Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive93

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352

Shatter Resistance

Request concerning Shatter Resistance

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: --Domer48_'fenian' 21:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

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

Revert 1
Revert 2
Revert 3
Revert 4 Despite the notifications and requeste

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

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

To be determined.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Shatter Resistance despite being made aware of the 1RR, and having been asked to self revert, a number of times [1][2] by both myself and another editor who also asked a number of times [3][4] they have prevaricated both on their talk page, and on the Article Talk page. They then point blank refused to self revert. Despite all this the editor then makes a fourth revert.

Editor has now indicated that they will continue to revert regardless.--Domer48_'fenian' 21:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the Article they have stated "I don't care how many reverts we are meant to have I am trying to establish a discussion" and are actively looking to have the article locked. On their version of course!--Domer48_'fenian' 21:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On their talk page they have stated "I don't won't to keep on reverting but I will in order to maintain the status quo."--Domer48_'fenian' 22:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Shatter Resistance

Comments by Shatter Resistance

Firstly, I'm not entirely sure how this works so please correct me if I am writing in the wrong places Secondly, the first revert mentioned here as being vandalism is definetly not so as it was my first revert, which I am entitled to under IRR, there was confusion about that earlier. Thirdly, I have no indicated I will revert regardless I have indicated that I will revert any edits which again change the article from its old format, a decision which you will find other users accepting if you look on my talk page and the article in question. I wanted a discussion about the changes, I provided evidence (the only person to do so) yet apparently nobody wishes to have one. Shatter Resistance (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how wanting to get the article locked (by which I did mean protected, sorry) is in any way wrong. Assuming Wikipedia actually listens to sense then if the article was protected that would mean I was correct and if it wasn't then it would mean I wasn't. Getting the article protected would actually stop me making reverts and would instead mean a discsussion could take place, something I have a strong record of advocating instead of just making unilateral changes. This is the first time that I have ever had other users attempt to stop a discussion - or to put it more accuratly not to revert and discuss which has so far always led to a compromise both sides have been happy with. At one point there seemed to be an agreement to discuss and actually I'm only here because I reverted so that process could continue. Shatter Resistance (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do understant 3RR, it was only after you said that it was fine to revert disruptive edits whatever that I reverted for the 4th time (which under your logic wasn't a breach of 3RR). I admit to breaking 1RR however, I didn't know about it, though as seems to have been accepted by other users that was a mistake and everybody seemed fine just to let me off the hook on that one considering my reverts took place before I read their warnings. Shatter Resistance (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I haven't been a member before, but well I have no way of proving that so you will just have to decide to trust me or not on that (not that I think it should actually make any real difference), unless there is a way of finding out in which case go for it, I have nothing to hide.

I'd also like to point out that the article in which I am accussed of making me violations on is the Irish general election, 1918 which was not in the troubles, so actually 1RR does not apply to it, it concerns me that apparently experienced editors have made this simple mistake. This means that I have only possibly made one violation, the revert of which in question I actually justified under the reasoning of the editors who have reported me here, who claimed under certain circumstances reverts were allowed to continue, again possible I was too trusting of what seemed to be their experience. As far as I can see, I haven't actually possible performed more than one violation and if that is justification then at least one of the other editors involved in this dispute (namely: Scolaire) should be blocked too for providing me with my argument to preform the 'violation' and for actually provoking me to do it by delibretly stating they were going to ignore the fact we had all stopping 'edit warring' and were trying to talk. Shatter Resistance (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly worried that User:Domer48 who applied for this application, may not consider discussion to be an important element of Wikipedia having seen the level of maturity used moments ago in reaction to what is actually begining to become quite an effect discussion with merely the line LMAO, ;), which seem to me that possibly this user isn't really very serious. Shatter Resistance (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just discovered that part way through the discussion on the Irish general election, 1918 article Domer48 added the Troubles template to this article, depsire the fact the troubles is well establised as having taken place after WWII, Wikipedia's own page cites 1968, 50 years after the 1918 election. You can see here the page as it was part way through the discussion without the template and then the next comment by Domer48 here in which it has been added. I see no evidence that this article is part of the troubles and that instead it has been placed there in order to enforce Domer48's inaccurate claim it was subject to 1RR. I am going to remove the template from the page until proper evidence has been provided. Shatter Resistance (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others on the request concerning Shatter Resistance

Shatter Resistance has also stated that I don't won't to keep on reverting but I will... and also that they intend get the page locked also stating "I will have the page locked to prevent further changes" Mo ainm~Talk 21:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the impression that Shatter Resistance genuinely misunderstands WP policies, in particular 3RR and BRD, as evidenced by the edit summary here. Unless he previously edited under another username, he has only been a user for six weeks. However, he was given very explicit advice here, here and here, and chose to ignore it, so he has no complaint if he is sanctioned as a result. Scolaire (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Shatter Resistance

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

I recommend that User:Shatter Resistance be blocked for three days for the 1RR violation and warned of the possibility of Troubles probation per the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Probation for disruptive editors. If probation is eventually imposed, it puts the editor under a 1RR/week limit on all Troubles articles. Shatter Resistance created their account on 19 May but due to their sophistication they must have been on Wikipedia before. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slow to assume that Shatter Resistance is a returned editor, and if he is not, EdJohnston's proposal strikes me as unduly harsh. I think we can simply explain what is and what is not a revert, and that one revert per 24 hours is allowed in the topic area. You are not entitled to a new revert just because you are reverting an entirely different part of the article. So, unless there's some proof to Ed Johnston's last sentence, I'm in favour of closing with a stern warning and no use of the block button. Courcelles