Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive98

Dinner for three

Username blocked; also topic banned for six months. T. Canens (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Dinner for three User who is submitting this request for enforcement Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Dinner for three (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBMAC, discretionary sanctions Dinner for three (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account created with the sole aim of hounding an ideological opponent, Lunch for Two (talk · contribs) (whose name he evidently apes) [1]. He was earlier editing as 213.226.17.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Dinner for three has been permanently engaged in edit-warring across multiple articles ever since. He routinely resorts to revert-warring just below 3RR as his first and only response to a conflict. He never initiates discussion on talk pages, but likes to tell others to do so in his edit summaries while reverting. He persistently calls his opponent a vandal at every opportunity. Most recent edit-wars: On Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect 17 Sept, 11:53 17 Sept, 12:17 17 Sept, 13:07 18 Sept, 18:34 On Bulgarians 14 September, 15:53 14 September, 20:28 15 September, 12:15 On Lofoi (and parallel edit-wars on about a dozen similar village articles [2][3]) 11 September 12 September 13 September Calling his opponent a vandal [4][5][6][7] Unconstructive edit summary: [8] ("Edit war is not nice, use the talk instead.") – However, Dinner never posted on the talkpage himself. Similarly here: [9] (demands: "Discuss before removing", but never touches the talk page himself.) Warnings 13 September, 17 September Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [10] Discussion concerning Dinner for three Statement by Dinner for three I know that Future wants to get me banned, but I have nothing against Lunch for Two and neither I was edit-warring against Future's warnings (except in Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect and I will explain for what below). I probably mistaked with this username, but if Lunch for Two feels offended I will change my name and apologize to him. I haven't spotted him offended but I have to admit that I don't know what he thinks. "Rv vandal and Undo vandal" which I used could sometimes mean "Reverting vandalism" but I will use the "." since now, to looks as "Rv vandal.". I also don't think that this was continuosly WP:GAME, I created my username on that way and that was all. Future claims "Dinner for three has been permanently engaged in edit-warring across multiple articles ever since", but after he warned me to stop edit-warring at the Greek villages here I haven't touched them. After the warning I limited myself and edited only Bulgarians, Talk:Bulgarians, Talk:Macedonian language and Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect, but his second and final warning came and the reason was because I reverted his deletion at Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect - I reverted because he deleted entire extra-sourced table with the features of the dilect, his justification was that the section has WP:SYNTH, the questonable SYNTH was only in the intro and in the camparising with two Bulgarian dialects, instead to delete only what he claims as SYNTH, he deleted the entire paragraph with all the well-sourced feutares and that was probably because they doesn't support him at Talk:Macedonian language. I am not going to edit war in this page anymore, but such deletion of information, even with third-party sources, should not happen and an admin should check the history of this page. A day-two after I wrote a user's message that I would support him here at AE, and as a result I found me reported with such messege "Since you were heading to WP:AE anyway, please see the report on yourself there". I really think that is not honest to be reported as a result of support of a user at AE or edit-war after one warning and it was even reverting Future's deletion, and I have even listening to him when he has posting me the warnings, seriously. As for his statement – "However, Dinner never posted on the talkpage himself. Similarly here: [11]" he deleted the referenced table added in 2008, he cleraly should discuss before removing it. --Dinner for three (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Dinner for three Most of these clashes/disputes could have been avoided if Wikipedia adopted generic tags for the languages of the Slavic speakers in northern Greece (as I have suggested on the talk page at Macedonian languages) instead of allowing the continuation of the creeping irredentist POV of the "Republic of Macedonia" that Fut Perf, thus far, has strongly supported. There will likely be many more edit wars and disputes by editors interested in Balkan topics as a result. All of these disputes are unnecessary. If giving any Slavic language a name to a regional or national group of speakers in Greece is difficult or impossible all you need to do is bag it and tag it as Slavic speakers of Macedonia (Greece) or Slavic speakers of northern Greece. I promise you that Bulgarians, Greeks, and Serbians will have no reasonable reason to object. Doing anything else is WP:OR because Wikipedia articles package "Macedonian ethnicity" with "Macedonian language" and there has not yet been a formal decision on the final name for the "Republic of Macedonia". It just won't stick. I know that this is unsatisfactory to linguists. I know that "Macedonians" will continue to attempt to place their irredentist POV on articles but three out of four of the involved Balkan nations will be happy. The alternative will be to place up to three Slavic names (all of which will look almost identical) on every article with a dispute and to put up with edit wars as they shuffle for position.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 01:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC) support forcing name change This type of WP:GAME of WP:USERNAME should be dealt with, it is obviously disruptive in intent, even if in its face it is not a violation. Otherwise, no opinion for now.--Cerejota (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Comment by Volunteer Marek Both of these accounts are very recent. I'm guessing that what happened here is that one (trouble) user got up to using a new account, then another (trouble) user realized that that was what was going on and created a new account as a comment on the previous new account. Just freaking ban'em both. They (both of them) think they're being funny but they're just being dumb and immature and embarrassing whatever POV it is they're trying to push. It's people having some fun at your (Wikipedia and specifically WP:AE) expense and you're all treating it as some kind of serious stuff. There's folks chuckling over this somewhere. Volunteer Marek  02:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Uhm, no, that doesn't quite describe the situation. "Lunch" is certainly a good-faith contributor. True, he's a reincarnation (most people who knew his earlier account seem to be now in agreement about that), but the old account left in good standing; no block log, no Arbmac sanctions. Sure, he too is opinionated and he too has been reverting quite a bit, but he's certainly a good-faith editor, fairly knowledgeable, behaves rationally in discussion, and on the whole reasonably productive. The problem is "Dinner". Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Well, it seems you've got topic area specific information here, so if you're going to vouch for Mr. Lunch then I'll take your word for it. But yeah, agree with the proposed ban (not least for the name violation) on Mr. Dinner. Volunteer Marek  01:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Dinner for three This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. What's next, Breakfast for one? T. Canens (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Actually, we already were at "Tea at four" and "Afternoon Tea for seven" here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC) I want a midnight snack for a dozen, myself. Always fun after being out at an evening event. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC) On a more serious note, I think there are two issue here. First, a username block is necessary unless the username is changed, since the current username is evidently created to harass Lunch for Two. Second, a topic ban is also in order both for the battleground behavior in creating the account and in the edits. T. Canens (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Agree with the username block; agree with topic ban. Would support sitewide block if behavior continues. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Closing: Under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, Dinner for three (talk · contribs) is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Balkans, broadly construed across all namespaces, for six months. This topic ban is to run consecutively to the username block that I will apply in a moment (i.e., the six-month clock will start to run when the account is renamed). T. Canens (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Modinyr

Blocked 72 hours for 1RR violation, and formally warned of ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Modinyr User who is submitting this request for enforcement Zerotalk 00:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Modinyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 00:17, 19 Sep First revert 22:41, 19 Sep Second revert Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Warned on Sep 15 by Zero0000 (talk · contribs) after previous 1RR violation Belligerent response [12] Additional comments by editor filing complaint I sympathize with admins who are tired of seeing AE requests in this area, however I believe this is the first I ever submitted. Modinyr repeatedly removes well sourced and accurate text from this article without explanation. Talk page contribution is just empty disruptive noise, not a single source actually discussed on its contents. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [13] Discussion concerning Modinyr Statement by Modinyr Comments by others about the request concerning Modinyr He does not appear to have been notified of the AE sanctions, save for some vague threat about 1rr on his talk page from the filing editor himself. Note also he is a newbie, his entire WP history consists of 150 edits.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Modinyr This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Blocked 72 hours for the 1RR violation. T. Canens (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Soosim

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

Request concerning Soosim

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

nableezy - 14:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC) 14:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 13:53, 20 September 2011 Reverting without discussing making a false claim of consensus
2. 13:58, 16 September 2011 Blanket revert without discussion
3. 13:27, 16 September 2011 Removal of reliable source and content with a false claim of unreliability, see explanation below
4. 13:27, 16 September 2011 False edit summary, claims to be removing unreliable source but is only adding unsourced content and making POV edits (AI claims to do such and such)

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

The user has not been formally notified of the case, however he or she has participated in past AE threads so is aware. See [14], [15], [16]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor removed the word occupied from the article Ariel University Center of Samaria on 15 September then again on 16 September (just outside of a 1RR violation). A talk page section was opened about this issue on the 15th. Since that time, no editor has made any comment supporting the removal of the term (the talk page section at the time of this request looked is here). Soosim disregards the talk page section and once again reverts the inclusion of that word, falsely claiming a consensus for his or her edit.

Another example of the user reverting without discussion is at International law and Israeli settlements. The edit listed above is a blanket revert (as seen in this diff). The edit in question is the subject of much discussion on the talk page, yet the editor has made no effort to participate and instead has chosen to revert without so much as a comment in the edit summary.

At Amnesty International, the editor removed this source and the material it was supporting, claiming that a peer reviewed article published in an academic journal is an unreliable source. This type of disingenuous editing, where top quality sources are removed at the same time that unsourced commentary is added, and done solely because of political motivations, is not acceptable.

At the very least, the editor should be notified of the case and informed that repeatedly reverting without comment is not an acceptable editing practice.

Soosim, nobody commented about the issue on the talk page except for me. Epeefleche commented on whether or not there should be a citation in the lead, he did not however justify his edit, or yours, removing the term from the sentence. Nobody did. To claim there is a consensus when nobody has made any comment, much less provided an actual reason, in support of said consensus is a misunderstanding, to put it mildly, of what consensus is. I am not looking for you to be banned, but I would like you to be notified of the case and for somebody to remind you that repeatedly reverting without discussion is unacceptable editing practice. nableezy - 16:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Soosim

Statement by Soosim

nableezy - i am a bit surprised at the speed with which this took place. at 14:31 you responded to my comment on the ariel u talk page. you had said on own talk page that you wanted me to revert or you would report me to this AE board. and yet, at 14:33, you already have an entire report posted about all of the edits, and links, previous AE comments of mine, etc. very impressive.

anyway, as i said on the ariel u talk page, the consensus seemed to be that we would include the west bank in the lead, but not mention 'occupied' nor the 'israeli military occupation', etc. and even though i felt strongly that the entire issue of the boycott should not be in the lead, i did agree to it, and even edited it in. and there were others who commented as well, but you kept complaining that editors were 'completely ignoring the issue' (this came up several times).

in addition, you also said that no one commented on the talk page discussion for five days, and yet, about 18 hours earlier that your comment, Epeefleche had commented (and other editors a few days before that, etc.).

i appreciate you bringing up my past AE comments - i hope that they show that despite my strong tendencies to edit carefully, i do try to be fair to all (and not only to those who agree with me). from your note above: [17], [18], [19]

the blanket revert you mention above - i did not challenge you on it. it was clearly a mistake and in fact, you can look at my 4 years of editing, i rarely do it (won't say 'never', but it is rare - and certainly for anything controversial)

and lastly, on the amnesty intl page - you can clearly see that it was some sort of malfunction on the computer. that is, i did indeed remove the academic info since the source quoted was actually quoting some other source, and hence, becomes tainted. as for the subsequent edit, i did not mean to do that, and thank you for pointing it out. i would never change 'international' to 'western', etc. puh-leeze. i seem to recall that i was reverting someone's vandalism of the page at the time.

if there is any other info you need, please ask me directly - i am always happy to comment and to cooperate (as my record shows - even when involved in potentially warring situations). Soosim (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Soosim

This is a brightline violation of 1RR. At the very least notification, probably a topic ban on article space of a month (not including talk pages) to promote BRD.--Cerejota (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

where was there a violation of 1RR? (there were two separate edits - the second of which actually included the contested info, and in any case, they were about 32 hours apart (not 'just outside of a 1RR violation' as nableezy said above -- also, the rule is 24 hours for a reason!) Soosim (talk)

Result concerning Soosim

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

Cleaghyre

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Cleaghyre User who is submitting this request for enforcement Skäpperöd (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Cleaghyre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it C.'s contribs list reveals that this is a SPA whose obsessive edits resemble the POV-pushing of the Serafin sockfarm at the Dzierzon article. No matter whether this is a Serafin/EEML/whoever's sock or not, Kotniski should be instantly relieved from having to deal with this person. Apart from a warm welcome and thank-you-message by EEML leader Piotrus, user talk:Cleaghyre is full of warnings and sysop notices for POV-pushing and edit-warring. It is surprising that this has been allowed to take place for so long now, please block. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [20] Additional comments by editor filing complaint Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [21] Discussion concerning Cleaghyre Statement by Cleaghyre This is conspiracy Accusation: Skäpperöd (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Decision: Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Both people seems to Serafins's sic The historical/ scientific argument argument no important only: "No matter whether this is a Serafin/EEML/whoever's sock or not, Kotniski should be instantly relieved from having to deal with this person." THIS IS A TIME THAT THIS KIND OF CONSPIRATORS/EDITORS BE PUT OUT OF LINE. Comments by others about the request concerning Cleaghyre Result concerning Cleaghyre Indef-blocked as likely sock and battleground account. Should probably have been done earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC) This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Jonchapple

No action, due to assurance of improved behavior. The editor is advised to keep his name off this noticeboard as either the source or target of complaints for the next three months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Jonchapple User who is submitting this request for enforcement Domer48'fenian' 22:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Jonchapple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Per Result concerning Jonchapple Terms of probation and Enforcement Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 20:25, 16 September 2011 Using Edit summary for a personal attack, and disruptive editing. Editor was making some sort of tit for tat edit. Editor was responding to an edit I made here. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Warned on 19:34, 14 August 2011 by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs) Warned on 16:24, 14 August 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs) who made them aware of the Terms of probation Additional comments by editor filing complaint The edit summary was a clear and deliberate personal attack, and while childish in my opinion an attack all the same. The edit itself was just plain disruptive and in response to an edit I made on another article. The editor has been abusive on articles [22][23][24] and article talk pages and has been asked to stop by other editors, 13:14, 15 September 2011 and again 13:53, 15 September 2011. They want to create disruption,12:37, 15 September 2011. Anyone who knows the dispute over this flag will know this is disruptive. I have ignored the constant snide remarks by this group of editors, [25][26][27][28] who despite being challenged and asked to stop [29][30], this editor defends it [31] and the bad faith attacks continue [32]. While removing my notice is no problem having been advised by Ed not to delete enforcement notices they do exactly that and call it "pruning", hardly good faith editing.--Domer48'fenian' 22:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Claims of hounding are starting to wear thin and can in them self be considered a personal attack. So anyone who reverts you is hounding you? --Domer48'fenian' 22:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC) The editor has activly encouraged tit for tat which is also disruptive. Dispite this discussion, they have also engaged in making unsupported claims and accusations along side the editor who started this discussion. I've addressed this editors actions here with supporting diff's.--Domer48'fenian' 20:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [33] Discussion concerning Jonchapple I believe I made the "see also" edit that Jonchapple removed, after Domer48 removed a similar "see also" edit I had made at Volunteer (Irish republican). I've no doubt Domer48 made his reversion in good faith, as I have no doubt that Jonchapple did likewise, presumably in the interests of symmetry. I have no problem with either reversion. I suppose I just don't see the issue here that would merit this kind of report. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Statement by Jonchapple One, I'm not responsible for anyone else's edits but my own, so quite why you've cited a number of diffs by other editors is beyond me. Two, nothing you have pointed out is abusive or disruptive, and I've broken no terms of my probation. I was short (but not abusive) with the IP, because it's clearly a disruptive single-purpose sock, and most likely one of a banned user – like Vintagekits, who showed up again recently, still up to his old tricks. And yes, that edit summary addressed to you certainly was childish, but when one is being followed around Wikipedia by someone hell-bent on disrupting their editing purely because they don't share a similar ideology and they want them out the way, patience does tend to wear a bit thin. I have asked nicely on a number of occasions to please stop constantly stalking my edits; now kindly do so. JonCTalk 22:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC) No, as you'll notice, I renamed that section because I agreed with HighKing it was an inappropriate heading in Asarlaí's case. It is entirely appropriate in yours, as the diffs above demonstrate – or am I supposed to believe it's mere coincidence that you keep deciding to edit articles for the first time just after me? JonCTalk 22:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Ivor, it wasn't the edit itself, it's because I said "Dumbo". JonCTalk 23:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC) A three-month topic ban for saying "Dumbo48". Sheesh. On a related note, where would be the best place to take my hounding case? I assume it won't be looked at here. Thanks, JonCTalk 06:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC) One more thing – is this entirely appropriate? JonCTalk 07:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Ed, I appreciate your giving me a chance to redeem myself, so I'll try to do so it as best as I can here. As you know, Troubles-related articles can get pretty heated, and you need a cool head to be able to edit them neutrally and successfully. I let myself down on this particular occasion and let my emotions get the better of me, but if you look at my edit history, on countless other occasions I've contributed to Troubles and other Northern Ireland articles constructively and fairly. I've added Ulster-Scots place names – per WP:IMOS – to dozens of towns, counties and townlands that previously lacked them, and have been taking special care not to breach the terms of my probation elsewhere, as demonstrated most recently at the Unionism in Ireland article on which I self-reverted should I break 1RR (something for which I was thanked on my TP by SarekOfVulcan). I also recently created the Volunteer (Ulster loyalist) page more or less from scratch, something I'm proud of as it's my first real article. I feel that my topic banning from the area in question would be of detriment to the encyclopaedia – and I think the majority of editors working in the area in question would say the same. I know I need to not react impulsively in future, and it's something I'm working on. I can assure you this won't happen again if you'll reconsider, you have my word. If you won't, I'll accept that too – the "Dumbo" quip was completely out of line and not befitting any editor here. Best, JonCTalk 19:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Jonchapple Domer48 is simply trying to lump me in this simply because i've reported them at AN/I for disruptive behaviour, as well as having to open a Dispute Resolution case because of their failure to collaborate. Am i guilty for calling Domer48 a disruptive editor when he being disruptive? Yes. However it is qualified according to WP:Disruptive editing as he is preventing the improvement of Wikipedia with his failure to collaborate. Domer48 says unfounded accusations? I've provided the evidence for some of my allegations of his disruptive behaviour at AN/I along with evidence of where they are canvassing and making ad hominem comments in an attempt to undermine and discredit me in a hope a descision goes their way. If Domer48's examples are looked at, you'll see there is no smoke without fire. If diffs are required they can be provided, however there is no point as Domer48 is not the editor under the microscope here so there is no point in discussing his behaviour in detail - otherwise this whole post will constitute ad hominem rather than trying to defend myself. I don't see why Domer48 has dropped me in here seeing as i haven't fallen foul of any enforcement Troubles related or otherwise. Me being dragged into this is simply a case of WP:BOOMERANG on Domer48's behalf in my opinion. Mabuska (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Jonchapple This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Regardless of whether Jonchapple believes he are being stalked, the edit was clearly intended to be retaliatory in nature. I am not impressed with the justification, or rather attempted justification, of the edit; nor am I seeing where this violates the terms of the probation. The action was a violation of CIVIL; it was a disruptive edit, but I am afraid I don't see where this is the correct venue for this. Perhaps I am missing something. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Adding: I see upon a second look that the [terms] of the probation do allow for sanctions for civility violations, allowing for brief banning from the article(s). Given this, I suggest a 3-month ban from the articles covered. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC) The probation is worded to give some expectation of good behavior for those editing the Troubles articles. ("Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility"). I see this edit as Jonchapple making a personal attack on Domer48 while editing a Troubles article: "Seeing as Dumbo48 won't play nice, let's remove the republican links from this article". This refers to Domer48 as 'Dumbo48'. Since Jonchapple seems to be trying to see how uncooperative he can be while just barely staying within the limits, I think it is fair to issue a three-month ban from Troubles articles as recommended by KC. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC) TROUBLES is a 2007 arbcom decision, when the terminology wasn't as consistent. I suspect that the "briefly banned" part refers to a site ban (i.e., block) rather than a topic ban, especially given enforcement #1, and the fact that topic bans as a remedy for civility parole violations isn't exactly common. T. Canens (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC) WP:Probation includes this sentence: "The user on probation may be banned from pages that they edit in a certain way (usually disruptively) by an uninvolved administrator." This may not be a common outcome for Troubles violations, but we are trying to interpret the Troubles decision in the light of current practices. A Troubles ban would be less drastic than a complete block from editing. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Concur; however I would not strongly object to a site ban if consensus supports that, although I prefer the lesser sanction when possible. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC) I guess you are right. At the time of the decision WP:Probation reads like this, so it seems clear that a page ban is allowed - but apparently only the pages they have edited disruptively, and no ban from talk pages. So I doubt that the modern sanction of topic ban can be imposed under it. This gives me a headache. My personal preference would be for the committee to modernize this archaic remedy; barring that, I suppose I can live with an expansive reading of it that incorporates "current practices". T. Canens (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC) As a strictly procedural note, the committee would not generally look askance at applying more contemporary standards of enforcement to an older decision over concerns of wording. We've been trying hard to become more consistent in our wording of such remedies to avoid exactly that problem. — Coren (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC) On that note, shall we then implement a 3-month topic ban? (thanks much Coren, for adding your comment here regarding this issue.) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Why can't the Committee do a full revamp of their old remedies by motion? It would clear things up considerably for everyone involved if the remedies are clearly and consistently written. I'm not sure I like the idea of arbitration remedies "shifting" in light of contemporary standards when they did not incorporate them (like the "any expected standard of behavior" in discretionary sanctions). At least with a formal motion the parties will have ample notice. My concern is similar to that expressed in Risker's oppose to the "standard" discretionary sanctions page here, except that here there is not even a physical page to be changed as the "contemporary standards of enforcement" change. Assuming arguendo a topic ban is authorized, I concur that a three-month topic ban would be appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC) I'm not arguing against a clarification request – I'm just saying it probably isn't necessary for reasonable reinterpretation of an ancient open-ended remedy in a way that makes it more consistent with the current formulation (much for the same reason I was, unlike Risker, in favor of referencing a standardized remedy). I suppose it just makes little sense to me that various case remedies would have divergent application when that wasn't by design. It makes it harder for you guys to enforce, harder for the editors to follow and abide by, and confusing when there is a reasonable dispute about their applicability. Just to make things clear here, I'm giving my opinion as an Arb, but I'm obviously not speaking for the committee as a whole. — Coren (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC) I'm planning to close this in the next few hours with a 3-month topic ban of User:Jonchapple from the Troubles articles, unless there are any final comments, or another admin closes it first. Coren states above that the various case remedies were not divergent by design. This might increase our confidence that if a ban were enacted here and then appealed all the way to Arbcom, it might still be upheld. (Of course we won't know for sure unless or until the full Committee makes a ruling). My view is that that the misbehavior shown in this AE complaint is on the border of WP:Disruptive editing, and we are in the area where a long conventional block would be on the table. A topic ban of User:Jonchapple from the Troubles articles would stop the problem for now, and it is less drastic than a block or a complete ban from editing Wikipedia. If Jonchapple wanted to give some assurances of better behavior, this ban might be reconsidered. That seems unlikely. Up till now he's been extremely firm about the correctness of all his actions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC) In response to my last comment Jonchapple made a concession. This might be enough reason to modify the proposed result. I'll wait to see if any admins modify their recommendations. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Closing: Based on Jonchapple's promise of improved behavior I'm closing this with no action. However any new appearances of Jonchapple here at AE in the next three months, as either the source or the target of complaints, could cause the issue to be revisited. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska

No action
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Mabuska User who is submitting this request for enforcement Domer48'fenian' 09:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Mabuska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced 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. Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 21:59, 21 September 2011 1st Revert 23:47, 21 September 2011 2nd Revert. 23:53, 21 September 2011 Additional Revert. 00:06, 22 September 2011 Additional Revert. 00:08, 22 September 2011 Additional Revert, and section blanking. 10:22, 22 September 2011 Third revert, despite this report. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Aware of 1RR Notice placed on Article talk 18:42, 20 September 2011 by uninvolved editor. aware of sanctions having posted on this Notice board Editor has indicated in this discussion that "1.Yes i am aware of 1RR" Additional comments by editor filing complaint They are also continually changing their arguements in context and substance in responce to replys they can't counter, [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] which distorts talk page discussions. Their most recent being in this discussion were it was finally commented upon. However on this occasion the level of personal attacks reached a new low for this editor with accusations of deception later using this slur as a section heading. However my response is completely out of context when it is later removed despite this response. This type of conduct is accross a number article talk pages which are being undermined because of this battleground mentality, [43][44][45][46][47][48]. They have also be doing a far bit of forum shopping with discussions started here providing no diff's to support claims, and here as noted above, and also here which is all related to the above, and an attempt to create drama. The editor has been editing in clearly disruptive manner. This includes personal attacks on editors,[49][50] [[51][52] [53] and dispite both myself [54] and other editors asking them to stop [55][56] and [57][58][59] it has continued with more examples if required. Dispite this report, the editor makes more unsupported accusations. --Domer48'fenian' 10:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)This accusation has prompted this responce dispite the fact that this editor has only just been placed on Troubles probation for three months. --Domer48'fenian' 11:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Reply to SarekOfVulcan: This edit is clearly the Third Revert and done so, despite this report, and based on the premiss that its ok because I told someone I was doing it Reply to Cailil: I too agree with Sarek, however as Sarek illustrates two clear reverts, that is a clear and unambiguous violation under the Troubles Arbitration and not as you suggest, edits that 'might technically be on thin ice.' As to Mambuska's frivolous WP:DRN report, it will go the same way as their equally frivolous and baseless ANI report which not one admin would even bother to touch. As to the JonChapple AE report which is about to be closed, KillerChihuahua was 'not impressed with the justification, or rather attempted justification,' and that the editor comments were 'a violation of WP:CIVIL and 'disruptive.' The editor is in fact already on probation and is being reported here again because they violated the Terms of that probation. How Cailil, that 'my history' has anything to do with these editors conduct/actions or the reports I've made is beyond me. Are you suggesting that I made them do it? That a no time have you mentioned the incivility that I have experienced from these two editors which you say 'is sanctionable under WP:TROUBLES itself', is quite bizarre. Despite the fact that I have not violated any of the terms outlined under the Troubles arbitration, despite 'my history' that the very fact that I should report editors who do is being construed in a way that is questionable. Any editor can file a request here and here for a variety of reasons, some good and some bad, but to file one here is not to be taken lightly. Should I take from your comments that because of 'my history', no matter how distant, or that I have not appeared here myself in such a long time, that I should not file a report. If I do edit hear under a different standard to everyone else, please let me know. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 16:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC) This report is more than just a 1rr violation. If Cailil wants a clear example of tit for tat editing here is one and encouraged here and then acted upon. This was clearly intended to be retaliatory according to KillerChihuahua. The sepcific parts of the 'The Troubles' RfAr findings that I am referring two are principles 4 & 5 ('Harassment' and 'Tit for Tat'). This report 12:17, 19 September was in my opinion 'Harassment' as it was conducted by two editors and was filed in conjunction with this report filed at 16:57, 19 September both on the same day. It states clearly on WP:DRN that This is not the place to discuss disputes that are already under discussions in other forums.. Nothing has been provided here or anywhere else to suggest that I was engaged in any form of tit for tat, let alone harassment, and as illustrated with the Disruptive behaviour report at ANI, it was completely dismissed by Admin's. Thanks,--Domer48'fenian' 11:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [60] Discussion concerning Mabuska Statement by Mabuska [61] I removed information that wasn't relevant to the article per WP:TOPIC as i explained in the edit summary. Domer48 reverted that so one revert to him as well. [62] This is a rewording of a sentence to match a source that Domer48 added to it. How is this a revert of the number 1? Its ensuring that statement matches the quote you provided from that source. [63] The changing of the title of the section to match the opening statement. How is this a revert of number 1 or 2? [64] I was editing the article to show how it should be according to WP:TOPIC and stated that i'd self-revert which i did as i was only going to link to it as an example at the Dispute Resolution board before i realised it would be better to do a sandboxed version on my user talk namespace. Can you be guilty of breeching 1RR by reverting yourself? [65] And this is the revert of myself that i said i'd do. Can i be guilty by reverting myself? And what section blanking? The only way i can be considered guilty of breeching 1RR is in spirit because my second revert was my own edit made with the simple intention of using it as an example. On Domer48's other statements along with his ad hominem statements: Yes i am aware of 1RR. You have to go all the way back to 14 July 2010 to find my one and only notification to me of it, which for fact the editor says i'm guilty of in spirit but not of actually breeching. Yes an editor commented on my edit style where i make countless edits to my comments, but only to add clarification, condense information (as i can post very long-winder waffling comments) and fix spelling or grammer mistakes etc. and i only ever do it when my comment is the LAST comment in the discussion or if no-one has responded to it in a side-discussion going on inside the main discussion. What has this got to do with this? This is simply a grammatical change. Whats so wrong in that? Your accusation of a personal attack with use of a section header? What did a neutral editor on the issue say to you in that very same section right after your claim of a PA? "Dude. Chill. There were NO personal attacks in Mabuska's question. He asked you for your reference, and was correct to do so." Simple fact is Domer48 is seeking revenge for the fact i had to haul them before ANI for their disruptive beahaviour. A discussion where i think every editor involved has said something negative about Domer48 and his behaviour or user and talk page. The fact Doemr48 is constantly persuing making ad hominem statements about me is very uncivil and an act of character assassination because things aren't going their way at the AN/I or Dispute Resolution. The rest of Domer48's ad hominem statements are disassembled here, here, and the second last comment of my mine on this article talk page. If anyone appears to be doing shopping for backup it would be Domer48. WP:BOOMERANG comes to mind and i have reported this at your AN/I Domer48. What Domer48 is really after i believe is to get me banned from certain articles so that their opinion can't be debated against as they are having a hard time as it is trying to currently backup their opinion on the article he claims i'm guilty of breeching 1RR. Mabuska (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Update - Could Domer48 please stop adding new information to their origial request above, and add it in a new comment straight afterwards? If they are going to complain about me editing my comments after posting them (though i don't after someone replies to it unless its a spelling mistake or similar), they could at least please do the same? To respond to Domer48's latest allegation of breeching 1RR: 6.   [66] This edit, which i clearly linked to in the Dispute Resolution discussion. An edit i made due to an administrator raising a concern in brackets the end of their comment about the origins of the term "volunteer" itself. An edit i made that i clearly notified them of in that discussion. So adding clarity to my own edit where i reworded the sentence to match Domer48's source is a breach of 1RR? Also how is this edit a revert? The edit places the sentence into an "Irish" context, whereas the original wording before i rewrote the sentence was in an "Irish republican" context (from the fact the article goes on about Irish republicanism and then states in the next section "the term Volunteer in this context" - both are not in the same context and to suggest i was reverting it back to the original is absurd. I'd need to include "republican" in it for it to be a revert, or at the very least write it in a way that implies that its in that context as the original did. SarekofVulcan links to [67] which is on about this edit and what was originally there. If you read the lede and that start of that section in both versions what context do both versions give you? Definately not the same. Mabuska (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Response to Calill - "But on the whole, in this instance I'd prefer to ask both users to disengage and follow the result of outside input from WP:DRN" - i'm more than happy to abide by the result of the DRN or a RfC. That is why i opened the DRN once i was notified at AN/I to take it there - the AN/I was for Domer48's failure to discuss and provide evidence despite repeated asking. On the thin-ice. Looking back i do accept that i was naive and silly to make edits that are very close to crossing the line, especially when someone may be looking for an opportunity to do "tit-for'tat". My lesson is learnt in regards to that. Mabuska (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Reponse to Domer48's response to Calill - Domer48 you are within full right to report anyone who violates 1RR or other Enforcement policy - however you have to ensure that you follow common sense and impartiality when making the decision to report someone. What is the 1RR, even the 3RR, basically for? To prevent edit-warring between different editors. I only reverted one edit by another editor, yourself. To report me for later reverting my own edit, when the edit was done with good intentions and wasn't being disruptive i find breeches the spirit of what revert rules are suppossed to be about - are you really implying with this Enforcement report that i am edit-warring with, and being disruptive to, myself? If so i believe that that is a very strict interpretation of the revert rules that would seriously hinder good faith attempts at improving Wikipedia, even when only adding clarification to someone's own edits. Mabuska (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Mabuska Diffs 2 through 6 have no intervening edits, so the only diffs that should be considered are this (first one) and this (the rest). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Mabuska This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Agree with Sarek about Domer's evidenciary diffs, and in this instance although Mambuska's edits might technically be on thin ice (ie 1RR on WP:TROUBLES articles) I don't think this can be regarded as a violation. However, I think there is more than a hint of 'tit for tat' reporting here by Domer48 (due to Mambuska's WP:DRN report and comments above in the JonChapple AE report) and frankly with Domer48's history I'm inclined to frown on that form of retaliatory edit (which is sanctionable under WP:TROUBLES itself) more than on Mambuska's edits here. But on the whole, in this instance I'd prefer to ask both users to disengage and follow the result of outside input from WP:DRN (ie open an RFC for outside input)--Cailil talk 15:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)