Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:34, 5 August 2012

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Plot Spoiler

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

Request concerning Plot Spoiler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Plot Spoiler

Statement by Plot Spoiler

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

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

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Plot Spoiler

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

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

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

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

Can Nableezy please explain:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by ZScarpia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Sean.hoyland

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

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

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

Comment by Cla68

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Nishidani

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Tiamut

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

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

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

Comment by Bali

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

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

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

Comment by Ohiostandard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

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

Result concerning Plot Spoiler

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

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

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

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

GoodDay

GoodDay blocked for one month. — Coren ^(talk) 04:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning GoodDay

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay#GoodDay topic-banned from diacritics

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

11:29, 28 July 2012‎ Commenting on on-going diacritics discussions
11:51, 29 July 2012 Creating list of honourees in the fight against diacritics
19:13, 30 July 2012 Adding to list
22:02, 30 July 2012 Adding to list

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User has a history of trying to push the boundaries of various sanctions they are under to see what they can get away with. They have already been blocked under this arbitration ruling once. The edits above are clearly him trying to cheer-lead those who he feels support his beliefs in the area of diacritics. This only adds to the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that was part of the problem he has had in the past. Clearly he hasn't understood that he needs to just drop the stick and walk away. -DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning GoodDay

Statement by DJSasso

@John Carter: In his last Arb Enforcement Request Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive117#GoodDay it does seem to indicate it applied to his own talk page, so I would take that to mean that it would also apply to his user space. I wouldn't have posted this had he not done essentially the same thing as what he did in his last enforcement request and was blocked for. (same as in it was a comment in his userspace) -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Rrius: Actually the Arb decision does specifically cover what he has done. In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay#GoodDay_warned it specifically mentions if he continues any of the actions which were stated in the Findings of Fact. Of which engaging in a battleground behaviour is one of them. Clearly he is egging on his "side" of what he perceives as a battle in his comments. That would be continuing to engage in a battleground mentality. As such he is directly acting against the decision that was handed down by the Arbs. -DJSasso (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Fut.Perf.: You said "(3) he's now promised to actually heed the restriction". However, he promised both in the last enforcement request and at the original ruling to heed the restriction. What makes this claim any more likely to stick than the last two times he promised. This is a user that is under two different and distinct topic bans, not some innocent editor who made a mistake. He didn't accidentally break his sanctions, this was clearly deliberate. I'd actually support moving this up to amend the original ruling to actually have Arb look at more of his actions. I didn't realize that was an option when I made this request. -DJSasso (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

At the risk of breaching the anywhere part of the 'said' topic-ban (by posting here), I'd accept a 1-month block. Furthermore, I'd endeavor to refrain from posting directly or indirectly about 'said' topic-ban. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning GoodDay

Comment Although I'm familiar with both editors, I'm not really sure where all this "diacritics" debate began. Most likely been going on for a while, but I have neither the time nor the patience to go reading the entire dispute over diacritics. What is the question here is whether or not GoodDay violated the topic ban. Although I never took part in any discussion on this in the past, I disagree with the wording of the topic ban that has been placed on GoodDay. Editors should not be banned from voicing their opinions on talk pages. Banning from editing main article content is one thing, but not from voicing opinions on talk pages, even if that opinion is unpopular or even at times obnoxious. That said however, although I did not take part in the past arbitration discussion that imposed the topic ban on GoodDay, that does not mean that the arbitration findings are not valid. I am, of all things, consistent, or at least I try to be. If a guideline, MOS, or in this case an arbitration finding says "not to do something", then that "something" should not be done, even if I don't agree with them. In this case the first sentence of GoodDay's arbitration ban say "indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics." Those edits he made on his user space seem to be diacritics concerned and appear to violate the ArCom ban. Sorry GoodDay. I would, however, push for a stern warning on this, rather than a block or worse. The fact that "user space" was to be included may not have been completely evident to GoodDay. Suggest adding "user space" to the original ArbCom result. In addition I suggest that DjSasso steer clear from any discussion that GoodDay is involved in, unless GoodDay initiates contact first, such as at an unrelated discussion page, on an unrelated matter. As long as GoodDay continues to abide by the findings of the ArbCom, however--JOJ ^Hutton 19:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to agree with DJSasso. "Anywhere on the English Wikipedia" indisputably includes User: space — and, in particular, subpages of User:GoodDay. This interpretation was considered necessary in order to prevent GoodDay from continuing to act disruptively on this topic anywhere on Wikipedia, including by incitement, proxy, or other indirect means. I realize GoodDay disagrees with, resents, and/or rejects this interpretation of his topic ban, but the clear consensus at the previous AE discussion a month ago went differently — namely, that the ban did cover his "own" spaces — and in the absence of a clear followup ArbCom motion or community consensus saying otherwise, I would consider this to be a settled matter.

It is completely appropriate (and, under the circumstances, not harassment of or a personal attack on GoodDay) for people to question the appropriateness of material such as the last two sections currently in User:GoodDay/My stuff. It seems reasonably clear to me (from examining the recent discussions on the cited pages, together with recent editing by the named editors) that GoodDay is, in fact, continuing to comment (indirectly) on diacritics discussions — a general subject area which he was ordered to avoid completely — and if this is not in fact what GoodDay is doing, he needs to speak to the subject of the inquiry (not to the motives of the person who made the inquiry) and patiently, courteously explain what he did mean and why he believes his comments were not a breach of his topic ban.

I'm sorry to see GoodDay truculently rebuffing DJSasso's calm and friendly attempts to point out that the Simple English Wikipedia (which GoodDay was considering moving to) may not be the diacritic-free paradise GoodDay apparently assumed it to be. GoodDay does have the right (per WP:REMOVED) to remove comments from his own talk page, though it is not appropriate for GoodDay to try to change the subject here (in this AE request) by posting ad hominem attacks against DJSasso for filing the request. If GoodDay wants people to discount this AE request as a personal attack against him by DJSasso, he must first argue convincingly that the AE request itself is baseless — something which, as best I can tell so far, he has not even tried to do.

Finally, I think it's appropriate to observe that GoodDay was sanctioned by ArbCom (see here), not out of a desire to impose a specific position on diacritics and suppress any dissent from same, but because GoodDay was found to be pursuing his views on diacritics in a disruptively uncollegial, "battleground" manner. ArbCom warned GoodDay that any "additional violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies" — not narrowly related to diacritics, but (as I would interpret it) any continued unwillingness to work collaboratively with others here or to respect their views or contributions — could lead to additional sanctions. I certainly would prefer not to see GoodDay torpedo himself out of spite, but if he simply will not change his approach to this project, I'm afraid that is likely to be the result. — Rich wales 20:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the ArbCom result does not say "avoid completely". It says don't change diacriticals and don't "participate in discussions" about them. None of those four diffs shows him doing either of those things. If ArbCom had wanted to say "avoid completely", they could have. They didn't. There is nothing in their ruling that bans general comments in the user space about the thrust of diacritic usage in the project is a bad thing, yet he was blocked over that for week. There is certainly nothing in the ruling that bans stating that he is enjoying reading two talk pages and showing approbation for the efforts of some of the editors there. Frankly, people are stretching the ArbCom ruling beyond what it says and stretching GD comments beyond what they actually say. If people really want the topic banned amended to have the broad sweep people are pretending it already has, they should work to reopen it and make the amendments instead of broadening it through enforcement. What's happening here is frankly unfair and seems rooted in animus toward GD from people who are sick of him rather than a calm, arms-length consideration of what the evidence actually shows he did. -Rrius (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, I wish to say that I have not seen anything at all in DJSasso's recent interactions with GoodDay that I would find uncivil. Calmly mentioning that another project (specifically, the Simple English Wikipedia) may not meet GoodDay's idealistic imaginings was not harassment in my view, but common courtesy. And alerting the community to an apparent violation of an ArbCom sanction is certainly not any sort of civility violation (as long as it is done in good faith, which appears to me to be clearly the case here). As I said before, if GoodDay feels this AE request should be dismissed as frivolous, and/or that DJSasso should be sanctioned for generating it, GoodDay first needs to convince people that the concerns about his recent behaviour are unfounded, and then put forth his harassment claim, backing it up with evidence (not simply reiterating it with frustration). — Rich wales 21:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If an ArbCom case specifically about you isn't enough to change your ways, I can't see how a lenient sanction would effect much of any change. This sort of sneaky infantile attitude has no place here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very poor choice of words. I suggest striking them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This enforcement action seems like form over substance. When I saw GD's edit summary referring to DJ's censorship attempts, I thought he was exaggerating. Silly me. We are talking about a six-month ban for such innocuous comments that only someone who had been doing battle with him for years and was looking for an excuse to get him blocked would even guess what the hell he was talking about.

What was the point of the topic ban? IIRC, it was to stop disruptive editing at articles and WikiProjects, and associated talk pages. What difference does it make if GD makes veiled allusions about the topic at his talk page? Editors who can't stand it don't have to have his ~~talk~~ "My stuff"" page in their watchlists. If his ~~talk~~ page were to become an alternative venue for diacritic discussions, there would be some rational basis for action. As it stands, the only people taking any notice of this at all are people who know (or assume they know) what he's referring to and don't agree with him, so what he says will have no effect but to gratify him and annoy people who needn't read what he's saying anyway.

But if people want to be formalist, let's be formalist. Here's what the ArbCom result says: "GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia." The first part is clearly talking about substantive edits, as opposed to discussions. Otherwise the second part of that sentence would say "including participating in any discussions". This is made clearer by the other sentence: "This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics."

Now, what did GoodDay do? First he said, "I'm enjoying reading up on the discussions at those places." That was said below a section header saying, "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)". That clearly doesn't constitute an edit concerning diacritics in the way the result from ArbCom was written. But was it a discussion of it? It's frankly hard to see that. He not only doesn't mention diacritics, but he avoids even mentioning any particular discussions at those pages. It would be wrong to start blocking people because others read things into innocuous references to talk pages.

The other three diffs deal with additions to that same thread on his ~~talk~~ My stuff page. First he said, "PS: Thumbs up for the efforts of [two editors]". Then he adds editors with the two other edits. In none of those edits does he mention diacritics or participate in a discussion about them. Nor does he say what it is about the efforts he approves of, or even what the efforts are. Leaving aside that diacritical marks aren't mentioned, a monologue is not a discussion.

The thrust of the actions involved here is to say he is enjoying two discussions and compliment some of the participating editors. Is that really the basis on which we wish to take drastic enforcement actions? If GD is testing the boundaries, so what? That only matters if he crosses them, and if he has done so here, then Wikipedia is truly not what it is supposed to be.

The reality is that GD received the topic ban then was blocked for saying things at his talk page. He was surprised, given the wording, that a one-sided rant, as opposed to actually participating in a discussion was against the topic ban. Frankly, he had a point. If the topic ban was really supposed to sweep so broadly, it should have been more broadly written. Sure, "anywhere on the English Wikipedia" is broad, but the wording, especially the implication, of actions banned was not. It reads like he can't make diacritic edits and he can't participate in the discussions about them. It arguably also takes in making his talk page an alternative forum for those discussions to move to.

It does not, however, on its face include a ban on noting his displeasure with the broad thrust of what is happening with diacritics across the project or commenting on the pleasure he is getting from reading other discussions and his appreciation for the unnamed efforts of specific editors. If he had, rather than commenting on his page, given the listed editors barnstars that didn't mention diacritics would he have been brought here? Would he be facing a six-month ban? If so, ArbCom needs to make sure going forward that people can be punished for saying that they are enjoying discussions at talk pages, without mentioning the particular discussions, and showing appreciation for the "efforts" of other editors, without mentioning the efforts or their general thrust of those efforts.

This whole muzzling attempt is squalid, and I hope the administrators who have comment below, and those who come along later, will read what GD actually wrote and think on the implications of taking the sort of action they are currently talking about. -Rrius (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this was on a user page called "My stuff" rather than a talk page of any description makes the case for enforcement even weaker. He clearly wasn't changing diacritics or participating in a discussion since the page in question isn't one where a discussion would take place. I really hope no one who's supported a long block has actually read what GD said. While slipshod, it is certainly better than having full knowledge of this and still thinking his actions conflict with the block. Making veiled comments shouldn't be viewed as "participating in a discussion". Making veiled comments in a place that isn't a forum for discussion certainly shouldn't. Again, if you want to ban him from saying anything in anyway in any place that anyone could possibly view as having something, however distantly, to diacritical marks, then make the ban say that instead of telling him he can't change diacritics and participate in discussions about them. -Rrius (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Am I the only one who feels that six months is way too drastic? If GoodDay had actually made "main space" edits or had joined a discussion, that would have been clearly out of bounds of the ArbCom decision, but given the fact that these edits were far from any of that and were clearly meant for his user space only, and may have passed unnoticed if not for the fact that some editors tend to overdramatize the simple, I think that a simple amendment to the original Arbcom ruling would do the trick. And as long as GD abides by that, there shouldn't be any need for a long term punitive block.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I might find it too drastic if not for all the other behavioural issues, some of which I note below. But I think this diff is a good example of the problem. GoodDay is willfully blinding himself to the fact that it is his own actions that have gotten him to this point, not the actions of "bad intentioned editors". I think what we are seeing here is a community that has finally gotten tired of watching him play the victim, watching him always assume bad faith in other editors (several sections of his my stuff page are written in that vein), tired of dealing with his "I didn't hear that" replies to everything, and tired of the battleground behaviour. In some ways, we may have done a disservice by focusing the arbitration case on diacritics rather than his overall behaviour. But the truth is, if we had, he would have been banned already. When he was facing bans in his arbitration case, GoodDay promised he would stay out of the diacritics issue. He didn't. When he was told, in no uncertain terms, after his first breach to stay out of the issue, he said he would. He didn't. So here we are again, and once again, he is promising to stay out of it entirely. Frankly, he won't. He has already shown that he simply can not, or will not, drop the behaviours that have gotten him to this point. Mostly because he simply refuses to look at himself, choosing instead to blame "bad intentioned", "prideful" or "home-country pride" editors. Is six months too drastic? Maybe. But frankly, what else is left to try? Block him for a month, and we'll be right back here in two, I guarantee it. Reso lute 13:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well when GoodDay continues to be taunted by others, its only natural for him to want to defend himself against personal attacks. He couldn't comment on the threads, so he took the only natural course he felt he had left.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "anywhere on the English Wikipedia" means "anywhere". And everything we put in user space is supposed to be relevant to development of the encyclopedia (see WP:NOTBLOG) — so material in a user subpage called "my stuff" is properly considered to be related somehow to one's work or interaction here (otherwise it doesn't belong here).

Note, further, that the ArbCom ruling warned GoodDay of substantial additional sanctions "in the event of additional violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies" — not exclusively related to diacritics. So, any sort of allegedly nonconstructive conduct on GoodDay's part is fair game in this forum, and IMO it's perfectly appropriate to evaluate current behaviour in light of past (mis)conduct.

Whether GoodDay has exhausted the community's patience (and deserves a lengthy block), or whether he may perhaps be deserving of one more chance (and thus a shorter block) to show that he really can behave, is something the community — many of whom have dealt with GoodDay in far more depth and breadth than I have — will need to decide. But I believe it's perfectly appropriate for this discussion to proceed. — Rich wales 03:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by a nobody

It seems many of the commenters have lost their sense of why we are all here and are caught up in some Stanford prison experiment style mentality where they believe it is their duty to beat down those who make any infraction, while losing all perspective of reality. Sure the man made an infraction, but one so small no one would have ever noticed unless they were watching his every move. Not a single article, talk page, project page, etc was affected by his infracting edits, that's how insignificant this is. Yet look at his contributions, he does a large amount of work to create a better encyclopedia (in case you forgot, this is why we are here). His blocking would be detrimental to our cause of building an encyclopedia. Perhaps the complainant should learn how to remove the infractor from his watchlist and as long as the infractor does not edit on diacratics outside of his personal space, or ask others to edit on his behalf from his personal space, let him be, don't take this so seriously y'all. Canadian Spring (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the editors - besides the OP who is trying to remove an ideological enemy - are all questioning how such insignificant edits could deserve a block while all the admins are calling for high punishment, it is unfortunate that so many admins are sadists who live in ivory towers. Canadian Spring (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Resolute

One of the concerns I raised at one point in the arbitration case was that locking GoodDay out of the diacritics debate could cause him to simply move his issues to other arenas. His sly support of fellow anti-diacritics editors on his /My Stuff page is not something I would have been too concerned about in isolation, though I did also notice it. But his continuing tendencies to foster disputes and edit war, running afoul of WP:POINT, WP:IDHT and WP:TE are simply not going away. He apparently edit warred on some American political articles in mid-July, according to this, and over the last month has fought numerous editors over a little banner at Adam Oates, Joe Sakic, Pavel Bure and Mats Sundin (3-5 reverts on all articles over that period). And after seemingly accepting (with poor grace) that his preferred version was not accepted, attempted to undermine a GA nomination. That led to this exchange at my talk page where I finally reached the end of my rope with GoodDay. I've given him the benefit of the doubt far too often as it is. The truth is, There is no reason not to believe he is going to continue to exhibit battleground behavour as long as he is a Wikipedian. You kick him out of one arena, and he'll just go find another. I am not sure that there are any solutions left that don't involve long-term blocks. Mentoring has failed, short blocks have failed, topic bans have failed. Honestly GoodDay, what is left for us to try? Reso lute 03:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If an enforcement to be imposed for the stuff you bring up in that paragraph, it is should be part of the request. The edits in question here are the only basis for deciding whether to punish, and they just aren't enough. They certainly don't rise to the level of the punishment being discussed. What is being discussed here is monstrously unfair. It may well be that behaviour you bring up fits the ArbCom ruling or reopening it or whatever, but the veiled comments certainly do not warrant a six-month ban. -Rrius (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no reason to not consider overall behaviour when deciding on a sanction here. — Coren ^(talk) 21:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I follow. DJSasso started this enforcement request on the premise that GoodDay violated a sanction and lists a few edit diffs which he claims demonstrate that. That is the only reason why this procedure exists and it should define the scope of what we are discussing here. Rrius claims the evidence given is insufficient to show that Goodday violated the terms of his sanction and therefore there is no ground for any (further) punishment. I see no reason why we should now also, as you state, 'consider overall behaviour'. That is not what this is about, although apparently some would like it to be. It amounts to saying "Well, regardless of the merits of this case while we are here let's see what else we can throw at GoodDay". Really, is that how it works?--Wolbo (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem kind of strange that it would work that way. First it would be "did he violate anything" and if no or insufficient, then we are done and move on. Nothing else would matter at all. If there is no question of his guilt then and only then would you look at past sanctions. But 6 months...my goodness, you'd think he bugged the Watergate building or lied to a grand jury about screwing an intern. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly find it depressing that the proposed sanction is based on something other than what is alleged. This forum is supposed to be about enforcing Arbitration rulings, yet the question of whether what GD has done actually constitutes a violation requiring enforcement has become secondary, and the arguments that his conduct doesn't actually violate the ruling has been ignored. He didn't edit a diacritic, and he didn't "participate in a discussion about same". Only one admin has responded to that point, and it was with a reference to the irrelevant phrase "anywhere on the English Wikipedia". The only sense in which the location of the edit is relevant is with respect to whether posting what he did in a forum that is not a place of discussion constitutes "participating in a discussion".

Yet admins are ready to blithely impose a six-month ban based on "overall behaviour". If some sense of his "overall behaviour" is what he is to be judged on, then that should have been the basis for this enforcement action, with diffs. Instead, admins seem perfectly willing to simply ignore the text of the actual ban to punish him because they think he's an asshole. It is one thing to look at overall behaviour in assessing the punishment after making a rational determination of guilt on the actual conduct alleged, but it is another to just declare him guilty without actually bothering to show how in the hell his conduct actually violates the ban. To show in those four diffs how he edited a diacritic or "participated in a discussion about same".

If people want to impose sanctions for overall behaviour, how is this the right forum? Something like that should be at AN/I or the like. -Rrius (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall behaviour is always discussed in these requests. Especially when the overall behaviour is listed in the second part of the sanction against him. The reason I linked directly to the diacritics is that it was the most obvious example and I knew that overall behaviour is always discussed in these sort of discussions so it wasn't necessary to list that section above as well. If it upsets you that its not listed above and wasn't alleged (even though I quite clearly allege it in my comments that were part of the request) I can easily edit my request up at the top, but that seems overly bureaucratic when it is quite the norm to investigate an editors entire conduct when they come to requests like this. His conduct very clearly violates the part of his ruling that tells him to no longer engage in battleground behaviour and that if he does so he could be blocked without warning. To argue that he hasn't violated his sanctions because I only linked to one part of his sanctions is quite a stretch.

And it didn't go to ANI because he was already under Arb Com warning about his overall behaviour so this was the most appropriate venue. That being said, this discussion would likely already be over with him site banned had it gone to ANI, this was by far the less harsh way to take this situation. Considering he is under a topic ban for the British Isles which he violated and was blocked for once and he is under a topic ban for diacritics which he violated once and was blocked for. This being the second time now. That is 4 separate times he was told by the community or the arbs to stop engaging in battleground/disruptive behaviour. ANI tends to crucify editors in those situations. Not to mention editors with two distinct topic bans are often site banned to begin with, he was given mercy in the original arb case when the arbs didn't site ban him. So a 6 month block is a very very light block for someone in his current situation. If two different topic bans and blocks after he violated both of them once didn't give him the clue he needs to just drop the stick and walk away then longer and stronger ones are needed. -DJSasso (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Rrius, most of the arbs commented on this before I submitted my comments, and several continued to focus on what DJSasso brought after (i.e.: Calil). Personally, I am not saying we need to block GoodDay for six months, but I am saying that there are overall patterns of behaviour that need to end. I have tried to impress that on him myself - especially during his arbitration case - without success. If we can find a way to stop that behaviour without a long block, I'm all ears. Reso lute 12:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MakeSense64

I have been watching this saga from a distance. First of all I would like to say that I learned something new here: the mere act of posting a wikilink to a discussion I enjoy reading, now makes me a "participant in that discussion". I didn't know that. I am already looking forward to the next great "invention".
More generally on what is going on here. I don't know GoodDay very well, but from what I have seen he may well be the type of person who does not have the arguing skills that some of us have, who doesn't know by head which policies to quote, and who has the heart on the tongue, as we say. It's not an art to "needle" such people with minor annoyances until they are angered and have an outburst and violate some "rules" of civility or other. So, such "rules" are very nice in theory, but basically all they lead to is a flourishing culture of passive aggressive tactics, which wp is now full with. Some people cannot deal with such tactics very well, they feel they are being wronged but they cannot argue their case, and let their heart speak. You can then proceed to get that person sanctioned on the basis of some written rules. Wunderbar! But rare is the judge who also takes a proper look in all the "needling" that has been going on before the problems started.
It is wikipedia's failure if it cannot find a way to let such people perform a useful function, if they want to. GoodDay has been mostly gnoming and is listed as one of the 400 most active wikipedians. So what we see here is basically this scene: the most active gnome in the community has been fitted a straightjacket, and now they are even trying to fit him a gag ball. Well, our admins can be proud of that. Let's wish them good luck in their ivory towers.
In the middle ages we were more advanced. This type of people was allowed to take the role of clowns, they would do small jobs around the castle and they were the only ones who could directly criticize the king and the ministers, point out when they were without clothes, or let the population know about all the little corruptions and things like that. They were not silenced, and they were respected. Now we are "much more evolved", of course... Be well MakeSense64 (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Courcelles

The issue is not "anywhere on the English Wikipedia", but with whether what this enforcement request is based on violates what he was banned from doing "anywhere on the English Wikipedia". If you intended to include edits that don't involve edits to diacritics and don't involve discussion of them, then you did a poor job of drafting. The actual wording of the ban should give the editor a clear understanding of the conduct that will result in punishment. The text of the ban does not give adequate warning that vague comments saying he is enjoying reading two discussions will fall within the ban. Imposing a six month ban for the actual edits involved here is so far beyond reasonable that it is hard to believe you people are actually considering it. -Rrius (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to those calling for 6 months

Why are you (plural) seeking to have me blocked until February 2013? I didn't go around diacritics anywheres on main space or their corresponding talkpages. I didn't take part in any diacritics discussion atall, nor have I influenced any diacritics discussions. I merely stated what I enjoyed doing (and continue to enjoy), when not gnoming - is that violation? I praised 4 editors involved in the thing I enjoyed observing- is that a violation? Anyways, I just want to continue gnoming & if necessary, I'll simply avoid posting anything on my talkpage, as it's now apparent that my own space is under a microscope. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I wasn't aware (until Djsasso reported me) that I was barred from making the posts-in-question, at my (now deleted) secondary page. GoodDay (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

GoodDay obviously violated his topic ban; that is not in dispute. It is also clear that GoodDay did not help himself with his opening comments. Why it's taking so long for GoodDay to understand what a topic ban is, I don't know. But I think that Canadian Spring makes some excellent points. In getting caught up in enforcing the rules, it's easy to forget why we're all here: creating an encyclopedia. As Canadian Spring points out, GoodDay's violations were so inconsequential that nobody would have ever noticed if they weren't astutely following his contributions. A 6 month ban is far too excessive. A 1 month ban seems more than enough for a first-time violation. ~~Subsequent offenses can dealt with more harshly. ~~Further offenses can be dealt with more harshly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)~~~~ [reply]

This is actually a second time violation on this particular topic ban. Not sure if that is what you meant in your second last sentence. -DJSasso (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I stand corrected. A month still seems more appropriate than 6 months, but splitting the difference might also be reasonable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning GoodDay

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

The phrasing of the topic ban explicitly says GoodDay is "indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia." The question seems to be whether this extends to GoodDay's own userspace, as the edits in question seem to be in some way marginally concerning diacritics. I would have to assume the answer is "yes," as they qualify as a form of discussion about diacritics, but do not know whether they rise to the level of sanctions or, if they do, how strong such sanctions should be. John Carter (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a pretty clear infraction to me. Several recent comments on his user talk page and his "my stuff" page are not-so-veiled references to his diacritics crusade ([4], [5]. The intent of the Arbcom sanction was for him to disengage. That's why it explicitly says "anywhere on the English Wikipedia". You don't disengage by continuing to stand at the sidelines of the discussion and cheer or sneer at those still engaged in it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We covered the same ground in the previous AE that closed on June 30. Some participants in that AE predicted that GoodDay would continue testing the limits. This prediction has come true. It appears that the choice now is between a longer block than one week or a complete ban from Wikipedia. Unfortunately there does not seem to be much chance that GoodDay is going to willingly accept the Arbitration decision. Since negotiation is unlikely, the question is what block length is best. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: The consensus here is leaning toward a long block, so it is not clear why a referral back to Arbcom would make any practical difference. If you are thinking that the case needs a block of more than a year, perhaps you could clarify. EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay the maximum block under authority of the case is one year. It is common for some admins to issue an indef by imposing one year of AE block and a non-AE block for the rest. I would support anything from six months to indef, subject to others' recommendations. If it is a year or more, we should include a provision that the sanction can be appealed after six months. EdJohnston (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the previous AE covered the limits of the ban, and it was made crystal clear to GoodDay that "topic ban" meant to stay away from the subject entirely, I'm not seeing much hope here, especially given that GoodDay can't even maintain civility on this thread, instead referring to people as "miserable" and "dick(s)". I would say the absolute minimum here should be a month, but I'm strongly considering longer. GoodDay seems to be inclined to keep putting a toe over the line and smirking rather than staying well and completely away from the subject as the ban requires. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade pretty much said what I was thinking above. I tend to err on the side of generosity, but would agree that at least a one month block is called for, combined with a clear statement that the next sanction, if there is one, will almost certainly be an indefinite ban. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my above, I have no objection at all to a longer sanction (I was saying a month is the minimum I would agree with), and indeed, given GoodDay's steadfast refusal to accept that he is the reason this is happening, I'm in favor of a more substantial sanction. At this point, I'm ready to take AGK up on his suggestion and ask ArbCom to pass a siteban by motion—it was a whisker away from it before, or so I understand from reading the case, and I think it's pretty clear that patience is rapidly becoming exhausted. Since GoodDay will not accept responsibility for what's transpired here, I really don't see any hope of it changing after a block, be that for a month or a year. Unless any of my colleagues object or think another solution is preferable, I'll file such a request. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support filing of request. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see why we would need to involve the committee again here. The committee is only the tie-breaker for when the rest of the community can't agree on something. Since there seems to be a pretty solid consensus here that a sanction is in order, whey don't we just do it? On the other hand, I personally find six months or longer a bit draconian, especially since (1) the actual disruptive effect of what he was doing has been fairly minor; (2) it should be easy enough for him to comply with the restrictions in the future – and equally easy for us to block him again swiftly if he doesn't; (3) he's now promised to actually heed the restriction, if only grudgingly, and (4) he's presumably been doing constructive stuff elsewhere. In these circumstances, I don't really see why we'd be compelled to diverge from the normal pattern of enforcement as provided in the decision: "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year". Last block was a week, so why not do a simple escalation pattern from there? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem clear to me that we can expect him to follow a restriction he was already under and failed to follow in the first place; but I've no objection to a month. I'm pretty sure we'll be here again less than 60 days hence, but it does give him a chance. — Coren ^(talk) 16:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't actually need to come here again at all. If he gets away with a not-so-horribly-long block now and then offends again, any admin should simply reblock him on sight, without the need for lengthy deliberations. But in any case, I won't stand in the way of consensus if you all think it should be a long one right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: At this point I'm not seeing a time-limited remedy as something that's going to solve the issue, it's just going to delay it popping back up for a while. If you disagree though, we can certainly try a longer time-limited option first. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the previous RFAE, and I agree with the above. Perhaps a month will be enough time for GoodDay to finally understand that he needs to leave the topic alone. Com...ple...tely. I certainly hope so. But once again his response - blaming others rather than accepting responsibility - is uninspiring and unencouraging. I'm willing to give it one more shot, but agree that after that we need to be looking at much longer spans of block time. --Slp1 (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above; it was me who predicted GoodDay's continued testing of the limits, based on his ongoing pattern of doing so, even while the very ArbCom case about his conduct was under way. I'm not seeing anything at all from GoodDay's comments in this thread that suggests his behaviour would be any different after a one-month block. The maximum AE block is one year. But "escalating" blocks are recommended, so I will now suggest six months for this infraction. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree with Resolute's comments above at 13:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC) which conclude with "Is six months too drastic? Maybe. But frankly, what else is left to try? Block him for a month, and we'll be right back here in two, I guarantee it." Also, where I disagree a little with Future Perfect is that it would be a simple blocking him "on sight" if there is a future infraction. That is not in keeping with GoodDay's pattern I pointed out at the previous AE discussion of testing out the limits, so it's more likely there will be something that is not so blatant on first examination, and a discussion similar to this one and the previous long one will ensue. I really do think a very lengthy preventative block is needed here, as we have exhausted other options. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the above: "anywhere on the English Wikipedia" doesn't leave much wiggle room; it's a clear violation. GoodDay needs to drop that stick and back away. For real. Six months seems required and, even then, I hold little hope that GoodDay will drop the subject upon his return. — Coren ^(talk) 23:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, there is no cruelty involved. Your entanglement with the diacritics issue is highly disruptive, and you simply refuse to budge an inch or drop the matter. You've been warned and sanctioned repeatedly, and yet every time you return to your war horse. Given that you are unable or unwilling to desist, there is no choice left. — Coren ^(talk) 00:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I hate to say it, I have to agree with Coren here. Six months seems like it might finally get the message across, and although I admit I'm generally very cynical I have my doubts over whether even that will make him get it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rrius; your comments here are not helpful. You can make your point, but stop with the accusations. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Six months seems appropriate to me. T. Canens (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I drafted this particular arbitration decision.) Please remember that GoodDay was also "strongly warned" in this decision, and instead of ongoing enforcement an Amendment request can be submitted so as to prompt the committee to re-examine GoodDay's conduct. Also of note is that GoodDay was within touching distance of a site-ban at the time of the arbitration case. AGK [•] 00:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up, I wrote the specific topic ban in play here, and to my mind, there's no logical way the "anywhere on the English Wikipedia" can NOT include the user and user talk namespaces of this project. As AGK states, an amendment request to revisit this conduct would be appropriate, as well. Courcelles 06:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Coren, Tim, Future Perfect at Sunrise and Courcelles. I've given GoodDay a lot of rope in other topic areas only for it to end up with him being Topic Banned from them. GD is behaving in the style of a conflict junkie generally, diacritics is just the worst case of it, and the 4 diffs that DJSasso posts are indicative not only of his inability/refusal to stay away from the topic area but also show him encouraging a partisan/battleground mentality for that topic area. Regretfully I see little hope that a block of a definite duration could solve this. 6 months is a reasonable enforcement measure but frankly at this point I'd support an indefinite (but not infinite) block especially in light of GD's response to this thread--Cailil ^talk 16:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is hard to not to agree that GoodDay's statements above indicate that there might not be some sort of serious narcissism and denial of reality from that individual. If one were to seek an indefinite (but not infinite) block, what would be the terms for ending the block? John Carter (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind he have to agree to a talkspace restriction everywhere and anywhere on WP, so that he engages in no ad hominem, no discussion or mention of other users, and no edits or comments relating to MOS issues, or the indef gets reinstated. But right now I don't see consensus for indef--Cailil ^talk 14:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in broad agreement with all the others here who have noted a clear violation of the topic ban, but also more specifically in agreement with FutPerf that six months seems extreme. I would think a normal progression to a month or so would be more suitable, largely per the same reasoning as FutPerf. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am largely in agreement with Future Perfect at Sunrise above that one month is a reasonable block length in this case. If others feel a stronger sanction is warranted, perhaps splitting the difference and making a 2-3 month block would address the concerns of those who feel that one month is to lenient for repeated disruption as well as those who feel that six months is draconian for a minor (in the grand scheme of things) though crystal clear, violation. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like there is broad consensus that a sanction is called for, but no consensus for a block length greater than a month. Unless anyone objects, I'll close as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One other point. Since the overall problem behaviour here has included abuse by GoodDay of his own user space, any block should (IMO) include a block of his talk page. The primary reason, as I understand it, for allowing a blocked user to edit his talk page is to permit unblock requests — but under these circumstances, if GoodDay does decide to appeal a block, he can just as effectively do so by e-mail (including e-mailing ArbCom if that's what he wants to do). — Rich wales 18:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, defending yourself when accused of violating a topic ban (or appealing it, requesting clarification on it, etc.) are not considered violations of the topic ban. You won't be sanctioned for posting in your defense here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flexdream

No block. Flexdream placed on notice. T. Canens (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Flexdream

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

10:04, 2 August 2012 Revert #1
10:38, 2 August 2012 Revert #2, within 24 hours (34 minutes to be precise) of revert #1

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

Warned on 09:20, 13 July 2009 by O Fenian (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Editor is labouring under the misapprehension that the entire BBC archive is accessible to the public, it isn't.

Since there is some confusion below, the status of the BBC archive is actually irrelevant to this request. But to clear it up there is a discussion on the article's talk page about the source being unverifiable except for the use of a copyright violating video on Youtube which can't be linked to. Flexdream chose not to take part in this discussion yet chose to revert twice based on a flawed understanding of policy, and without providing any evidence that the source cited is indeed verifiable according to policy (including the copyright policy). 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not extending the scope of my complaint at all, I'm clarifying something that has come up in discussion below so there's no confusion. The "complaint" is the 1RR breach, always has been and always will be. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion concerning Flexdream

Statement by Flexdream

Yes, I shouldn't have reverted the edit like that. Apologies.--Flexdream (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really familiar with this process. At the intro above it states "Enforcement requests against users may be brought if a user is likely to be acting in breach of the remedies in a closed arbitration case, or a passed temporary injunction (for open cases). Enforcement is not "dispute resolution". ArbCom decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution. ArbCom has already decided that the actions and behaviors in the remedies are not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia and has ruled they should not recur. The question here is whether or not that prohibition was breached."

If this here is an 'enforcement request' then it seems to have been a 'first stop' not a 'last stop'. Is it really necessary when a reminder of the 1RR rule either in the article talk page or on my talk page would have worked? I don't know what a 'closed arbitration case' or 'passed temporary injunction' is, but they don't seem relevant. --Flexdream (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The complainant is now extending the scope of their complaint, which seems even more unnecessary than the original complaint. The 'confusion' they complain of arises from the irrelevant remarks they made originally about the BBC archive. They are wrong in what they say. They maintain that a BBC programme is not verifiable. I disagree and said so in my comments with the edit. However, that's a content dispute and is irrelevant here. I think its a distraction in what already seems an unnecessary imposition on the time of administrators. What would be better for wikipedia - a reminder for me about 1RR as I'd clearly forgotten, or this ArbCom process? Is this really how we want to spend our time? How does it improve wikipedia? I don't imagine any uninvolved administrator wants to start trying to decide how verifiable the BBC is. That is better left to the article talk page.--Flexdream (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Flexdream

Whilst the complainant is labouring under the misapprehension that his wikilawyering is more important than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Neutral_point_of_view --feline1 (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Flex said above about taking this to Arbcom, but if the dispute is over whether a source is accessible online, this Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources may be helpful (unless I'm getting the dispute wrong). --Activism1234 13:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the dispute is "really" about, no ;)--feline1 (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I got that impression from the original request about the BBC archive not being accessible. I'll leave it to more capable people and admins to look over. --Activism1234 14:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Flexdream

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

This is fairly straight forward case: Flexdream broke 1RR. Given that Flexdream was warned in July 2009 & removed (and thereby acknowledged) that warning in October 2011[7] and given that the article itself carries the Troubles notice Flexdream should have been aware of the single revert restriction and frankly I find it quite difficult to believe that this user did not know about this ruling. But given the sporadic nature of Flexdream's edits to WP I'm inclined to assume good faith and place this user on final notice that any further edits in breach of WP:TROUBLES will result in sanctions. I'm not against a block in this case if consensus forms that one would be appropriate but I prefer the above solution--Cailil ^talk 15:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the scope of this complaint, I would agree with Cailil that given the lack of a troubled history in this area, a final warning for Flexdream is in order. Flexdream is now clearly aware that 1RR applies to Troubles articles, and will be sanctioned if that line is crossed again. If it is also being claimed that the verifiability/copyright issues brought up breached the Troubles restrictions, I would request that those claiming so open a separate request to examine that; otherwise I'd request that the discussion of it be taken elsewhere. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cailil and Seraphimblade that this case might be closed without a block. Flexdream's name should be added to WP:TROUBLES#List of editors placed on notice since a motion last year placed Troubles under standard discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ed. Closing. NW (Talk) 17:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FergusM1970

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

Request concerning FergusM1970

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Para 38-45. Here are some extracts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I really don't know about Fergus, but you are correct about Flexdream. He didn't revert. He immediately came here and acknowledged the 1RR problem [8], and 3 minutes later he was reverted by another editor (somebody who has also participated in this dispute with Fergus), which meant that he couldn't revert. But thanks for pointing out my error, I will correct my post below. --Slp1 (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [9]

Discussion concerning FergusM1970

Statement by FergusM1970

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confession

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

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

Further Allegations

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

Comments by others about the request concerning FergusM1970

Statement by Flexdream

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

"It would appear FergusM1970 doesn't actually know what a summary execution is" according to Hackney. According to that link a "summary execution" is where "a person is accused of a crime". Hackney has not been able to say what the crime was when asked [10]. Is this really the forum to get into discussing content? Although it does explain why Fergus made their edit.--Flexdream (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Domer48

That the violation of the restrictions is clear and unambiguous goes without saying. That the editor, despite this report continues to flout it [11] is inexcusable. It also makes this statement by them here at best misleading at worst completely dishonest. That they are deliberately provocative simultaneously on a number of articles [12][13][14][15] is blatantly obvious. That Flexdream having just been placed on notice, could even suggest that this is simply a content dispute is quite inexplicable, having offered the same excuse in their case above. This needs to be addressed. I agree with Sean above, having the same sources. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think it was the intension of Admin's when holding off closing this case, that the time would be used to extend the scope of whats described as Pointed editing. The editor clearly indicates their willingness to continue this type of tit for tat editing. The articles effected now are, [16][17][18][19][20][21][22] all covered by the restrictions and what appears to me at least as point of view editing. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Another violation of 1RR by the same editor: On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of any editors.

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

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

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

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

Another violation of 1RR by the same editor:

Statement by Mo ainm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As has already been identified "summary execution" was not a 'long standing term".[[23]]. It was added on 19 March [[24]] and reverted by Fergus on 4 April [[25]]. I make that 16 days later, and Hackney claims that is 'long standing'? I think from an experienced editor who can check these things that is misleading.--Flexdream (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comment by uninvolved My very best wishes

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

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

I's not only "murdered" versus "summary execution", but also IRA "members" instead of IRA "volunteers" and the removed word "unarmed" ("unarmed IRA members preparing for a bomb attack")[26] what makes your version obviously more neutral. This is not really a big deal, but the attempt to sanction an editor for following WP:NPOV policy makes this case ~~interesting~~ so common. Admins think they should not rule at all on the content. Let me politely disagree. I believe in the simplest cases like that, they must rule if they care about the project. Of course they should not rule on the more complicated matters that require very good understanding of the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by uninvolved Ebe123

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

Statement by Steven Zhang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Domer - you may have been notified about the DRN at 19:55 but you were aware of it earlier when you replied to Fergus at 08:31 [[27]]. I still think you should be given more time though. @Hackney - you're usually very quick to comment, but I think you should be given more time also. Similarily OldJacobite is welcome to change their mind and contribute.--Flexdream (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Statement by uninvolved Jonchapple

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

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

Result concerning FergusM1970

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slovenski Volk

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

Request concerning Slovenski Volk

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Slovenski Volk is under a 0RR restriction in Ancient Macedonians since January of 2011. He has violated that restriction several times since then, sometimes getting blocked for it [29], sometimes not, at one time coming close to being banned from the article [30]. He again violated his revert restriction on July 2 2012, not once, but twice (the first time by editing unlogged). He again did so on August 5 [31]. While I don't necessarily mind the content, what I find disturbing is a certain I-am-right-therefore-I-revert-as-much-whatever-I-want attitude. In addition, I am disturbed by the way he baits editors on the talkpage [32] [33] [34] (the "deeply engrained nationalistic tendencies of certain editors" is clearly a dig at me), and especially this [35] (a reference about the ongoing Greek economic crisis - really below the belt).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[36]

Discussion concerning Slovenski Volk

Statement by Slovenski Volk

Comments by others about the request concerning Slovenski Volk

Result concerning Slovenski Volk

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

Crystalfile

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

Request concerning Crystalfile

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy 21:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction

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

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

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

Violation of 1RR at Yasser Arafat

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Crystalfire

Statement by Crystalfire

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Crystalfire

Comment by Activism1234

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

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

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

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

Result concerning Crystalfire

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

Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount

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

Request concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount

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

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

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

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

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

On the same day I received the e-mail, I edited the article Königsberg. VM has only edited this article before to twice revert an IP and do a minor edit on 11 Dec 2011, 2 Jan 2011, and also 2 Jan 2012, so I did not interfere with him at that point. A user had added a large, unsourced piece of text to the article [38], which three other users - Herkus Monte (HM), M.K. and an IP objected to because of WP:UNDUE and the lack of sources [39] [40][41]. My first edits were one minor c/e [42] and adding a reference to a corrected sentence [43]. Then HM made a few other edits.

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

31 Jul 2012 6:52 VM "joins" editing with a revert of HM ([44])
31 Jul 2012 14:54 VM reverts HM ([45])
31 Jul 2012 16:41 VM reverts HM and IP ([46]), "battleground" accusation in e/s
1 Aug 2012 6:16 VM reverts HM ([47])

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

VM also engaged in a kind of retaliatory tagging: He announced that unsourced sentences of the newly added section could only be removed when all other sentences lacking references would be removed, too (31 Jul 2012 16:40), and started to tag as cn various sentences throughout the article which did not have an inline ref [48] [49] [50] [51] [52], thereby overlooking the fact that there are a lot of references given, just not inline but in the section for sources, and that most (all?) of these sentences have been in there and stable for years. Just before the article was protected, he started to remove sentences tagged by him, e.g. [53].

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

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

I have not responded to that anymore.

Volunteer Marek has also assumed bad faith, insulted and accused other people recently (Jimbo got annoyed too [54]) so it is not just me but a general problem, as his block log and these random reactions indicate [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63].

His behavior at Talk:Königsberg to other editors was no different, examples from his first talk page contributions directed at various editors, showing that ABF was there from the beginning, are

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

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

[70] Molobo returned to editing on 4 Aug, reverting a move HM had made ([71])
[72] Molobo reverted an edit of mine ([73]) (breaking the ref fmt btw)
[74] then reverted some edits from an article where the EEML had attacked me before (was subject to the EEML arbcom and is in VM's FoFs of that case), last edit before Molobo was made by HM
[75] Molobo returned to previous article and makes another edit [76] to a talkpage
[77] Molobo arrived at the Königsberg article where also Piotrus, ex-(?)-leader of the EEML, had arrived even before [78]

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

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

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

both editors have been subject to EEML

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount

Statement by Volunteer Marek

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

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

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

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

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

This is typical battleground behavior for Skapperod.

Abuse of a source by Skapperod which prompted this exchange

Keep in mind that the section under dispute is "Poles in Konigsberg". Skapperod added this German language source to the article, although in a completely different section. I went and retrieved the source and then spend some considerable time translating it from German. As it turns out the source itself is very reliable and high quality. Unfortunetly Skapperod's edits based on the source [79] do not reflect what the source says or what it is about.

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

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

I tried to point out similar problems with the mis-use of the Bock source (again, the source itself is perfectly reliable) on the talk page [80] but Skapperod has not bothered to respond. VolunteerMarek 22:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by MyMoloboaccount

First of all, this yet again another part of never ending saga regarding Skapperod's constant attempts to get me or VM blocked, and which probably started somewhere around when I discovered Skapperod was using Nazi propaganda as sources for Polish history[81]. Since then he behaved aggressively towards me while occassionally repeating attempts to introduce sources of such nature into Wikipedia.
Second of all I was present at the article about Kaliningrad/Konigsberg since years ago, as the history of the city is part of my interests, any brief search of the history of the article will discover my edits there since at least 2008[82]. And the topics discussed by VolunteerMarek were debated by me years ago on that page already

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

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

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount

Result concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount

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

[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 831: / Line 831: @@
 '''My statement was a response to a direct nasty personal attack made by Skapperod'''
 This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:K%C3%B6nigsberg&diff=505577761&oldid=505575406 diff], which Skapp gives above is in response to a statement by Skapperod where he said to me ''and remember that you first provided false sources''. This was a straight up, false, personal attack, as I had NOT provided any false sources. What happened was that [[User:Herkus Monte]] was disruptively tagging <u>every other word</u> of a particular section of the article (one which he didn't like) with "citation needed" tags, while the remainder of the article sat there mostly unsourced and written like crap. As a result I was trying to get the sources he was asking for into the article. He kept moving and re-adding the "citation tags" which resulted in edit-conflicts and loss of a good time's worth of work, as I had to retype numerous citations again and again (anyone who's formatted citations knows what a pain in the ass that can be). As a result, I just started adding relevant diffs to end of paragraphs rather than particular sentences, standard practice for DYK articles, just to get them "down on paper".
@@ Line 839: / Line 840: @@
 This is typical battleground behavior for Skapperod.
+'''Abuse of a source by Skapperod which prompted this exchange'''
-[[User:Volunteer Marek|<font color="Orange">Volunteer</font><font color="Blue">Marek</font>]] 22:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
+Keep in mind that the section under dispute is "Poles in Konigsberg". Skapperod added [http://books.google.com/books?id=mrSZQHN4pdgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=K%C3%B6nigsberger+Buch-+und+Bibliotheksgeschichte&source=bl&ots=lIJAGBg0Gc&sig=D3I-VtGV8ZKAzRpWn8s_Ntuwbm4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cvMeUNvVMon89QTZxIHYAw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=K%C3%B6nigsberger%20Buch-%20und%20Bibliotheksgeschichte&f=false this] German language source to the article, although in a completely different section. I went and retrieved the source and then spend some considerable time translating it from German. As it turns out the source itself is very reliable and high quality. Unfortunetly Skapperod's edits based on the source [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C3%B6nigsberg&diff=prev&oldid=505253470] do not reflect what the source says or what it is about.
+Specifically, Skapperod's edit says ''Duke Albrecht thus called in a Danzig book printer, Weinrich, who was soon joined by other book printers, to publish Lutheran literature not only in German and (New) Latin, but also in Latvian, Lithuanian, Old Prussian and Polish. Königsberg thus became a center of printing German- and other language books: In 1530, the first Polish translation of [[Luther's Small Catechism]] was published by Weinrich''
+Note that in the citation provided Skapperod explicitly says '' pp. 127-155; esp. p. 127-131''. Pages 127 to 131 are the ones which I specifically translated. And the info itself added by Skapp is true enough, but what it fails to mention is that Weinrich was invited to Konigsberg with the specific purpose of printing Polish books and that the first translations of Luther Small Catechism were made by Jan Seklucjan, a Pole. In fact, Skapperod then edit warred to <u>remove</u> any mention of Seklucjan from the article, despite the fact that the very (German) source HE provided talks about him at length. More generally, pages 127 to 131 of the source he provided are all about Polish printing and religious life in the city at the time, but somehow he managed to pull out of all that just the fact that a print maker with a German name was invited (from Danzig/Gdansk, which was part of Poland at the time) to the city.
+I tried to point out similar problems with the mis-use of the Bock source (again, the source itself is perfectly reliable) on the talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:K%C3%B6nigsberg#Please_provide_full_quote] but Skapperod has not bothered to respond. [[User:Volunteer Marek|<font color="Orange">Volunteer</font><font color="Blue">Marek</font>]] 22:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
+[[User:Volunteer Marek|<font color="Orange">Volunteer</font><font color="Blue">Marek</font>]] 22:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 ====Statement by MyMoloboaccount ====

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