers who handled that case. GRBerry 15:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - I am not aware of it being disclosed, it may have been but it was not disclosed to me. I asked, but did not insist. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps as a good-faith way of moving forward, John Nevard could disclose his previous account name to an Arbitration Committee member, privately? SirFozzie (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see evidence of multiple account use by John Nevard within the period covered by the checkuser tables as of today. He appears to edit from a university, a business, a residence, and occasionally tor; I do not know if that is of significance. (Curiously, 3 other editors at his university appear to be sockpuppets of each other, but since they share a different residential ISP I'm ruling John Nevard out as a fourth member of the party.) I'm not sure what information John has volunteered about his location, so I will only say he is not in the U.S., which seems to rule out the kind of long-distance dial-up shenanigans discovered involving Bassetcat, and also rules out any direct relationship with JaneyRyan. Hope this helps clarify things. Thatcher 17:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I may be mistaken but I believe use of TOR is explicitly disallowed to be used while editing in that area. I'll consolidate my notes and consult with you, FT2 and the other CUs that have been investigating this to see if we can sort out any points of confusion. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That was my thoughts as well, Lar.. that TOR was, if not explicitly banned, was at least severely discouraged on these articles. SirFozzie (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be relevant is if someone else was logging in to JN's account to edit. As it happens, there are very few tor edits and none of them are related to naked short selling or other matters related to the case. The use of tor full-time would be prohibited for editors in this topic area (I think), but a large majority of JN's edits are made from non-proxy IP's, so it doesn't seem like an issue. Thatcher 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Tor for this topic area is prohibited under 1B of the case remedies, but Thatcher has told us that the currently visible Tor edits aren't in the topic area, so that is moot for now. GRBerry 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how relevant this is to considerations here, but in my experience the principal antagonists on both sides of the fence were diligently recruiting Wikipedian volunteers to their POV on the Naked Short Selling content dispute. So there may be an issue about whether this person is proxying for a banned user. Maybe a caution at this time, with a possible request for clarification if problems continue? Durova^Charge! 19:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think proxying for a banned user is the right way to deal with this, given that there are banned users on multiple sides of this issue here. I'd use remedy 1C "To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies ..." as the relevant remedy here. Some of JN's highlighed edits/summaries have gone too far into WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND territory, but I haven't yet dug enough to see if that is a caution that should be issued. GRBerry 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those keeping score at home, it may be instructive to count how many comments here in this very thread veer into WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND territory. Some of the things said here would get a newcomer sanctioned, and some might not, but clearly are not the sort of things I'd be pointing to with pride had I said them. ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on this page that "would get a newcomer sanctioned", and if you were concerned about Wikipedia becoming a battleground, then you should not have volunteered in this matter to be a willing foot-soldier on behalf of a message board at war with Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That characterization of this matter is not helpful, Jayjg. Really, you should reconsider your approach. ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was your characterization of John Nevard that was not helpful, and it is you who should reconsider your approach. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stand behind everything I've said to, or about, John Nevard. You are trying to spin this into something it is not. That seems to be something you do fairly regularly, and I think every time you do it, it casts further discredit on you. There were legitimate concerns about John Nevard's actions and identity, in view of the specific sanctions. That you don't like that is tough, really, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter. Risker properly pointed out that this is a matter of some concern to many editors. FT2 properly pointed out that there are problematic comments by Nevard. Instead of acknowledging that, and admitting that you overreacted, you go on the attack, trotting out attacks on people and trying to impugn the integrity of everyone involved. Please reconsider that approach of attacking people. As time goes on it's less and less effective. ++Lar: t/c 12:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're really not helping here. --NE2 02:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are describing your own behavior, not mine. Please review Will Beback's comments to you above. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the original decision, I'd appreciate ongoing administrator attention to this highly publicized and problematic group of articles, both with regard to enforcement of the remedies in the decision as well as enforcement of other policies including application of BLP. There are also a number of old talkpage discussions that probably ought to be archived or courtesy-blanked (I would say deleted, but we'd be accused of trying to cover up the problematic history here), if someone wants to go through these. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have continued to monitor these articles over the last few months, and will do some talk page archiving later this evening. Risker (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Breach of 1RR on Troubles Article

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

Nothing to see here. I have already dealt with this issue and so has Rocketpocket and Thunderer was not guilty of more then one revert anyway because the edits concerned were sequential. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a long a protracted discussion here, all Troubles related articles were placed under a 1RR restriction. Notification was placed on the Ulster Defence Regiment article here, though editors were aware of this decision. Since the Arbitration Enforcement closed The Thunderer, has set about reverting editors work, despite the restrictions IMO. They engaged almost immediately in a revert war here, here and here.

They subsequently went on to revert editors work here and here, types of edits which lent itself to the origional dispute. They then reverted my edit here, after I had just added this text here.

This prompted Rockpocket to post a reminder on their talk page here, and BigDunc suggested likewise and to exercise some caution with this type of editing in light of sanctions. These type of edits had given rise to the above mentioned AE.

I then made a number of sourced and referenced editions to the article here, here and here. However despite both Rockpockets and BigDunc’s advice, The Thunderer set about reverting regardless, describing the reverts as rewriting opening section and Rewriting section. It is obvious that the text was simply removed.

In addition to this they have made a number of reverts which are IMO written towards a particular POV, such as here, and here. The reason I raise these two is that Spartaz had pacifically raised this matter on the talk page here, and only today raised it again here. The introduction of unsourced text, in addition to not keeping to our policy of WP:NPOV.

Since the AE the editor has refused to assume good faith, and has on each tread made a number of comments about me. They accused me of wanting to do a hatchet job on the article, and was asked to stop. They then said I was only adding Catholic or Nationalist opinion suggesting that I should resist the temptation to put in material which is detrimental to the UDR's image, and that we shouldn't give too much weight to the controversy because that's a matter of opinion. They then suggested that they were going to have a look through the article at some point and delete a load of it. I objected of course, but as seen above they paid no mind. They then suggested I was using the article as a condemnation, and that this was my sole purpose in editing this article. Suggesting that if I "don't moderate this pro-Nationalist editing style then their going to have to involve ArbCom." They then went on to suggest I change my modus operandi and if I don't remove the information then they will take it further.

I would like to have this addressed, as I'm trying to move on to some other articles like here and here, as well as addressing vandalism on other WP:IR articles such as here and here. This editor appears to be a WP:SPA account with a clear case of WP:OWN, which is all well and good as long as they do not edit against policy, or keep making accusations. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the protection was placed with a time stamp of 20:00 by yours truly, according to the link Domer has supplied. The Thunderer/Ben W Bell issue was before it. That's not a violation. I'm looking at the rest of Domer's report for information, however, I don't believe that there is a violation of the 1 RR, unless I'm missing something. The section where he says that he's looking to delete a load from the article is not bad in context. That was all hypothetical. The point is you can fill the article with all sorts of cruft about the regiment being bad and counter it with more cruft about the regiment being good. The end result is that you finish up with an article full of cruft. If you agree with the way it's done then fine, if not I'll self revert to stop anyone getting sanctions. Sound fair? While Domer and Dunc make a point that maybe it would be better to post somewhere first what he was willing to delete, I found it quite acceptable under Bold Revert Discuss. I fully invite others to look at Domer's request/evidence, but I do not see anything actionable in my quick look at it. SirFozzie (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have pointed to were sourced and referenced text was removed, despite ongoing discussion on the talk page. So IMO Bold Revert Discuss is not the case here. The edit summary suggests a re-write, yet clearly the text was simply removed. No mention is made of the comments directed at me at all. Now for context, I have posted information here which details this type of conduct in more detail. Would my replacing of this information which was removed be considered as part of Bold Revert Discuss?--Domer48_'fenian' 07:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, just because something is sourced, doesn't mean it's not cruft. It depends on the context and notability. We have to watch WP:UNDUE on both sides, that's what WP:NPOV means. I think that especially because Thunderer offered to SELF-revert if there was a problem, we really must Assume Good Faith. But that is why I offered to have other editors review your section of evidence and see if they agree with me. SirFozzie (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reply That was all hypothetical was inresponce to something compleatly different. The text they suggested removing is not what is being discussed here, though they were asked not to. What was removed is part of an ongoing discussion. No mention is made of the introduction of unsourced and unreferenced text, despite being ask not to. If it will help illustrate what I'm saying, I can post the diff's of previous actions like what is being discussed now, and linked above. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:12, 10 October 2008 (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.

Request for injunction in Pseudoscience/Homeopathy

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

See my response below. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 13:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elonka should be banned from enforcement of Pseudoscience/Homeopathy arbitration decisions. She no longer has the trust of the community to act fairly as an administrator in this particular regard. Leave the enforcement to other administrators.

ScienceApologist (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to take that up with ArbCom. Administrators would only (maybe) have the authority to do that collectively at ANI, but the only sure bet for such an injunction (haven't we got a new name for it yet?) is ArbCom.--chaser - t 05:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaser is correct, SA...this isn't where a request like that needs to be made. It doesn't have anything to do with the enforcement of the remedies prescribed by ARBCOM in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy, but rather how or by whom they are enforced. Please appeal to ARBCOM or start a discussion at WP:ANI. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 13:18, 9 October 2008 (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]

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 :::I appologize for posting here while the issue was rased also in the Noticeboard by other people. But I did not know that, I do not follow the contribs of the editors that edit the same articles as me... The issue is however standing, and I believe the proper place to discuss it is here. I want to be also more specific, that while in some articles Xasha has edits that do not fall in the area of the topic ban, they are done together with those on the edit ban, in one edit everytime. If Xasha would make those separately, I wouldn't mention them. I have no way to link to diff and point out which 10 of the 20 red things are outside the topic ban. One has to read throught the whole diff. It falls upon the editor who has a topic ban imposed upon himself to perform edits in a more visible manner (normally, you would expect him not to do baned topic edits at all, but at least do them separately from the rest). [[User:Dc76|Dc76]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Dc76|talk]]</sup> 22:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
+::::As for the continued accusations of following other editors' edits, I would like to remind Dc76 that Wikipedia has a facility called Watchlist and an option in preferences that adds every page you edit in your Watchlist. And I would like to see someone reading his name in an edit summary on ANI or AE (on the Watchlist) waiting for an invitation from the complainant to reply.[[User:Xasha|Xasha]] ([[User talk:Xasha|talk]]) 22:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 ==Ulster Defence Regiment==