This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mackan79 (talk | contribs) at 06:41, 6 November 2008 (→Request for a special restriction at Naked short selling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE 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, or is no longer an administrator; 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Edit this section for new requests

Request for extension on the editing restrictions

There are editing restrictions imposed upon myself and Martinphi at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. The dispute has only gotten worse, probably indicating that arbcomm did a poor job of adjudicating, but no matter. I hereby request that the editing restrictions which are set to expire in about two weeks for this arbitration decision be extended. I am perfectly happy living under civility, AGF, and NPA editing restrictions if it means that Martinphi must also live under editing restriction regarding his (continued) disruption of fringe-theory-related articles.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for a special restriction at Naked short selling

Executive summary: To prevent sophisticated sockpuppetry, I propose that we bar new accounts from editing the mainspace of articles under probation.

Me and User:Mackan79 have become concerned that it is impossible to enforce the article probation from the Mantanmoreland ArbCom. Although editors are instructed to edit only from their main or sole account, technical evidence cannot enforce this instruction against highly sophisticated sockpuppeteers. Mantanmoreland, having learned from at least four prior sock puppets, is an extremely sophisticated sockpuppeteer. His most recent User:Bassettcat account initially passed check user with flying colors. This account was only caught after making one—and only one—unproxied edit.

There are two new editors now at Naked short selling who share Mantanmoreland's POV. Mackan79 suggests that they're violating instruction C of the article probation (no advocacy) by their inflammatory rhetoric. I don't know whether either of them is Mantanmoreland, but I find it hard to believe that they are completely new accounts—as they claim. For example, Janeyryan claims that this is her first and only account "since the dawn of time," but I note that her first edit was a sophisticated wiki-markup contribution to Misplaced Pages Review, in passages purporting to deal with the Overstock.com article. Still, I don't know whether either of these accounts is certainly Mantanmoreland, and I don't see why we should spend more time worrying about it. Instead, I suggest we put controls on these articles to limit the incentives for Mantanmoreland (or Wordbomb, or anyone else) to sockpuppet in these subjects.

So, I present Mackan79's proposal.

Basically, new users (I would argue users who began editing after March 2008) should refrain from editing the mainspace of the topics under probation.

Mackan79 hoped that the editors would voluntarily agree to such restrictions, but Janeyryan rejects them, and casts aspersions on the motives of me and Mackan79. Janeyryan suggests that this proposal seeks to exclude POVs from the article. This is false. I don't know about Macken79, but I don't have a strong POV on the article. (Here I reverted to JohnnyB's version)

Our objective is solely to prevent sockpuppeteering by removing the incentives to create new sock accounts. In this way, Mantanmoreland or any other interested party can suggest changes from the talk page, but these suggestions will be reviewed by editors who were never involved in this POV war. I think this arrangement will improve the quality of the encyclopedia; it should not be applied to just these two users, but to any new accounts in this area.

This externally-driven battle must stop. In the words of Newyorkbrad, "please, not here; no more here; no more, no more, no more. We need to stop the bleeding; we need our encyclopedia back." Cool Hand Luke 02:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy smokes. While I appreciate and understand the reasoning behind this, this has a huge number of practical and philosophical problems. Aside from the "wiki way" issues, enforcing this would require a completely new technical tool or blocking any relatively young account if they attempt to edit a probation topic. Semi-Permanent full protection would probably be less drastic than this. More than a few accounts got their mop at less than six months, so March 2008 as a cut off is really a bit much

That all having been said, I trust that there are reasonable editors making these suggestions, which suggests a serious problem going on in the background that needs more attention.--Tznkai (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I also considered that new accounts could submit some form of identification, but that seems equally unwiki, and I don't believe we have the infrastructure.

Semi-protection has been applied almost continuously since the ArbCom. Full protection is another option that I'd considered in the past, but I think it's overkill for simply preventing new sockpuppets. This is less restrictive. Cool Hand Luke 03:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Having additional, un-public information here, I am convinced that at least one of the accounts here directly relates to Mantanmoreland in some way (meat or sock). While I deplore having to take steps such as the one requested above (or something similar), this is a long term disruption from a user who is exceedingly good at preventing technical identification of his accounts. If we simply restricted the two users in question from the page (perhaps allowing them to use the talk page), I am convinced that yet another one would take his place, and attempt to use up the reservoir of Assuming Good Faith that we must do, lest we devolve into a witch hunt, the type the user in question used to do so many times to opponents in turn. This is a financial feud. This is a personal feud. This is something that has the ability to greatly harm the encyclopedia, and I urge readers to take it gravely seriously. SirFozzie (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be wrong to ban new accounts, because it would give too much of a POV advantage to editors on the page whose accounts were set up before March 2008. My suggestion is that anyone wanting to edit articles that fall under that ArbCom ruling should be asked to discuss on Skype, by voice and on webcam, their interest in editing those articles, with an experienced admin who has no prior involvement in the case. Certain questions can be asked to ensure that the admin really is speaking to the person behind the account and not a friend who's standing in for them. It would have to be the same admin conducting all the "interviews," for obvious reasons. The editors would also have to be willing to give their real IP address, and to commit to using only that one, or one within the same range if it's not static; and by editing the articles would be agreeing to be regularly and randomly checkusered.

If this is applied to all accounts making edits to those pages, that would be much fairer than banning new accounts.

Alternatively, as I suggested about 18 months ago and I see Luke has considered too, the articles should be protected so that only admins can edit if good suggestions for edits are left on talk, but where the idea would be to add new material only if there were a pressing need to do so. As I see it, what's needed is for those pages to be left in peace for a long time, in the hope that people with strong views get bored. SlimVirgin 04:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Full protecting the articles as SlimVirgin has suggested above is a possible way to move forward on this. I do think that the proposers of this AE section have been working competently and fairly (fair disclosure: I have been a dilettante on this, when I see a bit in the news about naked short selling (such as international bans), but rather then possibly play whack a mole, or twenty questions, or put every user through an inquisition just to edit the article , the we just refuse to let it happen. I really don't like to lock this down "Long term" (ie, for the forseeable future), but rather then play the game every time a new user shows up (which is what I don't like about the current situation), or unfairly restrict a broad swath of users, it may be best to say "We're not interested in your battles." and full protect it until such point that people who want to use it as a battleground drift away. SirFozzie (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If we do full protection, I suggest that me, SirFozzie, and any other editor who has ever touched the article should be prevented from editing it. We'd use {{editprotected}} if required, just to get truly fresh eyes. I think announcing a long policy from the outset is the best way to bore would-be POV pushing socks. (By the way, 18 months ago this would have saved tons of drama!) Cool Hand Luke 04:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have no problem with that. SirFozzie (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm, tough one here. The Janeyryan account history certainly raises a few eyebrows. It's conceivable but unlikely that a genuinely new editor could share a pointed interest in Misplaced Pages Review, Naked Short Selling, Overstock.com, Patrick Byrne, and Gary Weiss without being our old friend. A number of arbitration cases have had a multiple editors with a single voice provision, including COFS, Starwood, and Midnight Syndicate. Although that provision wasn't specifically included in the relevant case to this thread, it may be arguable that it applies generally. So on the good faith supposition that the new accounts might somehow be intimately familiar with Misplaced Pages Review yet unaware of the history behind these particular article topics, suggest leaving this instance go with a caution. Although not an administrator, I am fully prepared to open a formal arbitration clarification request and seek an amendment to the Mantanmoreland case fashioned after the findings and remedies of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. Specifically:

• The recruitment of new editors to Misplaced Pages for the purpose of influencing a survey, perform reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Misplaced Pages solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.
• Agapetos angel and User:Dennis Fuller, User:Phloxophilos, User:220.245.180.133, User:220.245.180.134, User:220.245.180.130, User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242 and User:58.162.251.204 are banned from editing of Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. This list is not exclusive and the remedy applies to any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel.

Posted in trust that any actual good faith contributor in this unusual situation will get the message and contribute non-disruptively, refraining from confrontational actions such as characterizing a polite request to depersonalize a dispute as trolling. It is natural that concerns exist after 2.5 years of contending with a persistent and very sneaky sockpuppeteer. Nonetheless, we err on the side of good faith at this website, and in ambiguous situations seek to act politely in ways that resolve conflict (or ambiguity). Durova 04:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That might be helpful, but I truly don't want this to be a finding about these editors. This is a sophisticated sock master. Like SirFozzie said, if we banned these accounts from the subject, Mantanmoreland could still start more, using each up until he depletes its share good faith. I would be interested, in whether Arbitrators would favor some kind of protection solution. Cool Hand Luke 04:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That's why I would open it as a clarification request, so that a remedy could deal with any return of MM & Co. The Agapetos angel case dealt with a dispute that had similar dimensions (although far less high profile) and a similar disruptive pattern, and the provision settled things down nicely. Given the history of CU-confirmed socking that was known even before Bassetcat was confirmed, it's a bit surprising that this year's Committee didn't include a 'who's who' provision already. Durova 04:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To respond to the main proposal, heck no. Several editors already oppose arbcom's over-extension of rulings that involve editors not named in a specific case, and this would be going far further than that. Extremely out of the scope of power that arbcom has. -- Ned Scott 04:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ned's comment appears to be directed at Luke's comment, yet fwiw the Agapetos angel decision was enacted in April 2006 and has been enforced without controversy for 2.5 years. Durova 04:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen this, and would mostly like to clarify, with respect to Luke, that this is more his proposal than mine. I don't have a strong opinion, but my comment was only intended to reflect the way I was approaching the situation, mainly in response to one of the new accounts' complaints that I was "revert warring" against the two of them. I consequently raised this, as I said on the page, mainly needing to clarify what was going on: two new accounts with the same views, jumping in with apparent familiarity, insulting other editors, making questionable edits, and as I considered notable, both tending to make grudgy comments about "Mr. Byrne." The specific problem I saw was that without stricter enforcement of the probation, treating new accounts like this normally would lead to another quick devolvement of the article.

To be honest, I mostly felt that if other editors knew what was going on, then the problem might solve itself (at the moment it didn't seem anyone was paying attention). From the above, I think this may still be the best option, assuming that admins are willing to look on and deal with any editor who, under the circumstances, edits tendentiously. I do think something here needed to happen, though, so I can see the basis for Luke requesting clarification. Mackan79 (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Domer

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Potential content dispute, not behavioural. Risker (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Despite all the warnings and carry on of the last few weeks it appears that Domer hasn't taken on board what has been said to him. If any interested admin would care to take a look here you'll notice that, although he is less belligerent than before, his intention is still to poison the article by introducing POV content. I have asked him to involve his mentor and I will involve mine but he has not done so. I've also e-mailed him privately wishing him well and offering certain documents I have - no reply (same with BigDunc). For some reason, beyond my ken, while the bickering on these articles is currently under control, the underlying reasons for it have not gone away. The involved editors still think that wikipedia is a place where they can manipulate articles to reflect a certain version of history. Some of you may well say "oh no" at me raising this but I'd ask you all to bear in mind that my agenda is pro-Misplaced Pages, not pro-Ulster Special Constabulary. I'd like to see an end to this manipulation of articles on the Irish Troubles. Thunderer (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This has the potential to become a content dispute, but I do not see this as a behavioural issue. Proposing to use a source with other supporting sources is exactly how it is done in the rest of the encyclopedia. It is discussed on the talk page of the article. If you have a concern about a specific edit, use WP:3O or Reliable sources noticeboard or article RFC. Everyone needs to relax a bit here, please. Risker (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If we don't sort these concerns out the wiki fails in its prime objective of being a reliable reference piece worldwide and will never be taken seriously by academia. Thunderer (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer, there isn't even a proposed edit on the talk page. If there is a concern about the content of proposed (or actual) edits, use the content dispute resolution system. This is arbitration enforcement and, as we all know, the arbitration system does not determine which sources are useful or reliable. It is very important that the editing processes for this particular topic area be reintegrated into the encyclopedia as a whole, both for the articles and for the editors; as I have taken a more in-depth review of editing practices, I see that they are out of alignment with standard editing practices throughout the encyclopedia. This is unhealthy for the encyclopedia, as it discourages experienced editors from working in the topic area, while creating articles at a different standard than is normal elsewhere. It is time for all of the editors in this area to become Misplaced Pages editors who work in Ireland-related topic areas rather than editors of Ireland-related topics who happen to publish their work on Misplaced Pages. This may be a difficult transition for everyone, but it is clearly a required one. So, just to reiterate—this page is for behavioural issues. There are half a dozen other places to take content disputes. When the two are intertwined, then it may be reasonable to bring things here, but only the behavioural issues will be addressed, not the content ones. Risker (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Troubles

Request examination of the above edits plus User talk:Harrymph#The Troubles and User talk:Yachtsman1#Incivility.

Are accusations of vandalism by User:Yachtsman1 justified? If so, editing restrictions should be considered on User:Harrymph per Misplaced Pages:General sanctions. If not, editing restrictions should be considered on User:Yachtsman1. Alternatively, on both or neither. Harrymph (talk) 11:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been placed on notice of this posting by Harrymph on my talk page. The article referenced has been placed under special status, and any editor has been asked to consult on the discussion page. Notwithstanding, Harry has seen fit to make changes without meeting the requirements as stated. After reverting two edits, and leaving comments on Harrymph's talk page asking that he reach consensus before making edits, I finally resolved the matter by adding a citation to back up the portion Harry wished to have deleted without consultation. I consider this matter closed, and would merely ask that Harrymph attempt to reach consensus before making any further changes to The Troubles.Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've no quibble with the citation provided or the content of the article. My request is for neutral examination of the editor behaviour. Either I am a vandal or Yachtsman is rude or both or neither.

I have no intention of ever editing the article again, nor have I ever edited it before this. As usual, the bullying tactics of the article's owners have succeeded in scaring me off. Harrymph (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The article you were editing was one under special sanctions. My initial attempt was to make you aware of that fact, my intent clearly stated that my undo was to avoid conflict if possible, and I extended the courtesy of explaining my actions on your talk page asking that you try to seek consensus on your edit. You changed it yet again, even after it was fully explained, which caused me to undo your change, provide another explanation, and finally conduct research to provide the citation in the article, and to place the entire matter to rest. Thus, the article received a citation, your reason for making the edit was obviated, and everyone can move on. In any case, at no time did I use abusive language, name calling, or any other device that would make my actions "incivil". As stated, I feel this matter is closed, and would merely ask that in the event you ever wish to edit The Troubles in the future, kindly seek consenses before making any siginficant change to the article. Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• On the basis of what has been stated above, I would move that this matter be formally closed by any willing administrator. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You did indulge in abusive name calling. You called me a vandal. Three times. Harrymph (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again for your comments. This does not rise to the level of abuse, nor is it "name-calling" as vandalism could be changed without penalty on the article in question. Each change was accompanied by full explanations in each case, none of which was incivil by any standard. In sum, I do not find your complaint has merit, and suggest, again, that this matter be closed by an administrator. In the future, please ask for consensus before making any additional changes to The Troubles in order to avoid conflict.Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My changes were "accompanied by full explanations in each case, none of which was incivil by any standard". Unfortunately, yours were not. For which, you still have not apologised or acknowledged your mistake. Harrymph (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Let me expound for a moment. Your changes were to an article that is perhaps the single most controversial article on this site, one that has engendered heated debate, conflict, mediation, arbitration and other measures that are clearly stated on the Discussion page as the result of its subject matter. In other words, this is an article with a "troubled" history. Any editor, including you, is required to seek consensus prior to making any substantive changes to The Troubles. Thus, any serious change made without seeking required consensus is vandalism, and violates the unique standards set forth after arbitration for this particular article. If anything, it should be you extending an apology to me, an editor who has gone to great lengths to seek consensus on the article in question prior to making changes to meet both neutrality and quality standards. It should be you who extends an apology for so quickly dismissing my good faith effort to have you reach consensus, which you roundly ignored, instead creating the very conflict I was trying my best to avoid by stubbornly making the change yet again without seeking consensus, even though you were fully aware that such consensus was a requirement. Even then, I reverted your change back, performed research, and added a cite to remedy the problem, obviating your objection to the item in question (in other words, resolved the issue). I shall repeat - Your complaint lacks merit in my opinion, my comments were extremely civil, they were in conformance with the conditions placed on editing the article in question, and I consider this matter closed. Let me also take this opportunity to remind you to please seek consensus before making any additional substantive edits to The Troubles. If, as you state, you have no intention of editing The Troubles any further, then the matter is doubly closed. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You keep going on about the article. This isn't about the article. It's about you callng me a vandal without justification. Harrymph (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again for your comment. It's all about the article in question, and the unique character of that article. Under those circumstances, unilaterally changing the article without consensus was vandalism, the comment was civilly provided, justified and correct. Let me repeat - Please seek consensus before making any additional substantive edits to The Troubles. Thank you again. Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I again move that this matter be closed. An objective examination reveals that the complaint lacks merit, incivility is lacking, and this running debate is getting nowhere. Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It says quite categorically at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles that "Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources requires that information be supported by a reliable source." It says nothing about removal of unsourced information being vandalism nor does it say that editing of the article is banned unless you first raise the issue on the talk page. You've now called me a vandal twice more based solely on your own personal rule which you've invented outwith of the arbitration case in order to impose your own opinion on the article.

It also says there that editors indulging in edit warring can be put on probation. If I edit-warred by making two similar edits in the space of twenty-four hours, then so did you: . The difference is that my edits were supported by policy WP:V and were civil, while yours were uncivil and unsupported by policy. Harrymph (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again for your comments. Edit warring requires three changes on the same article in a 24 hour period by the same editor. The special sanctions for this article also require that consensus be reached before making a substantial change in the article. The remainder of your points, a non sequitor of the first order that does not incorporate an assumption of good faith, does not merit a response. Thank you again.Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You keep mentioning the "special sanctions" which mean that consensus must be sought prior to editing the page but I can't find them anywhere. I do not see them on the article page, or the talk page, or the arbitration page, or the general sanctions page, nor do they appear when you click the edit button. Please provide a direct link and a quote. Harrymph (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, full stop.

I am reviewing this matter, but a few things need to be clarified:

• The Troubles is a highly controversial article and is under General Sanctions. There are a number of useless details and a lot of specific rules but it comes down to this: we (Misplaced Pages at large) have a lower tolerance of edit warring, incivility and other nonsense and administrators are mandated to address it.
• Apply common sense when editing any article, apply extra common sense when editing controversial articles.
• Vandalism has a very specific definition, and refers to a very specific kind of problem, and it never refers to actual content disputes.
• Edit warring is any set of actions, inactions, and mindsets that encourages or tolerates confrontational tactics when in a content dispute. This especially includes reverting edits and a lack of constructive discussion.
• Civility is an important behavioral issue that we mandate editors follow in order to produce a functioning productive environment for encyclopedia writing.
• The Vandalism, Edit warring and Civility policies are important, but they are not to be used as ammunition in personal or content disputes. There is probably nothing more counterproductive than using policies as a bludgeon against other editors.
• Harrymph and Yachtsman1 are highly encouraged to edit articles that have no mention of the words "Ireland" or "Irish" or "Troubles" while I sort this out.

Now there is an election or something that is going on today, so please be patient while I review the issue. --Tznkai (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sanction breach

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

This is beyond a joke now 0RR on the PIRA Article, has been breached and 1RR on the Ulster Special Constabulary article. This editor can not keep disregarding the sanctions that have been imposed. Now as I have said on a number of occassions who is going to step up to the plate and end this nonsense. Moved from the page of Fozz who said to take it here. BigDunc 17:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe this complaint is a frivolous waste of admin time. Not only was the minor spat dealt with by the two editors involved (one of whom was me) but I have posted on the PIRA talk page that I have withdrawn from the article. I am disappointed that we're seeing this type of gaming already from an editor who has been severely warned about his behaviour. Thunderer (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed. There was only one revert on the PIRA article, and the diffs from the USC article were not about content but about how to format a quotation. I have provided a link to WP:MOSQUOTE on The Thunderer's page because the current format of the quote still does not meet MOS guidelines. The Thunderer may reformat the quotes in the article to comply with MOS. He has, however, been warned not to use edit summaries that suggest other editors are "blind". Risker (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In other words: a frivolous waste of time. The other editor and I could have agreed that now that we've resolved the issue. What is the point of this editor asking for mediation when he spends his time doing this when he could have been suplying his opening statement at the mediation board as requested by User:Sunray.Thunderer (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have asked The Thunderer to retract the above, and will remove this comment should he do so. The report was filed by BigDunc, not by Domer. Risker (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem retracting my accusation and apologising to Domer. I have amended the text accordingly and apologise unreservedly.Thunderer (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)