Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Requests for enforcement

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

Stellarkid

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

Request concerning Stellarkid

User requesting enforcement:
Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

1. [1] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus 27 Sep 06:51
2. [2] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus 27 Sep 17:02
3. [3] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus during RfC 2 Oct 03:27
4. [4] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus during RFC 6 oct 06:18
5. [5] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus during RFC 7 oct 00:07 (6 oct 06:18 typo)
6. [6] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text during 2:nd editwar 15 Oct 16:30
7. [7] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text during 2:nd editwar 15 Oct 20:20
8. [8] Complaining over his own editwar at admin, showing intent to continue 15 oct 20:23
9. [9] Open AE against Nableezy 27 oct, ended 29 oct 21:00
10. [10] Tryig to round up Cptnono "== G Massacre == Just curious as to why you won't engage on the page with Nableezy out? Your opinion matters" 31 Oct 22:47
11. [11] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text 1 Nov 04:32
12. [12] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text 1 Nov 05:41

All edit above is about the lead dispute in article [Gaza War] and about the single words 'Gaza Massacre'.

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

1. [13] Warning by Tedder (talk · contribs)
2. [14] Warning by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Additional comments by Mr Unsigned Anon (talk):
Stellarkid (talk) have as seen continued his editwarring after the topicban of nableezy - 21:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC) showing battlementallity whithout any sign of change.

• Response to Enigma

Your statement bather me as you sounds uninformed about me, and my case at AE. Have you read it at all? Have you read Jiujitsuguys ignorant ramblings and done some reserch about them? And about the 'helpfull' user Tyw7 who starting up the first AE case after I asked him for help against Jiujitsuguys ramblings?. If you going to adress any of Jiujitsugus accusations against me you better find out if there is any substanse behind them or just a morons ramblings, yes ban me now damnit. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Further response to Enigma

If you mean what you say and topicban atleast as many you threaten to do, perhaps even more of the povfilled editors on both sides, I guess that involve me. And I am positive to a solution like that. Let it be the night of the long blades. And I say sinserly, that would be the best to happen for wikipedia regarding IP-conflict related articles any administrator can do ever. Just be sure not to throw out any babies with the water. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Responce to Stellarkid

Who did the AE against Nableezy for you? It cant be yourself as you show you dont understand editdiffs. That fact that you dont understand but have such a loud mouth is baffeling, even for you. And suprisingly to even more extent for Jiujitsuguy. Are you to releted? Cant belive you try to defend yourself with that crap of text. I cant stand it. Is this a conspiracy of morons here? You try to induce a hemorrhage to my poor brain? Why no policy against that. I have to go and suggest that somewhere. Next time try to understand the editdiffs or atleast use your left mousbutton and klick on it and, wow, not a dupe. Just a typo in the time/date. Incredable. Administrators (those of you who have understanding (most I do hope)), interfere or Wikipedia is doomed. As I said before. Ban me to if its needed, just remove that gang of highly devoted idiots. Wikipedias survival is at stake. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[15]

Discussion concerning Stellarkid

Statement by Stellarkid

This has been a hard one for me to address and I will add a bit more tomorrow on specifics, but here is my more general statement.

I have been engaging in discussion in regard to this edit since Archive 58 & Archive 59 (long enough for my words to have been archived!) and on the current talk page. In fact, this particular edit has been argued almost since the first week of the article, as one can see by reading the archive. For the record, the archive is now going on 60 pages and the discussion regarding the Gaza "massacre" has been significant. There is not now, nor do I believe there has been, consensus to put this in the lede of the article.

That is why I spent considerable time discussing the policy issues involved, but was met consistently with the argument that "there is no consensus to remove the edit". There were even a couple of "no consensus" removals made by Mr Unsigned Anon himself [16] [17] . One editor said the sheer number of words on the talk pages would have made us rich if we were paid by the word, lol -- and I am confident he was referring to me.

If it is true as WP:EW says: "An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each others' contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion," then I am innocent of the charge.

I did do a handful of reversions over the last month, but by no means did I try to override anyone's contributions "without attempting to resolve issues by discussion."

The problem is, just as there was no consensus to remove the material, as charged; neither was there a consensus to add it. This becomes a circular argument and inherently feeds an edit war. WP:CONSENSUS points out that Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on. Those were exactly the concerns that were brought out in argument on the archives and talk pages.

I tried to stay with policy based reasons, as did all the editors who objected to its inclusion, starting with WP:CCC which says that "no consensus" is not an appropriate reason for reverting. Some editors, as I did, complained that the sources did not support the contention WP:V, that the edit was WP:OR, some offered WP:NPOV, that the edit was not neutral. Some claimed it was neutral because it was an "alternative name", the other said it was not a name but a non-neutral description. One side said it was WP:CENSOR, the other said it was OK in the body, but not in the lede thus not censorship. Some wanted to use Arab sources and other editor/translators on Wiki and others quoted WP:NONENG. Another policy-based argument that was made was WP:LEADCITE which says: "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."

WP:BURDEN says that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If there is no consensus for an edit, the edit is controversial, seen as POV and offensive by some editors, unsupported by others, I believe it should be removed until there is consensus to include it, rather than included until there is consensus to remove it.

I'm not trying to be a policy wonk here but I think WP has these guidelines and policies for just such a reason, and believe in this case they support me rather than the complainant. Stellarkid (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A bit more specificity as promised:

I feel confident that this AE is in retaliation for the recent one I advanced against Nableezy, ([18]) coming as it does on the heels of it, and seeing how he himself participated in this "war" as I pointed out earlier. He canvassed an administrator to warn me just hours before filing this complaint --

• "think its protectiontime again. I would prefere a version with Stellarkids reverts undone"

Mr Anon himself demonstrates broad propensity to remove sourced materials that do not conform to his view. See for example these diffs with the accompanying edit summaries:

• [19]" Cant understand why the lead is filled upp with pov stuff even if ballansing out eachother. Start a section or continue to use the reportin other sections. I put the stuff I cut in talk for use els)"
• [20]
• [21] removed israeli side exlanation that is undue weight in lead)
• [22] Removing israels intention to not cooperate. Its intention is bring undue weight and can be presented futher down.)
• [23]
• [24] views, comments away.

But though there are some who might suggest it, I realize that this AE is not about him but about me.

Specifically related to the diffs in question- please note that my edit summaries all refer to policy, and are always accompanied with discussion on the talk page!

The first three diffs are to a compromise version that removes both Operation Cast Lead and "Gaza Massacre" from the lede. This was to answer the complaint that Operation Cast Lead was a name which showed a bias toward the Israeli POV.

Edit four [25] was a compromise suggestion, retaining the word "massacre".

Edit five is a duplicate of edit four, an error by Mr Unsigned Anon.

Edit six and seven was an attempt to start afresh after the article had been locked. Again this was based on my belief that contentious material, particularly in the lede, should be removed until there is consensus to include it, rather than we should provide a consensus to remove it, post facto.

Edit eleven was also an attempt to start with a fresh slate by removing all the names until consensus was achieved to put them back in.

Edit twelve was a compromise with an editor on talk to put back at least the name with the most Google news hits, ie OCL.

Diff 8 Is ludicrous, since I ask for further article protection and guidance. And since the article had been locked the the offending passage in place, makes no sense whatsoever.

Diff 10 is equally ludicrous, as Cptnono's opinion does indeed count.

In the WP essay WP:Consensus not numbers it says In many cases, people have claimed to reach consensus, but really just got tired of considering the views of the minority report, so the result became the bullying by the majority. I see this as exactly the case in this article, through consistent reversions to the same edit presumably "against consensus," as well as through the use of various boards meant to intimidate opposing editors into leaving the article. I could not walk away, since "silence implies consent" and there is a larger principle involved that would not be served by walking away and agreeing to disagree. This allows "the opposition" to continue to claim that the edit is stable and consensus-based, when it is not. If the argument is advanced that there must be consensus to remove something, it is obvious that there is no consensus for the addition in the first place. Stellarkid (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

Comments by Tedder

I'm in favor of the topic ban on Gaza War, Talk:Gaza War, and any other pages related to the subject. I've only become involved in mediating Gaza War since it came up on RFPP; I endorse a topic ban for this user to restore some civility to the article and talk page. Perhaps a time limit of a year should be put on the user, so they have an opportunity to be productive after then? tedder (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Cptnono

Of course he was trying to "round me up". I completely agree that Gaza massacre as it is used is incorrect. I'm trying to chill out from this page since it has gotten so out of hand, I need to cool down, and I thought Stellar's concise reasoning could handle the job just fine without me screwing it up. He didn't understand that WP:3RR included reversal of "actions of other editors, in whole or in part." It looks like he thought his reasoning was sufficient so the change was OK. It doesn't work that way. He juts got a warning from two admins about the same 3 reverts and I hope he takes it to heart. Being newer isn't an excuse but it should be taken into consideration. I also think a reminder of the motherly "2 wrongs don't make a right" is something would be nice. I think this AE is premature and Stellar will show that he is more than capable of following the rules and needs to go reread them. Punishing him to restore stability (which has never existed on the article unfortunately) is completely out of line. Asking him to not edit war over "massacre" should work but if you need justice (which isn't the point of this is it?) impose a 1rr. Cptnono (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: The length of how long this has been going on should have no bearing on Stellar. He deserves a fair assessment without being lumped in with others. This recent wave (that is how it looks to me at least) involves editors who have not been involved with AE before or are newer to the article as well. Cptnono (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Gatoclass

Although I felt the decision concerning Nableezy above was uncomfortably one-sided, given that he was handed a stiff topic ban while Stellarkid, who had edit warred with equal enthusiasm since arriving at the page in question, got no sanction whatever, I had reluctantly decided to make no comment about it as I felt it best not to second guess the judgement of an uninvolved admin. At this point however, I feel something must be said.

I thought Stellarkid was extremely fortunate not to have also been topic banned in the previous case, given his sheer hypocrisy in bringing the case against Nableezy when he had been almost equally guilty of edit warring on the same article (examples [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]) but the fact that he has immediately resumed his edit war over the edit in question after just seeing another editor given a stiff penalty for doing so, demonstrates either an extraordinary lack of restraint or else a palpable contempt for this process. Either way, I think at this point Stellarkid must receive a sanction at least on par with that given to Nableezy (although as I understand it the length of Nableezy's ban is currently under review). This kind of behaviour is simply not acceptable. Gatoclass (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This report has degenerated into a mess. Why aren't users abiding by the instruction to comment only in your own section? Please show some respect for the AE admins and stop treating this like a talk thread. Gatoclass (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

I oppose any sanction against Stellarkid. He is an excellent editor who has contributed greatly to the integrity of the article in question and has remained civil throughout. This is a common tactic that Mr Unsigned Anon employs. He attempts to silence and censor those he disagrees with by filing complaints and having them blocked or topic banned. If anyone deserves to be sanctioned it's Mr Unsigned Anon for the following reasons:

He has reverted me twice here [35] and here [36] within a span of less than 24 hrs. The second revert is particularly distressing becuase I was engaged in a debate with another editor who asked me to self revert here [37] and I was considering his request as evidenced by [38] Then Mr Unsigned Anon comes along and reverts me before the other editor even has a chance to respond to my proposal. Mr Unsigned Anon is very savvy and sophisticated when it comes to Wiki rules and procedure. He will push the envelope just far enough without bursting it. While technically, he's not in violation of 3R in letter, he's certainly in violation of spirit.

Moreover, he has engaged in a disruptive and infantile course of conduct

I've compiled a list of Diffs for your review concerning Mr Unsigned Anon. A review of these Diffs is important and sheds light on the nature of Mr Unsigned Anon.

Here [[39]] he is warned to stop engaging in disruptive reverts.

Here [[40]] he makes inquiries about my race.

Here [[41]] he accuses me of working for the Israeli government and also makes derogatory accusations based on alleged demographics.

Here [[42]] he asks me about the weather in Brooklyn based on his belief that I live there.

Here [[43]] he makes reference to my bank account on the Gaza discussion page.

Here [[44]] he taunts me to engage him in an edit war.

None of these comments are relevant, all of them are infantile and some of them are downright offensive. A sanction should therefore be imposed on Mr Unsigned Anon in the form of a lengthy topic ban.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr Unsigned Anon has just reverted yet again here [45] That would make three reverts in just over 24 hours. This is how he operates. Pushing the envelope just far enough. It is etremely frustrating to watch him take advantage of the rules to sanction another editor while he himself is an experienced edit warrior who will stop at nothing to censor those he disagrees with.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the strange and deprecatory comments made by Mr Unsigned Anon above here [46] here [47] and here [48] concerning Enigmaman and Stellarkid speak for themselves. We’ve all gotten hot under the collar at times (the Middle East can do that to you) but these comments are beyond the pale. Clearly, if anyone deserves to be sanctioned in this mess, it's Mr Unsigned Anon--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Enigmaman

This has been going on for months, with basically no progress. One reports another, it's generally ignored, rinse and repeat. Mr Unsigned Anon, for example, has been taken to AN/I several times, but no administrators really want to get involved in this mess. Topic bans should be meted out, starting with Mr Unsigned Anon. Remove one, see if anything changes, and then progress from there. The trouble, as with all I/P disputes, is that the only people who care to edit the pages are people with a very distinct POV, on one side or another. Enigma^msg 07:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Shuki

I had edited the article once or twice early with an apparent non-controversial edit but decided to stay out of the main controversial issue and not followed it. I was surprised by the severity of Nableezy's recent sentence but in hindsight can see it justified since the tolerance level of uninvolved admins is dropping as time goes on and Nableezy's problematic behaviour was evident on other articles in the I-P realm not just the 'Gaza War'. In stark contrast, StellarKid does not have a similar pervasive problem in the I-P realm at all, so requesting an I-P topic ban for an apparent edit war on one article is plainly exaggerated, an insincere request and simply unreasonable. FWIW, this article would/should have joined the low traffic articles long ago and editors moved on. If I were to hand something down here, it would be to protect the article as is (with all it's problems) and let the issue calm down if that is possible. I'm leaning with Jiujitsuguy and Enigmaman on this. --Shuki (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by 85.158.184.158

I've had nothing to do with this editor but checking one Talk-Page contribution by Stellarkid tells me not to expect very much. The fact he has Jiujitsuguy on his side will not do him any favours. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to 85.158.184.158 by Stellarkid

Here is 85.158.184.158's edit on the Gaza War talk page -- talk about non-productive edits. [49] Stellarkid (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Malik Shabazz

As evidenced by her/his statement, Stellarkid has no understanding of what edit-warring is. As recently as yesterday, Stellarkid made 3 reverts in a little more than 1 hour.[50][51][52] Now Stellarkid is trying to claim that edit-warring while arguing on an article's Talk page isn't edit-warring.

From the little I've seen of her/him, Stellarkid seems to treat Israel-related articles as a battleground. Stellarkid has created "controversies" based on an inability to read the sources carefully (compare this to this and finally this). Stellarkid has had difficulty distinguishing between a press release and a news article and understanding why a press release based on a blog post (!) isn't a RS.

I think a short break from editing articles in this area would give Stellarkid a necessary opportunity to read some of the key Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Full disclosure: Before Stellarkid accuses me of retaliation, I might as well write that I left a message on nableezy's Talk page after he was topic-banned. My comments here have nothing to do with the fact that Stellarkid initiated the AE action against nableezy (which I didn't know until Stellarkid told me). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This is weird. You just got admin and that should make you rise to another level of judgement as well as not ignoring WP:AGF. You brought some examples from one other article not directly related to I-P conflict and you back up a topic ban? How can you not deny bringing more baggage here? Even if those were two problematic edits, that certainly does not contribute productively to the discussion here. Everyone, even you and I, has problematic edits every once in a while and you have not shown how this is characteristic of Stellarkid. --Shuki (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A break from editing to read policy is the equivalent of being sent to the corner to think about what you have done (or whatever your mother preferred). I think Wikipedia can be above that even though editors do act like little kids sometimes :) Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, Shuki, if you don't think J Street is related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, perhaps you don't know what J Street is. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Response by Stellarkid to Malik Shabazz

Just to respond a bit to your accusations. Of the three diffs that you put up just now, two of them are in the original complaint by Mr Unsigned Anon and I responded to them above. I did not appreciate that any removal of material put in by another user constitutes a revert. With respect to the third diff, there does seem to be a consensus that the Gaza War article is way too long, the material was irrelevant, and it was not in the correct section either. With regard to the two reverts in the lede, I believed I made a BOLD edit to the lede by removing all names, it was reverted. I went back and changed it in another way, based on the concerns (if not entirely) of the reverting editor. The edit was based on a rationale and compromise, and on my belief, expressed above, that when an edit in the lede is controversial, it requires consensus to add it, not remove it. If this is wrong thinking, please point me to the relevant policy.

Regarding the JStreet controversy, I added a controversy section because there is considerable controversy surrounding JStreet and just who it represents. In fact another editor had suggested a "criticism" section back in August, on the grounds that many of these organizations have "criticism sections" and there were one or two supporters of that suggestion. I was "BOLD" and added a "controversy section. You removed the "controversy" section I added as "unneeded" and I did not war it back in, since I am consistent in my belief that there must be consensus to add something, not remove something if it is seen as controversial. By removing it you demonstrated there was no consensus to add it. I then added some more articles to the talk page - relevant to the article in question and reflecting the controversy or criticism that exists in the Jewish community and elsewhere with regard to J Street. I still believe that the opinion of the ZOA under the leadership of Morton Klein is relevant to the article and believe your response inappropriate, less than civil, and actually could be said to have violated WP:BLP. If you had thought I didn't know the difference between blogs and press releases, a word to the wise might have been nice. (and in fact appropriate from an administrator, I would think) Stellarkid (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Stellarkid, your statement "I still believe that the opinion of the ZOA under the leadership of Morton Klein is relevant to the article" is deeply troubling. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the issue described (but actually grossly misrepresented) by ZOA regarding Fenton Communications "the largest public interest communications firm in the United States", Ben-Ami's former employer prior to J Street, accepting a contract from the Qatar Foundation has anything to do with Ben-Ami and hence J Street at all. ZOA even say so themselves. There are so many, many things wrong here that I'm utterly astonished that you "still believe" it's relevant to the article. It's this lack of understanding, this acting upon what you "believe", this inability to distinguish between good sources and blatant agit-prop/misrepresentation that gives me grave reservations about your ability to address I-P related issues in a way that is consistent with both policy and the discretionary standards. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

For the article's talk page, guys (I think).Cptnono (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, my comment is made within the context of this arbitration enforcement discussion. It is intended to illustrate a specific instance and provide empirical evidence here to support the notion that Stellarkid may not be able to address I-P related issues in a way that is consistent with both policy and the discretionary standards. He's well aware of my views on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)...and for interest, I was intending not to comment at this AE until I saw his ""I still believe" statement. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I hear you. Understanding or interpretation of the sources doesn't cause someone to edit war, though. Did he edit war or not is the question isn't it?Cptnono (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No or else this would just be at the edit warring noticeboard. The question is whether Stellarkid's actions bring him within scope of the arbitration enforcement process and if so what should be done. My example is intended to illustrate a troubling instance where there is, in my view, a conflict between what he "believes" and what wiki policy and the discretionary sanctions say. Has it damaged content ? No, not yet but beliefs are persistent things. Note that I haven't said whether I favour or oppose a topic ban because it's not my decision. I've already said (at Nableezys AE) that I think Stallarkid needs a mentor and needs to agreee to abide by the sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So you support a topic ban in order to preempt disruptive editing you foresee Stellarkid making in the future? And you are using two articles to base this on? --Shuki (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Interested to know how you got that from me saying "I haven't said whether I favour or oppose a topic ban because it's not my decision." Sean.hoyland - talk 19:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested in what I think I'll tell you. I think Stellarkid should be restricted to editing from the non-Israeli perspective for a set period like a month. That means every edit in the I-P area he makes during that period should be one that adds information from sources like human rights groups, Palestinian sources, Arab media, other sources that are critical of Israel too numerous to mention due to the inherent liberal bias of reality. If he can do that it will do him a world of good. Also, no sneakily looking at the NGO Monitor/StandWithUs/CAMERA sites in his bedroom for a month Sean.hoyland - talk 19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"other sources that are critical of Israel too numerous to mention due to the inherent liberal bias of reality." Good one! No bias there is there?  :) Stellarkid (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I apologize for claiming you suggested a topic ban and I totally missed your last comment to Cptnono, though I still disagree with your claim. Interesting solution LOL, I think if we could all 'be friends' and truly collaborate, then a day with 'reverse editing' would be interesting. Unfortunately, I think there is a lack of respect with regard to many editors, but that's a discussion for another place. --Shuki (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Jgui

I am an uninvolved editor, having never edited the Gaza War article at the center of this controversy nor have I edited for or against Stellarkid or Nableezy, other than leaving comments related to the AE that Stellarkid filed against Nableezy. My interest in that AE and now this one is due to the fact that I have in my 1000 plus edits always held by the principal that WP gets stronger by the addition of relevant well-cited RS text. The Nableezy case has greatly disturbed me since I seem to be observing an editor being rewarded for removing relevant well-cited RS text, while an editor who researched, wrote, cited and attempts to keep that relevant well-cited RS text in the article gets severely punished. I realize that case is still under review, so I hope to see a different outcome in that case.

I looked at some of Stellarkid's edits not limited to those he made on the Gaza War article and found a disturbing pattern. The removal of RS cited text (without discussion on Talk pages) seems to be a pattern for Stellarkid. The cited text that he deletes is always text that disagrees with his apparent POV. A quick look through his edits brought up the following obvious examples; there are more if more are needed:

This edit where his edit summary claims "Refugees from 1948 War: It is not in there. Such inflammatory charges without a page number! Searched the book on Google and I read the chapter(s). Not there". And yet here is the online occurrence of this text in the reference he removed [53] which clearly contains the sentence (search for "nine massacres"):

"During Hiram, IDF troops carried out at least nine massacres of Palestinian civilians and prisoners of war (at Eilaboun, Saliha, Safsaf, Jish, Hule, Majd al-Kurum, Bi'na, Deir al-Assad, and Arab al-Mawassa).(page 245, with citation 347)"

This is almost *identical* to the text he removed with the claim that it was not there:

"During Operation Hiram, at least nine massacres of Arabs were performed by IDF soldiers.".

It should be noted that Stellarkid never commented on this deletion in the article's Talk page - although he discussed other editor's changes there before and after making this change. The POV outcome of his edit - removing a statement that made the IDF look bad - is obvious.

This edit where he removes a whole cited chunk of text with the misleading edit history: "rmv'd plagiarism from Amazon author's site: www.amazon.com/Bible-Zionism-Traditions-Archaeology-Post-Colonialism/dp/1842777602" when in fact this was an exact quote from the deleted reference here, and clearly the editor who added it included the name of the book but was not sophisticated enough to properly cite it and put it in quotes. A serious NPOV editor would take the 15 seconds to fix it by properly citing it and putting it in quotes. A POV editor who felt they should abide by WP policy would at least make a note about the deletion and copy the text deleted to the article's Talk page. But Stellarkid never left a comment of any kind in this article's Talk page. Here again he chose instead to simply remove the cited material that make Israel look bad.

I am flabbergasted by the rewards Stellarkid has so far received for his repeated deletion of relevant RS cited text in the Gaza War article which is documented above as part of this AE. The fact that there are numerous instances of it, in multiple articles, makes his behavior worse. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Jgui by Stellarkid

Thank you for having taken the time to weigh in. I am not so sure that you have evidence of a "disturbing pattern," but I do want to address the two edits that you have taken the time to investigate. Regarding the first, you are absolutely correct that I should not have removed that edit. I should have asked for a page citation instead. I can only plead that I was a relatively new user, and I did look in Google Books, and my own copy of the book and didn't see it. It seemed like an extreme comment to make without book & page number and I removed it. I see now that the page number has been inserted that it is indeed there, {footnote 347, citing Eschel& Etzion, as well as himself (1988)}. Had I been a more sophisticated editor I would have added a page # request citation, rather than to have removed it as I did.

The Bible & Zionism removal I stand by. This is an editorial review from Amazon quoted in its entirety with neither quotes nor attribution. I see now that reading WP:Plagiarism that I could have attempted to notify the editor, but I had no idea at that time how to find out who was responsible for which edit. I could have attributed it myself, but I was/am under the impression that editorials from Amazon, especially when taken wholesale, are not appropriate. I see that since at edit in August of this year, no Wiki editor has added his own summary of this book. Stellarkid (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Stellarkid, I am quite sure the disturbing pattern is there - you have shown that you do not respect the work of other editors who place relevant RS cited text into articles since you clearly think you have the right to delete their work without cause when it disagrees with your POV. The flagrant instance of your deletion of Nableezy's work and the two examples above are not the full extent of it.

Stellarkid, so you think you should be given a pass because you are a "new user"? Can you please relate your full experience editing WP, including any previous user account you may have now or have had in the past? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Jgui, no I do not think I should be given a pass because I am/was a "new user." I was taking out material I believed was unsupported. I realize now I could/should have asked for a page number instead. I reserve the right to know more now than I did then. I am not asking for any passes for any reason, just explaining the edits that you have presented as best I can. I hope to be judged fairly is all. Stellarkid (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Stellarkid, that's nice - I would have hoped that you could have used the same standard of fairness yourself. Now can you please answer my other question: can you please relate your full experience editing WP, including any previous user account you may have now or have had in the past? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I do try to be fair, though I may not always succeed. As for your other question, what exactly are you implying? On second thoughts, never mind. Let's focus on the basis of this complaint. I don't want to go through an endless inquisition just to satisfy someone's paranoia. It becomes an inquest in which innocence cannot be proven. Stellarkid (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Stellarkid, my "paranoia" aside, your failure to state that you are a new user without a history of other accounts, forces one to assume that you are not a new user. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Jgui, a quick look at your contributions (and talk page) makes it clear that you are "uninvolved" (as you stated) only inasmuch as the Gaza War article is concerned. You edit (updated: almost) entirely in the I-P area and are a member of Project Palestine. (this error based on a 'thank you for joining' template on the editor's talk page) I don't know if you are also a member of the I-P collaboration group or not. At any rate, you made clear your perspective on me and my edits, and it was obvious that you had come to your conclusions prior to asking the question. There is little/no point in making denials to someone who is not inclined to believe one. You would have taken my denial as false, and now my silence as "proof." Although expected, it says more about you than it does about me. I urge you to stick to the substance of this complaint. Stellarkid (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Stellarkid, it would be nice if you would check your facts before making statements - I do not edit "entirely" in the I-P area, and I am not a member of Project Palestine or any other groups here. I think it would also be nice if you would take your own advice about sticking to the substance of this complaint - and I hope you will stop trying to bait me. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Jgui, you must excuse me then, for I saw this "Thank you for joining" on your talk page. I see that, based on your next comment, you apparently did not join, though of course there is nothing wrong belonging to such a group as it is a proper enough group, just as Wiki Project Israel is. I erroneously jumped to conclusions when I saw the "Thank you for joining" template. And I should have said & meant to say "almost entirely," which would have been correct. I shall correct my post. Stellarkid (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Jgui, you are way out of line for making an unfounded accusation like that--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsuiguy, it isn't unfounded when I have the references above to back it up. Please read what I wrote and read the links I provided. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like you're implying that he has had other accounts in the past and your claim is baseless and without foundation.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Jgui's logic with the sourcing is that the RS and/or the method used to present the RS has been disputed in some cases. It is obvious Jgui and Stellar are looking at it differently so please don't assert that it is fact, Jgui. Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Sceptic from Ashdod

I can't produce any weighted opinion on any of the charges against Stellarkid, I was not a party to that disputes raised above and so far had only some occasional interactions with his edits and his frame of mind. However, I wish to make the following statement - it is conceivable that concerns about this editor are justified; either way, I find it troubling that the request was filed by no other than Mr. Unsigned Anon, whose behavior itself is far from perfect, based on my recent experience with him. I find this fact as ironic as countries like Cuba, China and Saudi Arabia reprimand Israel via resolutions in UN Human Rights Council. I hope that final judgement on the case will be by someone really neutral and uninvolved. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Sceptic is spot-on in his analogy. When weighing this claim against Stellar, one has to consider the source. It is clear that Mr Unsigned Anon is the one without clean hands, see [54] He has engaged in an egregious pattern of disruptive conduct that includes uncivil behavior, personal attacks, socking and disruptive editing. Allowing him this platform is akin to allowing North Korea to criticize the European Union on its human rights record.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

lol  :) Stellarkid (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Tiamut regarding the result

First, I would like to apologize for commenting in the section devoted only to the comments of involved admins. AGK was right to remove that comment. However, my concerns regarding his impartiality and ability to effect fair decisions in this realm remain.

Why? First, AGK has used the lack of formal notification to Stellarkid of the ARBPIA sanctions as a rationale for refraining from imposing any sanctions on him. However, AGK did not issue a formal notification of the ARBPIA sanctions to Cptnono, which was the only action I asked be taken with regard to the complaint I filed against him on October 12th.

If formal notification is required for action to be taken in the future, why didn't AGK notify Cptnono? Will Cptnono not be sanctioned under the ARBPIA restrictions in the future because of the lack of notification? Further, why did AGK also say in Cptnono's case that he would have applied sanctions, but that doing so many days after the disruptive behaviour had taken place would be punitive? There seems to be some contradictory reasoning in effect here.

Please also note that AGK had commented in Cptnono's case as follows:

• This thread is much too lengthy. I hope not one of you expect the administrator who reviews the complaint to read this discussion in its entirety. AGK 00:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It was lengthy largely as a result of numerous postings by Cptnono. In the future, if someone wants to avoid getting sanctioned, should they simply fill the page with lengthy posts protesting their innocence, so that admins cite tl;dr and dismiss the case? Why did AGK decide to finally issue a result in that case on October 28th (13 days after his comment regarding its length), only one day after a case was opened against Nableezy, and only one day before he decide to issue Nableezy a 4-month topic ban?

In conclusion, I have a number of concerns about the way this case, Nableezy's and Cptnono's have been handled. I hope that AGK will take a good long hard look at the way he has handled all three cases. I think he has seriously messed up here and hope he takes concrete action to reverse the impression his decisions have given of an admin who is out of touch with what is actually going on in this realm. Tiamut^talk 12:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Any who read this comment would be well-advised to undertake an impartial evaluation of the circumstances to which Tiamut refers, and to not allow themselves to form an opinion based on the rhetoric and opinions of an involved party. AGK 20:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If there is something in my statement that is factually incorrect, please correct it. If you feel there is important information missing, please add it. Otherwise, I agree that all uninvolved parties should carefully review the circumstances that led to your topic banning of Nableezy, and the issuing of minor warnings to Stellarkid and Cptnono. They can decide for themselves whether the concerns I have raised are warranted. Tiamut^talk 08:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Stellarkid

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

• I am powerless in this case to sanction Stellarkid under the discretionary sanctions remedy of Palestine-Israel articles, as he has not been formally notified of the final decision as the remedy requires. So I am first serving him with a notification.

  I consider Stellarkid to have edit warred. Had it been within my power, I would have banned him from this topic for two months; but the paperwork denies me the ability to do so. A standard block for edit warring is an option, but it would be a punitive and weak gesture at this stage—especially considering that it would at most be around a week in length.

  The whole "Operation Cast Lead/Gaza massacre" dispute has gone on for quite long enough. I'm indefinitely protecting Gaza War. It has now reached the point where the disruption caused over that one sentence (and over other disputed points) outweighs the benefits from permitting open editing of the remainder of the article. Mediation or another DR forum is in order, but you'll all have to want to resolve the dispute for that to work. AGK 01:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh goodness me that is nonsense. The reason for the warning is to ensure that users know about the ARBPIA sanctions prior to having any such sanctions imposed. Stellarkid just initiated the previous case against Nableezy under said sanctions - he self-evidently was aware of them. I think this decision needs review. Gatoclass (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

AGK, indeed this seems a strange statement, since it looks to me like he was indeed notified here at the same time the action was filed against him here, and considering that Stellarkid has been the most active participant in this action that was filed against him and that he started contributing within 12 hours of when it was first opened here. Can you explain your statement better? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

{Comment by Tiamut removed --12:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC).}

I'm uninvolved, but since I've had previous experience of enforcing arbitration restrictions as an admin I thought I'd comment. The purpose of arbitration restriction notifications is to ensure that an editor can't claim he was unaware of them if he commits further infractions. Stellarkid clearly demonstrated that he was aware of the ARBPIA restrictions on 27 October 2009, when he filed an enforcement request against Nableezy [55] in which he cited ARBPIA as the sanction or remedy that Nableezy had violated. The purpose of notification - i.e. awareness of the restrictions - was satisfied at this point, and there would have been no point in templating an editor who had demonstrated that awareness. (That may be why nobody appears to have done it.) Stellarkid's actions before 27 October probably cannot be caught under ARBPIA due to the lack of notification, but those after would certainly have been taken by him in the full knowledge of the ARBPIA restrictions. The question then becomes one of whether his actions after 27 October merit the imposition of arbitration sanctions. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

While ChrisO has as usual made the point very well, I would only add that it is not quite correct to say that Stellarkid only became aware of the AE sanctions on the 27th, because in fact he participated in the Cptnono case as early as October 12. They could hardly have escaped his attention at that time. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration remedies are typically not as open to IAR as other authoritative texts. If there is a consensus that, in this case, a notification is not necessary, then I would happily proceed and sanction. But I think my hesitancy is understandable: defying a clear provision of an arbitration remedy is exactly the sort of thing I'd expect the committee would respond to with a desysopping. AGK 11:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK the notification clause has never been interpreted that strictly, indeed looking at the ARBPIA notification log it seems a number of users have previously been sanctioned without formal notification. I am generally strongly in favour of process myself, so certainly I understand your caution, but I think we are also entitled to apply a little common sense, and when someone has previously opened an ARBPIA case of his own there simply cannot be any doubt that he already knew about the existence of the sanctions. Gatoclass (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I broadly agree with your position. Stellarkid has voluntarily committed to a 1RR for two months (the length of time I was contemplating sanctioning him for), which might put a new angle on things. I am, however, hesitant to give leniency to one user where I have made it clear I am being quite unsympathetic to the majority of contributors to this article. AGK 12:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed Tiamut's comment, first because this section is for uninvolved administrators only, and second, because I am growing weary of his piping up with "omg AGK is involved in this dispute he's never contributed to and hasn't ever touched until a week ago" at every turn. He does make a good point about there being a "huge banner at the top of Talk:Gaza War," though. AGK 12:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand your hesitancy, but I don't think that IAR would be an issue here. The intention of notification is to ensure that editors should be aware of arbitration restrictions before they are sanctioned. That requirement was clearly satisfied by Stellarkid's own AE request on the 27th, since he explicitly referred to those restrictions of his own volition. It may well be that he was aware of the restrictions before then, as Gatoclass says, but there's absolutely no doubt that he knew of them by the 27th. I very much doubt that the Arbcom meant for sanctions to be only applicable if a notification has been given, even though it's undisputed that the editor was fully aware of the restrictions. In a sense, Stellarkid is falling between the cracks of a technicality. I would suggest sanctioning as you propose, then kicking it over to WP:RFAR#Requests for clarification to request that the Arbcom endorse it. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll comment here as somebody who has never taken part in Palestine-Israel Arb enforcement, but has been highly active in the corresponding work on Balkans Arb enforcement. My suggestion is: there is a reason why WP:ARBMAC has been overall a success story, with a record of sanctions that have very noticeably reduced the general level of disruption in the field, while WP:ARBPIA sometimes looks like such a failure, with much fewer actual sanctions but a much higher level of secondary disruption caused by the debates about sanctions themselves. The reason is that with WP:ARBMAC we never bothered with legalistic bureaucracy like this. I can assure you that in an ARBMAC case, sanctions in a case like this would have been put in force as a matter of course, with no long debate and no complaints afterwards. Nobody at ARBMAC has ever challenged such a decision, and no administrator ever got in trouble over it, certainly not from Arbcom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting and helpful; and I agree with Gatoclass and ChrisO too. On a more general point, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Rd232 ^talk 13:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on the points above, I have to agree that there is more than sufficient clear evidence that Stellarkid was aware of the restrictions before his actions, and can thus be sanctioned on that basis. However, if there is no one willing to impose sanctions independent of ArbCom, we could request a clarification of ArbCom as to whether the ruling applies in this case. John Carter (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(UNDENT) Can someone explain in fifty words or less, why topic banning or not topicbanning someone is worth the time it takes me (or anyone else) to read this epic miniseries?--Tznkai (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

2 reasons: 1/ Whether sanction requirements were satisfied (aka notification/knowledge of sanction), and; 2/ To check how previous violations were handled, and whether voluntary 1RR (among other things) justify using the same or a different approach. To save you reading it, there was a clear consensus that point 1 was satisfied, but no uninvolved input was given on point 2. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Because being too lazy to read some text is not an excuse for allowing an editor to go on disrupting. Most of what was written is without substance, anyway; what mostly counts is the relative merits of the complaint. AGK 16:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There is something to be said for economy of effort, and last I checked, this thread had already been actioned - was the action, or lack thereof, so onerous that it justifies the time and energy of myself or other volunteers to look at it when we could be doing other things?--Tznkai (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr Unsigned Anon

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

Request concerning Mr Unsigned Anon

User requesting enforcement:
Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

1. [56] Here he acknowledges that his conduct could get him banned

1. [57] Here, he calls me a racist.

1. [58] Here, he uses gratuitous vulgarity.

1. [59] Here again he uses gratuitous vulgarity.

1. [60] Here, he refers to me as a "retard" and a "moron" and also implies that he has other Wiki accounts.

1. [61] Here, he rambles on and makes some strange reference to “night of the long blades”

1. [62] Here, he calls me "ignorant" and a "moron"

1. [63] Here, he makes inquiries about my race

1. [64] Here, he accuses me of working for the Israeli government and also makes derogatory accusations based on alleged demographics

1. [65] Here, he asks me about the weather in Brooklyn based on his belief that I live there.

1. [66] Here, he makes reference to my bank account on the Gaza discussion page

1. [67] Here, he taunts me to engage him in an edit war

1. [68] revert of sourced material

1. [69] revert of sourced material

1. [70] revert

1. [71] revert of sourced material

1. [72] removal of sourced edits

1. [73] removal of sourced edits

1. [74] removal of sourced edits

1. [75] removal of sourced edits. Preceding four reverts were effectuated within a span of ten minutes.

1. [76] His explanation for revert. "Cant understand why the lead is filled upp with pov stuff even if ballansing out eachother. Start a section or continue to use the reportin other sections. I put the stuff I cut in talk for use els (sic)"

1. [77]

1. [78] His explanation for revert. "removed israeli side exlanation that is undue weight in lead."

1. [79] His explanation for revert. "Removing israels intention to not cooperate. Its intention is bring undue weight and can be presented futher down."

1. [80] revert of sourced material

1. [81] revert of sourced material. Preceeding 2 reverts effectuated within 20 minutes of each other.

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

1. [82] Warning by Tyw7 (talk · contribs)

1. [83] Warning by Looie496 (talk · contribs)

1. [84] Warning by Looie496 (talk · contribs)

1. [85] Warning by Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs)

1. [86] Warning by enigmaman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Permanent block, topic ban. Has contributed no substantive edits of his own except for extensive reverting. Engages in uncivil behavior and admits to socking.

Additional comments by Jiujitsuguy (talk):
I am requesting a lengthy topic ban or block. Mr Unsigned Anon has engaged in uncivil, discourteous conduct with some racial overtones. In addition, he has engaged in a pattern of disruptive conduct and relentless reverts of sourced material. This despite being warned that his disruptive conduct could get him blocked.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the latest gem that Mr Unsigned Anon just recently left on my Talk page [87]That comment resulted in a 24 hour block issued by BozMo (talk | contribs)here [88] Mr Unsigned Anon seemed proud of his actions calling it "fun" here [89] and taunted the issuing Admin to issue him a lengthier block here [90]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am also inclined to believe that he has multiple accounts based on statements that he made here [91].--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Mr Unsigned Anon Notified [92]

Discussion concerning Mr Unsigned Anon

There is not an allegation anymore. He admitted to losing his last password and starting a new account. It sounds like he expects a block and he is simply screwing around/being really inappropriate lately. This should be a pretty easy one to close out and I don't think it will hurt his feelings.Cptnono (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Unsigned Anon

Historical Revisionism and Islamic Anti-Semitism at Wikipedia

Well, thats it fellow editors. Before I get banned I leve this litle thing, by our user Jiujitsuguy (Jiujitsuguy). It might explain his behavour. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

I have found Mr Unsigned Anon's contributions to be largely unhelpful and difficult to follow (the latter because of a language issue perhaps?) He is also too quick to revert and often makes provocative comments that do nothing to encourage collaboration. I would support a ban from the Gaza War article for him.

I also think that banning Jiujistu Guy and Stellarkid from the Gaza War article (for revert-warring and editing without regard for NPOV) would be a good step in the right direction as well. Perhaps then, other less trigger happy and aggressive editors could get some real work done on the article. Tiamut^talk 12:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Tiamut has it exactly right - except that Stellarkid's editing without regard for NPOV (deleting relevant RS cited text) extends to the whole I-P topic so his ban should apply to that whole topic; I haven't looked at any of JiujitsuGuy's edits so I can't comment on his at this time. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Fun is good, very bad spelling is very bad, and "Mr Unsigned Anon" is a great user name. MUA, if you are permabanned can I have it, I liek it. Meowy 17:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Stellarkid

I was going to stay out of this one since Mr Unsigned Anon has put out an AE on me, above. But with all the discussion going on about me, I feel I have to respond to this one despite any perceived COI. In the little more than a month since Mr UA has come on the scene, editing about 2 articles, he has been responsible for taking a number of other editors to various wiki forums for discipline, and to second Tiamut above, his contributions are "largely unhelpful" "difficult to follow'" and he "often makes provocative comments." Add to this a tendency to use slash and burn tactics and blatantly edit from his particular POV, his presence in the area has done nothing to encourage a collaborative atmosphere. Totally disagree with Tiamut in relation to her comments about Juijitsuguy and myself. We neither of us may be perfect but we try not to edit-war or to edit without regard to NPOV. Tiamut shares a POV with Mr UA, and I with Juijitsuguy but the answer to better editing is not destroying the competition but using the competition to build better and more neutral and informative articles. None of us is perfect, but Juijitsuguy (and I like to think myself) is different, in that he is working from good faith effort. Mr Anon, on the other hand, I am convinced, based on his "provocative" comments, disruptive editing in the month+ he has been here, is not working from good faith but deliberately trying to disrupt the project Stellarkid (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional Comment by Jiujitsuguy

The blocks imposed on Mr Unsigned Anon were imposed for conduct that occurred after this AE was filed. It is inconceivable to me that a block of one week is sufficient to address his borish and vulgar conduct. The described conduct is beyond uncivil. It is strange and bizzare. He was well aware that he was under the threat of sanction and his behavior only worsened. Is this the action of a rational person? Add to this the fact that he's made not one original constructive edit. His editing ability appears limited to relentless reverts as evidenced by the partial list of diffs that I've compiled. There's also an issue of socking which he has admitted and is also listed among the compiled diffs. Subsequent to filing this AE, I found this page as further evidene of socking. Mr Unsigned Anon has also been issued several warnings including those of sanctions governing Israel/Palestine disputes. These warnings have all been documented and diffs for same have been set forth. It is also worthy of note that he has not a single defender. All who chose to comment on this matter, even those who share similar viewpoints with him, have agreed that his conduct was disruptive and in fact, only worsened with time. Therefore, a one week ban is an insufficient remedy to address the conduct of an "editor" who has demonstrated a total lack of regard for his fellow editors and the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. A much lengthier ban is in order here.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Mr Unsigned Anon

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

Action appears redundant with this user's block, but hold in the meantime.--Tznkai (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The block is only one week in length. Sanctions are placed after considering a much longer time frame. Discussion should, on that basis, continue as normal. AGK 01:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to watch his behavior coming off of his block before making any actions.--Tznkai (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Unible

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

Request concerning Unible

User requesting enforcement:
Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

1. First revert [93]
2. Second revert [94], of this edit [95], violation of 1RR

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

1. [96] Warning by MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Perhaps a block but this should be ultimately left to the discretion of the administrator.

Additional comments by Marshal Bagramyan (talk):
It should be noted that user Unible engaged in a lengthy revert war on the Igdir page, often hiding behind his university IPs. These included the IP addresses, 118.138.198.109 and 118.138.198.88. A sockpuppet investigation initiated by editor Gazifikator confirmed that Unible used his university IPs to outright circumvent reverting restrictions on this and other articles. With these IPs, he began a systematic campaign, tantamount to vandalism, to remove the Armenian names from a large number of articles. However, it was only through a disruptive, drawn out revert war on the Igdir article that he was finally convinced to voice his grievances on the talk page. But even after my final warning on his talk page, he has chosen to violate the ArbCom 2 restrictions.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[97]

Discussion concerning Unible

Statement by Unible

It is apparent how hypocritical Gazifikator, MarshallBagramyan, Sardur gets when you do something they simply do not agree. Yes, thats right Meowy, I only changed Yerevan (and it complies with WP:NC) just because show them that this type of reasoning does not work. None of them will agree to keep other (especially rival) spellings on the lead of yerevan or any other armenian city even if does comply with WP:NC. But all of them keep objecting when I remove armenian spellings from turkish citie's lead. Now, WP:NC should be applicable to both, isn't it? So either we go with yerevan's standard and add spellings to etymology, history section, or we follow WP:NC. You decide. Unible 07:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC) (Answer to Sardur) You are right, I should have said "None of them will agree except Sardur who has not clarified his position yet...". In Yerevan's case it was MarshallBagramyan and Gazifikator , who also took part in edit warring of turkish cities, alongside you. Also you made your opinion clear at Igdir talk page. So I don't think it would be reasonable for you to agree with MarshallBagramyan's reverts in Yerevan page. WP:NC, remember?Unible 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

Marshal Bagramyan hasn't made it clear that Unible's edits on the Yerevan page were done simply as revenge edits after edits Unible made to the Igdir page were reverted. In that sense they are bad faith edits. However, as a side issue, I wish there was a set of rules about what is suitable as alternative place-names, and what they should not be used for, and some guidance about the validity of having a list with exactly the same place-name spelt in several different "rival" alphabets. It would save endless arguments and revert wars. Meowy 03:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Diff on the above-mentioned revenge, though I warned him several times on WP:POINT (last warning). Sardur (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Reaction on the statement by Unible: I didn't modify the article on Yerevan after his first edit there, and I didn't say a word on my opinion about it (though I have one). Unible's statement is thus wrong as far as I'm concerned. But this and his statement itself are pointless here. Sardur (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I also should point out that Marshal Bagramyan has not actually given an explanation of how Unible's edits violate AA2. The fact that they were "revenge edits" might suffice. However, I realise this makes little difference, since administrators adore AA2 because it gives them the chance to (metaphorically) get their dicks out and show how big they are (by blocking or banning people). A proper reason to apply AA2 is not normally needed, all that is needed is an excuse to act. Meowy 20:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a little less graphic an analogy will do, Meowy. My actual reasoning was his violation of 1RR but, like you said, his revenge edits and his abuse of IP addresses are equally, if not more, problematic.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

But why inserting Turkish name into the article about Yerevan is disruption? The city was a part of the Ottoman empire at certain periods in history, and the article confirms this fact. How come that inserting Armenian name into Iğdır is not disruption, while inserting historically justified Turkish name into Yerevan is? Grandmaster 07:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall Grandmaster ever bothering about a "disruption" requirement in his own countless complaints brought under AA2? It is not in his latest accusation against Gazifikator and MarshallBagramyan on AGK's talk page [98] talk page. Violation of 1RR seems good enough for Grandmaster when he is making AA2 complaints, but not good enough when he is opposing an AA2 complaint! Meowy 16:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

But has Unible been placed on editing restriction, which included 1RR limitation? I do not see any diffs to such a decision by administrators. If a user is not formally placed on 1RR, he is under regular 3RR. Grandmaster 17:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

My observation still stands; I don't recall you ever bothering about the "disruption" requirement in your many previous complaints brought under AA2. If you were to start to, that would be a good thing. And for that matter, I don't recall many administrators bothering about the "disruption" requirement. If they were to start to, that would be a good thing. Meowy 16:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, the revert issue on Yerevan is the result of a WP:POINT by Unible after the discussion on Igdir talk page, see this diff. Sardur (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And note the smilie at the end of Unible's "ps" comment. Meowy 16:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Unible

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

This entire discussion is liable to make me very cranky. First off, could someone please clarify the listed reverts are on Yeveran when the dispute is apparently over Igdir?--Tznkai (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Request concerning Superfopp

User requesting enforcement

BigDunc 18:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Superfopp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

Revert #1 Revert #2 Revert #3

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

3 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 1RR. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.

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

Unsure

Additional comments

The IP for the record is me, I had logged out before I made the edit. And the user has previously been warned about 1RR on Troubles related articles here. BigDunc 18:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding this request

I reverted ONIH because he gave no good reason. He simply called it "hideous" and reverted the lot without any discussion or attempt at compromise. The IP's explanation was even simpler ... "have to agree" ... and reverted the lot again.

I then tried a compromise with these edits, which you've laughably stamped as another revert! Anyone with a pair of working eyes can see that this clearly aint the same as this. ~Asarlaí 23:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

So you admit you reverted twice in breach of 1RR because you didn't like the edit summaries. BigDunc 08:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Only noticed now that in fact a 3rd revert was added to this report clear case of breach of the sanctions are any Admins going to make a decision on this matter. BigDunc 08:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify where you provided an explanation of your revert? That may not be explicit in the restriction, but it is relevant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Superfopp, reverting may refer to any action that reverses (in part, or full) the actions of other editors. The three diffs listed for this request constitute reverts for the purposes of the restriction in force. Do you agree to refrain from reverting and fully comply with the restriction? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Having been previously been warned about 1RR on Troubles related articles here on their own talk page and to revert regardless constitute reverts for the purposes of the restriction in force. Their actions clearly indicate that they will not refrain from reverting and fully comply with the restriction? Ncmvocalist, are you suggesting that if we all ignore the restriction, we can give an indication later not to do it again and that is ok? --Domer48_'fenian' 09:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My reading of Superfopp's comment at this discussion suggests there is a misunderstanding of the very meaning of revert, and the restriction for that matter. Superfopp has not been blocked previously, so an assurance that he/she will not revert further might be considered by the admin looking over this - and I already noted that there was a breach. Block or no block, the misunderstanding (if any) needs to be clarified by someone. BigDunc's block log on the other hand indicates he has been blocked for 1RR vios previously, with the most recent lifted due to uncertainty on how it applies - by now, the importance of discussing reverts should be clear to him. By reverting once, he followed the letter of the restriction - but did he comply with the spirit of the restriction and discuss his revert? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

On BigDunc block it was the Admin who got it wrong, not Dunc! Now there is no misunderstanding of the very meaning of revert. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Now they were made aware of it on their talk page, and still went on reverting. Stop making excuses. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No where does my comment say that either the admin or BigDunc was wrong - it says that BigDunc has a block in his block log, there was an uncertainty on how it applies, and regardless, BigDunc should understand the importance of discussing reverts. You have provided no evidence to suggest that Superfopp truly understands the meaning of revert. Morever, you have failed to provide a diff where BigDunc discussed his revert after making it. You are involved in this, and you yourself are going to end up blocked if you continue to making inflammatory comments and assumptions of bad faith, especially against someone uninvolved - I am not "making excuses". Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm involved in what? Your the one offering "suggestions" as to Superfopp's understanding of the very meaning of revert not me! Now lets let an Admin deal with it shall we. Superfopp was made aware of the restriction on their talk page, and violated the restriction regardless! --Domer48_'fenian' 10:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Just my 2c to put it on the record. 1RR is there for a reason, and once an editor has been made aware of the rule, there is absolutely no reason for that editor to continue to try to force the issue through continued editing. The correct action is to take it to Talk. Superfopp has been around for a while, so it's not acceptable to claim he misunderstood what a revert is, or where to look for policy. The 1RR rule should be implemented fairly across all editors, regardless of background or political stance.

I suggest that the best way forward is to return the article to the 1-revert stage, and take the issue to Talk. I would also like to see the 1RR rule to include "no revert of a revert" policy also. A punitive block is unnecessary at this stage as all editors are now engaged in discussion. --HighKing (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Domer68, you were recently involved in disrupting the relevant case page [99]. If you would like to provide constructive input, please answer this question: did BigDunc comply with the spirit of the restriction and discuss his revert after making it? If so, can you provide a diff? HighKing, if an user has been as long as Superfopp has, it is not impossible nor unacceptable - it is merely less likely. 1RR should be implemented fairly; but that doesn't make explanation any less important before, during or after a block. Reading the comment Superfopp made here speaks for itself - either he doesn't understand, or he's gaming the system. Finally, I am utterly uninvolved from the Troubles area, nor am I interested in the content dispute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's sound HighKing, I'm happy enough to let AE deal with it. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Superfopp to undo his last edit of the article. Whether he agrees to do so might be taken into account by the closer of this AE case. I see that Superfopp last edited Wikipedia twelve hours ago (05:05 on 5 November), and much of the discussion here is newer. He should get a bit of time to answer. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've undid my last edit at EdJohnston's asking. I'm certain that Dunc, Domer or ONIH would've done that anyway once this discussion ended. I'd have much rather preferred a debate on the talk page, but that'll undoubtedly involve more of the usual ownership mentality and tag-teaming by Dunc, Domer, ONIH, and the rest. ~Asarlaí 17:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The potential for heated discussions at articles related to the PIRA, are great. Do to my own views on the PIRA, I prefer to stay out of them. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I’m happy enough with the outcome here, despite Superfopp’s bad grace, accusations and assumptions of bad faith. I will also note the precedent that has been set, were an editor can deliberately and knowingly violate 1RR and not be sanctioned. Will all editors be given such mitigation? As some editors always seem to be granted it, it is hardly surprising they have a block log at all. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Before closing this, I would argue that a "No revert of a revert" rule is appended to 1RR. It has many advantages - it stops tag teaming and it keeps articles stable because it practically forces discussions before editing. It has been pretty successful on the British Isles article to date IMHO. --HighKing (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Whaaat? a success - Sorry it may be a success for those who use Wikipedia as a social networking site but it has been an appalling disaster for content editors. Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked into Superfopp's previous contributions. Though he hasn't been blocked, he has made a lot of moves that were later undone, and seem like they were done without discussion. Though I'm glad he did the self-revert, things are not all rosy here, and future actions may not be so lenient. My suggestion to other admins would be: 1RRs should be easy to enforce and there should not be a long delay when AEs are filed asserting 1RR violations. If there is no self-revert, there should be a block. The second time the same person is brought here for 1RR reasons, more consequences should be on the table. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's sound advice EdJohnston. A editors want is a level field. Could you look at the request below, because I agree 1RRs should be easy to enforce and there should not be a long delay when AEs are filed asserting 1RR violations.--Domer48_'fenian' 21:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Result regarding this request

This is a little odd, but I'm going to block Superfopp for 1 second to make a notation in his block log, that if he violates the 1RR restriction again, he should be blocked as if this is his 2nd consecutive block. Because this is a little odd, and people get touchy about non-standard use of blocks, I'm going to wait for further commentary before acting. --Tznkai (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Though I broadly agree with what EdJohnston and you have said about this, I'm not sure this is the case that would warrant a block log entry while case logs exist. Given that the case log has previously had specific user restrictions, something similar could be put in there for Superfopp (in particular, "is advised he is skating on very thin ice" etc). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm also concerned with potential abuse of tag teaming and long protracted edit wars with one edit per day. Perhaps some editors believe that 1RR precludes this behaviour - certainly I find the policy ambiguous and unclear. There has been limited success using an explicit "No revert of a revert" (NROAR) on some other contentious articles, and it effectively means that there cannot be a series of 1RR's by a series of different editors. Please consider this also - we should ensure that we are explicit in our interpretation of 1RR. --HighKing (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Request concerning 92.26.232.39

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

Blocked for 24 hours. --Elonka 16:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

---

User requesting enforcement

--Domer48_'fenian' 15:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

92.26.232.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

Revert #1 Revert #2 Revert #3

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

3 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 1RR. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.

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

Unsure

Additional comments

A clear violation of 1RR, but I suppose it depends on the Admin?

Result regarding this request

Pretty obvious vandalism, so could have been blocked on that basis alone. Since it was a few hours ago, I normally wouldn't block an anon for something this old, but since it is a Troubles-related article, 1RR was violated, and there's an extensive history of IP-hopping in this area, I'm blocking for 24 hours. --Elonka 16:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Irvine22

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

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

Request concerning Irvine22

User requesting enforcement:
O Fenian (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Irvine22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
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:

1. [100] First revert
2. [101] Second revert, within 24 hours of the first thus a breach of 1RR

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable, but has been warned and blocked many times.

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

Additional comments by O Fenian (talk):
Immediately after coming off his fourth block for edit warring, which lasted a week, Irvine22 is back to edit warring. Both edits are at least partial reverts to Irvine22's own version (where he originally retitled the subsection as "Secession of the Irish Free State"). He is also making highly tendentious edits in related areas such as this and this, so I believe stiffer sanctions may be needed at this time. O Fenian (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Irvine22 is being disingenuous in his claim below, as for the purposes of 1RR "The Troubles" is "defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland". There can be little dispute that the section of the article he is editing falls under that definition. He was also cautioned over wikilawyering over what articles fall under that definition when last blocked, "When in doubt, assume it is related" avoids such problems. O Fenian (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

When has 1RR ever before been applied to the article History of the United Kingdom? Irvine22 (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Diff

Discussion concerning Irvine22

Statement by Irvine22

LOL the tag team springs back into action!

History of the United Kingdom is clearly not a "Troubles-related" article and hence not subject to 1RR. Has 1RR ever been applied to this article before? If so, when?

My edit was discussed on the article's talk page, and the consensus was to go with the accurate, NPOV, and sourced phrase "secession of the Irish Free State". This is a case of "just don't like it" by the reporting editor. Irvine22 (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

I believe the time has come to 'bar' this editor from Troubles-related articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the time has come to initiate a RfC regarding the tag team editing engaged in by O Fenian, RepublicanJacobite and Domer48.Irvine22 (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's your choice. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur with GoodDay. This editor takes each block, and then returns to repeat the same edits the minute the block ends. --Snowded ^TALK 21:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. After repeatedly, and disingenuously, pleading his innocence after the last 1RR, he stated, "That's okay. I'll pick up where I left off in a week or so." It was strongly suggested then that he not do so, but he's not one for listening to anyone's advice. His approach now is much the same as last time: repeated claims of innocence combined with Wikilawyering. A topic ban is the only solution for his edit-warring and trouble-making. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Irvine22

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

I do not wish to get into the intricacies of a topic ban and a 1RR restriction, although Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland is pretty clear. Instead, I'll simply call this really irritating edit warring. Blocked for 3 days.--Tznkai (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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

I hope things are different after this block. PS: Oddily enough, there's something likeable about the newbie (Irvine22). GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Request concerning Rockpocket

User requesting enforcement

--Domer48_'fenian' 21:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rockpocket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

Revert #1 Revert #2 Revert #3

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

2 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 1RR. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.

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

Unsure

Additional comments

Their actions on the third revert here, resulting as it does in the removal of the text I added here from the article could be viewed as gaming. Having added the text, their removal is tantamount to a revert. Regardless they did go over the 1RR limit with this text being removed.

Discussion regarding this request

• Comment - These complaints are tedious. Rockpocket is trying, in good faith, to improve the article, and has put a lot of work in. Some editors are more concerned with the letter of the law than the spirit. I'd rather have an editor who actively tries to collaborate but technically breaks 1RR, than editors who fastidiously avoid 1RR but avoid collaboration. Mooretwin (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, isn't this nice. Lets actually discuss what happened here. I explained my intentions in advance on the talk page to rewrite the article to remove the awful editorializing that promotes a POV. I'd already done the same thing on the Peter Hart article. There was a general acceptance that this was a good idea, with the exception of Domer, who expressed his personal opinion that one historian's analysis was invalid and this we needed to state this. Yesterday I spent 5 hours reading and writing a new, fully referenced and balanced conclusion section which Domer reverted in one revert [102]. He was warned that this was disruptive by Elonka [103], which I tend to agree with. I reverted back, explained and invited discussion (explicitly stating that I did not want anyone get get involved in a revert war [104].) In response Domer provided his usual alphabet soup [105] and reinserted the critiques on the historian he has an issue with. Originally I thought this was a revert, but he actually added slightly different criticism (lifted from the same attack piece as the original stuff I removed) thereby avoiding a revert, which is interesting if we are talking about gaming.

I went back and summarized the new content in a neutral way (adding material) and hid the inappropriate critiques as per the consensus over the last few weeks on the talk page. This was not a revert, either in principle nor in practice. This may or may not technically be a revert, I really don't know. However, when trying to overhaul an article in this way, such edits are going to happen. I would hope anyone, with a modicum of understanding of WP:N, should see the pattern of edits here and appreciate what this "report" is all about.

I don't know what else to say here. It appears clear that Domer has worked out how to laywer around these 1RR edits across a number of articles. He routinely makes one revert a day to ensure his preferred version remains and is quick to report anyone else that is not as clever at rule evasion. I came in from outside, used the talk page as we are asked to, I spent time researching a subject I knew little about and care about even less, all in an attempt to rescue a balanced nuanced article from the POV mess that had been created. More I did this with the advance support of most contributors on the talk page. Quite how one does that without taking more than one "action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part" I really don't know. If this is the purpose of the Trouble's ArbCom remedy then I give up, I really do. Rockpocket 21:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Ok, so after a big preamble, you went over the 1RR. Now personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith aside that is what were here for. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• What are you here for, to ensure those who don't accede to your POV are taken out of the equation one way or another? Personally, I'm here to write neutral balanced articles, not see who can manipulate the rules to ensure their POV is maintained. Whatever. If someone can tell me exactly what I did wrong here - having volunteered most of my weekend to sort out your mess - then I'd be happy to fix it and be on my way. But I think you really need to take a step back and ask yourself what exactly you are trying to achieve here. Because a neutral, balanced encyclopaedia sure ain't it. Rockpocket 22:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The article-in-question should've been 'protected'. A harsh approach, but it stabilizes an article. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between assumption of good faith, which was done, and recognition of bad faith, which is what this is. Rockpocket has made a concerted effort, both in the article and on the talk page to reach NPOV on this artilce. Domer first reverted everything [106] and then re-inserted his pov back into one of the sections [107]. No discussion, just flashing 'rules' at people [108] [109] [110] in the form of threats. He then tries to get the other editors blocked in order to get his way. Be under no illusion mods, this is part of concerted strategy at work in a number of articles. There is absolutely no way Rockpocket should face sanction for good faith and constructive editing.

Also, without getting overly personal, is it appropriate that Domer has attempted to get other users blocked no less than 3 times in the last week alone? First provoke an edit war and then try to get the "competing" editor blocked. This, I'm sure is not what this page is intended for. Jdorney (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• In response to Tznkai, below. The first edit was a revert. No doubt about it. Beyond that, there is no confusion. The goal was not to revert anything, the goal was to continue with the series of edits to turn the article into a balanced, nuanced read, rather than the POV mess it was. Were there subsequent additional "technical" reverts in there? It appears so. The point, however, is that 1RR is one thing when it comes to stopping revert warring. In that sense it levels the playing field. However, one editor has come in for a 3rd opinion, gone to the talk page, explained their reasoning extensively in advance and then was in the process of overhauling an article with the support of most contributors. In contrast another invested editor, in isolation and without any significant support, games the system to try and get that editor blocked. Is leveling that playing field really what we are trying to achieve here? Again, if you would like to tell me what edit I should make to resolve this and improve the article, then please do so and we can all go and do something more productive. I put to you that those two things are mutually exclusive. Rockpocket 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • In response to Tznkai, below. Perhaps, yes. In fact, I think I mentioned I was going to add that on the talk page, but then forgot. I'll certainly keep that in mind in future. However, Domer alone has made it perfectly clear that he will not accept these edits, and indicated his intention to add back such criticism. He backed off his initial attempts to do the same thing on the Peter Hart article because - due to BLP - he was unable to continue to revert war over it. Instead, he has moved the criticism to this article and apparently will continue to add it here. It seems to me the more relevant part of the ArbCom remedy on this instance is not 1RR but "All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions." I came here as an outside opinion from the Hart article [111] hving never edited the article before. Pretty much everyone except Domer has reacted positively to my efforts. How long are we going to permit invested contributors to control content by gaming the system? Do we need a formalized way of establishing what outside opinions say, to stop this reoccurring? Rockpocket 23:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Tznkai, no it couldn't have been prevented by use of a tag or sandbox, because Domer would have reverted anyway in order to promote his own pov. That's how he operates. There is a degree of bad faith here that has to really be investigated to be believed. Jdorney (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Example of Domer's attitude to editors who wish to go against his POV: In response to John, he quite literally dismisses him: treats him with apparent contempt ("Ill simply ignore their [sic] drive-by remarks"). Mooretwin (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've no problems with Rock's conduct at the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Recommend closure of this AE report. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Elonka, so Rockpocket has to revert his own changes, even if they are constructive edits, if they could be construed as a revert? That is not how you're going to create decent articles and prevent edit wars I'm afarid. Quite the opposite. A good faith NPOV edit and a bad faith POV edit are not equal and should not treated equally for the sake of procedure. If they are then anyone with a POV just needs to get efficient at working the system to get all their edits through. That way lies the end of WP. Jdorney (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's more than 1 revert in 24 hours (and I'm still fuzzy on whether the second and third edits were reverts or not), then yes, it would be helpful if Rockpocket would reverse his own change. We're not going to block someone for accidentally going over 1RR in the heat of the moment, as long as they realize their error and then fix it in a timely manner. As for whether or not the edit is constructive, well, by its very nature a revert means that there is disagreement about whether the change is constructive or not. One editor's "constructive change" is another editor's "POV mess". Ultimately, the goal of 1RR is to get editors to stop using revert as an editing tool. A revert may be a quick "I don't like that edit" option, but reverts are not effective in implementing long-lasting changes in an article. The best way to proceed here, is to take the long view. Those who are able to moderate their behavior and edit in a careful manner should do so, and that will help administrators to identify those editors who are not able to do so, so we can remove them from the mix. --Elonka 00:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Elonka. If I can put this to bed by making further edits, I'm perfectly happy to do so. But someone is going to have to tell me exactly what exactly I should write, because I don't wish to add critical third party opinions about a BLP (Hart) that, with the apparent exception of Domer, everyone appears to agree is highly inappropriate. I fully accept it was naive of me to continuing to edit this article when it should have been clear that I risked being reported for 1RR. I've learned that lesson. Bear in mind, the sanctions direct editors to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions, what are we to do when such opinions are not only ignored, but purposefully countered by editors determined to keep their preferred version? Should this issue persist, I'll come to AE myself with a request for probationary sanctions in advance. Rockpocket 00:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I'd say to back off the changes in the diffs above of Reverts #2 and #3. Though when you say "everyone appears to agree is highly inappropriate", do you have a diff? Because if someone is making changes to an article to bring it in accordance with a clear talkpage or noticeboard consensus, that probably shouldn't count as a revert. --Elonka 01:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Support when I proposed it in advance: [112][113][114]. Support when I justified the edits afterwards [115][116][117][118] Until, perhaps coincidentally, a few seconds ago, Domer was the only editor who expressed disagreement with the edits (with the exception of the "suspected informers" issue, which is still under perfectly civil and constructive discussion). Rockpocket 01:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there appears to be consensus that the article needs to be reworked. The diffs that you presented, however, do not seem to be saying anything about the issue of the Hart source. That's why I'm saying that it might be wise to rollback those two edits (the reverts that are cited at the beginning of this thread). It will de-escalate the situation for now, and the content question can continue to be discussed on the talkpage. --Elonka 03:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the issue of Hart was absolutely central (see [119].) It was this issue that I set out to address and this issue that the wide agreement was expressed. If the consensus is not for the balanced treatment of Hart, then I don't know what it was for. I'm really uncomfortable rolling back those edits, though, because I consider them a coatrack of BLP issues (see the parallel discussion on the Peter Hart talk page). We simply should not adding huge selective swathes of critical comment about a living individual for the sole purpose of discrediting their work (this is even admitted on the talk page). I'd rather be blocked than add that material back myself. However, I will recuse myself from the article for the next 24hrs to let the other editors there come to their own decision. Rockpocket 05:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Rockpocket was not the first admin to try to promote NPOV, but he is the first to make any kind of tangible progress. All of the others were scared off by threats of blocking. If this pattern is allowed to continue, no progress will ever be made at this or several other articles.

So once again, it makes no sense to order a revert of constructive edits in favour of edit-warring ones. I suggest admins do not take my word for it but go and look for yourselves. Jdorney (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you're speaking of tag-teaming. How would one proove it? How would one defend against it? GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As an administrator, I'm happy to block anyone who is violating NPOV, as long as there is proof of such. For example: Are one or more editors repeatedly adding unsourced information? Are they using unreliable sources? Are they editing against a clear talkpage or noticeboard consensus? If so, show me diffs, and I will take action. But simply saying someone is editing in a POV or tag team manner is not helpful. Instead, if their POV is obvious, prove it: Get opinions from a dispute noticeboard, show the result of an RfC, come up with something that clearly shows that there's a consensus against the POV edits. But don't just say that an editor is pushing a POV, because then that's one editor's opinion against another, and that's not something that an administrator can take action on. --Elonka 01:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What's happening here is that one editor in particular is giving absolute credence to one source, which confirms his POV and using everything in his power to remove or undermine another source, which doesn't. It is my understanding that we are supposed to report neutrally on what is in the sources, giving equal weight to each.

As I've said this is clear to anyone who has a look at the talk page. What is needed is Admin discretion. But ok, since you asked for diffs. Here for instance, talking up one source and talking down another.[120]. Or here, [121], inserting a whole load of text the only purpose of which is to undermine another source. And worst of all (recently) here [122] where he reverted, in its entirety, a day's work by Rockpocket, precisely because it was giving equal weight to each source and not arguing for a particular interpretation. What makes all of this much worse is a complete refusal to discuss the issues at hand. Instead, people are threatenend with blocking, as in here [123] or simply dismissed as here [124].

Ok, that's NPOV, re use of this page as a gaming tactic. Examples from this article only, though there are many more, FIrst of all, most recently here [125], as you know, Domer has tried to get Rockpocket blocked. This might be fair if he had discussed the issues at hand, but he refused to do this. Most frustratingly of all are edits like this [126], where he not only refuses to discuss, but then claims to have discussed and declares he's going ahead with editing/reverting regardless. This what makes this case so important. Without a good moderator, this article is going no-where. Finally here [127] he got me blocked for defending a lead reached after careful discussion with the previous admin who was brought in to de-POV the article.

This is not about me, I don't care if got blocked. Actually I was happy to do it as it seems to have attracted the attention of more admins to the article. It's about this editor constantly using this page to try to eliminate other editors and "win" edit wars. By my count here [128], he has made four requests for blocking here on 1RR violations in the last week alone. ANd this is not unusual. In each of these cases, this editor and also usually (sorry to name names but Big Dunc) have provoked the edit wars in question by reverting other people's work and then come straight here to get them blocked. Sorry for being so long-winded, but this needs to be addressed.Jdorney (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is going off-track from the AE thread, but let me try to address your post: I'm sorry, but it's just not compelling evidence. I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but instead I'm trying to point out that to you editors who are in the middle of a dispute, everything is probably "obvious". You probably think that any sane person could just take a look at the talkpage and see things clear as day. But trust me, it's not as clear to someone who's not familiar with the situation. That's why when I said diffs, I meant diffs of a clear talkpage consensus. Example: Say there's an article about tomato juice, with one side saying "fruit!" And the other side saying "vegetable!" And the talkpage is full of obscure sources which each side says proves their point. But to an outside observer or administrator, the talkpage is a mass of text, with sources that we're not familiar with, talking about a subject we don't know much about (and probably don't care much about, either). What does stand out in those situations though, is if we can spot a clear talkpage consensus, with a bunch of short posts where multiple editors are saying that they agree with a course of action. Or, it's easy for us to review a brief noticeboard discussion where uninvolved editors are mostly weighing in with similar opinions. So far when I look at Talk:Dunmanway killings though, I can't see the subtleties yet. I see that there's a consensus that the article needs to be reworked. That's it. If there's a consensus for anything else, it's non-obvious, and will probably take more time on my (or some other admin's) part to wade through it. That's one of the reasons that we keep repeating over and over, "Get outside opinions". Or here's a more practical example: Go to WP:ANI. Pick some thread at random, about articles or a topic area that you know nothing about, with editor names that you've never heard of. Now, try to read that thread and make a decision on "what should be done". Most likely you will rapidly discover that it is extremely difficult to sort through content disputes when you're coming in cold. It's not always clear who's "right" or "wrong", or who's pushing a POV, vs. who's resisting the POV-pushers. Does this make sense? --Elonka 03:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, I get what you're saying. It is not easy to tell from outside. Actually that's the point of flinging rules and policy at people - to confuse the issue. Here we have an established, respected admin, the latest of many, who is obviously knowledgable about the area and interested in the article. He now has to face blocking because of one editor whose entire contribution to WP consists of edit warring and requests for blocking of other users. What I'm saying is that he should have discretion to use admin powers to enforce NPOV. You may say that he can't do this because he is "involved", but the discussion clearly shows that only an involved admin will be able to grasp the issues. Jdorney (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason Rock faces blocking is because he breached 1RR nothing to do with any other editor, he is responsible for his own edits and as you say he is around long enough to know the way it works here. If he is editing the article then he is not a neutral admin he is just another editor, if he wanted to remain neutral he shouldn't have got into a slanging match with Domer. He is far from neutral on this issue.BigDunc 10:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: In responce to Tznkai below, yes it could have been avoided, I did suggest a solution. As for Elonka, they ignore Rocks removal of whole sections of referenced text, and still post a comment on my talk for adding it back. The fact that see claims that the second revert is unclear, illustartes her double standard which has resulted in me asking and then tell her to stay of my talk page. Now Rock violated 1RR, simple as! as Tznkai has said above this is a little odd, and people get touchy about non-standard use of blocks, that Elonka has no problem with double standards should also cause some "concern."--Domer48_'fenian' 10:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, so mods you can enforce these two user's gaming of the rules or you can let the admin get on with cleaning up the article. Choice is yours. Jdorney (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not calling for a block of any user and I am not gaming the rules, Rock is, to use your words, established, respected admin so he is well aware of the rules about 1RR, being involved with the whole Troubles debate, he is not some innocent who stumbled across the article and made changes and was caught unaware, he even said on the page that he was going to revert again, which was a blatant disregard of the community sanctions. Now this has turned into a case of shoot the messenger. Instead of whining about other editors if he held his hands up we could move on from this mess and get back to the the encyclopedia. BigDunc 13:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We should revert the article back to before the disputes began, then work things out on the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That depends, revert to when? If we revert to before Rockpocket's edits we lose all the good work (and it is very good work) in not only dealing with npov but also clearing up the article and making it more coherent and easier to read. If editors have legitimate problems with these edits let them raise them properly on talk instead of reverting.Jdorney (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Loose those edits, nay. Just have them 'transfer' to a talkpage 'or' a sandbox. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I believe editors are still confused at the meaning of 1RR. The policy states Some editors may choose voluntarily to follow a one-revert rule: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them. This does not grant the right of 1 revert every 24 hours. It means that if you have been reverted, stop and discuss, period. I believe that we should be more explicit in the interpretation of 1RR in that it should preclude any reverts of a revert regardless of the length of time involved. This encourages stable articles, and discussions on the Talk page to reach consensus. It also prevent tag-teaming and other gaming. Perhaps if the policy doc was more explicit or had a policy of NRR (No ReReverting) NROAR (No Reverts of a Revert) DRR (Don't ReRevert) or something similar, we'd spend less time here.... --HighKing (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles in this topic area (Troubles, aka Britain/Ireland articles) are under a different kind of 1RR restriction, as a result of an ArbCom case and subsequent community discussions. See {{Troubles restriction}} for more info. --Elonka 18:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai in all honesty, this is a straight forward report. Now I’m not going to even bother addressing Elonka’s comments below or the others comments above. The diff’s are there to support the report that’s it. Your right with your comments above “people get touchy about non-standard use of blocks.” --Domer48_'fenian' 20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a game. Admins are not referees. Thsi is about improving the articles. Would blocking Rochpocket stop edit wars or encourage them? Would it help stabilise the content of the article? Would it help improve the content? If not then why block? Jdorney (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Result regarding this request

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

The 1RR restriction is meant to avoid edit wars, bypass the sock puppetry problems, and otherwise level the playing field, hopefully pushing all editors to the talk pages rather than the article itself. Generally, a string of consecutive edits, or edits clearly meant to be consecutive are counted as one edit for the purposes of revert restrictions. The first two listed reverts do seem to be in fact, reversions in that they undid another editor's writing in whole or part. I am however holding this request since there seems to be some confusion.--Tznkai (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Could this have been avoided, say with the use of a sandbox or the {{major edit}} tag?--Tznkai (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If this were a topic where such an approach had any prospect of success we wouldn't be being discussing here, would we? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The first action is definitely a revert, though the second and third appear to be more complex, and I'm finding it difficult to tell if they're reverts or not. In any case, I'm not sure a block would be appropriate in this situation, since Rockpocket seems to have been making a good faith effort to edit the article. There are also some extenuating circumstances, in that Domer48 had made a sweeping change with his own revert today, wiping out several days of work (much of which was Rockpocket's) in one sweep.[129] Domer's action appears much more disruptive than any technical second revert which Rockpocket might have made subsequent to that. Perhaps the best way through this would be to give Rockpocket the opportunity to re-examine and reverse any action of his which was regarded as a revert, and then we tell everyone to take a day off? --Elonka 23:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Some points:

1. I think it's about time we re-assessed the purpose and effectiveness of the 1RR restriction here. It's designed to prevent revert warring where there is no progress or discussion, not collaborative editing where some changes are undone and others revised, etc. At the limit, the overly literal and strict application of 1RR is unhelpful to the goals of Wikipedia and the spirit of wiki. It also risks scaring off anyone not willing to be masochistically dedicated to mastering not only the technical aspects of editing, but the intricacies of what exactly is allowed and what is not. WP:IAR should be applied as appropriate. I don't see how sanctioning Rock is going to achieve anything here. The aim of the restrictions is to move articles forward through collaborative editing, not to enable the blocking of attempts at progress.
2. One solution to avoid constantly having these AE enforcement debates is to work entirely in a sandbox until consensus is achieved, avoiding 1RR issues. This worked quite well at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/draft in redrafting the lede of PIRA, albeit it was mighty hard work and required an engaged moderator.
3. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/The Plague is still open, if anyone has any genius ideas on how to improve things to make these areas more friendly to good-faith efforts to develop articles, whilst still holding revert/revert/revert wars in check, and less susceptible to raising the letter of rules over the spirit, contrary to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR. Rd232 ^talk 00:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Recommend closing this report as "no action". It was filed by Domer on Rockpocket, and it looks like gaming the system, as well as being a bit pointy. The sequence of events was this: At Dunmanway killings, Domer wiped out several days of edits in his own revert.[130] This naturally caused confusion on the article, and he has been warned for this. Rockpocket then, perhaps unwisely, chose to partially revert Domer's action, but he was within his rights since it was his first revert of the day. However, when he then continued editing, and modified two sentences, Domer claims that they were "reverts" and immediately filed this 1RR report. This does not seem to me to be acting in good faith, and it is not the first frivolous 1RR report that Domer has filed. Now, I agree that it was not particularly wise of Rockpocket to immediately jump back into editing the article after Domer's large-scale revert. But Rockpocket has acknowledged this and voluntarily recused from editing the article for 24 hours. This seems sufficient resolution to me. Let's close this report as "no action", and move on. --Elonka 16:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be happiest if we can close this report no action. I encourage the commentators to hold their tongues for a few, and for the participants to come to some sort of agreement. I again suggest for large scale changes, which reverts do not play well with, to use and abide by the {{major edit}} tag, or in the alternative, use the talk page to discuss changes and a sandbox to preview them before touching the main article itself. We should all be able to agree that stagnation in articles is a bad thing - and quite frankly any time we're writing about death in major conflict, having a position is the norm - not the exception. The charge we have on Wikipedia is to do our best to work past it, which includes working past dwelling on the biases of others and working around them, not against them. I have to some extent, seen all the editors in this discussion in action, and I believe all are capable and willing work forward.

Are the parties willing to move forward on some such understanding?--Tznkai (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good advice. Rockpocket 19:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

David Tombe

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

Request concerning David Tombe

User requesting enforcement:
Jehochman ^Talk 11:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#David_Tombe_restricted

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

1. ARBCOM, who pride themselves on acting through consensus, actually legislated dictatorial powers for the administrators to bully myself and Brews.
2. [131]
3. [132]
4. [133]
5. It is one big lie that has been used as a basis of justifying corrupt actions and hiding the truth.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
not applicable

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

Additional comments by Jehochman ^Talk:
David Tombe has violated the terms of his probation or topic ban by continuing to militate on behalf of a fringe physics agenda. He assumes bad faith of other editors (such as the members of ArbCom), and espouses conspiracy theories. His recent editing is exclusively for proscribed purposes. Therefore, his account should be blocked until he undertakes to do something productive.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[134]

Discussion concerning David Tombe

Comments by other editors

• Note for the closing admin that the block must be for a duration that is no greater than 1 week per the enforcement provision; after 3 blocks, something further can be done. Hopefully, David Tombe will remedy his behavior voluntarily after this block though. This diff should've probably also been included above as it is further evidence of acting counter to the purpose of Wikipedia, and a failure to observe expected standards of behavior and decorum. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that diff, now #5. Jehochman ^Talk 13:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• This action concerns a discussion on my Talk page intitiated by Bob K31416 This discussion is about experiences as an editor on WP as seen by D Tombe. The objective is to identify some flaws in WP procedures that should be remedied in the view of D Tombe. I see no reason to consider this discussion disruptive or not in keeping with the health of WP. On the contrary, open discussion of such experience is important to the goals of WP in developing a healthy editing environment. If the views of D Tombe are not shared by others, for example Bob K31416, they will be ignored. If they are seen to have some validity, possibly they could lead to modified behavior on WP, either by individual editors or (a long shot) by policy modifications, that would be to the advantage of WP. Suppression of such assessment is not in the interest of WP: suppression appears to be pure censorship and makes WP Administration look dictatorial. It looks like Adminstration prefers not to allow even the beginnings of critique on a User Talk page (nevermind a formal presentation on pages where such critique is announced for general observation and assessment), but rather, prefers to "nip it in the bud", so to speak. Such action also is a violation of WP:AGF, assuming such critique is aimed at harming WP, when that is absolutely contrary to its purpose. Brews ohare (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Brews, you are violating your topic ban. Please stop posting here. AGF is the norm, but once an editor has been sanctioned by ArbCom, we do not assume they are acting in good faith when they return to the mode of behavior that got them sanctioned in the first place. You folks were sanctioned in large part for talk page disruption. You should not continue to misuse Wikipedia talk pages as soapboxes. Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that part of the problem is that David Tombe and another editor sanctioned in the SoL arbitration, Brews ohare, are egging each other on. Both have drawn topic bans and strict probation, neither has made any significant mainspace contribution since the SoL arbitration case closed.

• Since 20 October (close of arbitration), Brews has made more than four hundred edits. Nine were minor mainspace edits, three were to article talk, and one of those was a violation of his topic ban. (I also cautioned him for a number of probation and topic ban violations in lieu of asking for a block a few days ago — leniency which he has since given me great cause to regret.) He has been involved in taking a very outspoken and very small-minority stance on modifying WP:NOR. His interest in modifying WP:NOR stems directly from policy and content disputes he was involved in which ultimately led to the conflicts at speed of light and free space.
• Since 20 October, David Tombe has made approximately 100 edits. None have been to mainspace or article talk space. Virtually all of his edits have been related to complaints over his and Brews' topic bans and probation, or to the policy proposals being pushed by Brews.

A third editor, Count Iblis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been trying to 'help' Brews, however his own conduct is less than exemplary. He has been working extensively on his own policy proposal which proffers guidelines for editing scientific articles (WP:ESCA). While there's nothing wrong with writing essays and proposals, his approach to presenting and implementing his proposals has been inappropriately heavy-handed and has run afoul of many well-established Wikipedia policies and practices. (See, for example, WP:AN/I#Fake ESCA "guideline" spamming.) Between the three of them – Brews, Iblis, and Tombe – there have been some serious and ongoing violations of the 'general probation' provisions (Brews, Tombe) under which both Brews and Tombe edit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Worst of all, Iblis has since been spamming articles with invisible templates, causing alarm

  Also I am concerned with Count Iblis's statement here [1] that the template has been placed on many science article talkpages, but "is invisible". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 November 2009

  Perhaps Jimbo Wales should now declare a state of emergency? Count Iblis (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Can we get agreements from Brews and David that they will follow Tznkai's advice? If not, I suggest blocking them both, as Wikipedia will be much better off in that configuration. Jehochman ^Talk 20:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning David Tombe

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

Bitching and whining (technically criticism, although lazy allusions to Orwell and corruption does not rate highly on any normative scale) about ArbCom and administrators is generally not a actionable offense by itself, though such things are better done off-site where one gets a considerably more sympathetic audience. That having been said Wikipedia is not to be used as the medium to continue personal disputes, nor for espousing viewpoints. There have been outright bans for the same. David Tombe's contributions indicate his currently sole activity on Wikipedia, other than on AE (and it would be churlish to hold that against him), has been to get into arguments. There are a lot of ways to help out on Wikipedia, many of them are fun. New page patrol, for example, is always in need of help, click the random article button and see where it lands you. Write an article about your favorite kind of food. Try translating one of our politics or math articles into plain English. This is currently a request, but if continued battleground behavior continues, David Tombe may find himself participating in an attempt at a Wikipedia work-release probation.

In otherwords, I'd rather David Tombe (and others) stop unproductive whining and do something useful. The current situation does not appear to justify admin intervention at the moment, but could soon.--Tznkai (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that my above comments should be directed at Brews ohare as well.--Tznkai (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This decision explicitly reduced the requirement for 5 blocks to 3, as there needed to be stringent enforcement for users sanctioned in this case (see the comments at Workshop and PD). Sadly, these users have been warned more times than I care to count. There's a significant difference between the fashion in which criticism is made and the inappropriate way this was made - the latter is still the type of unacceptable conduct that resulted in ArbCom findings and remedies against him to begin with, and should've been dealt with by another admin, but was regrettably overlooked. Repeatedly acting counter to the purposes of Wikipedia, and failing to observe expected standards of behaviour and decorum, is not acceptable given that they were warned in the decision itself (and these diffs altogether therefore constitute repeated violations). In such circumstances, I'm not sure how you came to a "could justify admin intervention soon" result when the decision explicitly invites more than that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hetoum I

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

Request concerning Hetoum I

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 08:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Not required

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

1. [135] 1rv per week restriction by Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. [136] 6 months block by MuZemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Additional comments by Grandmaster:
Hetoum I (talk · contribs) was placed on 1rv per week restriction back in 2007. He was blocked a couple of times for violating his restriction, and after that stopped using his main account, using instead anonymous IPs and sock accounts to edit war across multiple pages and vandalize. The evidence about massive disruption by this user is presented here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I/Archive. As result of the above SPI request, Hetoum was banned for 6 months. However, he evaded his block again, this time using the account of Brunotheborat (talk · contribs). According to checkuser, Brunotheborat is a sock of Hetoum: [137] Since Hetoum shows no intention to stop his disruptive activity, I think it is time to reset his ban to permanent. Grandmaster 08:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[138]

Discussion concerning Hetoum I

Comments by other editors

Grandmaster, in light of your newly-found desire to have restrictions applied only where there is actual disruption (rather than simply the breaking of arbitrary rules that involve no actual disruption), please state what the disruption here was. Meowy 16:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Hetoum I

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

• Per the confirmation of socking by Versageek and the above referenced prior sanctions, I have blocked Hetoum I for a period of one year, which is the maximum term a sanction derived from an Arbitration case may extend. Community bans may be indefinite and are handled at WP:AN. MBisanz ^talk 19:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist

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

Request concerning Lapsed Pacifist

User requesting enforcement:
2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2#Lapsed Pacifist restricted

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

1. [139] First revert on John Adams Project, made without discussion on the talk page which is required
2. [140] Second revert (see below for extended commentary as to why this is a revert in my opinion), made in less than a week which is a breach of the remedy, and again made without discussion on the talk page which is required
3. [141] Revert without discussion on the talk page. Although a talk page post was made, it would require extreme amounts of wikilawyering to argue that "I agree, we need an Indochina section" is actually discussing the revert being made and the merits or otherwise of it
4. [142] Revert to his own version, made without discussion on the talk page which is required
5. [143] Another revert made without discussion on the talk page which is required
6. [144] Another revert made without discussion on the talk page which is required

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable

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

Additional comments by 2 lines of K₃₀₃:
Brief explanation of why I believe the second revert on John Adams Project qualifies. The edit is an attempt to claim that the people being held at Guantanamo Bay are internees. This is basically the same as the first edit and first revert, regardless of the fact it's being added to a different sentence. Adding that they were internees is still a revert in my opinion, especially as claiming they are resulted in the first two edits being reverted.

There are more diffs which show Lapsed Pacifist is ignoring his editing restrictions, but I believe the above should be sufficient. Lapsed Pacifist has a long history of ignoring such restrictions, as evidenced by the four blocks he received for violating his topic ban from the first arbitration case. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[145]

Result concerning Lapsed Pacifist

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

Brews ohare

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

Request concerning Brews ohare

User requesting enforcement:
Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare restricted
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare topic banned

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
In a nutshell, Brews ohare refuses to disengage and rectify his behavioural issues that lead to the sanctions against him. More specifically, he pushes for policy changes which people do not want (he has some support, however), and refuses to back down when consensus is against him. I wish I could keep it to only a few edits, but the sheer volume (again) makes this impossible.

Some proposed policies, essays, discussions, etc... (or basically his arbcom defense, minus the attacks). Also some warnings. I'm sorry that I cannot be succinct, as these are all intermingled with each other.

1. User:Brews ohare/Dealing with minority views
2. WT:Editing Scientific Article history
3. User talk:Brews ohare#Gag_orders
4. User talk:Brews ohare#Entirely clear
5. Forum shopping @ Jimbo's

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Some who were easy to trace back. The rest are buried somewhere in Brews' massive edit history. Others could provide with more.

1. User_talk:AGK/Archive/55#Your_advice_to_Brews_ohare
2. User_talk:Brews_ohare#Friendly_warning
3. User_talk:Brews_ohare#Caution

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Block for the rest of his one year ban. The trouble Brews is causing is not worth the 10 or so content-related edits he's made since the ARBCOM.

Additional comments by Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics}:
A shame it's come to this. Brews behaves like this in good faith, but disruptive behaviour is disruptive no matter intentions. Brews was sanctioned for problematic behaviour, and instead of fixing his behaviour, he's trying to make it into policy. Brews could edit completely non-controversial articles such as Cake or those found in Category:Canadian artists, but would rather right the great wrongs which have been caused to him. He's been warned enough times by more editors than I can count on my hand, and he still does not desist. Brews takes attempt to help him as proofs he's a modern martyr.

Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

• Notice on Brews talk page.

Discussion concerning Brews ohare

Statement by Brews ohare

There is no disruption. There is no violtation of remedies against me. Headbomb is not a party to any of the cited discussions and is simply intruding where he has suffered no injury. Brews ohare (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

Arbitration changed nothing. If there has been any difference, Brews has become more disruptive to the project, rather than less. There is not enough signal (e.g. quality edits) to justify the noise. Please just block Brews and be done with this situation. It is very frustrating and demoralizing to our productive editors. Jehochman ^Talk 19:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Brews ohare

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

• I have blocked Brews ohare for 24 hours specifically for this edit which references a current discussion on a physics related topic which is a violation of his topic ban. MBisanz ^talk 19:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)