Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive98

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually, we already were at "Tea at four" and "Afternoon Tea for seven" here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Agree with the username block; agree with topic ban. Would support sitewide block if behavior continues. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Zero^talk 00:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. 00:17, 19 Sep First revert
2. 22:41, 19 Sep Second revert

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

1. 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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Skäpperöd (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. 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)

1. [20]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [21]

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.

Indef-blocked as likely sock and battleground account. Should probably have been done earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Domer48_'fenian' 22:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. 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)

1. Warned on 19:34, 14 August 2011 by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs)
2. 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].

1. 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)[reply]
2. 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)[reply]
3. The editor has activly encouraged tit for tat which is also disruptive.
4. 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)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[33]

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)[reply]

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. JonC^Talk 22:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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? JonC^Talk 22:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivor, it wasn't the edit itself, it's because I said "Dumbo". JonC^Talk 23:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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, JonC^Talk 06:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing – is this entirely appropriate? JonC^Talk 07:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 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, JonC^Talk 19:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Domer48_'fenian' 09:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. 21:59, 21 September 2011 1st Revert
2. 23:47, 21 September 2011 2nd Revert.
3. 23:53, 21 September 2011 Additional Revert.
4. 00:06, 22 September 2011 Additional Revert.
5. 00:08, 22 September 2011 Additional Revert, and section blanking.
6. 10:22, 22 September 2011 Third revert, despite this report.

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

1. Aware of 1RR
2. Notice placed on Article talk 18:42, 20 September 2011 by uninvolved editor.
3. aware of sanctions having posted on this Notice board
4. 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.

1. 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]
2. 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
3. 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)[reply]
4. 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)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[60]

1. [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.
2. [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.
3. [63] The changing of the title of the section to match the opening statement. How is this a revert of number 1 or 2?
4. [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?
5. [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:

1. 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.
2. 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?
3. This is simply a grammatical change. Whats so wrong in that?
4. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

User:Vecrumba ►TALK 20:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Enforcement

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

1. 19:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC), In keeping with past history of acrimonious behavior, Nanobear uses his farewell to Russavia to launch a vituperative, accusatory attack on Russavia's alleged enemies.[reply]

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

1. Placed on notice at WP:DIGWUREN 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I myself have commented on Russavia's positive contributions and echo Nanobear's statements in that regard. That said, the personal attacks and blame games and accusations of harassment—especially coming from someone who was permanently banned, as Offliner, from Wikipedia for an off-Wiki attack as a direct result of their participation as an accuser in the EEML case—must stop. Everyone decries the polarization and acrimony. If, however, we wish the acrimony to cease, we cannot tolerate this sort of grossly offensive personal attack relitigating the past. As my prior complaints to Nanobear about this sort of conduct have been met by his accusing me of personal attacks (diffs possible if needed), I have no recourse but to seek administrative action.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[68] [69] had been prompted by WikEd, creating additional header

This is just sad. We just lost one of our best and most productive editors - now I suppose Vecrumba wants me to retire too? This is exactly why I have not edited much in the last 3 months. Nanobear (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanobear, you have ignored my repeated complaints. There is an entire encyclopedia to edit, yet you choose to spend your time on personal attacks. What I want is for the acrimonious attacks fomenting your allegations regarding events to cease. It is for others to decide appropriate action, as I said, there is an entire encyclopedia to edit. I agree that coming to this point is sad, I have no joy in taking this action, I am not rubbing my hands in glee over some opportunity to "stick it to you." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Colchicum, for a while I believed Nanobear in his desire to move on from the past, and there were glimpses of hope. So, in actuality, it is my raised expectations which have been dashed as opposed to simply arriving here to complain about something I have come to expect. (And wouldn't that normally be a problem?) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Greyhood, I am unaware of any "unpleasant" circumstances of Russavia's retirement, I certainly have not acted against him in any way on or off Wiki and our non-personal contacts over content in the recent past were not unwelcome. Nanobear could have chosen to be gracious without spending most of his post on a personal attack. Do you advocate I choose to doom myself to Nanobear smearing myself and others with impunity for all time? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Nanobear is not the first to scream EEML WITCH! lately. You will notice I am not lobbying for any specific sanction (unlike my detractors who always seem to start at a year). I just want this crap to stop. BTW, you should know that, @EEML, regarding my "responding to canvassing" I had already visited and commented via my watchlist, reading Email only every few days to a week or more at that time owing to personal circumstances at home. Don't assume Nanobear's characterizations are in any way a objective representative of events. I see no need to provide leeway for personal attacks. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being that I have not asked that Nanobear be blocked, it's very informative that even a word to Nanobear to exhibit politeness or offer a simply apology for having gotten carried away is not in order—so thank you for letting me know where I stand, meaning also, of course, that my inquiries above are merely rhetorical unless you'd like to chat on my talk page.

It would appear we are done here, so please feel free to archive. Best, PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vecrumba, please, let them alone, Nadobear is Nanobear, what else would you expect from him? Very melodramatic, but nobody is going to believe that R. is seriously considering retirement. Just don't read his rants. Colchicum (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically must agree with Colchicum. Why even further relitigating the past, making this arbitration request here, complaining about user who didn't accused anyone personally, and whose general comments on the part of EEML are not very far from the past reality? I think that most editors involved in the EEML case and related discussions should be well aware how hard it is to heal the wounds of the past. This includes the EEML legacy as well. And it is quite understandable that certain events, such as the recent retirement of Russavia (in the very unpleasant circumstances), might lead to bad memories resurfacing. Just leave it and don't stir the conflict even more, please. GreyHood ^Talk 20:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should explain what this is all about. As a matter of fact, Russavia violated his interaction ban by reverting my edit here and commenting here. I asked him to self-revert [70], but he apparently decided that he will not. With regard to his comment to Igny, he probably also talked about this: [71],[72],[73], [74]. As someone involved, I have no suggestions if anything should be done about this. Biophys (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Vecrumba, the situation is highly unpleasant and non-benefitial for Wikipedia, and there is no need to make it even more so. I don't see your name in Nanobear's post, and given that the situation is rather special, you might have better just ignored it. GreyHood ^Talk 20:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not seeing anything here that requires a warning or a sanction. Anyone else? NW (Talk) 06:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Closed. Perhaps taking user talk pages off watchlists would help cool tempers in areas of conflict. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mabuska ^(talk) 12:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Domer48 (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

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

1. 09:25, 25 September 2011 - Removed a clarification tag and reworded the sentence in a way that doesn't match what the source quote says
2. 09:27, 25 September 2011 - Removed a section relevance tag from the article despite ongoing discussions over the relevance of the section despite themselves having failed to prove it so far at a DRN. Previously on 20th September they removed it as well whilst discussion was on-going.
3. 07:24, 26 September 2011 - After i restored ([75]) the sentence to better match what the source quote states, re-added the clarification tag, and re-added the section relevance tag, Domer48 then removed them again despite them failing to prove relevance or clarification at the DRN and the fact the discussion is still on-going via RfC. They also at the same time reverted the rewording of the sentence so that it is now once again distorts what the source quote states.

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

1. Notice placed on page by mediator from the DRN.
2. By the very fact they have reported Shatter Resistence ([76]), Jonchapple three times ([77], [78] and [79]) and myself ([80]) within the past few months alone for allegations of breeching this 1RR means they know full well about this Enforcement, the sanctions involved, and its ramafications.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Whilst i know that this may be seen as a tit-for-tat in response to Domer48's recent filing of an Enforcement against me for alleged breeches of 1RR however Domer48 has unquestionably breeched it and has to be reported for it regardless of possible concerns of tit-for-tat.

The section and inline tags are fully justified whilst the issue is still being discussed. Once the issue has been resolved then they can be removed without question after whatever resolutions agreed are enacted. The reverting of the rewording of the sentence in question is also problematic as it distorts the source quote to imply something that it doesn't state.

Even though the DRN has now been closed, it was referred to by the closing mediator to WP:ORN, with the mediator's personal preference being a RfC, to which i have opened one at the articles talk page prior to the closure of the DRN discussion. So the issue hasn't been resolved and there is no justification for these reversions all of which have occured within 24 hours.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification to user: User_talk:Domer48#Arbitration_Enforcement_notification

Update - As of 13:11, 26 September Domer48 reverted their removal as a result of this request. As a sign of good faith and common sense i am willing to drop this request, however they still violated 1RR and i have no assurances that once the next 24 hour period passes that they won't remove the same things again outside of the 1RR restriction.

So its up to an administrator or a closing administrator to dictate whether or not any action should be taken as i do feel Domer48 will remove them again without the issue's discussion having been resolved beforehand. A sanction to not remove the tags until the issue is sorted and to prevent the rewording of that sentence unless its properly clarified i think might be all that is required. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Mo ainm - Mo ainm argues that Domer48 added clarification to the sentence with the clarification tag - that is incorrect as if anyone read the source quote provided, the "clarification" was not supported by the source quote and it equated to synthesis. The re-worded sentence better matches the quote from the source Domer48 provided himself and until the issue is resolved would be the best way for it to be. The only sanction i asked for was for the tags to be left in the article until the issue was resolved. Something simple and hardly restrictive for any editor whilst a dispute is on-going.

In response to Mkativerata - If you feel that that should be the case, then i won't complain, even though this request was simply about Domer48's removal of tags and his rewording of a sentence that doesn't match its source. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Domer48 #1 - This does not equate to addressing the issue of clarification as it is synthesis as it doesn't match the sources statement "of this institution of the". And by moving some of the information to another article doesn't suddenly make everything else in the section relevant to the article. If you wanted the tags removed you should of discussed it to see was there still any issues - in which there are. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Domer48 #2 and for admins

I have to agree to some degree with Domer48 on his edit-warring comment. The edit-warring if that is what it is (a very slow one at that), is simply the section relevance tag removal which he removed three times in the past fortnight, to which i restored, and the distorting of that opening sentence (along with the removal of the associated clarification tag). However the last reverts were self-reverted by Domer48. I only reported an instance of this 1RR violation and then stated i was willing to drop it out of good faith and common sense as Domer48 self-reverted it - as long as something was done to ensure the tags remain until the issue is resolved (as they should be).

Whilst Domer48 added a lot of irrelevant sourced information to the article, the vast majority of it they removed, to which i then (whilst restoring the tags Domer48 removed) removed a couple of irrelevant sentences they had left in the article whilst keeping the sentence that is causing the core problem in the article. So if there is edit-warring its only over those three things i reported in my request, and at that its not an edit-war that is moving at a fast or highly disruptive manner (no doubt due to 1RR).

If Mkativerata or any other admin still thinks a sanction is merited for edit-warring, may i suggest that myself and Domer48 be both placed on probation to not edit the article in question again until the discussion on it is marked as resolved by all involved. In the meantime i'd suggest those tags remain in the article whilst the issue is under discussion and once it has has been marked by all involved as resolved and the resolution enacted by an uninvolved party, they can then be removed. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to probation - I've no problems with the verdict passed by Mkativerata and have no objections to it, as i don't edit Troubles related articles too often anyways, and when i do, i tend to keep to the talk pages of them rather than edit-war. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having been made aware of a second revert, I have self reverted keeping in line with Arb Resolutions. Thanks--Domer48_'fenian' 13:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mkativerata: Dispute resolution was not in process. You do not open a RFC at 23:14, 25 September 2011, having just removed the information the request was for 21:37, 25 September 2011. As was pointed out above, I addressed the issue on the clarification tag the Volunteers were the "institution", and I addressed the issue on the text by moving the text the relevance of which was disputed to the appropriate article with these edits here, so the tag was removed. Now the filing editor described my actions (not in a nice way} as me backing down from their arguement and trying to compromise which is hardly the actions of an editor trying to be disruptive. SO my edits were not disruptive, and my self revert was definitely not so your suggestion is with substance.--Domer48_'fenian' 21:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mkativerata: Could you please say were this "editing warring" was, because it was not in these edits, [81]added sourcesadded sourceadded sourced text[82]added source[83]replaced sourced textadded sourced text and move text per WP:DRN[84]added source plus the edits I addressed above. It is not in WP:3RR or WP:1RR. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First two diffs provided can be counted as one as no other editor made a edit between and when an editor makes an edit which clarifies the text then they remove the tag. So we have one edit that was self reverted. Also funny that Mabuska wants sanctions imposed for what he considers a breach of 1RR when it can be seen above in his own report that he breached 1RR with no apparent sanctions being imposed. Mo ainm~Talk 18:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why shouldn't sanctions be imposed in respect of both editors for engaging in an edit war on the article while dispute resolution was in process about the very issues to which the dispute resolution related? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution was open at DRN from 19 to 25 September. Edit warring continued throughout the whole of that period. It then continued despite the DRN being closed with a recommendation to pursue more formal dispute resolution options. I'll await suggestions from other uninvolved admins, noting that The Troubles' remedies would seem to only allow a 1RR per week probation. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring does not have to be fast or a breach of 1RR to be disruptive. Indeed, the most disruptive kind of edit-warring possible is edit-warring during dispute resolution. Slow edit warring can be more disruptive than fast edit warring. That is the case here. Edit warring continued even after the warning in the AE thread above to continue dispute resolution. Dispute resolution only works if the editors involved keep off the article at the same time and give the dispute resolution processes the necessary oxygen to work. The result is:

• Mabuska is placed on a Troubles-wide probation for two months.
• Domer48 is placed on a Troubles-wide probation for six months.

The difference in sanctions represents Domer48's significant past history with unsuccessful probations.

The terms of the probation are the standard terms: that each editor is limited to one revert per article per week with respect to all articles concerning The Troubles. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with Mkativerata's decision and comments. After both Domer48 and Mabuska were cautioned to disengage and follow dispute resolution they continued with disruptive and pointy behaviour. Mkativerata is right to impose sanctions on both accounts at this time--Cailil ^talk 11:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARB911#Discretionary sanctions

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

Failure to assume good faith:

1. "A collaborative venture it most certainly is not, as the discussions here and elsewhere have amply demonstrated."
2. "Doesn't seem like anyone's welcome here unless they toe the party line, so the article is doomed to be sub-par forever."
3. "You may turn as many deaf ears as you like to the obvious truth"

Violations of civility:

1. "Now that's just horse shit Arthur, and you ought to know it."
2. "You can stick your warning up your arse"
3. "your attitude encapsulates quite nicely why the 9/11 article will never be more than the piece of shit it is currently."

Personal attacks:

1. "MONGO has behaved like a dishonest arse. Any competent ten-year-old could have written a better account of 9/11 than the one MONGO so fiercely defends"
2. "Perhaps you should examine your conscience, if you have one."
3. "I think you might need to explain that to MONGO in words of one syllable."
4. "You're calling me a liar" (Accusing another editor of calling him a liar.)

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

1. Warned on September 23, 2011 by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have been editing September 11 attacks for about 2 years now. Malleus Fatuorum is a relative newcomer to the article. In that short time, he's made various complaints about the article. This, of course, is perfectly fine. Constructive criticism is welcome and encouraged. The problem is that when other editors disagree with him, he launches into attacks against those editors, accusing them of not editing in good faith, questioning their honesty, intelligence level and just making other uncivil comments. This isn't just a few isolated diffs, but an overall pattern that's promoting a toxic, battleground-like atmosphere on the article talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: I did not ask for a ban. I just want the conduct to be corrected. Even a statement by Malleus Fatuorum saying that they realize that their remarks were inappropriate and that they would do better in the future would suffice. I filed this request because Malleus Fatuorum has continued with their misconduct[85] after the ANI thread was closed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: I just want the conduct to be corrected. I really don't care how that is done. Whatever works, works. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Richerman: Yes, Malleus Fatuorum said he would not have anything else to do with the article.(08:06, September 24, 2011) But he has not stopped. Here he is again, this time making accusations against yet another editor. "Your strategy of chasing editors away with the kind of intimidation..." (22:51, September 24, 2011) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: I am not familiar with the editor Malleus Fatuorum is accusing in that diff, but apparently they've only had one edit on the article in the last 4 years[86] (although there were some edits back in 2007/2006). In any case, Malleus Fatuorum needs to focus on content, not the contributor. Repeatedly attacking other editors is not acceptable. There is an ongoing pattern of misconduct that needs to be addressed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[87]

This request for sanctions against me is a step on a very slippery road. I became the target of the editors of the 9/11 article when I challenged its GA listing here, after having seen it fail at FAC. This is a very clear and deliberate attempt to eliminate anyone who disagrees with the current organisation and content of the article, of which I am far from being the only one. But as one of the few non-administrators with the balls to tell it like it is I'm obviously considered to be an easy target.

If any sanctions are needed, then they're needed against A Quest For Knowledge, and several others who have systematically sought to chase non-Americans away from their precious memorial to the events of 9/11. Malleus Fatuorum 03:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mathsci would do well to check his facts. I have never claimed that "explicit statements barring non-American editors have been made". Malleus Fatuorum 04:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Arthur Rubin. The GAR has now closed, so no need to petition for me to be banned from there. I was met with a hail of abuse for daring to suggest that the article didn't meet the GA criteria, but it now appears that others agreed with me. As for the 9/11 article itself, I have not since the warning, and will not, ever touch it again. That's not any kind of capitulation to the bullying that's been going on, or any kind of apology, just a statement of fact. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has very recently been an ANI thread about Malleus and the 9/11 article that was closed as no administrative action needed at this time. LadyofShalott 16:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it seems to be based on the same conduct. Look, Malleus can be ... blunt. Malleus has made it clear that if he is to participate here, that's the way he's going to express himself. The community seems to have made the judgment that it would rather have Malleus blunt than absent.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine as far as it goes, but at some point "blunt" becomes disruptive, on an often-difficult talk page. I can imagine how it looks to someone thinking about contributing - "well, these aren't people I want to work with." It doesn't encourage the broader participation we need, and it doesn't improve the page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't engender much faith in a system that allows an editor to get block after block for the same behavior, and who never seems to learn anything from these blocks because admins, for some reason, have become so accustomed to their disruptive behavior that they no longer feel like doing anything to prevent it when it keeps happening. Shirtwaist ☎ 11:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with others here, this looks like some "ban-shopping". Volunteer Marek  17:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus was only yesterday notified of the arbitration conditions (as is a requirement of the conditions) - this report - if I was an admin I would close it on sight and I would warn, even perhaps block the reporter, (but that's just me) ban shopping/running to mummy call it what you like but its an attacking unnecessary report. - Off2riorob (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd support a block or final warning of AQFK per WP:BOOMERANG. This looks like forum-shopping in an effort to get an opponent blocked to further a content dispute, something we should be at pains to discourage. --John (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't admins take pains to discourage WP:ABF from everyone, including themselves? Especially themselves? Shirtwaist ☎ 00:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a warning about forum-shopping is appropriate. I don't think we need any blocks concerning this though. This report - especially so quickly on the heels of the closed ANI thread - does strike me as excessive. LadyofShalott 18:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would let it go.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked whether MF has continued commenting on 9/11 after the warning. If he has, then this enforcement request is appropriate. If not, then perhaps AQFK should be sanctioned. (And I would be considered involved in commenting either on MF or AQFK.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These attacks by MF on the 9/11 talk page were after the warning, and before AQFK's complaint. I think the matter should be considered. Certainly no warning against AQFK is appropriate, except for failure to note which actions were before the warnings. On the other hand, for WP:3RR blocks, only one of the four reverts need be after the warning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOS - What length of time is appropriate for reporting abusive behavior that occurs right after a previous report for abusive behavior was closed? I'm surprised at your focusing on the filing of the report, and your apparent lack of concern for the fact that MF's abusive behavior that precipitated this report came so soon after an AN/I complaint against him for exactly the same behavior. Is there any accountability here at all? Or shall habitual abusers be allowed to continue to be habitual abusers for convenience's sake? Shirtwaist ☎ 00:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not merely the timeframe. The ani thread was closed because it was a mountain out of a molehill situation. It still is. LadyofShalott 06:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Now I have a clearer picture of your views on what constitutes actionable behavior and when action should be taken against it. Rather surprising coming from an admin, IMO, but so be it. Shirtwaist ☎ 07:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments – Malleus seems to have mellowed over the last 12 months. There is nothing here of any consequence, a ripple in a teacup. Do people have nothing else to be getting on with? Occuli (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re to AQ4K. Technically you're right. You asked for The 911AC "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" which I guess is strictly speaking different than asking for a ban. Nowhere in the request did you say you were just looking for some kind of contrition from MF (and if you know MF, good luck with that). Usually when people come here to AE they're looking to get people they don't like banned. If your only purpose was to get MF to apologize or something, then you're wasting your time, and that of others. Volunteer Marek  21:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@AQ4K, regarding your quotation of Malleus's comment about driving editors away, I don't find that abusive. I suspect there's at least a minority opinion he's right.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A problem with Malleus Fatuorum's participation on the page is his allegation that non-Americans are being chased from the article."The suggestion I've seen made that only Americans should be allowed to edit this article just beggars belief." [88] "Try looking for it, as I would have to do but don't have the energy for." [89]A number of UK editors have commented there without being heckled. MF has claimed that explicit statements barring non-American editors have been made, but he has produced no evidence and there seems to be none on the current version of the talk page. MF has repeatedly referred to "Americans" on the talk page in a way which seems unhelpful and is surely best avoided. [90] "I thought all Americans were Bible bashers" [91] "I'm not an American, so I have a different view." [92] Here for example he means the US government not Americans.[93] [94] Even after the logged warning from NuclearWarfare, MF is using the same problematic language ("their precious memorial to the events of 9/11") in his response above, where he repeats claims about non-American editors.[95] Mathsci (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC) modified content and diffs Mathsci (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]
• Comment Malleus stated testerday on his talk page that he will have nothing more to do with the article. In that case any sanctions would be punitive rather than preventative so this request should be closed now. Richerman (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. His last two comments at Talk:September 11 attacks were after that note on his talk page.
  2. He's still making non-substantive personal attacks in regard the GA nomination. As it's extremely likely that if anyone were to be restricted from commenting at Talk:September 11 attacks, he would also be restricted from commenting at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2, this matter still isn't moot.

  — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe enforcement is needed here. Malleus hasn't been 'blunt', he's been disruptive. If someone you work with came up to you and the other workers in the office and did everything that has been listed above, do you think he would get off with not even a stern word? Unless you are working at Dunder Mifflin-Scranton (where you can incite mass panic and terror and and still become regional manager), of course not. Malleus has refactored talkpage comments, accused others of lying, and acted straight-out disruptive. Action is not only warranted, it is needed. Toa Nidhiki05 01:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toa, you acted incorrectly by trying to edit a closed discussion and then proceeded to edit war over it and template regulars. At the moment, it looks like you were trying to bait Malleus. I'd suggest that you strike your comment.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just close this already with either no sanction or no sanction and a warning to AQ4K and quit wasting people's time. This is another one of those things that can easily become an unnecessary drama magnet for folks with a grudge, or in some cases ones with an anti-grudge. Volunteer Marek  01:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been appalled by MF's behavior since he appeared on the September 11 attacks talk page. Despite any warnings which he may have been given, he hasn't shown any interest in improving his behavior, that I've seen. I've seen the arbitration sanctions abused in the past for petty matters, but if there were ever a case where their use seems appropriate, I would think this is it. AQFK summarized everything very well in making this request, and I think he deserves credit for a job well done. I don't understand the desire by some here to ignore the problem, although perhaps there has been something going on that I haven't seen. As with AQFK, I am not requesting any particular sanctions; I just want to see the arrogant behavior by MF come to an end. Wildbear (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus has stated to me that he is no longer interested in the article, however he has still made a comment or two since.--MONGO 11:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't really see why admins at this board here would want to override what was apparently a consensus among admins over at ANI earlier today, that admin action wasn't currently appropriate. People at ANI were already fully aware that the case could potentially fall under this Arbcom rule, and if somebody had wanted to hand out a sanction under it, they could already have done so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I formally notified MF of the existence of the sanctions ~24 hours ago; it stands to reason that edits previous to that shouldn't be used as the sole reason to sanction someone using discretionary sanctions. If there have been inappropriate edits since then (which I haven't examined), then individual administrators should review and take action here no matter what the "consensus" on ANI was, if there actually was one. My understanding is that much of the purpose of discretionary sanctions was to handle situations where attaining consensus for sanctions in the traditional way is impossible because of community deadlocking. NW (Talk) 06:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as no further action taken. I do not think any AE action here will be beneficial. T. Canens (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy 17:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

MarkBrowne1888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR Restriction

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

1. At Middle East Forum
   1. 15:18, 26 September 2011 Revert of this, same edit as this (and a few other diffs)
   2. 17:11, 26 September 2011 2nd revert
2. At Pallywood
   1. 15:14, 26 September 2011 revert of this
   2. 17:11, 26 September 2011 2nd revert

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

Unnecessary, the 1RR stipulates blocking may occur on the first violation.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A fairly obvious sockpuppet has appeared to reginite a number of edit-wars that had taken place in the past. We have enough problems without this never ending stream of throw-away accounts coming in to start this same crap over an over. Barring an indef block for obvious sockpuppetry, one should be placed for the 1RR violations.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

These two bullies are just upset that someone else is editing their favourite articles. MarkBrowne1888 (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also edit-warring at Hulda, Israel:

1 16:10, 26 September 2011, partial revert of this

2 18:12, 26 September 2011 2nd revert

This is quite clearly another sock of Ledenierhomme, and should be blocked indefinitely. RolandR (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is clearly a violation of 1RR; responding to the complaint here with a violation of NPA is not an encouraging sign. Unfortunately, with a very few exceptions, I am possibly the worst admin at identifying socks on the 'pedia. I will wait for another admin to address that potential issue. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed as AFolkSingersBeard (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) by User:MuZemike. Blocked indef. T. Canens (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

 Volunteer Marek  06:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

[DIGWUREN]

• Calil blocked for 24 as a reminder not to repeat this kind of behavior.
• Calil banned from enforcing any AE decisions or engaging in any administrative action, broadly construed, in relation to the topic areas covered by DIGWUREN.

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

1. [97] This is Cailil's log as administrator. The issue here is the 72 hour block of User:Lvivske made at 13:22, 2 October 2011. Full explanation below.

2. [98] On Lvivske's talk page.

Includes a statement which is an obvious indication of being "involved": It is, as has been pointed out, recorded in third party reliable sources that your views on Mila Kunis's ethnicity is incorrect (not sure where this has been pointed out either, or by whom).

Then it says Previously I had to warn you that a person being black and English is absolutely possible - it is your problem if you haven't got that message. - this just seems weird. Does Lvivske really think that it's impossible for a person to be "black and English" - where does he say this? Appears to be a ... failure to communicate, and jumping to conclusions.

Then it says You should be in no doubt User:Lvivske that further behaviour like this will be prevented by block if necessary - but this is said AFTER the 72 hour block has already been imposed. It's like punching somebody in the face and then saying "if you look at me I might have to punch you".

A more general problem is that the administrator Cailil keeps referring to Lvivske as "an account" (also in subsequent posts) - effectively de-personalizing him. I guess it's easier to kick around "an account" than an actual person with an actual username. At any rate, it's very disrespectful and telling in this context.

3. [99] On Lvivske's talk page.

Accuses the user "diffs show original edit and reverts), although not making more than 3 reverts" - the diffs provided show no such thing. This is either lying or incompetence. You decide which.

4. [100] On Lvivske's talk page.

Clarifies that this awful crime of ... 3 reverts ... took place "across two articles". Problem is the edits on the second article were 1) consecutive, and 2) not even reverts, just regular edits. WTF?

5. [101] On Lvivske's talk page.

A pretty straight forward "Respect my authoritah! or else" comment. Blaming the victim for contesting an unfair block. Some pre-emptive self-justification which makes it clear the admin started to realize the block was bunkum.

6.[102] On Lvivske's talk page

Unsubstantiated accusations made as a way of justifying own's bad judgment. More blaming the victim.

7.[103] On Lvivske's talk page

"My determination is based on your edit summaries (listed in eth diffs above)." - struggling to find justification for a bad block (note: this is Calil having a conversation with themselves, neither Lvivske nor anyone else has commented in the meantime). In regards to the merits of the matter, the supposedly "problematic" edit summary I think Calil is referring to by Lvivske is "no sources proving they are Ukrainian; Kunis is ethnic Jewish from USSR; Tkachuk has Ukie sounding surname but he is NOT diaspora by any means; assuming further would be WP:SYN" [104]... um... do you see anything wrong with that edit summary? Calil claims it's an example of BATTLEGROUND. Wha? In fact, while on this article Lvivske appears to have made two reverts (none on the other - despire Calil's claim) without commenting on talk, it seems that this edit summary, which is pretty detailed does constitute an explanation and an initiation of discussion.

8. [105] On Lvivske's talk page.

Calil: "If another admin feels that this shoudl be reduced but is concerned about it being an AEBLOCK I am happy to discuss this block with them and reduce it if given sond reasoning" - LOL. Such a nakedly bad block deserves a sanction for the admin making the block not a possibility of "reduction" for the victim. Ridiculous.

9. [106] On Lvivske's talk page

Calil adds " (as a review of your contribs shows there was no discussion on this topic during the reverts except the remarks on this page which fail to address the point)" - belatedly realizing that Lvivske did attempt to also discuss the issue on his talk page (where it was brought up). Dismisses the attempt at discussion with a curt "which fail to address the point".

10. [107] This is a comment by User Djsasso (I have no idea who that is) who's basically like "what the hell happened here?"

11. [108] On Lvivske's talk page

Calil pretends that blocking a user for 72 hours for nothing is somehow "being nice". Bleah.

12.[109] On Lvivske's talk page.

Standard "I pushed you over and if you try to get up I'll spit on your face" bullying. This is really making me angry. First block a user for bullshit. Then when they (given the circumstances) politely, object, threaten them with revoking their talk page privilages.

13. Additionally it should be noted that Calil claims that Lvivske was edit warring on two articles. This is the given justification for imposing a 72 hour sanction even though 3RR has not been breached at either (the alleged crime was a total 4, yes, 4, as in four million, reverts across two articles). Here's the thing. On the first article Lvivske might have made two reverts [110] (check it yourself). BUT on the second article he supposedly edit warred on he actually made ... 0 reverts [111]. He made 2 edits. 2 consecutive edits. Even if these were reverts they would count as 1 revert. But the thing is that they weren't even reverts of any user, they were just simple, normal, edits. Nobody got reverted. So this means that either Calil really really really doesn't understand what a revert is - i.e. s/he is incompetent to judge these kinds of situations and hence has no business being an administrator, or at least administratin' in regard to potential edit warring - or, s/he is simply lying and "diff-padding" in order to make a really bad block look better. Hence the requested remedy above.

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

N/A

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Honestly, this is exactly the kind of mindless administrator privilege abuse that cries out for a workable de-sysoping procedure on Wikipedia. I don't know what kind of personal stuff is going on in the background here but I can tell when someone is getting bullied and abused when I see it. This is like the poster child for AE sanctions run amock (incidentally, these very recent edits to their recall procedure suggest that at least on a subconscious level Calil knows they screwed up [112] [113]). If it was within the power of the AE board to desysop Calil I'd ask for that.

To be clear, I've interacted with Lvivske before and mostly we've disagreed on Polish-Ukrainian stuff (which is how I saw this, I put his talk page on my watchlist to keep an eye on him ;)) though he's never been rude or obnoxious. Disagreements between editors happen though, and in most of those cases we've been able to have a civil discussion and more or less compromise or at least agree to disagree.

The reversal of Lvivske's block is a related, but somewhat different issue, and I'll let him decide whether or not he wants to appeal that.

Re to Mkativerata AE has no power to boot an admin out of a topic area for involvement. - why, exactly, not? If you can topic ban people from a topic area for involvement, then why can't you ban an administrator from a topic are for involvement? Seems like an excuse to apply a double standards to regular editors and to members of the admin clique. Where does it say this is outside the scope of AE? (with respect to the 24hr block, ok fine - but it's just completely unfair that whatever happens Lvivske's going to have that block on his block log for ever but Calil's gonna come out squeaky clean)

Re to Calil - anyone capable of clicking their mouse four times can check for themselves that you are completely misrepresenting the situation. There was no edit warring here, nor was there any uncivil or disruptive statements. Volunteer Marek  13:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in regard to this [114] - heh, I had no idea you were the same person, nor did I remember you, nor did I even remember ever making that comment (it is a single comment amidst the thousands I've made) until you brought it up. But I'm not surprised. So apparently there's some kind of a pattern here. Volunteer Marek  13:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Ok, hold on a second. Lvivske was not blocked for breaching WP:DIGWUREN he was blocked for disruption and edit-warring around race/ethnicity/nationality again. He was warned for that by me[115] when he claimed at David Haye that “ he's black, not english”. He then on October claimed that becuase Mila Kunis is Jewish she isnt Ukrainian[116] and edit-warred over that. That's what got Lvivske blocked. And that should be clear from my notes on Lvivske's talk page.

It might have been better for me to have described the block as being for 'disrution to make a point' however I still feel that an editor with Lvivske's history of editwarring should know that rversions without discussion and spilling over of content disputes to otehr articles will get them into trouble for editwarring.

Lvivske was been placed on notice of WP:DIGWUREN. But the block is not a reminder of the RFAR. And nowhere did I state this. However on a very thorough investigation I found he had previously been placed on notice by Shell Kinney in late 2009. I added an adendum to the page noting this and stating that if a reviewing sysop wanted to reduce the block but was worried that it was an AEBLOCK I would be happy to reduce it myself.

I am not nor have I ever been involved in anyway whatsoever with Eastern European topics. However I did have one memorable encounter with VolunteerMarek this year where he launched into a diatribe about me apparently becuase I supported an AE block on Sarah777[117]. I am baffled as to how I abused the tools here. If indeed I was mistaken fair enough I'm happy to reverse myself and apologize, but it has taken Lvivske 36 hours to even post an unblock request. And as I've said I am happy to reduce myself if an admin feels its dodgy for them to do so--Cailil ^talk 11:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also below is a list of diffs that show further questionable edits from Lvivske in case another sysop wants to deal with the actual issue that Lvivske is blocked for.

• To Cailil: Don't be ridiculous; there was no "edit warring" here. The fact you deem someone to be "racist" does not authorise you to block them for making maybe a single revert and call it "edit warring" when they aren't even under a 1RR restriction. It's a damn shame AE can't do anything about this; this sort of behaviour from an admin is frankly infuriating.
  Re "it has taken Lvivske 36 hours to even post an unblock request": Sometimes, something called "RL" consumes precious Wiki-time. Strange concept, I know. But no stranger than thinking that a delay in appealing somehow justifies your bogus block. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• To Mkativerata: There has been an appeal of the block (as yet unresolved). VM felt (and I agree) that Cailil's behaviour grossly overstepped the bounds of acceptability in this topic area and should be brought up on its own in a more formal venue. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• To FPaS: Note that the block is for "edit warring" specifically, not NPOV violations. The concern is that Cailil baselessly judged Lvivske's edit's to be those of a "warring" quality, even when 3RR or any pattern of sustained disruption was not even reasonably applicable, due to conflation of his own personal bias with the content matter in question. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are not issued as "reminders" and AE has no power to boot an admin out of a topic area for involvement. Administrator conduct questions should be dealt with at RFC/U and, failing that, Arbcom, or by a direct appeal of the relevant action (block or ban). I'm suggesting a speedy close of this request. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur that there is no case for action against Cailil here. This was a good-faith application of admin judgment on his part. I also don't think that the fact that he relied on his own judgment of the content merits of Lvivske's edit in justifying his action should be construed as illegitimate "involvement". Indeed, "uninvolvement" doesn't mean enforced agnosticism with respect to edit quality; we need more admins who consider content aspects in matters of determining what is disruptive POV-pushing. However, I also think we need to consider that he may in fact have got it wrong in this instance, and that Lvivske's block may need to be lifted. As far as I can see, he was not, as Cailil understood, making the claim that being Jewish automatically disqualifies a person from being Ukrainian (which would indeed be outrageous), but that with people of Jewish background from Ukraine we cannot simply assume ethnic Ukrainian self-identification as a matter of course. Which, to me, seems a reasonable position to take. And since it appears to be true that for the person in question and for the other person he named in those edits we don't have reliable sourcing about their ethnic self-designation, removing their images from that gallery seems to me to have been a sound application of WP:BLP. Note that I've actually reinstated his edit on Ukrainian Americans. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Lvivske's editing history I have to disagree with Future Perfect at Sunrise. It does seem to me that Lvivske thinks that being Jewish automatically disqualifies a person from being Ukrainian, just as he/she thinks that being black automatically disqualifies a person from being English. I am, in fact, at a loss to see how anyone who has studied the relevant editing history can think otherwise. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs? I'm certainly not seeing that in the specific recent edits at Ukrainian Americans. Were there previous incidents in that direction? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked Lvivske. (I assume Cailil as the blocking admin saw this discussion and had plenty of opportunity to respond to the points above.) If we're still agreed that there is no AE case against Cailil himself, I guess we can close this. If people still find the block so bad it requires further action, I guess an RFC/U might be an option, but those tend to be more heat than light in my experience. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions address editor conduct, not admin conduct. The phrasing of the remedy itself draws a clear distinction between editors and administrators, and so admin actions are never sanctionable misconduct under discretionary sanctions (cf. judicial immunity). Therefore, while AE may overturn individual admin actions for involvement on appeal, I agree that the discretionary sanctions do not give us the power to declare an admin involved. It would indeed be very surprising for one admin to have the power to unilaterally declare another admin involved (remember that the discretionary sanctions allows for action by "any uninvolved administrator"; what a consensus of admins can do under the discretionary sanctions a single admin may do as well), and we should assume that arbcom did not mean for such an unorthodox and irregular delegation of authority unless the remedy allows for no other reasonable interpretation. I voice no opinion on the merits of the block. T. Canens (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]