Knowledge (XXG)

Kurtilein

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

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

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

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:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Editors_instructed (Note that the prior Scientology case remedy, Knowledge (XXG):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.
   • In a post to his user talk page, I asked Kurtilein for independent reliable secondary sources, and noted the WP:NOR issue: .
   • I then also specifically noted the portion of the text that he re-added that was wholly unsourced: .
3. 13:17, 26 October 2009 - Kurtilein adds the material back, again, this time with a disturbing edit summary: undo it again, and i will not come back and redo this edit... i will call others to this article to redo it. many others.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Knowledge (XXG): 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)

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)

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 Knowledge (XXG):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)

, , , . --JN466 22:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Nableezy

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

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

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

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:

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Knowledge (XXG):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.

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

1. "you need to show consensus has changed, no consensus for removal of long standing text" 9/26
2. "no consensus" 9/27
3. "rvt using popups" 9/28
4. other editor's beliefs "don't matter" 9/28
5. "consensus" 9/29
6. "amply sourced" 10/3
7. adds dubious source claiming "this should end this" 10/4
8. rvtd compromise solution with "nonsense, the text is directly supported by the citations" 10/6
9. "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. "removal of reliably cited and there is no consensus to completely remove gaza massacre" 10/15
11. "no consensus" (for removal) 10/15
12. "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. maybe the Truth is antisemitic
2. Believes Hamas over Israel
3. Hamas has a 'legal right to resist occupation
4. The idea that Israel wants peace is proved incorrect
5. "Because somebody is worried that international press will become pro-gazan upon seeing civilians rotting in the street is reason to endorse censorship?"
6. 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. Other editors refuse to acknowledge simple facts, editors who challenge are "disruptive."
2. Doesn't matter what a fellow editor thinks
3. Caps are irrelevant in Arabic
4. "Beyond ridiculous"
5. "Bullshit" argument
6. 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. "moronic"

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

1. "Appalled" by massacre terminolgiy -- nothing short of racism
2. "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. concerned about the effect on the naïve reader, encountering "'The Gaza Massacre”' in boldface in the opening line" will "potentially an undue bias, before even reading the facts" not an official name
4. " emotive and judgemental, irrelevant of its use throughout the world, the article should note this useage but not term itself the "Gaza Massacre"
5. "highly emotive" "inflammatory language" and "These highly emotive terms have sources, but so do many other things that wouldn't be appropriate."
6. 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. "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. 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."
   
9. "no reason for the massacre title anymore" since 'evidence that common name in Al Jazeera, Syria, & for Palestinians is "Gaza War"'.
   

more recently:

1. concerned about RS that made the claim of "massacre"
   
2. "massacre" not used frequently. RS show that Al Jazeera and Hamas chief use "Gaza War" and suggests moving "Gaza Massacre" to another place in the article. Clearly propose to leave lead with Operation and War and move Massacre to Propaganda Clearly propose to leave lead with Operation and War and move Massacre to Propaganda
   
3. 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. 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." " 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. "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." "Including 'massacre' in the lede is encyclopedic, NPOV-violative, and WP:N-violative. ' Mainstream sources do not say in their own words that "Hamas calls this war the Gaza Massacre"' No RS available thus "use of the term apparently violates wp:or/wp:synth, if not wp:n" offers a compromise to achieve consensus.
   
6. "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. - Wikifan12345
2. - NoCal100
3. - Boatduty177177
4. - RichPoynder
5. - AgadaUrbanit
6. -Rm125
7. asking me to self -revert so that he will not violate 3RR]
8. clearly demonstrating he understands the system and warning against adding material against consensus
9. "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. 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. Though filed by another editor, Nableezy is also the principal in this ArbCon request re editwarring as well, for a different article. () 10/11

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

1. I warned (or at least explained my concerns) response here
2. concerns also here; citing WP:CCC
3. 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. PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) warned of ArbCom sanctions 6/30
5. Recent edit warring report 10/6
6. warning by Tedder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 10/15
7. 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: , 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.

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)

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)

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:

• completely removes "gaza massacre" with source
• completely removes with source
• 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
• changes to "known as a 'massacre'" when every source calls it "the gaza massacre"
• completely removes
• other
• removes from lead and places in media as "a 'massacre'" (none of the sources cited were of the media calling it that)
• completely removes
• completely removes
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:. There are many, many cases of his reverting exactly 3 times, as if 3R was an entitlement:

• 3 reverts October 22
• 3 reverts October 5
• 3 reverts October 5
• 3 reverts Sep 25

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

Nableezy did argue about the 'Gaza Massacre' out from policy and was more pedagogical than needed. See and the split in subsections according to different policys. He also raised the question on RS on WP:RSN . 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." . Editwarring and at the same time complaining on admins talkside does not make the user requesting enforcement case stronger Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

Re: Nableezy

Request concerning Jdorney

User requesting enforcement

--Domer48_'fenian' 14:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Knowledge (XXG):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.

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 15:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Request concerning Irvine22

Discussion regarding this request

Result regarding this request

Betacommand

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

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

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:
Knowledge (XXG):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. I see no proof other than your word that your anything more than a 13 year old child Name calling is not civil.
2. "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. "please stop being so condescending" is not civil.
4. "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. 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. An injunction to "stop being so aggressive." Not civil.
7. 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. 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 and his mentor, User:MBisanz comes back suggesting and indef block.

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. Warning by IP69.226.103.13 (talk · contribs)
2. 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:
Also his mentors.

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)

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. 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. 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)

Fair enough - just checking, so as to make sure we're in the right venue. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• This appears to be spillover from a situation at WP:ANI. Arbs would be well advised to read both the talk page history of User talk:IP69.226.103.13 and the thread title "Wikihounding by User:IP69.226.103.13" at WP:ANI. This is a very heated situation on both sides, and I am not unconvinced of the vexatious nature of this request. The best action here may be no action at all. Both sides in this dispute need some time to cool off a bit, and it would be wise to not throw gasoline on this fire. --Jayron32 16:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that if I had posted this request for enforcement the first time Betacommand had called me a "13 year old child" it would have been much better for the community. IMO Betacommand, after two arbcoms and dozens of AN/I should be on a 0 tolerance policy. Instead, his name calling is justified by his mentors.
  • Do nothing now, and it will just keep going. That's one constant with Betacommand: he will never stop. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Admittedly doing nothing if there is a problem would be wrong, but I echo Jayron's concerns that this is a dispute that is now a few days old and that there has been no pause for breath in pursuing it. I suggest that it be examined as normal, but I'm not sure you're going to get what you want here. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Of course I won't get I want, which is for Betacommand to stop stalking me and provoking me, because when he goes after someone the community at first simply supports it. There's always a good reason to allow Betacommand to act incivil, sure, it's pretty mild stalking me, calling me a 13-year-old, as you're not the target, and it would make things easier at bots not to have to listen to me. There's always an excuse for his behavior, and always plenty of people to bring up the excuses.
      • But, the fact is, I did get community input on the bot, when no one at bots could, because I simply asked for it, and I asked for it away from bots, which is an extraordinarily incivil place. It's incivil because you don't rate incivility the same as others, because you treat outsiders like dirt at bots for giving input. Getting rid of me at bots won't really be what you want-it will be once more effectively using incivility to kill off community input at bots.
      • Having Betacommand live up the letter of his sanctions, on the other hand, would give the wikipedia community something that everyone here deserves: the last of the Betacommand drama. You're not his victim. It's nice that it's not so bad for you. Did you even look at his editing record for the past few days? It's all about me. Yes, you're not his victim. Just one of his many defenders. Of course it can wait for you. Of course it's not that bad. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Reading Hersfold's comments below and glancing again at the diffs, I have to say that I agree that this request is frivolous. I generally think that IP needs to work harder at interacting amiably in a collaborative environment, and realise that when lots of people are telling him the same thing, then that doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong. This certainly doesn't seem to be characteristic of the behaviour for which Beta has so rightly been condemned in the past - what possible words there are that can be called incivility are extremely mild and I don't think any action against him at this time would be productive. YMMV. For disclosure, I was part of a lengthy bots-related discussion with this user over the past few days. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • No, it's not frivolous. It would be frivolous if it were someone who was not under parole of his community sanctions. But that's not the case. I got indef blocked at his request. If my cause were frivolous, then how did that happen? It's not frivolous enough for Betacommand and his mentor, MBisanz. So, why it so frivolous for the victim in this? Betacommand's free to attack me is not frivolity. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid the idea of whether this is frivolous or not is subjective - I think it is, you think it isn't. This is called a difference of opinion and, unlike you, who has subsequently left an unfounded insinuation on my talkpage that I am another supporter of Beta who will defend him to the last, I am quite happy to have a difference of opinion: it isn't because I bear you ill. I just don't agree that you are sufficiently objective to see these comments for what they are. I interpret them as Hersfold does - they are not especially interesting, nor should you be as bothered by them as you are. That this has spread to so many venues, and that you tar all who disagree with you with some "establishment" brush suggests to me that you're letting some petty rubbish get in the way. I know you won't agree, but maybe you should just step back, take a breather and ask yourself if all this fuss is worth it. There are real problems, and real problematic comments by editors on Knowledge (XXG): this ain't one of them Fritzpoll (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I think if it was clear I shouldn't be bothered, Betacommand would not have so quickly posted at AN/I suggesting something be done about me, followed by MBisanz suggesting an indef block against me, followed by an indef block against me. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
        • ...followed by an almost immediate unblock of you. The trigger-happiness of an admin who is neither Betacommand nor MBisanz is not their fault. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

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. 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. 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. "Please stop being so condescending" is not incivil, particularly considering the pointed comment made just prior.
4. Calling this incivil is patently ridiculous, particularly since Betacommand was offering to help in this case.
5. 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. 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 16:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 17:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

• As a preliminary comment, I can find no fault in Betacommand's actions, and so would label this request not actionable. AGK 18:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

 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)

Request concerning 212.85.230.26

User requesting enforcement

--Domer48_'fenian' 14:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Knowledge (XXG):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.

Left open for discussion.

Blocked 24 hours. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek block review

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 Knowledge (XXG):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)

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)

I'm a new administrator, and I'm not uninvolved, 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 /_Stalk 19:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 . Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. , 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: . I won't comment on it because I think it's pretty self explanatory. Loosmark (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Jacurek asked me to comment. This is the first time I've seen the particular issue. I've read the exchanges on the talk pages, which were a travesty of repeated i didn't hear that and the same assertions repeated time after time -- on all sides. I consider the two parties equally at fault in this aspect of things. The specific block seems to have been where Jacurek doubted Varsovian's claimed identity, and attempted to disprove it by an absurd exchange over local knowledge of Warsaw bus routes. This was not an attempt to out--which would properly be taken very seriously indeed, though it may have been seen as one--V had declared his identity as the author of one of the works involved. J. should not have started that exchange, but it does seem that V. had some role in continuing it. It was appropriate to block for this, but the block has served its purpose. if the quarreling resumes it can be reinstated, but some consideration should then be given to blocking both sides equally. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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 or , 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 and have already pointed out to Loosmark that I’ve done that .
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 ), 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 . 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 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)

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: . 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: , , , , , ,
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) ].

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 . 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 : 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)

• I've been asked per e-mail to take a look at this case. Sorry, I won't take the time to do so, because I am quite put off by this entire Eastern European "who was more evil in World War II" nonsense and its associated cast of characters on Knowledge (XXG). But (to be taken with a grain of salt, as I've not looked into this at all, and the exact reasons for the sanction or on what policy grounds it is contested are not very clear from the above), I generally assume that administrators issuing sanctions know what they are doing, and enjoy wide discretion in choosing what they believe to be the correct sanction; and nothing in the above discussion indicates a manifest and egregious error in judgment on the part of the sanctioning admin that would require overturning his sanction. Should editors with whom Jacurek was in conflict also need to be sanctioned, WP:AE remains available.  Sandstein  18:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Ugh. This is a mess all the way around. The dispute wasn't great, but it was handled very poorly by Future perfect. And now we have others weighing in about dead kitties and Sandstein suggesting that admin actions are defacto correct. As many uninvolved editors and admins have noted (how many does it take?), this block is unwarranted and unhelpful. It should have been undone a while ago. The ongoing disruption is now the responsibility of Future Perfect and those who stand by his refusal to engage in common sense mediation and restraint instead of punitive club wielding. Let's put a stop to barbarianism on Knowledge (XXG). It starts with those holding the clubs. Unblock A.S.A.P. so we can all move on to more useful and constructive efforts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Appeal declined. The past history of Jacurek belies his promises to reform. This block is preventative. It reduces the amount of nationalist edit warring possible. I am completely discounting the opinions stated here by the involved parties and usual partisans. Jehochman 13:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Request concerning Stuart

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)

User requesting enforcement

--Domer48_'fenian' 17:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Knowledge (XXG):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 with there political overtones, the fact remains Stuart did go over the 1RR restriction.

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.

• Edit 1 was an attempt at a compromise, to try and stop the edit war between the three of them. Not a simple revert. The infobox does not necessarily need a foundation date. It's not a straightforward issue, and is better left to the lead and main body of the article. I explained this on the talk page, so I'm not sure why Domer is saying I didn't.
• Edit 2 was to remove an eleven month old refimprove tag. That really is a no brainer. The section is well referenced to my reading. Not a simple revert.
• Edit 3 was a clear attempt at a compromise, again to find some common ground and stop the opposing sides edit warring. I was trying to find a wording suitable to all. Not a simple revert.

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 22:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 15:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We can't punish an editor who seeks compromises. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Revert #1 a straight forward revert of me here
• Revert #2 a straight forward revert of Moortwain here
• Par Revert #3 a par revert of Dunc here.

I hope that helps the editors above. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Try reading these:

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

Three reverts, simple as! --Domer48_'fenian' 20:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Are those the right diffs? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Knowledge (XXG) 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)

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)

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

Request concerning Mr Unsigned Anon

Discussion concerning Mr Unsigned Anon

Statement by Mr Unsigned Anon

Comments by other editors

Comment by Stellarkid

Additional Comment by Jiujitsuguy

Result concerning Mr Unsigned Anon

Unible

Request concerning Unible

Discussion concerning Unible

Statement by Unible

Comments by other editors

Result concerning Unible

Request concerning Superfopp

Discussion regarding this request

Result regarding this request

Request concerning 92.26.232.39

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

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

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Knowledge (XXG):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?

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

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

Irvine22

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

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

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Knowledge (XXG):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. First revert
2. Second revert, within 24 hours of the first thus a breach of 1RR

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Diff

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

David Tombe

Request concerning David Tombe

Discussion concerning David Tombe

Statement by David Tombe

Comments by other editors

Result concerning David Tombe

User:HistoricWarrior007 appeal of topic ban

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

Discussion concerning appeal

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

Statement by HistoricWarrior007

Response to Biophys

Response to Future Perfect at Sunrise

Response to Looie496

Comment by Biophys

Comment by uninvolved Looie496

Comments by other editors

Result concerning appeal of topic ban