Arbitration enforcement archives .mw-parser-output .hlist dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul{margin:0;padding:0}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt,.mw-parser-output .hlist li{margin:0;display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ul{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist .mw-empty-li{display:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dt::after{content:": "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li::after{content:" · ";font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li:last-child::after{content:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:first-child::before{content:" (";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:last-child::after{content:")";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol{counter-reset:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li{counter-increment:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li::before{content:" "counter(listitem)"\a0 "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li ol>li:first-child::before{content:" ("counter(listitem)"\a0 "}.mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}vte 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330

Kurtilein[edit]

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Kurtilein blocked for 30 hours for improperly reverting, and served with a discretionary sanctions notification. AGK 20:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Kurtilein[edit]

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

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

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

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

  1. 23:12, 25 October 2009 - Kurtilein adds unsourced info to the article. I removed it, with an edit summary saying it is unsourced info.
  2. 12:12, 26 October 2009 - Kurtilein adds the info back, claiming it is sourced to a primary source document - however I don't see how the text "Another passage that has been cited by critics of the organisation, especially in relation to cases of death where critics see connections to the organisation" is sourced to that document, and regardless the primary source document usage strays towards WP:NOR violation. I removed it a 2nd time, noting in the edit summary this specific portion that is definitely unsourced.
  3. 13:17, 26 October 2009 - Kurtilein adds the material back, again, this time with a disturbing edit summary: undo it again, and i will not come back and redo this edit... i will call others to this article to redo it. many others.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
[3], [4]

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion concerning Kurtilein[edit]

Statement by Kurtilein[edit]

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

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


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

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

Comments by other editors[edit]

Comments by Jayen466[edit]

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

[5], [6], [7], [8]. --JN466 22:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was a case of inexperience and excess enthusiasm, and Kurtilein seems to have recognised this now. --JN466 00:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Kurtilein[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Kurtilein's behaviour concerns me. By edit warring and not being willing to engage in any form of discussion of his changes, he has edited the Keeping Scientology Working article with an approach that is unfavourable to collaboration. A topic area as contested as Scientology does not need such an approach. I am placing a 30-hour block on Kurtilein's account, in response to the edit warring, and serving him with a notification of sanctions (as provided for in remedy 4 of the Scientology arbitration case). AGK 19:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Nableezy[edit]

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Nableezy topic banned for 4 months. AGK 21:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Nableezy[edit]

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

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[9]

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


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

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

Numerous archives speak specifically to the conflict and lack of consensus for this edit, and other archives to the issue of POV, as does the current Talk:Gaza War page, particularly here and more than that to the lead itself. These earlier archives show that no consensus has been achieved for this edit. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

The following reverts are to his preferred version and were made in the last four weeks. The article was edit-protected [19],
and the last four reverts made after edit protection was removed. (with partial edit summaries)

  1. [20] "you need to show consensus has changed, no consensus for removal of long standing text" 9/26
  2. [21] "no consensus" 9/27
  3. [22] "rvt using popups" 9/28
  4. [23] other editor's beliefs "don't matter" 9/28
  5. [24] "consensus" 9/29
  6. [25] "amply sourced" 10/3
  7. [26] adds dubious source claiming "this should end this" 10/4
  8. [27] rvtd compromise solution with "nonsense, the text is directly supported by the citations" 10/6
  9. [28]"move up, bold and capitalize per source" (reverted to the most contentious edit despite continuing argument WP policy re lede, re consensus, re Reliability) 10/15
  10. [29] "removal of reliably cited and there is no consensus to completely remove gaza massacre" 10/15
  11. [30] "no consensus" (for removal) 10/15
  12. [31] "verifiable statement reliably sourced with no consensus for removal" 10/20


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

  1. [32] maybe the Truth is antisemitic
  2. [33] Believes Hamas over Israel
  3. [[34] Hamas has a 'legal right to resist occupation
  4. [35] The idea that Israel wants peace is proved incorrect
  5. [36] "Because somebody is worried that international press will become pro-gazan upon seeing civilians rotting in the street is reason to endorse censorship?"
  6. [37] After reverting to his preferred version, says "This was simple vandalism, and thus reverted. You changed well sourced information and added things to change the balance so that the Israeli side is represented in a disproportional manner."


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

  1. [38] Other editors refuse to acknowledge simple facts, editors who challenge are "disruptive."
  2. [39] Doesn't matter what a fellow editor thinks
  3. [40] Caps are irrelevant in Arabic
  4. [41] "Beyond ridiculous"
  5. [42] "Bullshit" argument
  6. [43] Controversy is "Bullshit argument" & attempt to WP:CENSOR despite most of the editors' agreement that the material does belong in the article, just not in the lead
  7. [44] "moronic"


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

  1. [45] "Appalled" by massacre terminolgiy -- nothing short of racism
  2. [46] "But I'm not sure any more that it is fair to say this is the usual name for these events in Arabic" based on a search that showed that "the term "massacre exsists in just eight percent of the articles."
  3. [47] concerned about the effect on the naïve reader, encountering "'The Gaza Massacre”' in boldface in the opening line" will "potentially [create] an undue bias, before even reading the facts" [48] [49] not an official name
  4. [50]" emotive and judgemental, irrelevant of its use throughout the world, the article should note this useage but not term itself the "Gaza Massacre"
  5. [51] "highly emotive" "inflammatory language" and "These highly emotive terms have sources, but so do many other things that wouldn't be appropriate."
  6. [52] notes that it would be grammatically correct as a description but not as a proper name. He supports disembolding and would allow "The conflict has been described as a "massacre" in parts of the Arab world."
  7. [53] "there is no reason to capitalize "massacre" since the English sources don't." He also notes that reliable sources in the Arab world do not refer to it that way.
  8. [54] If "massacre is indeed the most widely used term, provide proof and it will go without qualification" "the sources provided so far do not back the assertion, though they back the statement that in parts of the ARab world the event is described as a massacre, at least by some and occasionally." "following WP:common sense and the assumption that (most) Arabs are not flamers yelling martyrdom and massacre." [55]
  9. [56] "no reason for the massacre title anymore" since 'evidence that common name in Al Jazeera, Syria, & for Palestinians is "Gaza War"'.

more recently:

  1. [57]concerned about RS that made the claim of "massacre"
  2. [58] "massacre" not used frequently. [59] RS show that Al Jazeera and Hamas chief use "Gaza War" and suggests moving "Gaza Massacre" to another place in the article. [60] Clearly propose to leave lead with Operation and War and move Massacre to Propaganda [61] Clearly propose to leave lead with Operation and War and move Massacre to Propaganda
  3. [62] thinks "use of the word "massacre" here is inappropriate, non-neutral, and used only as a political tactic." based on his Google search. "The lead paragraph is too important to include something so contentious and unclear as the "Gaza Massacre."
  4. [63] there is a "lack of consensus" and that it is in violation of WP:NPOV. Also warned on reverting " I'd like to note that using Twinkle in content disputes is frowned upon as are blind reverts and ignoring the perspectives and notes (as well as reliable sources) of fellow editors." [64] " Otherwise, we're giving an undue level of prestige of sorts to a fragment of one side's propaganda since it's clearly not "just a name""
  5. [65] "The archives indicates that there's no consensus or "rough consensus" for its inclusion. Nor has the article been stable. See User:AgadaUrbanit's talk page, which is replete with your warnings that he nor remove the term again. I'm advocating for a clear consensus before controversial and defamatory material is placed in the lede of an article." [66] "Including 'massacre' in the lede is encyclopedic, NPOV-violative, and WP:N-violative. [67]' Mainstream sources do not say in their own words that "Hamas calls this war the Gaza Massacre"' [68] No RS available thus "use of the term apparently violates wp:or/wp:synth, if not wp:n" [69] offers a compromise to achieve consensus.
  6. [70] "guess seeing the word "massacre" in boldface in the first line is what concerns me just a bit. It's a highly charged term, and do we really need that so prominently in the article?"


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

  1. [71] - Wikifan12345
  2. [72] - NoCal100
  3. [73] - Boatduty177177
  4. [74]- RichPoynder
  5. [75]- AgadaUrbanit
  6. [76] -Rm125
  7. [77] asking me to self -revert so that he will not violate 3RR]
  8. [78] clearly demonstrating he understands the system and warning against adding material against consensus
  9. [79]"discussed does not mean agreed. You need to stop warring in material over the objections of others." This is a direct warning to another user for the very same thing he is doing here.
  10. [80] An editor has put forth an ArbCon request on behalf of Nableezy for sanctions on User:Cptnono one of the editors directly involved in this dispute- one who has not edit-warred the article. 10/10
  11. [81] Though filed by another editor, Nableezy is also the principal in this ArbCon request re editwarring as well, for a different article. ([82]) 10/11

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

  1. [83] I warned (or at least explained my concerns) response here [84]
  2. [85] concerns also here; citing WP:CCC
  3. [86] Nja247 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) "Final warning" "Essentially at this point you should be using a personal 1RR rule except for blatant vandalism" 4/28
  4. [87] PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) warned of ArbCom sanctions 6/30
  5. [88] Recent edit warring report 10/6
  6. [89] warning by Tedder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 10/15
  7. [90] Block log


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

I am asking for a topic ban for some period of time. Considering that he has been warned a number of times in the past and has not seemed to be able to honor these warnings with the appropriate editing behaving, and considering that this behavior is tending to move further afield as is perhaps illustrated here: [91], to ignore it would give it permission to continue and thrive. Perhaps what troubles me most is the lack of respect I see for colleagues that take a different view from him. Some time off might allow Nableezy review his objectives here at WP. He is an intelligent and thoughtful editor in my view, and well liked on both sides of the aisle. I think he would be a great editor in areas that are not so personal for him.

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

Comments by Nableezy[edit]

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

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

I put diffs illustrating lack of consensus into the body of my request just now. Of course memory lane would include a trip to the archives, which is what I did. Stellarkid (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first one that you again quote out of context also includes the user saying "Yet, I can't see how we can ignore the fact that most of the Arab world does call it that way." JGGardiner has since changed his opinion on the issue, the third one also includes the user saying the would include it in the lead but without boldface, something that you agreed to and then decided you did not agree any longer. But I dont feel like dealing with you any longer, you have no idea what WP:NPOV means. It does not mean that we do not include what a significant POV because what they say is "inflammatory". We are obligated under WP:NPOV to include all significant POVs. You have repeatedly made dishonest arguments that shift depending on the POV. That is why I refuse to carry on talking with you, I have no respect for those who cannot be consistent with their arguments. That is the only thing I expect from an editor, that they apply arguments consistently. You do not do that. You consistently argue for a POV, and when that requires an inconsistent argument you take no hesitation to make such arguments. In the very same section you were arguing that the sources for "Gaza Massacre" were not enough you argue that the exact same type of sources are sufficient for a name you want to include. You have edit-warred over this term as much as anybody else. Here is a list of every non-minor edit you have made to the article:
  • [92] completely removes "gaza massacre" with source
  • [93] completely removes with source
  • [94] exactly the same as below, though you dishonestly call it "another" attempt at a compromise instead of a simple revert to the same edit you had made earlier
  • [95] changes to "known as a 'massacre'" when every source calls it "the gaza massacre"
  • [96] completely removes
  • [97] other
  • [98] removes from lead and places in media as "a 'massacre'" (none of the sources cited were of the media calling it that)
  • [99] completely removes
  • [100] completely removes
  • [101] other names you insert using the exact opposite reasoning as you used to remove gaza massacre
You have added nothing of substance to the article and have only added fallacious arguments to the talk page. You continually cite policies when it is clear you have not read them as they often say the exact opposite thing as you say they do. But again, I do not wish to continue arguing with you, there is no point. You have demonstrated a tendency to lie about the sources, to lie about policies, and to repeatedly lie by omission in your presentation of diffs. I have no use for such time-wasting tactics by somebody here to do one and only one thing. To removed what one "side" says while pushing what the other "side" says. I will engage with those who I have even the slightest bit of respect for, but for you and a few others at that page I am done pretending that you are acting in good faith. And as WP:AGF is a policy I will instead of saying that repeatedly simply stop engaging with you. You are not worth my time. nableezy - 18:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cptnono, the diff you cited of me using 3rr as a tool was by User:LoverOfTheRussianQueen, a sockpuppet of the indefinitely banned User:NoCal100 (in which NoCal100 as LOTRQ cited a 3RR report against NoCal100 as proof of my using it as a weapon, good times). On Brewcrewer's report I had made 2 reverts, the exact same number as Shuki. About it having to be "my way", BS. I made several "compromise" edits, including changing it to "described by Hamas as" unbolded. That still was not good enough for yall so I found 2 sources that explicitly say it is the name used in the Arab world. Still not enough. Why you keep saying these things even though they are plainly bogus and that they are bogus has been pointed out to you a number of times. You presented a source using "War on Hamas". And you say that is enough. But many, many sources using "Gaza M/massacre" was not enough. Regarding the email from another editor, if that editor does not wish to actually say that to me then the only thing I can say would be incredibly vulgar. And "refusal to seek resolution in the Massacre title dispute"? Who opened the RfC? Who went to RS/N? Who went to NPOV/N? And for you to continue to say that I am POV pushing for wanting to include what sources show is a common Arabic name for the conflict, the irony speaks for itself. But I dont want to argue with you or Stellarkid anymore, its useless. No matter how many sources I provide (it was 10 using the phrase just by Hamas officials at last count and 2 explicitly saying it is the common Arabic name) it wont be enough. I have no energy for such foolish arguments, it is completely pointless. Nearly every article in this area is crap, one more wont hurt. Have fun making it happen. nableezy - 07:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My diff list does not include any banned or sockpuppet editors. Regarding the name "Israel's war on Hamas" Google news hits showed it being commonly used, much more so than "Gaza massacre," (with small letters). In fact, aside from unverifiable Arab sources (which violated WP:NONENG and thus did not belong in the lede -) your only source for "known in the Arab world as 'the Gaza Massacre' was one source by a reporter in a (reliable source) South African newspaper who writes and was writing about a current and local event. Even if this source was finally accepted as a RS for your insertion, WP does not require us to use any and every source, and asks for further sources if the edit is controversial, as it clearly was. All this was brought up innumerable times on the talk pages, but you continued to edit-war in your preferred version. Stellarkid (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, you cite NoCal100, the same banned editor. And Arabic sources are verifiable and they do not "violate" WP:NONENG, they are explicitly allowed by WP:NONENG. And only a few of the 10 sources provided were even in Arabic, but, again, an honest argument is not expected from you. Just one more example of lying about what a policy says. The other "Gaza massacre" ref from the SA Sunday Times (which a consensus of uninvolved editors at RS/N said was a reliable source) was in a report on an interview with Goldstone. But again, I have stopped expecting you to actually provide a truthful and accurate argument. The fact that you think your edit-warring out something that is supported by reliable, verifiable sources is acceptable but think I should be punished for edit-warring it back in is laughable. The fact that you present a collection of sources from google without even reading any of the sources which in fact do not support what you said they did is likewise laughable. But an honest argument is not expected from you, so a laughable one will just have to suffice. nableezy - 18:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion concerning Nableezy[edit]

Comments by Sean.hoyland[edit]

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

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

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

Comments by Cptnono[edit]

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

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

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

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

Response to Cptnono's[edit]

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

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

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

Comments by Mr. Hicks The III[edit]

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

A quick glance through his contribution history to article space shows it consists almost exclusively of reverts of other people's edits - sometimes justifiably, but often as part of a content dispute, and sometimes misleadingly labeling other people's edits that he's reverting as "vandalism", when in reality it is a content dispute:[105]. There are many, many cases of his reverting exactly 3 times, as if 3R was an entitlement:

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

Comments by Mr Unsigned Anon[edit]

Nableezy did argue about the 'Gaza Massacre' out from policy and was more pedagogical than needed. See [110] and the split in subsections according to different policys. He also raised the question on RS on WP:RSN [111]. There is a majority leaning on policys supporting Nableezy on this.

WP:NPOV is not someting taken lightly and Stellarkid should himself closly study it before editing "in the sensitive area of I-P." [112]. Editwarring and at the same time complaining on admins talkside does not make the user requesting enforcement case stronger [113] [114] [115] Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dailycare[edit]

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

Comments by Jgui[edit]

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

Result concerning Nableezy[edit]

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

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

Re: Nableezy[edit]

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

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

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

My advice to both editors above is=

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

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

Request concerning Jdorney[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
User requesting enforcement
--Domer48'fenian' 14:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Jdorney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles
Sanction or remedy that has been violated
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
Revert #1 Revert #2 Revert #3
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
3 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 1RR. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
Unsure
Additional comments
Jdorney is well aware of the 1RR, having been given a final warning on their talk page here, which resulted from this report here.

Discussion regarding this request[edit]

Left open for discussion.

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

A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.--Domer48'fenian' 15:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result regarding this request[edit]

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

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

Request concerning Irvine22[edit]

User requesting enforcement
--Domer48'fenian' 09:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Irvine22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles
Sanction or remedy that has been violated
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
Revert #1 Revert #2
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
2 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 1RR
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
Unsure
Additional comments
Irvine22 is well aware of 1RR since they have been an active participant [116][117][118][119][120][121][122] in this ongoing discussion here were this issue is outlined.

Discussion regarding this request

Left open for discussion.

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

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

A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.--Domer48'fenian' 15:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Wikipedia is not supposed to be a venue for advertising the services of firms of solicitors. Irvine22 (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion regarding Pat Finucane was hardly concluded, and there most certainly was not consensus for the removal of the link. The last comment in the discussion was you saying that the website is amateurish, which is utterly irrelevant. Most of the discussion prior to that involved your use of a term that was wholly inappropriate and a violation of WP:BLP. There had been next to no discussion as to the merits of the link, in part because you seem to find it difficult to engage in serious, helpful discussion. In an article about a living person, an article which concentrates on his career as a solicitor, a link to the webpage of his legal firm is not at all inappropriate. Just as there is a link to the General Motors website in the external links of the article about said corporation, and so on in dozens of other articles about corporations. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should have made these points on the article's talk page. If you had done so, I would have pointed out that GM is a notable corporation. Madden & Finucane is a non-notable firm of solicitors. Irvine22 (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RJ, this is all they want another plathform! Irvine22 when on "Irish Unionist Alliance", where he's twice added a link to a non-notable organisation by the same name that was deleted per AFD, it shows his stance on "advertising" is dependent on who is being advertised. This is a 1RR report, and all we have had is excuses. --Domer48'fenian' 16:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer makes a good point, and here are the diffs for Irvine's repeated inclusion of that nonnotable and irrelevant link:
It seems "advertising" is all in the eyes of the beholder, eh Irvine? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose there is one connection between the non-notable political organization in question and the non-notable firm of solicitors: both have had Wikipedia articles about them deleted. But there is also a rather obvious difference between them - only the website of the non-notable firm of solicitors advertises fee-based professional services. That is what I find inappropriate to link to, and I thought that was the settled view of Wikipedians. Anyway, as Rd232 points out, this could all have been aired on the article's talk page if you had engaged in good faith, instead of playing the tag-team silliness.Irvine22 (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last things first, I am sick of your unfounded and bad faith accusations of "tag-team" editing. If you have proof that I and other editors colluded to revert your edits without cause, please present in this public forum. Otherwise, I suggest you drop it.
But, to the substantive matter here, you are incorrect in your facts. The Finucane Solicitors AfD concluded that the article should be redirected, not deleted:
There's a significant difference between a redirect and a deletion of a nonnotable political group that just happened to hijack the name of an earlier organization. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I didn't say that at all. I'm merely pointing out that 1RR is (like 3RR) not merely intended to slow edit warring down to a slower speed - it's supposed to stop it by forcing communication. The rest of my comment I don't feel like repeating, I've said before that RFC/U should be used where there are longer-term concerns. Rd232 talk 08:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dunc, notice also how RD feels they must below, make a pathetic and pointed comment at me, despite the fact that the discussion was closed having to ignore the notice "Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section" in order to make it. They also ignore the notices on the top of this page which says "The Committee does not look favourably upon comments that are intended to provoke reactions in others, and being incivil or provocative is counter-productive," in addition to "The golden rule of contributing to the project is to make an edit only where it actively benefits the project." So why would their ignoring and excusing of the 1RR here surprise us? Lets see how long RD's brand new rule lasts, we use the talk page we can breach 1RR! --Domer48'fenian' 19:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I felt the need to comment on your unhelpful remark, because it's a behaviour I've seen from you too often. I guess I shouldn't have, but it irked me. I didn't think about the "closed discussion" aspect enough because I was in a hurry to leave my computer. Whoa, two revelations in one comment: admins are volunteers with other demands on their time, and are human. Who knew? (And see reply to BigDunc re 1RR.) Rd232 talk 08:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note I've removed the text added after the discussion was closed. Sanctions will be applied if you decide that you can breach 1RR on talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result regarding this request

This is a credible AE request, as there was a clear 1RR violation. There is no weight to the claim that the "first" removal wasn't a revert, as Irvine had removed the link another time a few days before.[123] The matter was under discussion on the talk page, and sure it had gone quiet ... but it was obvious opposition remained when the reversion from RepublicanJacobite came. Irvine reverted again. Sorry Irvine, you knew the rules and chose to assume the risks of violating them. I'm giving you a week. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand[edit]

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 Betacommand[edit]

User requesting enforcement:
IP69.226.103.13 (talk · contribs) 09:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand_2#Betacommand_instructed

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

  1. [124] I see no proof other than your word that your anything more than a 13 year old child Name calling is not civil.
  2. [125] "How about you actually read the instructions. Did you follow those directions? no. you where reverted because you cannot follow directions" Taunting a user who appears to be a newbie and didn't do something precisely to Betacommand's satisfaction is not civil.
  3. [126] "please stop being so condescending" is not civil.
  4. [127] "if there is a specific BRFA that you want reviewed let us know and we can take a closer look." Misrepresenting himself as a BAG member is not civil.
  5. [128][129] A comment that I am "forum shopping" for asking a specific question of bureaucrats on a specific board. I'm not forum shopping, the question belonged there and was appropriate. He's not a bureaucrat anymore than he's a BAG member.
  6. [130] An injunction to "stop being so aggressive." Not civil.
  7. [131][132][133] Apparently I didn't follow something 100% rigidly to his liking. Actually, what I did was failed to add a heading to the section, not failed to make a new section, as my section was indeed below the old.
  8. [134] Just more Betacommand provocations, calling my concerns about bots to be "ranting."

Betacommands last 30 or so edits are half about me, provoking me, personally attacking me, stalking me. I'm easy. Then he goes to AN/I and suggest something should be done about me[135] and his mentor, User:MBisanz comes back suggesting and indef block.[136]

This indef block against is way outside the bounds of how wikipedia explains block work. No warning, no proof offered, just Betacommand suggests something be done, his mentor suggests an indef block, and there it is, I'm indef blocked, while Betacommand can find some other user to stalk, taunt, provoke, and attack.

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

  1. [137] Warning by IP69.226.103.13 (talk · contribs)
  2. [138] Warning by IP69.226.103.13 (talk · contribs)

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

Additional comments by IP69.226.103.13 (talk):
How many more chances does he get? I wasn't even given a chance to respond before I was indef blocked with no proof, no input form me, no evidence, just Betacommand and his mentor's say-so. Indef block seems to be the level of interaction on wikipedia, one chance and you're out. Betacommand has had many many chances. And, it's clear, he sees no incentive to be civil. It's a joke to him.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[139][140] Also his mentors.[141][142]

Discussion concerning Betacommand[edit]

Statement by Betacommand[edit]

Comments by other editors[edit]

The notice at the top of Betacommand's page suggests discussing concerns about enforcement with Betacommand and/or his mentors in advance of requests such as these. I can see diffs for Betacommand, but not for User:MBisanz or User:Hersfold - were they contacted with these concerns? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hersfold came to Betacommand's when I complained about his personally attacking me, he/she okayed Betacommand's comments to me, although granting that some of his comments should have been left out.[143] So, in other words, he/she has given Betacommand yet one more chance.
MBisanz responded to Betacommand's suggestion at AN/I "something be done" about me by suggesting that I be indef blocked from editing wikipedia.[144] MBisanz is is one of the bot owners who goes after me at BAG and RFBA-he's not an uninvolved administrator, his request for an indef block gives the appearance of being retaliatory.
Both of these users have knowledge of Betacommand stalking me at BOT boards. I have notified them of this enforcement request. Considering they were aware and participated in conversations with Betacommand calling me names, then MBisanz leaped, or gave the appearance of being very eager, at the opportunity to get someone to indef block me, there's no point in contacting them instead of a request for enforcement. --69.225.9.98 (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - just checking, so as to make sure we're in the right venue. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Hersfold[edit]

As I mentioned on Betacommand's talk page at the time, many of the comments IP69 is complaining about are hardly incivil. This request is entirely frivolous and forum-shopping, particularly considering IP62 was blocked for pursuing this issue inappropriately previously.

  1. [145] As mentioned by me before, the "13 year old child" bit could certainly have been left out, however I don't see much of an issue with the rest of the comment, particularly considering the context in which it was made. IP62's comments had reached the point where they were becoming disruptive, as noted by Mr.Z-man earlier in that discussion: "Oh, so this is what your bad faith-filled tirade on my talk page and the village pump is about." Ironically, IP62 replied that it wasn't a tirade, but in fact a "hissy fit," which is perhaps where the 13-year-old comment came from.
  2. [146] As noted for the above diff, the point where good faith needed to be assumed had passed, particularly since it was rather obvious that the discussion had been closed.
  3. [147] "Please stop being so condescending" is not incivil, particularly considering the pointed comment made just prior.
  4. [148] Calling this incivil is patently ridiculous, particularly since Betacommand was offering to help in this case.
  5. [149][150] Frankly, I feel as though this request is forum shopping, particularly since IP62 has been informed multiple times by multiple people the issue needs to be dropped.
  6. [151] This is constructive advice.

In looking through IP62's contributions, I'm actually pleasantly surprised Betacommand was as patient as he was. This user does not know then to take "no" for an answer, and this request is evidence of that. My advice to IP62 would be to back slowly away from the dead horse, put down the baseball bat and get on with doing something more constructive, before he is blocked again for continued harassment. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stalking Betacommand, and I provided diffs and evidence. You have not. You seem to be pretty pleased that Betacommand is stalking me, personally attacking me, calling me names. That's okay, Betacommand has lots of ardent supporters. He has to, to have gotten through 2 arbcoms and dozens of AN/Is and still be editing, and to think he can call editors names and still continue to edit. Betacommand is not a dead horse, although the analogy escapes me, as much as wikipedians adore throwing it in defense of the indefensible, he's very much alive and very much obsessed with me.
I've already been blocked for nothing without evidence, I'm well aware that blocking people who disagree with Betacommand is the standard on wikipedia. Keep it coming on, more drama, more chances, more arbcoms, more AN/Is all about Betacommand, and you pleasantly surprised in support of his continued behavior. That's not mentoring him to improve.
If not me, someone else, again, in the near future: the one constant, you can't beat this dead horse enough, 'cause it's wikivincible. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hersford, has provided no diffs for his/her and Betacommand's forum shopping accusations or for my being blocked for forum shoppping. Multiple times? Should have some diffs for these accusations.

He/she admits the "13-year-old" child comment was inappropriate and is supposed to be mentoring Betacommand, but instead of focusing on Betacommand's behavior, he/she joins and supports Betacommand in attacking me.

This will get wikipedia exactly what it always gets from Betacommand: more arbcoms, more AN/Is. He is not being mentored by these two, Hersford and MBisanz. He's being egged on by them. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My name is spelled HersfoLd, with an L. Thank you. I think your comments make my point enough; the fact that you seem to believe that there is not a point where enough is enough is simply shocking. I did admit that the 13-y-o comment could be considered out of line, and you'll notice that the first time I said as much was on Betacommand's talk page, where he could have very easily seen my comment and learned from it. Thank you for your concerns, you've made my point for me. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, what's shocking is how blind Betacommand's supporters are and how willing the wikipedia community is to listen to anything against anyone who speaks up against him, if this last wasn't true Hersfold would have not felt free to accuse me without diffs, and would not have felt free to ignore Betacommand's edit history for the past few days.

9 of Betacommand's last 24 edits have been about me, not including his response to my no personal attacks post on his talk page.

9 of Betacommand's last 24 edits have been about me, and his mentor is accusing me of beating a dead horse. Betacommand is stalking me, following me around and accusing me of forum shopping without diffs, egging his menotr on to ask for a indef block against me, is personally attacking me. He is supposed to be mentored through his return to wikiepdia. Instead of his mentors noticing what he is doing, they are advocating for his stalking and personally attacking another editor to support Betacommand.

It's the same thing as Betacommand's history is full of: his incivility, followed by his ardent supporters screaming for his right to incivility, but no call to Betacommand to knock it off.

No wonder he felt perfectly free to get upon AN/I, get up at BRFA, get up at BN, follow me around, accuse me without diffs. His mentors, both administrators, are right there to protect his right to create mayhem all through wikipedia.

If he's not stopped now, he'll be back here. He's already been given more chances than probably any other wikipedian. His mentors are NOT monitoring his behavior, they're protecting it. None of this would be happening right now if not for Betacommand, in other words, if his mentors were mentoring him instead of supporting his bad behavior. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Betacommand[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
no Declined I defer to the judgement of Betacommands mentor's in this situation. Additionally, the complaint seems to be both motivated by, and substantially consisting of a personal dislike for another user. WP:AE, despite appearances, is not your battleground, please don't treat it that way.--Tznkai (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request concerning 212.85.230.26[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
User requesting enforcement
--Domer48'fenian' 14:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
212.85.230.26 (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 Revert #1 Revert #2
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
2 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 1RR
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
Unsure
Additional comments
212.85.230.26 was made aware of the Arbitration case on their talk page here and despite this they still went on to make an additional revert her.

Discussion regarding this request[edit]

Left open for discussion.


Result regarding this request[edit]

Blocked 24 hours. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jacurek block review[edit]

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

I blocked Jacurek (talk · contribs) and placed him under an editing restriction the other day under the WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions clause. There was a discussion of it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive574#Future Perfect at Sunrise's block of Jacurek, but that was closed on procedural grounds, firstly because it was on ANI rather than here on AE, and secondly because Jacurek hadn't himself filed an unblock request at that time. Now he has done so, but it has been sitting unanswered on his page for over a day, probably because admins (rightly, according to the arbcom rules) are reluctant to consider an unblock of an arbcom-related sanction without discussion. So, just to help move things along, I'll open this discussion here myself. Let me make it clear that I personally still stand by those sanctions, although some people might feel that subsequent more friendly developments between Jacurek and his opponent Varsovian might create grounds for a more lenient treatment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This block was obviously correct and should stand: Jacurek's conduct was of a kind that we simply cannot tolerate (and his claims of FPAS being somehow "involved" are so tenuous as to be actually laughable). At most, shortening the block by a week in acknowledgment of his more balanced behaviour since the incident is about as far as I think we can go here. Since the unblock request is fairly well phrased (apart from the bit casting aspersions at FPAS), that would be just about acceptable. Moreschi (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a new administrator, and I'm not uninvolved[152][153], but I wanted to add my two cents. Blocks aren't intended to be punitive and Jacurek is not likely to be disruptive since (a) he and Varsovian have mended fences and (b) he will be subject to a six-month 1RR restriction. Jacurek's prior block history, which was cited as a factor in giving him this block, was largely a series of newbie mistakes that he has not repeated since his return. Citing his involvement with the EEML arbitration seems to be a case of sentencing Jacurek before he is found guilty. Finally, as noted, I think the six-month 1RR restriction will prevent any potential edit-warring in the future. Please consider these factors when evaluating whether to shorten Jacurek's block. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That said, it does need to be clearly understood that conduct of that sort is absolutely beyond the pale. Cutting the block length down to 3 weeks including time served is fine, and is just reward for the fence-mending between the two, but anything beyond is too liberal and sends out the wrong message. Moreschi (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Malik: about "likelihood" of being disruptive again, I do of course hope that the revert restriction will help some, but I must point out that the mere quantity of reverting isn't usually the whole story, and wasn't in this instance: quality of contributions, and quality of talk page behaviour, is another important part. And here, it is my opinion that Jacurek's record has been consistently poor, e.g. in this other exchange with the same opponent, or in this dispute. What we see here is aggressive, stereotyped accusations and appeals to "policy", without substantially engaging the opponent's arguments on the content level. As for the mending of relations between the two editors, my impression is that it is very much to the credit of Varsovian, but I can't quite help the feeling that Jacurek only adopted that stance opportunistically as a chance to get unblocked more easily [154]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder to all that every time the punitive meme is uttered on wiki, a little kitty dies. So let's not hear it again! ;) Once someone has been blocked as many times as Jacurek, "I'll be better" just isn't good enough. Part of the reason this kind of behaviour is worth it for these guys is that they know, come block time, they can just promise to be good and someone will be there to send some little felines to kitty heaven. These guys do little but edit-war over nationalist issues and piss off other nationalists, so what's the loss supposed to be? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of Jacurek's blocks are more than a year old, as Malik points out, so the "has been blocked as many times as Jacurek" doesn't really fly here - he got blocked some when he was new, then behaved himself well for a year until a bunch of suspicious anon IPs showed up and started following him around. Then Varsovian showed up - and perhaps with a bit too much paranoia, Jacurek was skeptical of this user as well.
And Deacon, who are "these guys" you refer to? You should probably take a look at "these guys" contributions before making blanket false accusations like that.radek (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, invoking the EEML AC "fiasco" is way out of line. FP is not the ArbCom and it is not up to him/her how that case should be decided.radek (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a step up murdering kittens from murdering Transnistrian children. Sorry I don't find any winky winky humor in Deacon's statement. Instead of pontificating on generalities, I suggest investing the circumstances as to whether Jacurek was even the party in the wrong, which Loosemark covers quite well regarding Varsovian being the guilty party.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  23:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok in my opinion this block was a very bad one for a number of reasons. First what nobody still mentioned here is that user:Varsovian appeared on wikipedia in controversial circumstances. He exhibited knowledge of wikipedia proceeding far exceeding that of a new user which he claimed he was and at least 4 people suspected he was a sock: Jacurek, myself, admin Sandstein and admin Future Perfect himself. Secondly user:Varsovian engaged in edit warring on the London Parade article where he obsessively removed any reference to the lack of Polish participation in the parade. At one point he was blocked for 24 hours for such behavior. He also deleted Polish sources out of the article based on original research (from my conversation with Future Perfect he seems to be aware of this problem) and wrote rants against Polish sources written after 2001. Finally when he started to claim that he lives in Warsaw and that he wrote books about Warsaw (something that would give him far more credibility) Jacurek was most naturally very sceptical and asked him if knows of a main bus line in Warsaw. Future Perfect later concluded that was harassment by Jacurek however given the circumstances I disagree, Varsovian asked Jacurek similar questions about Warsaw on Jacurek's talk page. [155], [156] In any case it is my opinion that if admin Future Perfect thought Jacurek's behavior was bad he could have first warn him about it, immediately nuking with a 1 month long block seems too drastic. Also I'd like to note that during the exchange user:Varsovian called Jacurek an idiot (with a trick, he said "my assistant says you are an idiot") something I brought to Future Perfect's attention 3 times and yet he has still to explain why isn't that worth a block or at least a warning. Finally I'd add that the user whois sock Varsovian was suspected to be left this message on wikiProject Poland: [157]. I won't comment on it because I think it's pretty self explanatory. Loosmark (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest (and not that it is going to make any difference at all to Loosmark, he seems entirely uninterested in facts when it comes to me): I’ve been investigated as a sock and cleared. I’ve repeatedly asked Loosmark to say who he thinks I am a sock of but one could be forgiven for thinking that he prefers to make snide insinuations than actual formal accusations. Like the one which he ends the above post (strange how he didn’t bother giving [158] or [159], two posts in which I give my opinion on Matthead’s comments, would that lack also be self-explanatory?) It is also interesting that Loosmark is still bringing up me not calling Jacurek an idiot. I have already apologised twice for my incivility [160][161] and have already pointed out to Loosmark that I’ve done that [162].
I do feel that Loosmark should read WP:QUICKSOCK or at the very least WP:AGF: his constant accusations (including the particularly charming accusation that I am a racist [163]), insinuations and allegations , together with his unfortunate outright lies, are becoming very tiresome. In a single day I had to ask him seven times to moderate to his tone toward me [164][165][166][167][168][169][170]. To give just one examples of his lies: at no time did I claim to have written books about Warsaw: I said that I have written a book [171] about Warsaw (singular, not plural). I fail to see how writing a book about Warsaw gives one more credibility when discussing a parade which happened in a different country 60 years previously but there are many things which Loosmark claims that I don’t understand.
For example Loosmark claims that I “obsessively removed any reference to the lack of Polish participation in the parade”: I actually vastly expanded the section regarding the lack of Polish participation and more than doubled the number of sources. Unfortunately all 16 of the sources I brought were deleted by another editor. Loosmark claims that I “deleted Polish sources out of the article” but the reality is that there has only ever been one Polish source in the article: I put it there and he supported the deletion of it!
I’d like to end by pointing out all the times which Loosmark has called me a troll but frankly life is too short to find all the diffs. Varsovian (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok to answer Varsovian's points above:

1) I have not specifically said whois sock I think Varsovian is for the simple reason I am not sure. In fact I don't even know if he's a sock, all I am sure is he is not a new user, as he claimed he was, when he entered wikipedia.

2) The fact that Varsovian later appologied for calling Jacurek an idiot is irrelevant for the point I was making, had Jacurek not been nuked out of the blue he'd probably also have apologized, and that's exactly my point, the difference was that one user, Varsovian, was given the chance to apology, the other, Jacurek, was not. It doesn't feel right.

3) I totally reject the accusation that I have called Varsovian a racist, I have never done so and I demand an apology for this horrendous accusation.

4) Varsovian had indeed asked me to moderate my tone but it doesn't mean that he had a valid reason to do so. In fact he came to my talk and provoked me with a bogus accusation in his typical passive-aggressive style.

5) Varsovian writes above I fail to see how writing a book about Warsaw gives one more credibility when discussing a parade which happened in a different country 60 years previously. That's an interesting point, so the question becomes what for has then Varsovian mentioned a book he wrote about Warsaw in the middle of the the parade discussion!?

6) "I actually vastly expanded the section regarding the lack of Polish participation". Varsovian has to be kidding: [172]. And yes he did work on the section regarding the lack of Polish participation but I have trouble calling that expansion, it was more like adding "its not true the Poles weren't invited" all the time: [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179]
Anyway I don't really care about Varsovian I just hope the bad block of Jacurek is cancelled and Jacurek can return to edit wikipedia because I think he's a good editor. Loosmark (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC) ].[reply]

If I may reply briefly:
1) Could Loosmark possibly try to Assume good faith and not repeatedly state that I am lying when I say I am a new user?
2) Firstly, I did not call Jacurek an idiot. Secondly, Jacurek has been able to apologise on his talk page: he hasn’t done so.
3) You state that I am “anti” a particular race [180]. If that were true, I would be a racist.
4) You repeatedly call me a troll and imply that I am a liar but this is just me being passive-aggressive? Do you even know what that phrase means?
5) “the question becomes what for has then Varsovian mentioned a book he wrote about Warsaw in the middle of the the parade discussion!?” Very simple and shown here [181]: Jacurek asked “you know that what Varsovian means right?”, I replied “Yes I am aware of what Varsovian means, I have lived in the city for more than a decade and have written a book about it.” So the question becomes, why was I being questioned about myself in the middle of the the parade discussion!?
6) “I have trouble calling that expansion, it was more like adding "its not true the Poles weren't invited" all the time” I first added some 650 words and 16 sources. But those didn’t fit the PoV of two editors, so they were all removed. Funny how you overlooked that.
”Anyway I don't really care about Varsovian” So why is it that you talk about me so much and in so many different places?Varsovian (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Sandstein, I hope you agree that we can't decide the faith of an editor based on your generalist assumption that administrators issuing sanctions know what they are doing. Admins are not infallible and they do make mistakes sometimes, no big deal but the mistakes do need to be corrected.
(I am also a bit puzzled by your who was more evil in World War II nonsense comment because 1) this case, even content-wise, was not about anything like that. 2) It's not like that needs to be discussed, Poland lost 6 millions citizens during the Second World War, which is over 16% of population. Just for comparison, UK lost 449.800 people or 0,94% and US 418,500 or 0,32%. In other words Poland lost in absolute figures 6 times more people than UK and USA combined. So I wouldn't say that who was more evil discussions are irrelevant, the Nazis were resposable for all the sh*t that happened and Polish sacrifise in WW2 cannot be trivialised as some editors all too often on wikipedia do.) Loosmark (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What uninvolved editors do you think have said the block is unwarranted? FYI, Loosmark, Radek and Vecrumba are his tag-team buddies, are are certainly not uninvolved. I'd say the balance of other opinion regards the block as warranted. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request concerning Stuart[edit]

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.
No action taken. AGK 02:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User requesting enforcement
--Domer48'fenian' 17:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Stuart (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 Par 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

There was an ongoing discussion on the talk page here, with the editor not attempting to address any of the issues raised. While I agree totally with Stuart's revert here, because of the disruptive nature of the tag and edit summary, coupled with that editors comments here and here not to mention equally uncivil edit summaries [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] with there political overtones, the fact remains Stuart did go over the 1RR restriction.

Discussion regarding this request[edit]

I'm calling bullshit on this one. "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part" By that rationale, if you edit any article, three times in a day you get blocked even if your edits are totally different? All three of those edits are totally different. They are not simple reverts like like Domer, Dunc and Mooretwin have been doing on this article for the last couple of days.

The rest of Domer's report seems to be about Mooretwin.

The actions of Domer, Dunc, Mooretwin and others depress me. Constant reverting of each other, rampant incivility, it's a joke. I don't engage in it, I try to find solutions. If that's blockworthy, go right ahead. I grow more disillusioned with this place by the day. Stu ’Bout ye! 22:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the edits are different. Some aren't even reverts so there is nothing to be done here. I also agree that the incivility on that page is a far more serious issue and needs to be dealt with. Valenciano (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see what Stuart has done here other than to seek a compromise. I do, however, object to Stuart's insinuation that I have been uncivil. If he objects to my conduct in disputing the actions of Dunc 'n' Domer then I do not apologise. It seems that I get penalised for having the tenacity to stand up to these confrontational editors who would otherwise be left alone to take WP:OWNERSHIP of several articles and edit them to their own content, without engaging in collaboration with other editors. It is most definitely not in the interests of this encyclopaedia to allow articles to be edited at the will of a small group of like-minded editors. Mooretwin (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with your editing has more to do with reverting. So many page's history's are littered with "undid ..... by Domer48" and the inevitable "undid ...... by Mooretwin" the next day. But I have to say starting a talk page discussion with "I see two nationalist editors" as you did on the Sinn Fein page is only going to result in a battlefield. Having said that, their behaviour towards you is much less civil. But anyway, we digress from the point of this page. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can't punish an editor who seeks compromises. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Now there are three reverts there that reverses the actions of other editors. Its that simple. --Domer48'fenian' 18:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% certain anymore, concerning the application of 1RR for those articles. Thus my reason for doing 'no' reverts. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that helps the editors above. --Domer48'fenian' 18:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but it doesn't help, no. WP:3RR states: "Since the rule is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not edit warring will not breach the rule." while WP:1RR states that: "Some editors may choose voluntarily to follow a one-revert rule: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it."
Stuart's edits are demonstrably not edit warring, nor are they re-reverts. In contrast your slow edit warring adding or readding the same material on 3 November, 4 November 5 November 6 November and your own statements there that you intend to continue in that vein ignoring reliable sources and reverting instead of discussing is far more worrying. Valenciano (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading these:

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

Three reverts, simple as! --Domer48'fenian' 20:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently they are (moving my comment to the correct section). The first edit doesn't revert the cited edit. Considered on its merits, it looks like a reasonable effort at compromise. Nuanced information doesn't belong in an infobox. A microbarnstar for that edit. The second one removes pointless tagcruft, and again it doesn't seem to revert the edit claimed. The third one does indeed look like a revert, but that's just one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's just BS IMO. They had their 1RR, and went on to make two more, regardless of its merits. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Like I said simple as! --Domer48'fenian' 21:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit doesn't revert the cited edit. Oh does it not? Revert this editors edit here is not a revert of this here! Please! --Domer48'fenian' 21:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have three reverts in 24 hours, on an article subject to 1RR, on an extremely hot-button issue. None of Stuart's reverts are exceptions under WP:3RR so I don't think he can be forgiven for them in a 1RR situation. My suggestion would be that a block should be issued unless Stuart will agree to a voluntary restriction from editing this article. Due to the high volume of edits, it may be too late for him to do a self-revert. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to disagree with my interpretation as long and as loud as you like, but that doesn't mean you're likely to change my opinion here. Your over-literal reading of the policy page would appear to make it a blockable offence for any editor to make four possibly controversial changes to a page in 24 hours, if these are made as separate edits. An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, but where, I wonder, is the repetition here? Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angus its just a simple 1RR report. Your comments above sound a bit like mine here but I got pulled up on it. Yeh a bit much I know! Anyhow, like I said this is a simple stright forward one, can we not just deal with it and move on? --Domer48'fenian' 23:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three points:

  1. I second the call of bullshit on this. Any edit to any article (apart from one that adds new material) will "reverse the actions of other editors, in whole or in part". Does someone breach 3RR, if they make four different edits to the same article in 24hrs? Does someone breach 1RR, if they make two?
  2. Wikipedia is not a court of law. We don't interpret according to the letter. Some common sense, please.
  3. I'd would be more concerned that the ArbCom ruling would be turned into another weapon to game the system with against presumed opponents in nationalist battles. (And I don't think Stu is a belligerent in such a battle.)

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result regarding this request[edit]

Did Stuart revert thrice within twenty-four hours? Yes. Was that terribly wise on an article under 1RR? No. By doing so, did he disrupt the project? No. Would he get into bother if he does so again? Yes. But would sanctioning him be warranted? It would not. No action taken. AGK 02:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mr Unsigned Anon[edit]

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)[reply]

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. [187] Here he acknowledges that his conduct could get him banned
  1. [188] Here, he calls me a racist.
  1. [189] Here, he uses gratuitous vulgarity.
  1. [190] Here again he uses gratuitous vulgarity.
  1. [191] Here, he refers to me as a "retard" and a "moron" and also implies that he has other Wiki accounts.
  1. [192] Here, he rambles on and makes some strange reference to “night of the long blades”
  1. [193] Here, he calls me "ignorant" and a "moron"
  1. [194] Here, he makes inquiries about my race
  1. [195] Here, he accuses me of working for the Israeli government and also makes derogatory accusations based on alleged demographics
  1. [196] Here, he asks me about the weather in Brooklyn based on his belief that I live there.
  1. [197] Here, he makes reference to my bank account on the Gaza discussion page
  1. [198] Here, he taunts me to engage him in an edit war
  1. [199] revert of sourced material
  1. [200] revert of sourced material
  1. [201] revert
  1. [202] revert of sourced material
  1. [203] removal of sourced edits
  1. [204] removal of sourced edits
  1. [205] removal of sourced edits
  1. [206] removal of sourced edits. Preceding four reverts were effectuated within a span of ten minutes.
  1. [207] 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. [208]
  1. [209] His explanation for revert. "removed israeli side exlanation that is undue weight in lead."
  1. [210] His explanation for revert. "Removing israels intention to not cooperate. Its intention is bring undue weight and can be presented futher down."
  1. [211] revert of sourced material
  1. [212] 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. [213] Warning by Tyw7 (talk · contribs)
  1. [214] Warning by Looie496 (talk · contribs)
  1. [215] Warning by Looie496 (talk · contribs)
  1. [216] Warning by Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs)
  1. [217] 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)[reply]

This is the latest gem that Mr Unsigned Anon just recently left on my Talk page [218]That comment resulted in a 24 hour block issued by BozMo (talk | contribs)here [219] Mr Unsigned Anon seemed proud of his actions calling it "fun" here [220] and taunted the issuing Admin to issue him a lengthier block here [221]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also inclined to believe that he has multiple accounts based on statements that he made here [222].--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Mr Unsigned Anon Notified [223]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Tiamuttalk 12:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Unible[edit]

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)[reply]

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 [224]
  2. Second revert [225], of this edit [226], violation of 1RR

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

  1. [227] 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:
[228]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [229] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
It appears the simplest solution here is to apply a standard 1RR restriction on Unible on all articles in the AA area of dispute.--Tznkai (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Superfopp[edit]

User requesting enforcement
BigDunc 18:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Domer68, you were recently involved in disrupting the relevant case page [230]. 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)[reply]

That's sound HighKing, I'm happy enough to let AE deal with it. --Domer48'fenian' 12:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Request concerning 92.26.232.39[edit]

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)[reply]
User requesting enforcement
--Domer48'fenian' 15:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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?

Discussion regarding this request[edit]

Result regarding this request[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Irvine22[edit]

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[edit]

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

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. [231] First revert
  2. [232] 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)[reply]

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Diff

Discussion concerning Irvine22[edit]

Statement by Irvine22[edit]

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)[reply]

Comments by other editors[edit]

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

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)[reply]

That's your choice. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Irvine22[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

David Tombe[edit]

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)[reply]

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. [233]
  3. [234]
  4. [235]
  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:
[236]

Discussion concerning David Tombe

Statement by David Tombe

Comments by other editors

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.

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)[reply]

I don't think that will stop you from hounding these editors. I suggest that Jehochman refrains from any further postings regarding David Toombes and Brews as he is consistently invovled with their "reviews" here. I',m really getting sick of people getting bullied around when they are doing nothing. Talkpages are talkpages so long as what is said there is civil and not attacks who gives a flying fuck what's in there? Can we please stop the Gestapo-esque silencing efforts here, whatever happened to wp:ignore? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:HistoricWarrior007 appeal of topic ban[edit]

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

Note: I have reformatted this request - it appears to be an appeal against a ban imposed by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise after he was told this was the place to appeal[237], but was incorrectly formatted as a complaint. henrik•talk 22:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Request concerning appeal of topic ban by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

User requesting enforcement:
HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Appeal of topic ban

Sanction or remedy that this user wishes to appeal:

Unjust Topic Ban

HistoricWarrior, with this edit I feel you have crossed a line. You (and others) were warned some weeks ago that the permanent hostility and edit-warring on that article would not be tolerated forever. For the aggressive "ownership" attitude, hostility, threats and personal attacks expressed in this latest posting of yours, in connection with the months-long history of near-permanent edit-warring on the same article, you are now topic-banned from the 2008 South Ossetia War article, all articles related to it, and all related talk pages, for a period of two months. This topic ban will be logged at the Arbcom enforcement section of WP:DIGWUREN. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of prior warnings:

HistoricWarrior007 has no history of prior warnings.

Ban was imposed here: [238]

Enforcement action requested:

Exoneration from the Unjust Topic Ban

Additional comments by HistoricWarrior007 (talk):
I do not believe the ban is appropriate, as it goes against this wishes of the Community, 6 experienced editors told Future Perfect at Sunrise that his watchful eye in our article was unnecessary, and no one spoke out in his favor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring, and the ban based on the policy I did not know about, WP:DIGWUREN.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFuture_Perfect_at_Sunrise&action=historysubmit&diff=325113200&oldid=325060114

Discussion concerning appeal

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

I fully stand behind this topic ban: HistoricWarrior007 has a history of a persistently hostile, very combative battleground attitude over that article, combined with nearly incessant slow revert-warring over many months. I have become convinced that his presence is the main factor that has made the talkpage of 2008 South Ossetia war an incredibly toxic environment. The edit that triggered the sanction [239] was just the straw that broke the camel's back. His conduct here and previously on WP:RFAR, with the aggressive claim that all those dozens (or hundreds, by now?) reverts of his were not revert-warring but removal of "vandalism", and his immediate assumptions of bad faith on my part, just illustrate the same problem. (Incidentally, it's ironic I was accused of being anti-EMLL when I sanctioned Jacurek (talk · contribs) the other day; now I'm being accused of being pro-EMLL because I happen to sanction somebody on the other side.)

Since the topic ban, HW has shifted his activity to other Russian war topics, such as Dagestan and Chechnya, and some of his edits have been so blatantly tendentious I am seriously considering if even more stringent restrictions are necessary. Here [240] he is inserting an unsourced, highly negative biographical assertion as a fact, when he must know (from the main article on that person) that the underlying claim is, at best, contentious. Here [241], in an edit that is actually skirting the topic ban (a bio of a semi-notable political analyst, which he only wrote as a WP:COATRACK because he was previously promoting quotations from that analyst on the South Ossetia article for evident POV reasons), he describes the orientation of a Russian political journal as "a common sense magazine that does it best to explain what is going on in Russia without pandering to corporate interests". – I am convinced no editor of HW's intelligence and experience could possibly, even for a minute, fool himself into believing this is a neutral description. Therefore, this edit, even though only affecting a minor side issue, displays a reckless disregard for NPOV. This kind of irresponsible editing, by failing to strive for NPOV, is in and by itself sanctionable behaviour (in terms of the discretionary sanctions clause: failure "to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia"). 07:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by HistoricWarrior007

FutPerf accuses me of (1) ownership of the article; (2) edit-warring and hostility; (3) threats;

(1) Ownership: I have encouraged everyone to use the discussion page prior to editing, as is required by the article’s "controversial" template. I have discussed all of my edits, prior to making them. When a new user made an edit that I didn’t agree with, I reverted it, and asked him to use the talkpage; after the discussion, his arguments were better than mine, and he made the edit. There is a ton of material in the article that I disagree with in the article, but sometimes I win the discussion and they go, and sometimes I lose the discussion and they stay. And if anyone still thinks that I “own” the article, I volunteer for a 4 month long 1RR restriction in that article.

(2) Edit-Warring and hostility: as was previously pointed out to FutPerf, what was occurring in the article was not edit-warring but vandalism, and reverts of said vandalism. Despite 6 users pointing this out to FutPerf, all of whom are knowledgeable, long-term editors of the article, with a 2-4 pro-Georgian - pro-Russian split, FutPerf ignored our combined statements, and proceeded to claim edit-warring where none existed. Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring.

(3) Threats: I challenge FutPerf to find a single threat that I made. Here is what FutPerf believes is a threat: "I am tired of you using these tactics. I won't hesitate to expose anymore of these tactics, the minute I see them. So don't use them." On the other hand FutPerf has been accused of making threats in our article, as is shown in the link above.

FutPerf claims that I was warned, in the above listed link and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Question_to_Arbcom:_2008_South_Ossetia_War However, in the latter link, ArbCom completely ignored FutPerf’s request; when a Court ignores a request, the status quo prevails, and no warning occurs.

I also fail to see why I am being punished per WP:DIGWUREN, considering that I had no knowledge of WP:DIGWUREN. FutPerf states that it applies to all Eastern European Articles, but FutPerf failed to mention it in both of his "warnings".

The edit that I am being topic-banned for can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2008_South_Ossetia_war&action=historysubmit&diff=324541357&oldid=324532032 Granted, it wasn’t my brightest move, and the joke at the end was in poor taste. Nevertheless, in my defense, the edit involved the title debates, which occupy, literally, over 100 pages; it’s where every point was argued and counter-argued at least several times.

It is also interesting to note that FurPerf topic-banned me shortly after I presented evidence for ArbCom, and that he made the "warning" in the article, shortly after FeelSunny and I spoke out in the ArbCom case, regarding the Cabal.

To summarize, I am being banned for something I did not do, by an administrator who is hostile towards me, using a policy I never heard of. I have no history of prior bans/blocks/warnings. Thus, I am appealing.

Response to Biophys

Biophys takes the song that I posted, altered it, and on the basis of his alterations, claims that I am a member of Nashi.

Biophys' Version: "knife-bayonet penetrates a trembling body of your enemy"

Actual Version: "knife-bayonet penetrates the body...The poet-praised Caucasian Region is covered in blood, in the hearts hatred stings, but SpetzNaz will close hatred's path with their chests, because SpetzNaz doesn't run from danger"

The point of the song is to show that everyone suffered, but Biophys altered it, to make it look like the SpetzNaz was out to get the "enemy". (The word "enemy" isn't mentioned in the entire song, not even once. Nor is the word "trembling".) Additionally, Biophys connects this song to the KGB, that he sees everywhere. However the song is about the SpetzNaz. SpetzNaz is as much related to the KGB, as the Green Berets to the CIA; in other words - there's no relationship.

See here for further elaboration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Response_to_Biophys

Response to Future Perfect at Sunrise

It is interesting to note how quickly Future Perfect at Sunrise changed his reasons from (1) ownership of the article and (3) threats, completely dismissing those, and now arguing for (1) hostile-combative attitude and (3) toxicity of the talkpage, but he's still keeping the revert-warring claim.

My hostile-combative attitude can be easily debunked, by the fact that I backed down, when a new user presented better evidence, that contradicted evidence presented by MDB, a publication that I have always backed, and even had a dispute with FutPerf about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_27#Italics_vs_Quotes, where he made the edit, and I took it to the talkpage.

My recent reverts resulted when a user blanked a whole section, and I restored that section. With the exception of that, I had no reverts after FutPerf issued his "warning", that weren't reverts of vandalism. The revert wars have died out, before FutPerf entered the article. Please review this section, which completely debunks FutPerf's claim about my hostile-combative attitude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Moving_Over_from_my_Talkpage_-_naval_stuff. A short summary: two users came to me to ask for a mini-dispute resolution regarding the position of the Russian Naval Forces in the 2008 South Ossetia War. How can I be hostile and combative, when fellow Wikipedians are asking me to resolve a dispute?

I had less than 100 overall reverts, not counting vandalism reverts. I have never broken 3RR. I was never warned for any of my reverts. I repeatedly asked fellow Wikipedians to use the talkpage. FutPerf shows that he has no data on the issue, by claiming for "dozens, maybe hundreds" of reverts. I understand people are busy, but when administering a two-month topic ban, isn't it at least necessary to know whether a user did 24 or 400 reverts? Isn't it vital to know the time span? In a year's time of editing that article, I had less than 100 non-vandalism reverts. That's less than 1 revert in three days.

In response to the new "evidence" brought in by FutPerf:

151: Litvinenko first worked for the FSB, and then worked against the FSB for Berezovsky's Group. That makes him a double-agent, which is all that I inserted. I didn't say whether he was a bad or good double agent, but if you are working for two different security organizations, giving the intelligence of one organization to another, you are a double-agent, and I fail to see what's so negative about that. Every country has double-agents, it doesn't automatically make one the embodiment of evil.

152: I wrote an article on Patrick Armstrong, who works with Sharon Tennison to strengthen the US-Russia relationship. I made an effort to exclude anything he wrote that was relevant to the 2008 South Ossetia War, out of the article. I fail to see how that skirts the issue.

Future Perfect at Sunrise also claimed negativity about my edits to the Second Chechen War and Invasion of Dagestan Articles. He has yet to provide proof of how those were bad. I am a military historian, I edit articles relevant to military history. Why is this a crime? And no user can be truly NPOV, we all know that, and we all have bias on the basis of our education. One punishes editors for warring over POV, not for merely inserting their POV into the articles. The very fact that FutPerf is bringing such "evidence", shows that he has no evidence. And in terms of the Invasion of Dagestan, right after I began to edit that article, FutPerf, who showed no interest in the article prior to my editing of it, moved to delete the SpetzNaz image. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dagestan_1999.jpg

(3) Toxic Atmosphere: the most toxic atmosphere that I have seen in the 2008 South Ossetia War Article, was created by FutPerf. For instance when he came into the article to offer his services, he was vehemently rejected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring

I will quote some of the reception that FutPerf's idea received, and these sum up the views of everyone who edited the article, except Biophys, who thinks I'm a member of Nashi, and KGB is editing Wikipedia Articles. Here is the reception to the toxic and hostile environment that FutPerf created, and then turned around and accused me of creating; reception to FutPerf's "policing" the article:

A. I'm sorry, but I don't think threatening editors is the correct answer here. Many of us have been working hard to improve the article. Offliner (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

B. So let me get this straight. An administrator is threatening to block a group of users who are almost entirely responsible for the article in its current form, simply because of the unavoidable fact that the topic is controversial and there are parties on both sides who are adamant that the article stay neutral from their view? So what would you rather, one person or one group with coinciding views to edit it to their liking with no disruptions? Your logic is incomprehensible to me...LokiiT (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

C. If I'm thinking of the same "small group of editors" that you're referring to, Future Perfect at Sunrise, I belive that you're sadly mistaken. Although disagreements do break out, as they usually do on such a controversial and fairly recent topic, this "small group of editors" has done a superb job of revamping this article over the past several months. There is little revert-warring occurring, and the only reason for the high revert count is due to the fact that Reenem's edits are often reverted, as they are done improperly and violate WIkipedia rules, as HistoricWarrior said earlier...Laurinavicius (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

D. Do I understand it right your last message means you intend to block me from editing this article together with a "whole cast of its regular editors" unless I convince you this article can breath with me editing it? If so, you can proceed with your administrator duties and rights and block me right away, if this is your intent. Please take into account that whatever decision you make, you make it on your own discretion, of course, and this message is in no way an expression of my wish to be blocked. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FurPerf's threats and subsequent carrying out of said threats, are the reason for the hostility that he is getting, and not just from me.

Nobody is accusing Future Perfect at Sunrise of EMLL, and the Jacurek case is irrelevant. The accusation I made, was that as soon as FeelSunny and I spoke out in the ArbCom case, Future Perfect at Sunrise threatened us in the 2008 South Ossetia War Article, thereby creating the toxic atmosphere. He also "warned" Xeeron from the other side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Question_to_Arbcom:_2008_South_Ossetia_War FeelSunny, Xeeron and I were the most active ArbCom contributors from the 2008 South Ossetia War article, that weren't directly involved in the case. And he directly accused the three of us.

The accusation against FutPerf is that he worked actively to against the writers of the 2008 South Ossetia War Article that commented on the ArbCom case, irrespective of the sides.

On the 18th of September, 2009 I asked to be included in the proceedings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring

On the 22nd of September, Future Perfect at Sunrise appeared with a threat in the 2008 South Ossetia War Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring

On the 5th of November, I presented evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FEastern_European_mailing_list%2FEvidence&action=historysubmit&diff=324160468&oldid=323152291

On the 8th of November, I received the topic ban: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoricWarrior007#Topic-banned

And I've yet to understand why I was blocked per WP:DIGWUREN a policy that FutPerf didn't warn me about, a policy that I didn't even know existed.

Response to Looie496

According to FutPerf, I was "warned" twice:

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring (please note the response to FutPerf's "warning" by editors on all sides, as we tried to, in vain, inform him that the edit-war was over.)

And Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Question_to_Arbcom:_2008_South_Ossetia_War

Please note, that with the exception of Biophys, who thinks I'm Nashi because I posted a SpetzNaz song, (that's like relating Green Berets to Black Panthers,) no one supports FutPerf. In the second request, FeelSunny asks for proof of edit warring, and Biophys provides his altered version of the song instead. The second one was also phrased as "Question to ArbCom" to which ArbCom didn't reply. So it FutPerf's language, "Question to ArbCom" really means "warning to the editors I am mentioning below". You can find the elaboration here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoricWarrior007#Topic-banned

Comment by Biophys

Comment by uninvolved Looie496

FPS, in your topic ban you stated "you (and some others) were warned...". It would be helpful if you could provide a pointer to the warning. Looie496 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Result concerning appeal of topic ban

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