Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Shortcuts

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Soccershoes1

Soccershoes1 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from all Greece and Macedonia related articles and discussions, broadly construed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Soccershoes1

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Soccershoes1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions

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

[1], [2], [3],[4] tedious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT debate claiming that people in Canada cannot possibly be of (Slavic) Macedonian descent if they have Greek-sounding surnames
[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] slow edit-war against consensus of several other editors, trying to remove names according to the POV issue described above.
Parallel edit wars on several individual bio articles: Michael Zigomanis (BLP violation, repeatedly replacing a sourced ethnic identification with an unsourced claim of Soccershoes' preference [11]); similarly on Chris Kotsopoulos
22 April, following me around, retaliatory revert without any sign of understanding of the editorial issue in question
22 April, following me around, retaliatory revert, in breach of WP:ARBMAC2/WP:NCMAC naming guideline

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

Several warnings:

[12] by Charlesdrakew about disruptive edits to Alexander the Great
[13] by Materialscientist about edits at Macedonia naming dispute
[14] by myself, about Zigomanis issue
earlier 3RR block for edit-warring at Alexander the Great in January 2011.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A typical Macedonia-related tendentious editor stubbornly promoting Greek POV issues. What's particularly concerning is the fact that he has now started following me around to articles that are completely outside his normal editing profile (e.g. Greek primacy, where, despite the article's name, the dispute really has no relation at all to nationally-motivated POV disputes), simply for the sake of mechanically reverting me in obvious retribution for my reverting him elsewhere.

Update: This [15] response of Soccershoes1 nicely illustrates both the aggressive attitude and the lack of clue that have been characteristic of this editor's activities everywhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have a consensus of at least three admins for a sanction, could somebody please now enact this soon-ish? Because this person is still at it and it's annoying [16]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

done

Discussion concerning Soccershoes1

Statement by Soccershoes1

Comments by others about the request concerning Soccershoes1

Result concerning Soccershoes1

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

I don't think this is someone who needs to be editing in this topic area. I'd be for a topic ban from all Greece and Macedonia-related subjects, broadly construed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with TBotNL - this is beyond unacceptable behaviour from Soccershoes1 and warrants in the very least a topic ban. And I endorse the wording as specified above by TBotNL--Cailil ^talk 00:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support banning this user from making any edits related to Macedonia or Greece, broadly construed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AnAimlessRoad

Conventional indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning AnAimlessRoad

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: —Zujine|talk 21:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:AnAimlessRoad is rather new to Wikipedia, having joined in late January. He has few than 50 live edits at the time of request. In his short time here, he has proven to be a highly disruptive presence across multiple namespaces, including at least two (possibly more) covered by ArbCom (WP:AFLG and WP:ARBPIA). User has already entered into multiple edit wars with several different users, and he has been warned multiple times for inappropriate behaviour, including using Wikipedia as a forum, failing to adhere to NPOV, treating Wikipedia as a soapbox and a battleground, failing to adhere to standards of civility, and making personal attacks against other editors. I recommend this user be blocked from editing Wikipedia. For an apparently novice editor, this user seems to be preternaturally familiar with Wikipedia jargon and processes. To avoid possible sock-puppetry, I would also recommend admins consider blocking user’s IP range.

Diffs:

[17] — editor uses religious slurs, unprovoked ad hominem attack on other editor

[18] — using talk page as a forum

[19] — using talk page as a forum

[20] — restoring previous comment after deletion

[21] — restoring own comment on Holocaust denial after it was deleted as “off-topic trolling”

[22] Continues treating talk page as a forum after multiple warnings, makes comments on motives of involved editors

[23] — proposing renaming article in contravention of NPOV policy (subsequently begins arguing with other editors)

[24] — using talk page as a forum. Section title “Nice propaganda” is typical (other section heads include “a funny joke, “nice character assassination,” etc.

[25] — using another talk page as a forum. Makes personal attacks against other editors, suggests they are being paid.

[26] — makes highly contentious statement without a source. (edit was promptly reverted)

[27] — restores highly contentious material with an unreliable source (edit was promptly reverted)

[28] — restores same highly contentious material with another unreliable source (edit was promptly reverted)

[29] — adds highly contentious characterisation of event as a massacre without a source (he was promptly reverted).

[30] — using talk page as forum

[31] - Adds link to a page that he appeared to have created. Page has since been deleted (I can only imagine why....)

[32] — uses talk page as forum, makes religious slurs, personal attacks on other editors.

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

[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The collection of diffs above is partial. I cannot find a single edit that actually appears to be helpful or constructive. Nearly all this user's edits have been reverted or deleted.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[40]

Discussion concerning AnAimlessRoad

Statement by AnAimlessRoad

Comments by others about the request concerning AnAimlessRoad

Result concerning AnAimlessRoad

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

I'm blocking this user indefinitely for a complete lack of effort to even attempt to conform to community standards. This should not be treated as an AE block, but rather a standard disruptive editing block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oncenawhile

1929 Palestine riots is fully protected two weeks. Several editors reverted improperly, but no blocks are being issued. EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Oncenawhile

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Oncenawhile (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

01:56, 15 April 2012 Creates lede with phrases "During the week of riots from 23 August to 29 August, 133 Jews and more than 116 Arabs were killed and 198 Jews and more than 232 Arabs were injured.^[1]... According to the official report, "many of the Arab casualties and possibly some of the Jewish casualties were caused by rifle fire by the police or military forces".^[1] Arab notables accused the Government forces of firing at Arabs exclusively.^[2]"
10:08, 24 April 2012 Reverts to previous wording. Removes sources.
11:01, 24 April 2012 Reverts to previous wording a second time, less than an hour later. Removes sources.

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

Warned on 23:48, 15 January 2012 by Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The page in question is the 1929 Palestine riots. The version reverted to is the April 15th edit, and two subsequent reversions were done today, on the 24th. The reversions modified the language and removed three sources that were being used to support the previous version. Oncenawhile has previously been officially warned about ARBPIA violations.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [41]
Local refs

^ ^a ^b Great Britain, 1930: Report of the Commission on the disturbances of August 1929, Command paper 3530 (Shaw Commission report), p. 65.
^ Shaw Report, p66-67

Discussion concerning Oncenawhile

Statement by Oncenawhile

Sorry for the late reply. Thank you to the other editors for supporting me in my absence.

So... I had no intention to overstep any bright lines. As TransporterMan kindly highlighted below, I had first tried the tagging route to stimulate discussion, which did not have the desired effect. This morning, I responded to TransporterMan's analysis on the tags with my views on the weakness of the policy around tags, which seems to render them useless in disputes - exactly the situation they are supposed to highlight and stimulate resolution of.... Anyway, then I had a bright idea, that maybe my point about tags was wrong because I was always within my rights to remove the dubious information because it hadn't got consensus (4 editors vs. 3). I believed my first edit was (to use my basic non-technical language) an "edit" rather than a "revert". Then Jayjg reverted me without a credible explanation (his edit comment was a copy of mine) and I reverted him (which I believed to be my only "revert" ever on this article). Then a few minutes later Ankh reverted me. I did not revert Ankh, because that's where I thought the bright line was.

So it seems that whether the accusation is fair boils down to whether Diff 2 above is a revert in they eyes of the consensus. My views on this are below:

If I had thought it was a revert, I would not have reverted Jayjg in Diff 3
Jayjg's edit comment suggested he did not think of it as a revert, as his edit comment seemed to suggest my edit was new content
There were 118 edits in between Diffs 1 and 2, and the number of edits since the Diffs that TransporterMan refered to below is similar. All the changes in between blurred the line of "edit vs revert" in my mind - neither the policy or guidance pages are crystal clear on this as I read them. Perversely, I am looking forward to finding out what the official interpretation of this is at the end of this.
Uninvolved editors in the discussion below also appear to be unsure whether this was a revert

A related question is, whether or not this was technically a "revert", was I actually edit warring? My views on this are below:

I kept trying to find a way through the editorial dispute in various creative ways, and have remained committed to calm discussion all the way through
An edit war is defined as when actions "repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion". I don't believe any of my edit history on this article and talk page suggests that my behaviour displayed this
Since I first became involved in this article 10 days ago, not a single one of my other edits constituted a revert. I was reverted numerous times by Ankh and Jayjg, but I did not respond in kind. Instead, I always took it to the talk page.
If I had been intentionally edit warring, or had otherwise not been respecting WP:1RR I would have reverted Ankh's reversion of my Diff3 which occurred 20 minutes later.
"If an editor violates by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion." I was not given this opportunity, which of course I would have gladly taken.

In summary, I honestly don't know whether Diff2 was technically a revert or not. But I do know that I did not believe that it was, so the worst I could have done here was to have made an honest mistake.

Whatever the verdict, I will learn from it and won't make the same mistake again.

Oncenawhile (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to concluding suggestion: I am obviously disappointed with Ed's suggestion, and thanks to TransporterMan for your support in response to it. I can't put it as nicely as TransporterMan, but I do have two specific "objections" to Ed's suggestion:

Ed states "Oncenawhile should have realized he was risking a major ARBPIA upset". Please note that more than 2 weeks before my April 15 edits I added a POV tag to the article here and made a talk page comment at Talk:1929_Palestine_riots/Archive_1#POV_tag. With not a single dissenting view in over two weeks, was it not reasonable to assume that consensus might be with me before I began editing? I have not been accused by anyone of "edit-warring", in fact quite the opposite I believe. I don't know what I should have or could have done differently. To my mind, Ed's statement has a different complexion without this sentence.
Ed concludes that I violated 1RR. Ed, I am sure your analysis is right, but please could you help me understand the final analysis of how/why "Diff 2" above is definitively categorised as a 100% revert? The heart of the issue in my mind is whether my misinterpretation of whether that edit constituted a "revert" was a "reasonable mistake". I don't know the answer to this at the moment. I won't repeat my arguments above, but either way I would like to understand why there doesn't seem to be any room for error at all here?

Sorry for these objections but I feel a bit hard done by here as would obviously rather my clean record was not sullied by a block. Oncenawhile (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Oncenawhile

According to our official policy, "reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously". Which edits were undone in Oncenawhile's first edit today, and to which version did this edit previously restore the page? This edit does not look to me like a revert, and thus OnA has only made one revert today. So there has been no breach of the arbitration decision, and this complaint should be rejected. RolandR (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, in the link that you cite for the 15 April edit, I cannot find some of the phrases you attribute to this edit. Please specify more accurately what you claim that OnA has added/removed, and when. RolandR (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, some of the phrases you cite from today's edits do not appear in the link you give for the 15 April edit. Nor do I see where OnA has "undone the effects of one or more edits"; please indicate which edit s/he has undone today. RolandR (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Help:Reverting is not a policy, or even a guideline; it's a technical information page. The policy is WP:EW, which initially says a "revert means undoing the actions of another editor" and, later, in more detail, "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." (Even if we were to rely on Help:Reverting, the full quotation is: "On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of any editors." [Emphasis added.] But that's irrelevant, since it's not policy.) — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I repeat: what action of another editor was undone or reversed by OnA's first edit today?[42] I don't see that it is a revert. RolandR (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[43]--Shrike (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It reverted the content that there was there originally which had been edited by a previous contributor. I shall quote from the Wiki handbook, a "revert means undoing the actions of another editor".
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 18:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What content? Which editor? You keep asserting that this is a revert, but I can't see what it has reverted. Please stop making vague assertions, and goive a specific diff of the material which was reverted, or the version to which OnA reverted. RolandR (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The diff was provided by me.The line " Arab notables accused the Government forces of firing at Arabs exclusively" was removed.The users have restored it in his reverts.--Shrike (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I've provided two others, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I'm wondering if RolandR does not have a point. Roland, are you saying that the material removed by Oncenawhile in those edits was material which Oncenawhile first added to the article, so that he was removing his own material, not someone else's? — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No; I'm saying that I don't know who added what, and what content OnA is supposed to have reverted. Without a specific diff, there is no way to assess whether or not the first edit today was a revert. And, despite my repeated requests, AnkhMorpork has failed to provide this necessary information. RolandR (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many amendments to the lede that altered Oncenawhile's original version. An example would include this. I have no idea what you mean when you state "Without a specific diff, there is no way to assess whether or not the first edit today was a revert." Please explain in which circumstances reverting another editor's work is not considered a revert, and why a specific diff is necessary to determine the undoing of the actions of another editor?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 18:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sean.hoyland and others. Collapsed to reduce the tl:dr factor of this report. Editors are free to respond to any comments here in their own sections.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment by Sean.hoyland - What a mess. The nonsense going on at 1929 Palestine riots is a perfect example of what is wrong with the topic area.

Look at this sensible, open, honest comment by Oncenawhile Talk:1929_Palestine_riots#POV_tag. It fell on deaf ears. Why ? The only response was a complete failure to recognize that the root cause of the problem is people and how they behave in the topic area.
Oncenawhile tries to build a bridge User_talk:AnkhMorpork#Hi and he gets an AE report instead.

This is what I would like to see happen as the result of this report.

The sentence in the lead that currently says "During the week of riots from 23 August to 29 August, 133 Jews were killed by Arabs and 339 others were injured. Jews killed 6 Arabs and the British police killed 110, and injured 232" is temporarily changed to "During the week of riots from 23 August to 29 August, hundreds of people were killed or injured" with no sources cited.
It stays that way until agreement is reached on the talk page about what it should say and what sources are cited.
Anyone who reverts it before agreement has been finalized on the talk page is blocked for 2 weeks.
Alternatively, shut the article down and force people to walk away and edit articles about subjects they don't care about. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe as a "sensible, open, honest comment by Oncenawhile" is an uncollaborative attack - rather than explaining what specific issues exist, he refers to "over zealous editors" with "techniques" that are "ridiculous". Please, this is not a content dispute and I await your usually measured responses that actually address the 1rr revert violation.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, first, that this is a dog's dinner and, second, that Oncenawhile did make an effort to do the right thing, both to discuss the tags and taking them to DR here. At the same time, I can now confirm that at least one of the things he removed in the second and third diffs, above, was the BBC reference which was first added to the article by AnkhMorpork in the first part of this edit, which would seem to satisfy RolandR's reservation expressed in his last comment, above. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and AnkhMorpork added a Daily Mail source here, which was sensibly removed, but restored by Brewcrewer here. I could go on. If anyone is going to be sanctioned over what is happening at that article I hope it doesn't just focus on one editor. Sanctioning Oncenawhile alone won't solve anything. It's about people not collaborating. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean, I note that you stated to a warning admin that, "I'll simply not comment at AE reports anymore unless I file them or they are filed against me." I am therefore somewhat surprised at your edits here? I hope that this too was an "open, honest comment".
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I'm free to change my mind anytime about anything at all as I have already said elsewhere. I'm commenting here because I think your actions are wrong, as in right and wrong, wrong enough for me to comment. Oncenawhile and you are both editors who are quite capable of collaborating and improving articles, but for reasons that elude me, you have decided to go from, let's say, civilian (building an encyclopedia according to policy by working with other editors) to combatant (not collaborating and using AE as a weapon instead). That's your choice but it means, for me, that you should be treated like one. An editor tried hard to resolve issues peacefully through dialogue and you filed an AE report against him over a trivial thing that should have been resolved using the talk page. It's wrong and counterproductive. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supplement: Those two edits by Oncenawhile (the second and third diff listed above) also at least removed the words "and 339 others" and the reference to Hadassah added by AnkhMorpork to the lede of the article in this edit. I do tend to agree that a stern final warning might be all that's needed in this case; as for the rest that you propose, I have to wonder if it's not just trading one form of control (a 1RR restriction to try to limit disruption and force discussion) for another intended to do the same thing, with the difference being that the control that's already in place affects all users who edit this article while yours just affects the ones in this particular dispute. Why not seek an amendment to ARBPIA which puts a 0RR restriction on all Arab-Israeli articles? — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the two edits Oncenawhile made today were the same material he tried to insert into the article a week and a half ago, I don't see how anyone could argue the two weren't reverts. This is classic slow edit warring. I think an admin should also address the reasons Oncenawhile gave for placing a POV tag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1929_Palestine_riots#POV_tag) which include only comments about editors and no comments about the problems with the content that ostensibly prompted him to place the tag. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Zero0000: I don't have the patience to wade through all the diffs to decide what edits out of this very long sequence of aggressive edits are "reverts" or not. I'd just like to make some general remarks. This edit war was created by and driven by AnkhMorpork, who decided that the "Israeli perspective" was not adequately represented. As illustration of AnkhMorpork's methodology, despite her/himself quoting extensively from the report of the official enquiry he/she repeatedly deletes (and continues to delete, even during this case) statements from that report which conflict with her/his preferred (and rather weak) tertiary sources. (I call them weak tertiary sources because one is a newspaper article and the others are popular history books that cite no sources for their information.) My suggestion that both versions could go into the article (which I believe is what WP:NPOV mandates in such a case) fell on deaf ears. Regarding the nature of tags, I think that when there is an actual ongoing substantial dispute over content, then a tag noting the fact of the dispute is in order and removal of it by a protagonist while (as anyone can see very plainly) the dispute is still in full swing should be seen as edit-warring. I don't think a tag marking a dispute needs consensus from those engaged in the dispute, though a consensus from less-involved editors would of course be enough to add or remove it. Zero^talk 08:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by AnkhMorpork:The comment "This edit war was created by and driven by AnkhMorpork" is very inaccurate. I did not touch this article until on 15th April, Oncenawhile made a series of edits that substantially altered the article. After that, I began to contribute to the article, always mindful of other POV's. I made extensive use of the Talk page, discussed edits and sought a consensual version. I have queried users' personal Talk pages and have sought independent advice at notice boards. You yourself stated to me on 19 April 2012 in reference to this article, "I like the collegial attitude you bring to the editing task and hope you will continue even though your biases are different from mine". Oncenawhile acknowledged "I had previously been quite impressed with your editing style - particularly that you were happy to discuss things thoughtfully" though suggesting my standards were dropping. This volte-face is most unfair and seems retributive. I have been a collaborative editor and will continue to be one, and it is unfortunate that I have been forced to take this matter to AE. This incident was especially frustrating as Oncenawhile ignored all of the clarifying talk page dialogue and inexplicably reverted to an old version, deleting several sources.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Shrike: @Zero You analysis is wrong. The article was stable till Oncenawhile started his edits to "balance" the article at 15 april [44] their edit was revered they should have followed WP:BRD instead they reverted back [45].--Shrike (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: You can start the clock at the moment you like and claim it was fine before then. I disagree. In my opinion the real problem started with this sequence of major edits adding material (mostly selected from random places in the Shaw report and all emphasizing the Zionist viewpoint), while deleting the existing report of casualties from that report in favor of weaker sources. As an example of bias in selection, AnkhMorpork quoted examples of inflammatory articles in the Arabic press but not inflammatory articles in the Jewish press that the report also pointed to. (The report's summary of this issue: "Exciting and intemperate articles which appeared in some Arabic papers, in one Hebrew daily paper and in a Jewish weekly paper published in English." p.164) Mind you, I have seen worse editing than this and it is easily fixable. The problem is that AnkhMorpork is stubborn and refuses such elementary fixes as citing both what the report says as well as what other sources say. And no, AnkhMorpork, you were not forced to bother the good folks here at AE with all this. Zero^talk 12:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "inflammatory articles in the Jewish press" were already well documented in the article before my involvement. Have a look. And as for "AnkhMorpork...refuses...citing both what the report says as well as what other sources say", please see this and this.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 13:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comments by TransporterMan: Even though I would have made this report had AnkhMorpork not beaten me to it (and, indeed, I brought it to the warning admin's attention before I came to that realization) and even though I helped to make the case against him, I think a block is too much in light of the complexity of the edit history, Oncenawhile's relative newcomer status, clean block log, and lack of a lot of warning templates on his talk page even though he works in a highly disputatious area. His effort to get discussion started and attempt to use DR work in his favor. He's clearly stated that he gets it (and I would note that when he was given the ARBPIA warning he was not actually in violation of anything at that time, see the text of that warning). In my experience working in dispute resolution, figuring out how to best approach a situation like this is sometimes beyond the ken of editors with far more experience than Oncenawhile. I !vote to give him a walk this time, put a clear last-chance-result/warning on his talk page, and leave him with a clear block log. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Oncenawhile

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

I hope that Oncenawhile is willing to comment on this complaint. It is reasonable to wait a bit for his answer. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone suggest wording for a WP:Request for comment that would allow a decision to be reached about the 1929 Palestine riots? If you can't think of anything else, you could propose two versions of the lead and ask editors to choose between them. EdJohnston (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At first sight, this complaint would lead to a routine block of Oncenawhile for violating 1RR. Since others claim that is not the whole story, I went into the history for a bit. Oncenawhile began an extensive revision of this article on April 15. His efforts encountered pushback. AnkhMorpork is one of the seven editors who made their first appearance at this article after Oncenawhile's changes on April 15. Editors of this article face some messy sourcing issues. How to place the Shaw Report (primary or secondary), and whether it is wise to augment or fill gaps in the story told by the Shaw Report using other sources. Some of the alternative sources may have their own limitations. These questions are up to the editors, but those who participate are expected to be sincerely working for a neutral result. Oncenawhile should have realized he was risking a major ARBPIA upset. Certain other editors should have used more caution as well. AnkhMorpork does not seem to have used diplomacy effectively when it was clear there was major disagreement. For instance, no WP:Request for comment was opened. At least Oncenawhile took the matter to WP:DRN, which was a reasonable step. My suggestion is a 48-hour block of Oncenawhile for the 1RR violation. The article would be fully protected for two weeks. I'll wait to hear responses. EdJohnston (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is already approaching tl;dr territory; would anyone happening across this please consider that admins aren't going to count how many words you use and make a decision based on that? This isn't directed at anyone specifically, but the size of this report is already getting out of hand. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing things, I'd have to agree with EdJohnston on this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closing. I am accepting TransporterMan's recommendation of closing with no block. Oncenawhile set the stage for the problem by making extensive changes at 1929 Palestine riots on April 15 that turned out to be controversial. His persistence in restoring some of his changes against opposition led to an unnecessary edit war at on that article, but other parties reverted improperly as well. For instance Oncenawhile, Jayjg and AnkhMorpork all made pure reverts on April 24 in a situation where it was obvious that none of them had consensus for their changes. The article is fully protected for two weeks. The parties are urged to use this time to create a WP:Request for comment on the talk page to reach a consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iadrian yu

Withdrawn. I missed a crucial diff. There is no point in continuing it on my part as submitter.--Nmate (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Iadrian yu

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nmate (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [46]

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

11:57, 20 April 2012 The editor created unfriendly atmosphere (in particular, language like "Again a new problem with this user")
12:01, 20 April 2012 The editor accused me of battleground mentality for block-shopping purposes. ("in this examples it is clear that Nmate violated the 3RR several times and of course the battleground mentality of edit warring")
12:04, 20 April 2012 The editor came up with WP:DIGWUREN at the Edit warring & 3RR board that I am placed under for block-shopping purposes. Note that the 3RR rule has a little to do with DIGWUREN.
12:33, 20 April 2012 The editor came up with arbitration enforcement and maintained unfriendly atmosphere (in particular, language like ("Ah, another sign of a constructive, friendly editing I guess ... after several arbitration enforcements on your account")

When I noticed that User:Bzg1920 is a self-confessed sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi [47]->[48], I got to erase his contributions to the project. Then said banned user brazenly complained about me at at the Edit warring & 3RR board where he also confirmed that he is a sockpuppet,viz,"He is reverting obviously helpful edits made my banned users"->08:13, 20 April 2012. Then said banned user came up with WP:DIGWUREN there that I am placed under->

11:25, 20 April 2012 11:28, 20 April 2012. I reverted it-> 11:29, 20 April 2012. The banned user restored it-> 11:31, 20 April 2012. I reverted it again-> 11:34, 20 April 2012. The banned user restored it again-> 11:36, 20 April 2012 Then I reverted it yet again-> 11:43, 20 April 2012 Afterwards Iadrian yu involved himself in the case-> 11:57, 20 April 2012, and he also came up with WP:DIGWUREN that I am placed under->12:04, 20 April 2012 and arbitration enforcment there ->12:33, 20 April 2012 Additionally, he wanted to bait me into an edit-war by restoring the banned user's comment-> 12:10, 20 April 2012, knowning that reverting a banned user does not fall under WP:3RR but, if I should revert his reverting, that would already constitute an edit war.

It is possibly meat puppeting and violations of numerous principles of editing on Wikipedia including WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLE on Iadrian yu's part.

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

Warned on 09:00, 27 August 2010 by Stifle (talk · contribs)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is not some exceptional slip: I do not remember when was the last time I have encountered Iadrian yu on Wikipedia until recently ,as I do not edit articles he does ,and still he has been on a continuous campaign to try to eliminate me from Wikipedia. At the aforementioned 3RR report, Iadrian yu appeared out of the blue to make an attempt to hoodwink the reviewer administrator saying that the fact that I reverted an obvious and self-confessed sockpuppet was because of my battleground behaviour to get me blocked.

previous attempts at block shopping:

09:04, 13 March 2011. There is not enough to warrant a block at this time: 18:48, 15 March 2011
13:34 11 July, 2011 frivilous SPI case, I see no evidence that would warrant an investigation of the other mentioned users: 17:41, 11 July, 2011
13:30 4 October, 2011 Calling my "involvement" - eager to block you is just ridiculous ..... in my opinion you should take a wiki-break.

It is worth to note that I indeed received 2 blocks under DIGWUREN last year, but I am reluctant to comment on the cases, following arbitrator SirFozzie's guidance: "in all cases (for example, it would be useful in showing a repeated pattern of behavior), but the evidence has to be somehow related to current events" [49] as all events in that regard happened more than 6 months ago.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[50]

Discussion concerning Iadrian yu

Statement by Iadrian yu

What user Nmate is doing now is block shopping - as he calls it himself. His manners on Wikipedia are far from collegiality relationship. If we take in consideration only this last incident we can notice that his approach is far from friendly and acting against the permission of another editor(7 times in a row after I decided to join the discussion) when he manipulated his comments (what is supposedly the base for this report). Note that the report about edit warring was filed by another editor ( not me ). I only joined the discussion after user Nmate manipulated other people`s comments after 7 times, I am sorry if this user can`t tolerate me or other editors but that is not the base for this kind of reports against me or anybody else.

Also the warning issued here [51] - again at the Nmate-s request , after talking to the administrator it was obvious that it was far less need than in other cases [52]. I received this warning when Nmate accused me without any evidence based on his personal opinion.

I really dislike this approach when user Nmate accuses me that I am blockshoping in places when I am mentioned - and I simply responded with my personal opinion and evidence for my claims.

I said [53] - since it is archived I don`t know how to take diffs from it so I will paste the comments here.

Response to Nmate`s accusations

To respond user`s Nmates accusation that are used for this report:

11:57, 20 April 2012 The editor created unfriendly atmosphere (in particular, language like "Again a new problem with this user")

User Nmate at this point repeatedly manipulated other people`s comment with no reason.

12:01, 20 April 2012 The editor accused me of battleground mentality for block-shopping purposes. ("in this examples it is clear that Nmate violated the 3RR several times and of course the battleground mentality of edit warring")

Nmate did violated the 3RR in this case ( 7 reverts). Deleted verified user comments: [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59].

12:04, 20 April 2012 The editor came up with WP:DIGWUREN at the Edit warring & 3RR board that I am placed under for block-shopping purposes. Note that the 3RR rule has a little to do with DIGWUREN.

DIGWUREN has to do with Nmate`s approach and battleground mentality and his recent edit warring(his block log) is a clear evidence for my claim.

12:33, 20 April 2012 The editor came up with arbitration enforcement and maintained unfriendly atmosphere (in particular, language like ("Ah, another sign of a constructive, friendly editing I guess ... after several arbitration enforcements on your account")

Please check your previous 2 comments (Has this anything to do with you? and In your dream, Iadrian yu, go elsewhere.) when I responded like this, and this is not an personal attack or anything any report can be based on. I was reminding you that on almost every comment you violate the AGF ( assume good faith ).

What Nmate calls "previous attempts at block shopping:" are not supported by any evidence or even a suggestion of an evidence. My every comment is substantiated with evidence(diffs) for my claims also the last "case" was October 4, 2011 - 8 months ago! And I participated there because my name was mentioned several times in bad faith by user Nmate and unfounded accusations[60]. After defending myself against unfounded accusations with evidence I am block-shooping????

It is very strange that Nmate accuses me of WP:CIVIL when I never insulted him or attacked him personally while he does that on almost every occasion.

First Nmate-`s friendly comment: will report you to the Arbitration Comitee if I have time, Samofi. - After manipulating other users comments with no reasonable evidence that he should ( all based on a presumption(at the time) that one user is a sock puppet) After I joined the discussion further friendly comments like after I did`t responded in a manner Nmate did:

Note that Iadrian yu is block-shopping again based on frivilous reasons of which I will notify the Arbitration Comitee. Restoring a comment made by a site-banned user is not allowed. Second, I haven't encountered Iadrian yu on Wikipaedia for a while and still he is block shopping. It is disgusting. On the other hand, I am not placed under editing restriction in that saense that I am not allowed to make reverts, as I mentioned above.
Has this anything to do with you? Note that Iadrian yu does not interest to edit the article; his only aim is block shopping. Second, I do not have to wait until it is confirmed by checkuser if said user admitted that he is a sockpuppet: which part of it do you not understand?--Nmate (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
"He is reverting obviously helpful edits made my banned users, like uncontroversial page moves" [340] Go elsewhere, Iadrian yu. What you do is quite disgusting--Nmate (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
In your dream, Iadrian yu, go elsewhere.--Nmate (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Other evidence of a friendly editing by Nmate or manipulating other people`s comments:

Having in mind his recent block history [66], recent (and continuable) personal attacks and edit warring it is clear that the lack of good faith against everybody who doesn`t support his POV is a major problem involving this editor. After taking a look at this user contributions[67] I have a feeling that his main activity is block-shopping against other users and sporadicly make one or 2 fair edits once in a while.

Could have written the same report if I was folowing the battleground mentality

Note that the administrator said Result: No action against Nmate; checkuser confirms that these were valid removals of a banned user's edits. Reporter blocked for long-standing pattern of breaches of a topic ban. All editors involved are admonished to avoid battleground attitude and avoid acting in an enabling role for long-term sockpuppeters. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC) conclusion for us other editors - to avoid battleground mentality. After everything Nmate said I could have written the same report as this one here, but I did`t because the admin here said what he said.

Conclusion

His aggressive approach is somewhat a normal situation - this are the examples from our last conversation only(not to mention others) and all this with constant WP:BATTLEGROUND(noticed by other users also) mentality when I joined the discussion after he repeatedly manipulated other people`s comments without their permission therefore I will avoid any further implication in this "pay-back" (since this is not the first attempt for Nmate to ban me under this restrictions(block shopping) [68]) report on his behalf. I hope that this demonstrates what is really the problem here. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am very curious why did this user waited for 8 days to file this report???? Adrian (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am on a holiday from tomorrow(4 days) therefore I ask for understanding if I don`t participate in this discussion during that time. Adrian (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Iadrian yu

Result concerning Iadrian yu

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

Matt Lewis

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

Request concerning Matt Lewis

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RA (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:TROUBLES#Principles:

Disruption

3) The editing of users who disrupt Wikipedia by aggressive, sustained point of view editing may be restricted. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Harassment

4) Editors who severely harass other users may be banned.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions may also apply (Wikipedia:TROUBLES#Standard_discretionary_sanctions).

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

After a break of several months, Matt Lewis returned to WIkipedia, first contributing to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Muhammad images and then moving onto making sustained and aggressive comments against Irish editors across User talk:Canterbury Tail, Talk:Northern Ireland, User:Matt Lewis, Talk:Ireland and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles.

The thrust of the posts are that Irish editors ("nationalists") on Wikipedia are engaged in a semi-organised but deliberate scheme to undermine the (real-world) United Kingdom and to bring about its end through their contributions to Wikipedia. He thus feels strongly that it is incumbent upon those who oppose this to defend the national sovereignty of the United Kingdom from this threat. In a number of comments, I am singled out a particular ringleader of sorts in this conspiracy.

An example (one of the more lucid):

20:36, 17 April 2012 on User:Canterbury Tail:

..for me national sovereignty is an area that is simply bigger and more important than Wikipedia. Some things in life are. There are people out there who would say WP is subject to a kind of online terrorism - by which I mean misusing internet-based information areas to undermine the fabric of a state, in view of removing the state. It's not easily definable thing, but Wikipedia has been lax here, and could well pay a price for not being careful enough in its procedures.

My concern is at the sustained, aggressive and particularly sectarian nature of his posts. They have been in-coming for a week now without rest. Sometimes, they contain suggestions for improvements to articles, sometimes they are simply rants.

To date, reaction from other editors has been relatively calm and patient. However, I don't know how long that patience can last. Aside from the content of his posts, I am afraid that Matt's comments will spill over and incite the more hot-blooded editors and lead to the running pitch battles we have seen in the past.

Some examples:

02:29, 28 April 2012 on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles:

You either haven't read a single word I've written, or you're a slimeball, or you're troll. Either way, you'll scroll all this away to fight another day. As year after year after year you always do. You sad, sad, sad bunch of people. You major minor scoop of decadently committed people. You think I need a source to neolise the word "sovereign"? To conflate a little meaning to try and save a little space? To try and get an clear and obvious point across? There is simply no way in with you people - you would drive anyone to farce. Though in reality you all simply drive everyone away. These Troubled areas are like a Drive Out where the same C movie runs over forever.

21:52, 23 April 2012 — 02:19, 24 April 2012‎ on Talk:Northern Ireland:

This is the cabal to end all cabals - how did it get to this? Ghmyrtle - you should be utterly, utterly ashamed of yourself. And what have you all done with Canterbury Tale?
…
The problem is that you've 'balanced' sovereignty and COMMONUSE with people supposedly taking offence. Who exactly takes offence GHmytle - answer me that? Would it be nationalists perhaps? And you know damn well that this has been a war of attrition, with many people like myself happy for "country" here. It was here for a long, long time and you are all having to stick together to keep it from coming back.

13:46, 28 April 2012 on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles:

Northern Ireland should never be covered by IMOS - it's skewered the poltical context and given you people total control of it. Ireland still lays claim on NI, and this MOS clearly covers political areas (despite the endless bare-faced lie that it's island-only). It doesn't make any sense. NI is a British country, not an Irish one. It HAS to be part of a UK MOS. The calculated blurring of island/Ireland on Wikipedia makes this the single most corrupt area in the whole encyclopedia.

00:03, 27 April 2012 on User talk:Matt Lewis:

The Irish nationalists (and many have been at this for years and years) are experts at making every issue 'unionist vs nationalist', then demanding equal weight. It avoids all the policy issues, and is totally anti-sovereign too, but they will post day and night calling it a "no brainer" etc.
…
The nationalist editor RA has been even more effective since becoming an admin sadly it seems - I hoped it would go the other way (ie he would have to ease off a little), but he's been as single-minded as ever in his clearly lifelong pursuit. … Over the next couple of years every active nationalist in the UK is going to come to Wikipedia to push their river: there has to be solid guidelines or it will be mayhem.
…
Yes, the nationalists are instinctively organised - and consequently Wikipedia is a more beneficial place for them, as it is for all negative people it could be argued. Which makes focusing on adapting policy and guidelines the key. … If you lose this kind of thing, someone like RA will get a biased paragraph and a long moratorium into IMOS in two seconds flat. To a number of them it really will be like the war won.

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

Matt has been asked by one of the calmer editors to tone down his comments:

23:34, 23 April 2012 by Ghmyrtle (talk · contribs)

Other's have been more direct in giving their opinion on his posts. Examples:

22:27, 25 April 2012 by Fmph (talk · contribs)
22:34, 26 April 2012 by Bjmullan (talk · contribs)
08:44, 28 April 2012 by Bjmullan (talk · contribs)
08:51, 28 April 2012 by One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs)
12:36, 28 April 2012 by Domer48 (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

16:03, 29 April 2012

Discussion concerning Matt Lewis

Statement by Matt Lewis

Firstly, RA (Sony Youth to Grahamzilch, an undisclosed IP editor for a long period, then Rannpháirtí anaithnid, or 'RA') is not uninvolved here. It is simply not possible for him to be more involved. This has always been his primary editing area (often sole editing area), and he has always held a different position to mine. Unfortunately we have always disagreed on matters. I thought it was agreed at his Rfa that if he became an admin he'd leave this kind of area-measure to other people? In reality he seems to have stepped-up in terms of being effectively (from his position) involved. I would certainly be 'happier' if someone else had started this.

Actually (with perhaps a tiny bit of embarrassment) I'm happy for people to read my comments and judge accordingly - but please read them. The quotes of my comments above are selected snippets, people really need to read in full to judge properly. One thing I've never done (and can never do) is be bullied over holding a valid position, in whatever way that bullying may take place. I do not personally consider the UK/IRE nationality area to be a 'no go area', or one that's been correctly sealed-shut by credible 'compromises' (always compromises). I may appear rude at times but please bear in mind who I'm speaking to, or about. I am honestly never 'trolling' - I always have at least one strong point (typically a number of points) with a connected solution in mind. I am never 'tendentious' (ie in the sense of being 'biased') - although I admit I am a typical British citizen, who happens to also be Welshman from Wales (the large majority of us are happily British - though you wouldn't think it reading Wikipedia talk pages sometimes). Only on Wikipedia am I ever called or labelled a "Unionist"!

The only thing I would apologise about is the trouble GoodDay has got into, as (mentors aside) I should have warned him myself, instead of eventually engaging with him on my talk. The two below were clearly ready to get him into trouble - and GD you've really got to stay away. GoodDay certainly did not "provoke" me in any way into losing my temper a little at times - other's have done that (and myself I admit - I come back into Wikipedia, see this stuff at the top of my 1,000 plus watch-list, and just get fed up with the regressive changes to hours of positive work). As far as I am concerned the angry conversation at IMOS has run its course - and I'm sure it's the same for everyone else who participated in it. It's clearly all RFC/Vpump stuff, and this request for enforcement has come a little after the event regarding that.

The various issues between RA and myself are clearly personal, and have gone on for years - it's hard to be objective, but I was strongly against him being made an admin (I still can't see the reason that he was, other than that Wikipedia clearly needs them right now). We just don't see eye-to-eye in anything I'm afraid, and I have been upset with the way he's continued pushing so hard for various positions on Wikipedia since he got the 'bit'. Like others, I spent a huge amount of hours bringing stability to the UK "country" matter when RA was almost a lone voice against - gradually he has turned it around by virtue of never giving up (his mantra being "consensus can change" - and he's right). And such is life. Many people like myself have off-line lives to deal with of course, and I wasn't around when the huge amount work by so-many people was simply de-linked away at NI. Again, I can't see the policy behind it - despite what some say. Sources I have being shown in these areas do not weigh up. For example the Government No.10 website has been revamped (and they do from time to time, esp as govs change) - and "four countries of the UK" no longer appears on the home page. According to the same-olds who removed term from Northern Ireland, the No.10 website-change means the government has revised its position! As much as anything, it's all WP:Point. Sovereignty is the only thing that can settle these matters. The protection of various positions in this area (on all sides) really is something to behold.

'Area banning' me (as seems to be the idea reading Domer's and K-Hackney's comments - which have appeared below before I have even had a chance to write this) would imo remove one of the few people who has stood shoulder to shoulder with a (in real-world terms) relatively small group of people who have protected the same position on UK/IRE for years and years.

I do not believe the various 'compromises' to be policy-based, and wish (as I always have) that the UK, the Republic of Ireland, and the island of Ireland can be totally freed from the shackles of compromise and special exception on Wikipedia. I genuinely believe that proper adherence to the hierarchy of policies (COMMONAME has it's place for example - and it's not at the very top), and a new guideline paragraph or two, can solve every single issue that the Troubles covers. I honestly do. Before we know it we'll have the Scottish referendum on our hands - it will benefit Wikipedia hugely to sort this out beforehand. That is not a "conspiracy theory" - as we all know in the UK, it's just a plain fact. Wikipedia simply cannot allow the evenly-Weighting of nationalist vision with incumbent reality.

Would a 'topic ban' stop me from starting a UK MOS (freeing Northern Ireland from the hugely-restricting and supposedly-unpolitical Ireland IMOS)? I doubt it. I'm planning to do it, and it will be very useful in large number of areas outside of Irish matters. No vote on it first imo, allowing people who have already said they don't want it to line up again - I'll just do it, like with the various task forces I've set up in the past -- where Domer and Hackney did everything they could to stop me, claiming they would be 'anti consensus'. But what actually is consensus here? Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be an 'upstairs in the pub' numbers game in matters that are ultimately this important.

My language is sometimes strong - but the fact that countless admin and editors have said that they "simply do not got there" proves that it's a difficult area to navigate and get a fair point across. It's not because they are weak in any way - it's because they've got better things to do be disagreed with whatever they say. I'm not going to be held to blame for any 'bad atmosphere' (now or whenever) - I wasn't part of 99% of its life (unlike others here, who have been around for pretty-much all of it) and was not part of the TROUBLES ruling at all. In the past I've given God-knows how many hours of my time trying to be constructive, while others have simply repeated the same lines again and again. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that looking back at all my edits recently (even out of this area), they have been a bit high-pitched wherever I've been - so I do apologise in general for that. It's not ideal - I can't disagree with RA (or anyone else) on that. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Matt Lewis

Comment by One Night In Hackney

In addition to the diffs above, when replying to me Matt Lewis says "How about you stop making it your life's aim to abuse Wikipedia? This is not any "subject" - the UK is a sovereign state constantly under nationalistic pressures in these areas" (which is disagreed with by plenty of people at Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Proposed decision#Proposed Finding of Fact 2 for the record, and I'm sure the 1 FA, 4 GAa and countless DYKs all in the Troubles area speak for themselves about my "life's aim". Matt Lewis's conduct is just pure battleground, anyone who disagrees with him is part of some imaginary Irish nationalist conspiracy. I see no benefit in allowing his further participation in the topic area. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Domer48

I've attempted to put a break on the escalating abuse by reminding editors that these discussions are subject to active arbitration remedies and discretionary sanctions. As has been pointed to above, there is a clear battleground mentality coupled with a level of abuse of editors which is way above the norm. While the subject articles have been quite for awhile now (due to the blocking of a number of sock abusing editors) there is always the potential for a flare up. This editor could be just the catalyst that is needed. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike The editor is aware of the Troubles Arbcom and has commented on it.--Domer48_'fenian' 17:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Τασουλα

There is no excuse for User:Matt Lewis behavior and conduct...none what-so-ever. He's been warned plenty of times so there is no excuse and I feel the community has lost pateince. I've been observing what's been unfolding and it's a very sorry state of affairs indeed. If i were a new editor, thsi would certainly off-putting but that might be because I'm a little sensitive? Haha. I don't care what the Derry article is called, or how the new lede for NI is layed out (tough i admit I like it and don't see any POV-issues with it) but the conduct...urhhhhhg yuck, even to an uninvolved editor such as myself. (Ps, sorry fpr any spelling mistakes I'm on a tablet PC ;c) --Τασουλα (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shrike

Without making any comments about the user behavior he should have been warned about discretionary sanctions according to WP:AC/DS before applying sanctions to him.He of course could be blocked for incivility but that should not be AE block.--Shrike (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Users

Result concerning Matt Lewis

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

I don't see any formal notice under the rather new discretionary sanctions that have been authorized for WP:TROUBLES. But I suggest this request be kept open for a while to see if Matt Lewis will respond. Whatever he has to say here would be educational. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[Shaw65-3] Great Britain, 1930: Report of the Commission on the disturbances of August 1929, Command paper 3530 (Shaw Commission report), p. 65.

[4] Shaw Report, p66-67

[a]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards