Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive120

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Devil's Advocate
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : - 20:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed :
 * Topic ban from the subject of the September 11 attacks, imposed at
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive111, logged at
 * Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator :

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
As this was a massive case I intend to focus on the substantive points raised about my conduct in the discussion as there was quite a bit of trivial commentary. For the sake of making things easier, as this is going to be long, I will summarize the main points and include evidence and commentary after that in sections. The main points of my appeal:


 * The alleged edit-warring on the September 11 attacks article was me attempting to undo a glaring error that resulted from another editor's manual revert of my changes.
 * Claims of tendentious editing in favor of 9/11 conspiracy theories are based on edits I made that were actually less favorable to a conspiracist view.
 * The case I filed against User:DHeyward was related to articles in the 9/11 topic area and did include serious conduct issues. It was not a frivolous request regarding any "personal dispute" between us nor an attempt to "silence an opponent" to my edits.

My reason for citing the case against DHeyward is because User:EdJohnston cited the case as a reason for his position on the MONGO case (the one that resulted in my topic ban). In that respect I would ask that User:Elen of the Roads, who made several comments on the DHeyward case, be considered involved as that case is related to the enforcement action.

Edit-warring
The first substantive allegation raised was by Tom harrison. He claimed that I was edit-warring over a "Warnings" section another editor had added to the article on 9/11 to "force in" a rewrite I did of the section. This is the initial revert of my changes by A Quest For Knowledge:



What should be noted about this revert is that it was a manual revert spread over two edits that tried to preserve some of my changes while removing others. The unintentional result was that two of the paragraphs in the section were essentially identical and sourced material about a well-known August memo was removed entirely. Here is exactly what was in the article as a result of this revert with the exact duplication bolded:

"During the Bush Administration such warnings intensified due to an increase in intelligence from June to July of 2001, called "the threat spike" by National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice. At a July meeting CIA counter-terrorism chief J. Cofer Black and CIA director George Tenet informed Rice about communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. Rice listened but was unconvinced, having other priorities on which to focus. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld questioned the information suggesting it was a deception meant to gauge the U.S. response. In July 2001, J. Cofer Black, CIA's couterterrorism chief and George Tenet, CIA's director, met with Condolezza Rice, the National Security Advisor, to inform her about communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. Rice listened but was unconvinced, having other priorities on which to focus. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld questioned the information suggesting it was a deception meant to gauge the U.S. response."

Both paragraphs were clearly the same with minor alterations to the beginning. When I reverted this change I was very clear that I was reverting the duplication of this paragraph:. The editor responsible for the error stepped in to revert a second time by citing WP:BRD and restored the error:. Once more I reverted the error to note that it had also mistakenly removed the information about the August memo as I believe AQFK's revert was not meant to completely remove material about the memo:. At this point Tom harrison reverts it, citing BRD like AQFK did:. However, he quickly notices the duplication and removes it:. A few days later I restored the old structure of the August memo paragraph:. That change was not reverted, unlike the others, suggesting the main objection was simply to the changes I made to the section.

Another note is the discussion I initiated immediately after my first revert that, despite me even suggesting possible problems in advance and seeking to address them, was up nearly four days with many comments from other editors about the need for discussion before anyone other than myself actually discussed any specific issues with the changes I made to the section.

Tendentious-editing
In suggesting the ban WG claimed I was engaged in tendentious-editing, which is defined as editing that is "partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole" and this was the main allegation of many editors in the case. However, to demonstrate from the above dispute, it is clear these allegations are at best misunderstanding the evidence if not cherry-picking it. One of my first edits to the Warnings section in the 9/11 article changed the characterization of Rumsfield's reaction to certain warnings from "dismissed the information thinking it was a deception" to "questioned the information suggesting it was a deception meant to gauge the U.S. response", which clearly put Rumsfield's reaction in a more favorable light. Then, after Tom removed an inaccurate quote from Rice, I inserted the accurate quote, which once more put the situation in a far more favorable light. Ironically, a piece of information added by Tom that was clearly a disservice to a conspiracist POV was actually removed by AQFK's manual revert, and re-added in my subsequent reverts. It is thus very hard to frame my edits regarding that section as tendentious.

During the case AQFK noted a separate dispute regarding the 9/11 CT article. Another editor, Ghostofnemo, added a section about the Able Danger program, and AQFK removed the section by stating that it was not about 9/11 conspiracy theories. I re-added the section with a sourced sentence establishing the conspiracy theory connection. Admittedly that was a lazy edit, but it did serve to address the objection. When AQFK reverted it a second time by arguing that this was not a major element of CT's, the matter began being discussed intensely on the talk page. After a few days of discussion where numerous additional sources were presented to establish this as prominent among conspiracy theorists, I inserted a substantial rewrite regarding the material. While Nemo's version was argumentative regarding the original claims, mine described the original complaint as "claiming the U.S. government was negligent in not heeding the information about the hijackers for fear of the political fallout", which presents a very non-CT explanation for the issue and follows it with "A six-month investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee was concluded in December of 2006 without finding evidence to support the claims." It is very hard to regard those new additions as tendentiously pushing a CT POV and they were in direct response to concerns raised on the talk page. Contrary to AQFK's characterization of the dispute, that change was described by JoelWhy on the talk page as being "on the right track" though he said more needed to be done to satisfy his concerns.

DHeyward case
To explain this one requires a bit of context. I had filed an AE case against Tom because of certain tendentious edits he made to the 9/11 CT article. All three admins that commented rapidly agreed the edits were so severe as to warrant an indefinite topic ban. Several editors, such as MONGO, were greatly displeased with that result and plainly expressed that I should have been sanctioned instead. During a discussion about that topic ban on MONGO's talk page is when MONGO insinuated that I might be a sockpuppet based on a misguided examination of my first edit, if he had looked that hard he would have noticed that all the templates were copy-pasted from a section directly above my edit. That is when DHeyward stepped in to suggest that I was a sock of Giovanni33.

While we had interacted before, his comment at MONGO's talk was the first time his conduct stuck out. Soon after that was the random vexatious delete vote at the AfD mentioned in diff #3 of the case I filed, which on its own was nothing, but clearly set the tone for his later conduct. One thing I did not note in the case is his comment at Timotheus Canens talk page a day prior to filing the AN report to have Tom's ban repealed. His motives for going after me, and its connection with the 9/11 articles were more than clear in that comment. It was my fault for not being clear enough about how DHey's conduct towards me was related to the 9/11 topic area, but there were still several serious issues that any admin should surely have noticed. Particularly, his comment at AN when appealing for the removal of Tom's topic ban (diff #6 on the case) comparing me to Jeffrey Dahmer should have been a giant red flag for any admin looking over the evidence in the case and I find the failure to notice or comment on it to be a gross lapse on the part of all three admins.

As noted above, my reason for mentioning this case is because it was explicitly mentioned by Ed as part of his reason for supporting a ban, indeed it constituted most of his comment at the MONGO case. He described the case as being "almost frivolous" and suggested it was an "attempt to silence an opponent", something I think the above clearly illustrates as a gravely mistaken proposition. One of the other admins who commented at the DHeyward case, Timotheus Canens, also subsequently commented at the MONGO case to support the topic ban against me. Amazingly, DHeyward's comment on that same case pointed to yet another serious conduct issue where he described dealing with me as being "like trying to deal with someone with OCD, Asperberger, paranoia and infinite time on their hands to constantly disrupt the project."

The conduct issues are all stale, so to be clear my point here is just that I was not trying to "silence an opponent" as Ed suggested. DHeyward's conduct was upsetting me quite a bit as it would reasonably upset anyone and the thought of having to deal with that conduct, not just in the 9/11 topic area, but anywhere I go on Wikipedia left me feeling like I had to request admin intervention to have any respite.

Conclusion
Given all the issues above I feel the admins who supported this topic ban were not very thorough in their examination of the situation and were too hasty in suggesting such an action. Honestly, I am not even particularly enthused about the idea of being able to edit in this topic area and will probably only be minimally or tangentially involved in the 9/11 CT dispute for some time should this be lifted, but I all the same would like to see some comment from uninvolved admins about the reasons given for this ban.

Replies
WG, as you were the first uninvolved admin to definitively suggest a topic ban and subsequently several other admins supported your suggestion with you then being the one to implement it, it is reasonable that I would name you above. Now, would you please provide a more substantive explanation of your reasons for suggesting a topic ban and why you think the above does not illustrate any issues with those reasons?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * NW, would you please put your comment in the involved editor section? --The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Cla, I would rather you not characterize it as a personal dispute. That is not what was happening.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

@Cailil, the man compared me to Jeffrey Dahmer. Jeffrey FUCKING Dahmer! A serial killer who murdered 17 people, including two 14 year-old boys, often after raping them and he would sometimes even fuck their corpse and then eat their flesh. To quote the article on this man he compared me to: "As one officer subdued Dahmer, the other opened the refrigerator and found a human head. Further searching of the apartment revealed three more severed heads, multiple photographs of murdered victims and human remains, severed hands and penises, and photographs of dismembered victims and human remains in his refrigerator." DHeyward compared me filing a request for enforcement against another editor for repeatedly inserting material that suggested all 9/11 conspiracy theorists hate Jews to this serial killer complaining about not getting his preferred last meal. Any admin who even remotely tries to portray my desire to see a guy like that leave me alone when he keeps following me around on Wikipedia as an attempt to escalate a "personal dispute" without me having to hold their hand to show them the obvious has no business holding the bit. For fuck's sake! Once someone throws out the mass-murdering cannibal rapist comparison, I would think any half-decent admin would notice then immediately toss aside all procedural gobbledygook and act like a human being. It was harassment, not a personal dispute. You people have no credibility.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You just aren't getting it. When someone is being subject to repeated severe personal attacks by someone (being compared to a serial-killing rapist, likened to someone with Aspergers and paranoia, getting called a weasel, and all the other vitriol thrown my way) when the one subject to the attacks has done nothing in kind, that is not a personal dispute. At the top of this page it says, "Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. It may, however, violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines which you may use administrative discretion to deal with." Even if the admins thought I put that case in the wrong place, that is not justification for accusing me of trying to "silence an opponent" and filing a "frivolous" request. You are not making me feel any better about this by endorsing that absurd characterization. --The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Seraphim, if someone compared you to a mass-murdering cannibal rapist would you not think you had a legitimate reason to want that person to stop following you around and insulting you everywhere he went? How would you feel if that person wouldn't leave you alone and went to other articles you were working on to disrupt your work even when it had nothing to do with the cause of the editor's apparent grievance? I have tried really hard to be civil, but repeatedly treating my report to AE about that behavior like some great sin because it was in the wrong place while acting like the treatment I got was no big deal doesn't leave me feeling very accommodating. Stop obsessing over rules and authority for a moment and consider that the person on the other side of that screen actually has feelings. You shouldn't trample over those feelings with bureaucratic jargon.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by WGFinley
Not sure why I'm being specifically named here, I was the closing admin moving on a consensus of admins and not independently. That being said, I can't think of a single thing more to add to maintain this ban than TDA has said in his treatise himself. This is a signature case of someone who has a long way to go before contributing in a hot stove area like this. --WGFinley (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO
The Devil's Advocate (TDA, for short) is in his second topic ban on this subject. This second topic ban is only 6 months. The examples listed above by TDA as far as content, clearly demonstrate why he is so difficult to work with in this venue...for TDA, anyone making a slight alteration to his preferred version is then subjected to an endless, mind-numbing talkpage discussion...by the time the discussion is sort of concluded, an entire new archive page is needed. TDA and lots of other folks seem to think the September 11 attacks article is supposed to be a coatrack for every piece of only mildly related information. The primary reason the article is a long way from featured status is due to this issue...anyone trying to misuse the website to promote fringe material over the known facts should seek out a new hobby.MONGO 13:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare

 * I would recommend rejection of this appeal. TDA is a tendentious editor in this topic area, despite his protestations otherwise, and basically every uninvolved administrator who has scanned his edits agrees on that. Discretionary sanctions are meant to allow administrators to use their judgment. While I am obviously not the best person to comment on the discussing administrators' judgments, I would posit that ours was not so totally incorrect that it merits reversal. Furthermore, I see no indication that anything has changed since the March request. NW ( Talk ) 14:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Toa Nidhiki05
Ultimately this boils down to the editor refusing to acknowledge the issues that led to his topic ban, namely, tendentious editing related to 9/11 and 9/11 CTs. There is no reason to believe that the editor would not return to the same editing behavior that got him topic banned in the first place, and there is no reason to believe that the topic ban was incorrect or improper.  Toa   Nidhiki05  21:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68
I don't know if I'm involved or not. I have participated on a few occasions on the talk page of the 9/11 articles, mainly because I was shocked at the hostility and nastiness present in the discussions taking place in those articles, plus the constant edit warring and WP:OWN issues. I have tried to counsel some of the regulars in those articles to tone down the adversarial behavior to some degree, without apparent success. From what I have observed, Devil's Advocate's (DA) behavior in those articles doesn't appear to have been any worse than several other editors, including Tom harrison who was also, albeit briefly, indef topic banned from that topic area.

There appears to be two issues raised in this request: (1) that DA edit warred and (2) a personal dispute took place between DA and DHeyward. From what I have observed, since that time DA has done a good job at being productive in other areas of Wikipedia and has avoided repeats of the same behavior. No one so far during this request has presented any evidence to the contrary. If DA is promising not to revert war or engage in personal disputes, which he appears to be doing, then he should be given the same chance to show it that Tom Harrison was given after his indef topic ban. If DA revert wars or personalizes a dispute, then reinstate the ban. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that a couple of days ago DA was subjected to a personal, ad hominem attack. DA let it go without responding.  This provides a good example that DA is able and willing not to personalize disputes. Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to Mathsci's comment below...the request is here, and, in my opinion is a good example of DA engaging in helpful efforts to resolve a situation that was disrupting Wikipedia. Mathsci's conduct is under examination in that clarification request, which may have influenced Mathsci's personal attack on DA which I linked to above.  Again, note that DA did not respond to the personal baiting by Mathsci. Cla68 (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci
The Devil's Advocate's conduct has not been exemplary on wikipedia in the last month. During that time he has engaged in the same type of problematic conduct on RfA/CA pages [and elsewhere] as that cited when he was topic banned under WP:ARB911. I had no familiarity with this user prior to July 2012 but there are several aspects of his conduct which do not benefit wikipedia, in particular the large amount of other people's time he wastes on wikipedia. In this particular case, he has wasted arbitrators' time and ignored warnings from individual arbitrators. Apart from enabling banned and topic banned editors, The Devil's Advocate removed a clerk's comments, placed on a user talk page on the instructions of an arbitrator, who later complained of The Devil's Advocate's attempt to "stage manage" events. That persistent kind of WP:IDHT conduct does not benefit wikipedia. It appears to be a conduct issue: the topic under discussion is seemingly irrelevant. Mathsci (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by The Devil's Advocate

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


 * As a sysop who has commented on neither of the cases cited by The Devil's Advocate (TDA) I'll have a look at this. I've gone through the appeal and the previous case (but haven't finished the Dheyward case yet) and at this point I see no grounds for over-turning. I'll have a couple more run throughs before commenting further, but as TDA has based this appeal on the legitimacy of the sanction alone (not any change of his behaviour since it) the grounds are quite narrow-- Cailil  talk 14:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've gone through the whole panoply of this case (including diffs) 3 times now. I will address the substantive matters individually. First, WRT to the Dheyward case, there is nothing in the result and sysop decision relating to that case that is incorrect, inaccurate or in anyway wrong footed. In fact ElenoftheRoads went to lengths to explain why the case had nothing to do with WP:ARB911 and Edjohnston's comment that it was an attempt to use WP:AE as a weapon is a fair reflection of an outside view of the case. Secondly, on the matter of the User:Mongo AE thread, the crux of the ban that was imposed upon TDA was for repeated & long-term tendentious editing - this decision was evidenced and had consensus. The ban length was due to its escalation from previous sanction and thus the conduct was viewed as recidivism, in such instances 6 months is reasonable, and again this decision had active consensus. On review I see the imposing sysops' decisions as reasonable. Your conduct got you into this position TDA, the impositions of such bans is reasonable and is covered by the discretionary sanctions in WP:ARB911. Furthermore this page has a big red box stating very clearly that inappropriate conduct here can and will result in sanction. Your use of WP:AE and by extension arbitration rulings to escalate the personal dispute between yourself and DHeyward was highly inappropriate, and on review a sanction was the appropriate action. This is a forum for dispute resolution not dispute escalation. Under the terms of this appeal, as requested by TDA on the basis of the legitimacy and probity of the topic ban, I see no grounds to overturn it, and for this reason, and after examination, I'm rejecting this appeal-- Cailil  talk 13:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @TDA: Please calm down. Throwing around further insults and not listening to the singular point about the DHeyward AE thread isn't helping you, and may make things worse. What DHeyward did is not being exonerated - bringing it all to AE is (for the 3rd time) being explained to be utterly inappropriate. That is an interpersonal dispute not covered by ARB911 and not a matter for WP:AE. Your refusal to get the point WRT this is only repeating and compounding the behaviour that led to your ban-- Cailil  talk 15:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @TDA: If other sysops see it differently they will say so-- Cailil  talk 17:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * TDA, I agree with Cailil, and will add that if you keep heaping abuse on Cailil or anyone else, we won't hesitate to take action regarding that either. You're of course allowed to disagree and to say why, but it's expected you'll do so civilly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Calil's decision, and suggest TDA take Sreaphimblade's advice to heart. KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Request concerning SonofSetanta

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Domer48  'fenian'  14:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/The Troubles


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


 * 1) 17:01, 10 August 2012 Revert #1 To their preferred version here
 * 2) 11:41, 11 August 2012 Revert #2, within 24 hours of the first. Again to their preferred version.


 * "...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."


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


 * 1) Previously blocked 3 times under this remedy.
 * 2) Subject of a report currently being discussed above and who violated additional 1RR sanction while that report is still open.

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: The IRA has called a complete cessation of military operations but have not disbanded. Dissident republicans have used this vacuum to initiate a military campaign in a challenge to the IRA in what some would call a futile attempt to get the IRA to react i.e. Bring down the peace process in Ireland. Maybe your understanding of the issue would dictate your reasoning. Regardless, 1RR is an Arbcom imposed sanction, and this is a violation of that sanction. The third in fact in the last number of days, by an editor who has been sanctioned 3 times already. -- Domer48  'fenian'  15:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :There really is not much more to say about this editor. At the mediation discussion they misrepresented sources on two occasions, again at the DNR were they filed another report they were told there that they were using WP:OR and despited the diff they editor claims that they did not say it?
 * Arbcom will notice when looking at the edits just how contentious they are, and likewise just how disruptive the actions. -- Domer48  'fenian'  15:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor is again being very misleading by suggesting that this edit was discussed, it was not, quite the opposite infact. The edit was simply reverted because of its contentiousness.-- Domer48  'fenian'  15:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I can fully understand that to you " it seems like such an utter non-issue" I get that. But I also understand that this is not the place to discuss it. All I will say on it is this, on an Article on the IRA, for an editor to come along and say that they no longer exist, well that is a big claim to make. Big claims need very good sources, on that I hope we can agree. Edits like that on Articles covered by Arbcom imposed sanctions, make this all the more relevant, as noted by Arbcom. I hope we can agree on that much also. Thanks again.--  Domer48  'fenian'  21:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

@KillerChihuahua: I agree, for frivolous complaints sanctions are correct. However, sanctions for editors who file a report at Arbcom Enforcement, for a violation of an Arbcom imposed sanction (1RR) seems, well wrong to me some how. If an editor has a history of violating Arbcom sanctions, even while there is an active report, twice, were should an editor go? If however, you don't see just how disruptive the difference between "is" and "was" in the context of the IRA, well pointing it out to you will not make a blind bit of difference. Anyhow, Arbcom don't do content disputes? -- Domer48  'fenian'  16:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

@Cailil: Just so I'm sure, what is a "technical violation"? You described this report and the reverts as "(borderline) violations" and the report itself as inappropriate" while "not precluding boomerang for inappropriate reports". For example, in the report above, on the same editor, we have these reverts which violate the 1RR:


 * 1) 15:11, 6 August 2012 Revert #1
 * 2) 16:33, 6 August 2012 Revert #2, within 24 hours of the first
 * 3) 12:04, 7 August 2012 Revert #3, within 24 hours of the first

The context here being that we have, despite the ongoing report on another editor which this editor is a party to above, violates the 1RR. Having violated the 1RR and having this report filed against them, they then violated the 1RR again a second time with these edits:


 * 1) 15:30, 6 August 2012 Revert #1 on a different article
 * 2) 11:59, 7 August 2012 Revert #2 on that article, within 24 hours of the first

Now having violated the 1RR on two occasions since this started and the report on them still open, and discussions still ongoing on the report at the top of this page, they then violate the 1RR for a third time with the edits I provided for this report which you have taken issue with. In the interest of fairness, could you explain to me what the differences are between these violations, so I don't make any error in the future. Thanks,-- Domer48  'fenian'  13:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is my understanding of a revert based as it is on WP:REVERT: 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.


 * I would for example consider these edits as reverts made today, am I right or wrong?:


 * 1) 12:38, 13 August 2012 This I will assume is a clear revert?
 * 2) 13:49, 13 August 2012 Would this one be a revert.
 * 3) 14:08, 13 August 2012 Or would this one be a rever?


 * The view of DRN is illustrative of the editors edits. These comments should also be considered, here.


 * Clarity would really help, I'd rather be told how I'm wrong now, then be told like now and possibly later. -- Domer48  'fenian'  14:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

In light of the above post by myself I consider this relevent. This editor has now been told that they are editwarring to insert their changes by the volunteer at DRN. They were told the same on their own talk page that they appear to be forcing your changes despite the DRN being open... and were told on the volunteers talk page that they were forcing your changes through anyway despite the DRN thread. They were told out straight that they ...have made...changes despite them being reverted, then...made them again, that is edit warring (some support is not enough, you need consensus). -- Domer48  'fenian'  16:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Domer if I waited for your permission to edit the article it would never happen. As things stand I have removed very little from it but added much, including an image which was desperately needed. I have invited you to join in on the talk page but you haven't. I ask you to show good faith and I apologise to sysops for engaging with Domer here but it seemed like the right thing to do. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Request concerning FergusM1970

 * What's so disruptive about it? The IRA is gone. Gerry Adams says so. Or is he not a reliable source? Do you think he might be lying?--FergusM1970The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on. 03:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by SonofSetanta
This is not a 1RR violation. The content within the revert is one word - just one word and it refers to a piece within the article which clearly states that my revert is correct and I quote that on the revert. This complaint is frivolous and shows that the complainant is policing my activities on Wikipedia. The 1RR rule was established to stop edit warring on these articles, not to stop editing on them. Self revert carried out whilst complaints procedure is under way and subject introduced to talk page for discussion. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I might also add that my revert on this article was both on a new day (for me) and as part of a larger rewrite which I have announced on the talk page whilst inviting others to take part. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The complainant is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill. He has studiously ignored the fact that Scolaire (talk) and I are engaged in meaningful discussion regarding the article and that he has tidied up other edits I made on the page yesterday which I have not modified in any way. If Domer wishes to join the discussion on the article talk page then his opinions could be noted. He has chosen to make contentious comments however trying to damn particular editors (mostly me). I don't feel I'm being shown much in the way of good faith here. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

To all visiting sysops: Before taking my block list into consideration I invite you to examine the complainants block list here ]. while he may have modified his behaviour recently he is refusing to acknowledge the help, guidance and chances he had from various sysops and denying me, the less experienced user, the chance to modify any aberrant behaviour which has been committed incidentally to my good intentions when editing. In fact he has been on my case since the day I joined the wiki. Notwithstanding that I have not yet even revisited the article where I had so much difficulty in October 2011 and January 2012. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

@Calil. Thank you. I applaud your appreciation of the situation, it mirrors mine. You, and other sysops on this complaint, have shown me the depth of wisdom I was hoping to find. I respectfully request that you note the complainant's absence from the discussions here [] and at DRN here [] where I have invited discussion on these very issues and the article in question. My own belief is that it is very difficult for sysops to get an overall picture unless one is allocated to every article under dispute but I am very keen to point out that I for one am trying to discuss the issues I have opinions on and wish to make edits to reflect. It is difficult however when so many gang up on one to try and force their own POV through. This does lead to some frustration and errors. If an AE complaint is made everytime an edit is tried it stalls any movement on the article and my own personal opinion is that this is deliberate. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I request it be noted that the complainant has failed to engage in discussion at DRN about the article where I have been accused of violateing 1RR - here Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the real reasons for this complaint and the one above in the first place I would ask sysops to note that no further marginal violations have taken place. I have raised a DRN which the complainant and others (including the previous complainant) did not join. I am currently working on one article only at Provisional IRA which is one of the most contentious concerning The Troubles and, apart from protests on the talk page from the complainant, the discussion is going well and has been productive both in terms of resolution and to the benefit of the article. I respectfully suggest then that this complaint WAS frivolous, as was the above one against me, and request they both be closed. I note the comments of the sysops regarding this page being used as a weapon and hope this has been noted by the complainants as it echoes my feelings. I give an undertaking here not to engage in any form of edit warring in the future. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning SonofSetanta

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


 * I have to agree this strikes me as making a mountain out of a molehill; I'm really not seeing it here. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 15:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Domer48, my understanding of the situation on this issue isn't what's dictating my view; it's that it seems like such an utter non-issue. Yes, a user violated 1RR, but it was very minor and caused no real major issue.  There's a reason we don't have bots to automatically hand out blocks if someone reverts more than once; that's why they're called discretionary sanctions.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 21:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur, and remind complainant that sanctions can and do occur for frivolous complaints, and advise s/he be less hasty to run here next time. KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Although there is a technical violation here, I agree with TBotNL that discretionary sanctions should not be subject to a blind robotic logic. Given the context that there have been warnings to others about using this board as a weapon and given that the behaviour of all parties involved in this tit for tat dispute on and off this board the topic area would better off with you all "out of the pool". I would also note that tit for tat editing is itself noted as an issue in the WP:TROUBLES ruling (even if that kind of 'tit for tat' is slightly different). Suggest closing without action but adding this incident to wider issue in the FergusM1970 thread above-- Cailil  talk 14:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

FergusM1970
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning FergusM1970

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 2 lines of K  303  18:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/The Troubles


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


 * 1) 18:30, 2 August 2012 Revert #1
 * 2) 18:42, 2 August 2012‎ Revert #2, within 24 hours (12 minutes to be exact) of revert #1
 * 3) 21:00, 2 August 2012 Revert #3, within 24 hours of reverts #1 and #2 (revert due to re-addition of this information added earlier)
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :


 * 1) Warned on 09:43, 6 December 2011 by
 * 2) Topic banned on 16:44, 6 December 2011 by


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Today's edits are essentially repeating these edits made by the same editor back in April, making it a revert. There's also obvious POV pushing with this since they weren't in possession of a bomb at all. Editor was previously topic banned for disruptive editing in this area, as noted above. Comments on his talk page of "Now get the fcuk off my talk page. I don't like Provos" suggest similar action may be needed.
 * It would appear FergusM1970 doesn't actually know what a summary execution is, and how it differs from an actual execution. His claim that there was bomb found in Marbella is also false. Bomb making components including explosives were found, but that isn't a bomb. Given Marbella is over 80km from Gibraltar and the components weren't found until afterwards, I struggle to see how any reasonable person could possibly consider that the presence of bomb making components in Marbella after the fact somehow doesn't make the three people killed in Gibraltar "unarmed"? 2 lines of K  303  19:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what a summary execution is, and I don't just mean a war crime. It is an execution carried out without a full trial. Therefore it is a subset of executions, which are a state-conducted legal process. Therefore only a state can carry out summary executions, although of course they're prohibited by the Geneva Conventions which all real soldiers have to obey. If a non-state actor kills someone without a trial that isn't a summary execution; it's just an ordinary murder.--FergusM1970 (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, just checked and it was actually a bomb not just components. However the car was only found due to keys in the handbag of one of the people who had been killed, so the larger point still remains. 2 lines of K  303  19:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Flexdream this isn't a content issue, that's just included to show how part of the edit is obvious POV. The issue is disruptive edit warring by an editor previously topic banned for the exact same. 2 lines of K  303  19:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I declined to answer your off-topic attempt to use your own original research to say it wasn't a summary execution when a reliable source (and more available) says it was. 2 lines of K  303  19:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK then. What crime were Howes and Wood accused of and which state carried out their "executions"? Answer please.--FergusM1970 (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that, in this instance, the complaining editor has made a seemingly malicious and false accusation of original research when in fact User:Flexdream was quoting from the complaining editor's own source, namely the Wikipedia article on summary execution. There is clearly a group of editors intent on pushing their own POV by insisting that the term "summary execution" is inaccurately applied to this article, and as the defendant in this arbitration I request that this is taken into account in the solution to the complaint. Thanks.--FergusM1970 (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there no end to the revisionist waffle from Flexdream? FergusM1970 was blocked and topic banned for 3 months after a Troubles 1RR breach in December 2011. So quite where you get "I think in good faith they deserve the benefit of the doubt that they didn't realise at the time they were in breach of a rule" is anyone's guess.... 2 lines of K  303  19:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll put my hand up and admit to having forgotten about that; I don't edit WP all that much as a rule and don't keep track of what's allowed and what isn't. My sole concern was to revert the repeated insertion of an inaccurately used term, namely "summary execution" for two killings carried out by a non-state actor without any legal justification whatsoever.--FergusM1970 (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh great, now we have a claim that the IRA planned to bomb a "public music performance". Could this be any more POV and misleading, since it was allgedly a changing of the guard which is obviously a different thing entirely. The sooner this editor is topic banned again the better in my opinion based on that. 2 lines of K  303  19:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What's misleading about it? The target was the band of the Royal Anglians and the plan was to spray them and their audience with shrapnel by detonating 140lb of Semtex in a car. You are attempting to gloss over the fact that this was an attempt to detonate a large bomb at a public event frequented by tourists.--FergusM1970 (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * FergusM1970 claims "the planned location of the attack was at the band assembly area which was right next to a large residential building, not at the steps of the Governor's residence where the guard would be changed, and that is in the source". The only source currently being referred to is Brits by Peter Taylor. I've got my copy in front of me right now and there's nothing in the source that says that as far as I can see. Exact quote please? Should you fail to provide the quote, I think we can draw our own conclusions.... 2 lines of K  303  21:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * False. The Taylor book is the reference currently numbered (2) in the article. Reference (3) is the ECHR report into the shootings. It clearly describes the terrorists carrying out reconnaisance and dry runs on the band assembly area.--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So what's the exact quote from the ECHR report that supports your comment of "the planned location of the attack was at the band assembly area which was right next to a large residential building, not at the steps of the Governor's residence where the guard would be changed, and that is in the source"? 2 lines of K  303  22:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Read Para 38-45. Here are some extracts:
 * ''"38. Detective Constable Viagas was on surveillance duty in a bank which had a view over the area in which the car driven in by the terrorists was expected to be parked. At about 12.30 hours, he heard a report over the surveillance net that a car had parked in a parking space in the assembly area under observation. A member of the Security Service commented that the driver had taken time to get out and fiddled with something between the seats... 39. Witness N of the Security Service team on surveillance in the car park in the assembly area recalled that at 12.45 hours a white Renault car drove up and parked, the driver getting out after two to three minutes and walking away.


 * A young man resembling the suspect was spotted next at about 14.00 hours in the area. Witness H, who was sent to verify his identification, saw the suspect at about that time and recognised him as Savage without difficulty. Witness N also saw the suspect at the rear of John Mackintosh Hall and at 14.10 hours reported over the radio to the operations room that he identified him as Savage and also as the man who had earlier parked the car in the assembly area.... 45. At about 14.50 hours, it was reported to the operations room that the suspects McCann and Farrell had met with a second man identified as the suspect Savage and that the three were looking at a white Renault car in the car park in the assembly area.


 * Witness H stated that the three suspects spent some considerable time staring across to where a car had been parked, as if, in his assessment, they were studying it to make sure it was absolutely right for the effect of the bomb."


 * Will that do?--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you bother to read the question? It was - So what's the exact quote from the ECHR report that supports your comment of "the planned location of the attack was at the band assembly area which was right next to a large residential building, not at the steps of the Governor's residence where the guard would be changed, and that is in the source"? Would you like to answer that question, as opposed to an entirely different question that I didn't ask? 2 lines of K  303  22:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I did answer your question. If you read the quotes I just provided you will see repeated mentions of the words "assembly area," correct? You will see a description of actions consistent with a reconnaisance and dry run, correct? On the other hand there is no surveillance reporting of similar PIRA preparations for an attack on Main Street at the Governor's residence, correct?--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As everyone can see, FergusM1907 is unable to provide a quote that supports his claim of "the planned location of the attack was at the band assembly area which was right next to a large residential building, not at the steps of the Governor's residence where the guard would be changed, and that is in the source", instead relying on the vague use of "assembly area". 2 lines of K  303  06:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What's vague about it? The area referred to "vaguely" as the assembly area is, duh, the assembly area. What's hard to understand about this? Do you see references to "Main Street" or "The Governor's residence" anywhere in the surveillance reports?--FergusM1970 (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I see Flexdream is attempting to revise history again. He's ignoring revert 3 (which was already in the report) which happened after FergusM1970 had supposedly accepted he couldn't revert further. 19:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In reply to Slp1's comment below. We are dealing with a previously topic banned editor who makes comments such as "Now get the fcuk off my talk page. I don't like Provos" to an editor who he is in dispute with. And for the sake of transparency, "Provos" refers to the Provisional IRA and in the context it was used can only be assumed to be referring to the editor concerned. So good faith doesn't really apply to this editor in my book, given the circumstances. I further note the claim that "1rr reports. In the first, concerning Flexdream, a fairly infrequent editor, who reverted as soon as the 1rr problem was brought to his/her attention" has been claimed. There is the history of the page in question. Flexdream emphatically *did not* revert "as soon as the 1rr problem was brought to his/her attention". 2 lines of K  303  13:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't know about Fergus, but you are correct about Flexdream. He didn't revert.  He immediately came here and acknowledged the 1RR problem, and 3 minutes later he was reverted by another editor (somebody who has also participated in this dispute with Fergus), which meant that he couldn't revert. But thanks for pointing out my error, I will correct my post below. --Slp1 (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So on an entirely new article we have reverts at 21:30, 4 August 2012, 22:51, 4 August 2012 and 04:04, 5 August 2012. That's in addition to a POINTY campaign on many other articles. For example after not getting his own way on piece of content where the whole point of the incident was that three unarmed IRA members were killed (and that being pointed out by dozens of reliable sources) he's adding unarmed to every article he can find where people were killed by the IRA. unarmed three-year-old, really? Can nobody see we've got a serious problem here? 2 lines of K  303  06:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That "the whole point of the incident was that three unarmed IRA members were killed" is very much your personal opinion. As far as I'm concerned the whole point of the incident is that a major terrorist bombing was prevented, and the fact that Savage, McCann and Farrell weren't carrying guns is not important. Clearly different people have different opinions, which is why Wikipedia depends on editors discussing their differences on the talk page in good faith rather than using tag-team reverts and manipulative 1RR complaints to get their own way.--FergusM1970 (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I notice Jonchapple claims to be uninvolved and alleges I have "non-collegial, bad-faith attitude towards editing here". I would suggest his comments of "Adolf Hackney and his pathetic cabal are untouchable" suggest the former is untrue, and the latter is better applied to himself. 2 lines of K  303  09:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the uninvolved part, even though I'm not involved in this particular dispute. And how you choose to interpret comments made to other users on their personal talk pages is up to you, but even if there is some bad faith tucked in their somewhere, unlike you and your 14 frivolous AE reports a week I don't let it spill over into my editing. — Jon C.  ॐ  20:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Cailil, could you explain how reverting some (but not all, as that demonstrates) of the changes I disagreed with, including the addition of blatant original research and posting on the talk page (something SonofSetanta didn't bother doing I notice when he reverted my edit 24 minutes later) about the OR is somehow topic ban worthy? 2 lines of K  303  16:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It would appear some people have rather selective reading. My original comment was "Per Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions please provide a diff where "Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning" was given, in particular including "Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways". Me simply being aware of the existence of discretionary sanctions is insufficient for a ban to be imposed". I never disputed knowing about the existence of discretionary sanctions, but knowing about them is insufficient for a ban to be enacted. Please provide a diff for the second passage quoted, you know the one where you identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways. Obviously after doing that you'd need to provide problematic edits dated after the diff to show the ban is justified. I'll be perfectly reasonable and agree there's no need for a diff that includes "a link to the decision authorising the sanctions", just one identifying misconduct and advice on how I may "mend my ways". 2 lines of K  303  15:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Can nobody read round here? Once again I'm not asking for a diff where I was warned about the existence of discretionary sanctions, but the part in bold from "Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways". That's required before sanctioning an editor, or are you just planning to ignore that because you think you can? 2 lines of K  303  12:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by FergusM1970
The use of the term "summary execution" for the abduction, beating, stabbing and murder of Howes and Woods is straightforward POV pushing. An execution is a killing carried out with legal sanction by the state which PIRA, itself an illegal group, most certainly did not have. A killing carried out without legal sanction is murder, although I would accept "killing" in this article. I will not accept "summary execution." Ever. This is not because of my POV; it's because it's not accurate. Allowing it to be inserted is to give PIRA an implied level of legitimacy that they never in fact possessed and it has no place in an unbiased encyclopaedia. I request that this be made clear to everyone who edits this article in future to prevent further issues.

As for the three terrorists killed in Gibralter, they had a bomb. It contained 140lb of Semtex, it was in a car parked in Marbella and the car keys were in Farrell's handbag. To call them "unarmed" is as weaselly as a large bowl of weasels in weasel sauce. Their intent was to kill or injure several hundred innocent people and they had the means to do it.

As for my actual 1RR violation, I forgot about this rule and my previous sanction for it, and for that I apologise. When FlexDream reminded me of the rule I immediately accepted that and have carried out no further reverts to the article. Nor will I do so in future except in accordance with 1RR. However I request that, whatever the consequences of this complaint for me personally, a decision is reached that prevents the promotion of a pro-PIRA POV on this article and forbids the inaccurate use of the term "summary execution" to refer to these murders.--FergusM1970 (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @EdJohnston: The editors on the other side of this dispute, however, are systematically inserting false information into the article to advance their own POV and tag-teaming to make sure that nobody can revert it without breaking 1RR. Needless to say if they weren't doing that I wouldn't have violated 1RR...--FergusM1970 (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @EdJohnston, somebody has to rule on it. Attempting to discuss it on the talk page appears to be futile, as the reply is always "You don't know what summary execution means." Luckily, for anyone who really doesn't know what it means, there's a handy online resource called Wikipedia that will tell them, and it bears no relation to what happened to Howes and Wood. The editors who want the wording to stay refuse to justify themselves or discuss alternatives - both Flexdream and I tried the NPOV "killed," but got reverted - and appear to be gaming WP rules to make sure it stays there. I realise that this doesn't grant an exception to 1RR and I shouldn't have violated it - although I genuinely did forget; I tend to edit WP in fits and starts, and don't keep up to date with the rules - but what's really more important here? That I was a bit naughty or that a blatantly POV and thoroughly inaccurate term is being repeatedly put back into an article?--FergusM1970 (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, this is what is happening here. The article in question hadn't been touched for five weeks. Then Flexdream changed "Summarily executed" to "killed." He was immediately reverted. He attempted to discuss it on the talk page and was brushed off. I changed it to "murdered" (which is accurate according to WP's definition of "murder," but may be wasn't the best choice.) I was immediately reverted. I then broke 1RR and changed it to "killed," which is NPOV. I was reverted. I also attempted to discuss it on the talk page and was brushed off. The editors in question are simply not willing to discuss the wording in good faith. The fact is that 1RR is being gamed to keep false and POV wording in the article, and any resolution through the talk page is impossible because the reply is just going to be "Please don't ask irrelevant questions. Reference for summary execution added, good day to you," "Why don't you try reading what a summary execution actually is?," "Simply reading what a summary execution actually is should have addressed this" and so on. In fact of course a summary execution is a type of execution and an execution is a killing carried out by a state and as punishment for a crime. Neither of these applies to the abduction, torture and killing of two men by a banned paramilitary organisation. As I said, I put my hands up and admit to breaking 1RR. I forgot; my bad. However the rule is being used to prevent this article being improved and personally I think that's a more important issue.--FergusM1970 (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is getting pathetic. User:One_Night_In_Hackney is now arguing here that a summary execution is not in fact an execution, although amazingly enough he won't explain why not and in fact has repeatedly cited a source which begins "A summary execution is a variety of execution." His only aim appears to be to maintain a pro-PIRA POV on the article; he has shown no sign at all of being willing to look for a good-faith solution, which of course is why we're now in arbitration. If content issues aren't actually important then so be it, but I was under the impression that we were trying to edit an encyclopaedia here rather than simply attempting to be even more narrowly legalistic than a Haredi rabbi in a delicatessen that isn't quite kashrut enough for him. The current situation is just as Heimstern said; 1RR can be used to ensure that the side that wins the dispute is the one who can out-revert the other without breaking the rules, rather than the one that's actually trying to improve the article. Howes and Wood weren't executed, saying they were makes WP look about as reliable as Andy Schlafly's little toy wiki and I was attempting to fix the problem. Sorry that I had to break a rule in the process of trying to bring the article into line with WP's policy on POV, but what exactly was the alternative? Leave it wrong? So fine, I violated 1RR. Block me if you must, but next time I see something that can be improved I may just not bother my hoop to do it. Frankly an encyclopaedia that thinks revert violations are worse than inaccurate and biased content has problems I can't even begin to fix.--FergusM1970 (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

To add to my previous statement, what this issue boils down to is: Is 1RR more important than WP:NPOV? I admit to having inadvertantly violated one in pursuit of the other, but attempts to resolve this issue on the article talk page were not exactly productive and the other side of the dispute continues to ignore the dispute resolution request I initiated. The article is now locked with a blatantly POV phrase still in place, which may prevent 1RR violations but isn't doing a whole lot to help remove POV-pushing. As I have already said, I accept my error and that I may be blocked for it, but the status quo where POV is preserved for at least the next three months looks a lot like cutting your nose off to spite your face.--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @Cailil, if you check the article talk page you'll see that I asked for protection, with the intention of seeking a solution to the POV issue, before this complaint was even made against me. The reason I didn't go to DRN until last night was that until then I didn't know it existed.--FergusM1970 (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, can you remind me what Troubles-related sanctions I received in 2009? I can't even seem to find any relevant edits I made that year, never mind sanctions for them. Of course I may have missed one, but I don't recall making any.--FergusM1970 (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'm implying tag-team reverting or anything, but an edit I recently made to Harrods bombing was reverted by User:TheOldJacobite. I changed it back (once, in accordance with 1RR) and it was immediately reverted again by User:One_Night_In_Hackney. Previously TheOldJacobite hadn't edited that article since 21 September 2009, when he and Hackney again carried out the same revert in the space of 39 minutes.--FergusM1970 (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

@EdJohnson, Heimstar, Seraphimblade, Slp1 and The Blade of the Northern Lights - For my part I am perfectly willing to engage in the DRN process and will abide by its results; if it concludes that "summarily executed" is appropriate wording I will accept that and not change that wording again.--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I know, I shouldn't be commenting here and I accept that you will move it, but I am doing so to make sure that it's noted as I'm sure you all have better things to do than continually re-read this page looking for changes. The DRN volunteers have closed the request due to User:One_Night_In_Hackney and User:TheOldJacobite's refusal to participate. I would prefer that the request remain open for at least a few days, but if not I'm willing to go to mediation and accept their ruling. Is this helpful?--FergusM1970 (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Son of Setanta
I have been uninvolved in this discussion until now but have read the DRN case and note that some parties involved in the discussion do not actually wish to discuss anything. I reverted the information to what I believe it should be here [] but it was immediately reverted by Domer48. Fergus reverted it back to his/my version and that was immediately reverted again by Hackney. What we have here is a numbers game folks. An edit war which will be won by the grouping with the greatest number of reverters and that's the version which wil stay unless there is some form of adjudication on this. My opinion is that one set of followers are determined to subvert the article to reflect the fact that a stateless, banned, terrorist organisation, had the authority within the United Kingdom to authorise summary execution and was exercising its own form of law. That also appears to be the case here. Supporters of that banned organisation (which is now defunct) are determined that their heroes be shown in the most romantic light possible and not as the murderers they were/are. It's POV pushing at the most extreme and enforced by a posse of minions. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
I have now filed a request for mediation on the underlying content issue, which can be found here.--FergusM1970 (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and all the involved editors have now agreed to take part.--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I have suggested a different form of wording on the mediation page, namely the NPOV "killed," and have asked the other involved editors to give their opinions and any objections to this wording. It seems that as a number of editors clearly object to "summarily executed," and if nobody provides any valid objections to "killed," this change (back to wording which was in the article for six years without controversy in any case) would be the most consensual way ahead.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 23:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The request has now been accepted by the Mediation Committee, so hopefully progress should be made soon.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 13:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is rather frustrating. I have proposed a solution to the content dispute here, but Hackney, Domer and TheOldJacobite are refusing to discuss it or even to explain why they object to it. I think this illustrates the point that they are not interested in concensus-building.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 20:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Continued refusal. Both Hackney and Domer48 have expressed a concern that "killed" doesn't make clear that the killings were illegal, so I have proposed another solution that addresses this. They still won't discuss it. To me it is now absolutely clear that they have no interest in reaching concensus and want the words "summarily executed" in the article for other reasons which they are not willing to disclose. I suggest that these reasons involve giving a false impression of legitimacy to the killings by implying that a death sentence for a crime was being carried out, and that is POV-pushing. As for TheOldJacobite, he has taken no part at all in the discussions at the mediation request except to complain about the admins involved here. How is anyone supposed to reach concensus with this editor these editors when they aren't even willing to explain why they want their preferred wording or to discuss acceptable alternatives? Is it any wonder that, in frustration, I breached 1RR?--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 00:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Confession
I have possibly just violated 1RR again. I did it because someone reverted my sourced edit stating that the casualties of PIRA's campaign included Irish security forces (six police and one army.) I raised this on the talk page when I made my edit, and got flannelled. PIRA murdered six Irish policemen and one Irish soldier. This is a matter of record. I confidently expect that one of about six Wikipedia reverters editors, who I will willingly name if asked, will shortly submit a 1RR complaint against me for this. I note, however, that nobody is disputing the fact that six Irish policemen and one Irish soldier were killed by PIRA. Therefore the reversion of my edit should itself be regarded as a breach of WP rules, namely WP:NPOV. Thanks.--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, apparently removing my edit was not a revert. Fine...--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Further Allegations
User:One_Night_In_Hackney has now also raised a sockpuppet complaint against me, apparently based on nothing more than the fact that other people disagree with his "stable concensus" to use a POV term. Given that concerns have been raised below about his use of 1RR to push his POV, I think some more concerns about his behaviour in general are warranted.--FergusM1970 (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

@Cailil, actually I have initiated both a DRN and a mediation request in an attempt to resolve this. However despite being asked several times One_Night_In_Hackney refuses to explain why he insists on using the wording "summary execution," why he thinks it does not mean "execution" or why he will not consider the NPOV wording "killed." He also deleted information I added to the PIRA campaign article on the grounds that it was "policy violating" and "incorrect," whereas they were in fact sourced and I don't see what policy is violated by stating the level of public support for PIRA's aims.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 19:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

@Cailil (again,) my apologies for canvassing, as I wasn't aware this was an offence. My belief was that admins who were already involved in my case would have a fuller understanding of the issues raised by Hackney's further complaint against SonOfSetanta and would be better able to judge the merits of it.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 22:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Final Comments
I realise that I'm going to get sanctioned here and I accept that; although the initial 1RR violation was minor I shouldn't have made pointed edits to other articles and I shouldn't have let myself get drawn in to other issues initiated by the tag team. However in mitigation I would like to say this: I make no secret of the fact that I thoroughly detest PIRA and all their vile offshoots, but I have not attempted to push a POV in any Troubles-related articles. The POV pushing has been done by the tag team, who instantly pounce on any edit that shows PIRA in a less than rosy light and use 1RR and weight of numbers to remove it and keep it removed. I initiated both a DRN (which was ignored by the tag team) and a mediation request, which they grudgingly agreed to, in an attempt to resolve the underlying content dispute that sparked this whole mess. Throughout I have patiently explained why their preferred wording was both inaccurate and POV, and have had no response to my suggested compromises and questions about why they prefer this wording. In addition I have made many edits to a wide range of articles at Wikipedia, in a sincere effort to improve content, many of which have been accepted and even complimented. On the other hand a look at TheOldJacobite or One Night in Hackney shows that they contribute essentially nothing; the vast majority of their activity is in reverting edits to their pet articles. The same applies to a lesser extent to Domer48, although he's not quite as egregious. I would only ask that, in deciding sanctions, you bear in mind who brings more to the party and who is likely to contribute more productively in the future.--FergusM1970The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on. 00:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Mabuska
Would just like to point out that Domer48 appears to hounding FergusM1970 and his edits as well as making misleading edit summaries that border on outright lying on the Ulster Defence Regiment article:
 * 1) Initial addition by Fergus. Despite his edit summary, he doesn't input into the article anything that actually mentions the IRA.
 * 2) Domer48 fully reverts it despite stating "par revert", and misleads with the rest of his edit summary as the content added is supported by the reference and no mention was made of the IRA.
 * 3) FergusM1970 re-adds the information with a new source and actually states in the article this time who the intimidation was by.

Seeing as FergusM1970 and Domer48 only made one revert each neither is in violation of 1RR however what reason was there in the first place for Domer48's revert at all? If anything it may have been an attempt to instigate FergusM1970 into another edit-war and 1RR violation, but came to nothing due to Fergus actually providing a better source. Mabuska (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was fairly stunned at Domer's blatantly misleading edit comment, and it does look as if he's following me around trying to provoke something else. However I have learned my lesson about 1RR and he's wasting his time.--FergusM1970The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on. 19:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, misleading Arbcom is really not advised. This is FergusM1970 edit here and this here is the reference they used. FergusM1970 made two additional edits here and here. Please note their edit summary on the initial edit. Please check out the source they used again and note, no mention of the IRA. Now check out my revert again, note that I only reverted one edit. That is called a partial revert. Apart from the fact that you have made unfounded accusations against me, you did it here at Arbcom. Having made a frivolous accusation, you then revert me here after I removed the addition of more unsourced text on an unrelated article and then it would appear followed me here and also here. This would appear to be an obvious case of tit for tat or at the very least harassment. Are you familier with the term Boomerang.-- Domer48  'fenian'  19:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As an aside, if Arbcom find the time (I know you did do "content" until now) could you at the very least review the edits on the article that Mabuska has used in their frivolous complaint. Having reviewed the edits I've cited above in my defense, review the latest addition here and here. Now check out the sources used here and here and count the number of reasons given for the reduction in numbers. How many reasons are given in the editors here and contribution here. It certainly lacks balance, and the weight seems to be a little off a lot of undue weight and in the lead of all places. Like I said, if you have the time. -- Domer48  'fenian'  20:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Domer, so I made a mistake in the edit summary. Did you bother reading my actual EDIT? As Mabuska has pointed out, it did not mention PIRA, so your grounds for a revert were spurious. However my current one does, and is properly sourced. Please leave it alone unless you have a legitimate argument with the sources.--FergusM1970The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on. 19:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Domer, what are you talking about, "undue weight"? The main reason for Catholic numbers in the UDR falling was PIRA intimidation, up to and including ringing people's doorbells then shooting them in the face when they answered. Catholic (and Irish) recruitment in other British Army units was only marginally affected by the Troubles, so where you get undue weight from is beyond me.--FergusM1970The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on. 20:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually Domer48 citation needed tags were created for unsourced statements in articles. The removal of the text outright for something you yourself said was "While it has always been suggested, a source would be required to support it", then surely adding such a tag makes sense especially when the next sentence which you didn't remove isn't sourced either and the very next paragraph contains a citation needed tag and has done so since April. Also James Connolly and the Orange Order articles are on my watch list and the edits are none controversial. Mabuska (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC) In fact none of my edits can be considered controversial but rather following policy on citations and in the Orange Order article doesn't even involve an edit you made. Mabuska (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Flexdream
Before this AE was raised I reverted Fergus' edits and they have accepted that. That would seem to be that. Subsequently this AE has been raised over what is really a content dispute and can be discussed in the article. Is it really necessary for editors to raise an AE every time they can? Shouldn't some judgement be shown? --Flexdream (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"It would appear FergusM1970 doesn't actually know what a summary execution is" according to Hackney. According to that link a "summary execution" is where "a person is accused of a crime". Hackney has not been able to say what the crime was when asked. Is this really the forum to get into discussing content? Although it does explain why Fergus made their edit.--Flexdream (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hackeny - I'm pleased you've now conceded that it was a 'bomb'. As for allegations of POV - they are easy to make but I don't see the relevance or helpfulness here. I thought my term in the article of 'killed' was less POV than your term of 'summarily executed'. But doesn't this discussion belong on the talk page? When I reverted Fergus' edits and told them about 1RR they didn't undo it or come back at me, they accepted it, so I think in good faith they deserve the benefit of the doubt that they didn't realise at the time they were in breach of a rule. I know I didn't when it was me.--Flexdream (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

- how is it 'original research' to link to the very same wikipedia article Summary_execution that you do? Anyway, I think this is just clouding the issue now and getting verbose. Give the admins and others a chance to comment.--Flexdream (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So, Fergus breaks the 1RR rule. I revert the edit and inform Fergus they can't make a second edit. Fergus accepts that. However, Hackney then files a complaint. And now its being proposed that Fergus gets a 6 month topic ban? For a 1RR breach that I corrected, and they accepted, before the complaint? Have a look at the discussion between Hackney and Fergus, and the discussion between Sean Hoyland and Fergus for a contrast in how discussions can go.--Flexdream (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Cailil. You seem to be saying that because Fergus is the subject of an AE claim, that because of that his attempt to resolve the issue by going for mediation is an attempt to avoid AE? Or have I misunderstood you? If I have then it would be helpful for me if you could rephrase it. Fergus has said that they did not know about DR at the time of the AE - and they have tried to discuss the issues previously. You can judge for yourself how they have tried to discuss the issues on talk pages, and how others have responded there and to his two attempts to get mediation. I also suspect that Fergus is not aware of the wikipedia rule on canvassing, as if they were aware it seems unlikely they would canvass the admins involved in a current AE raised against Fergus - that behaviour would be inexplicable.
 * I thought the whole point of AE is that it is a last resort for problems which undermine wikipedia. I also would hope that discussion is preferred to mediation, and mediation is preferred to arbitration but I don't know enough about how wikipedia works. Fortunately I suppose I have not had much experience of AE till recently, and I am learning how it operates. You say that "Processes of this site should not be used to undermine or otherwise attempt to evade policy or arbitration remedies" and I agree. I'd also say that this applies to the process of AE which should not be used to attempt to evade the policy of NPOV. Regards.--Flexdream (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Cailil - I have misread you. You said Setanta has opened the DRN. But isn't it Fergus who opened the DRN [] and []? Or are you and I at cross purposes? Regards. --Flexdream (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Setanta has opened a separate DRN about a different issue (PIRA's illegal use of the name of the Irish Defence Forces) here. I assume that's what Cailil is referring to rather than my attempted DRN about the Howes/Wood murders.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 20:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fergus, thanks for that. I am puzzled by what relevance a DRN which Setanta has raised elsewhere has to the mediation which you have asked for in this case. I don't see the link. 'Your' DRN and mediation stands or falls on its own merits I'd have thought, I don't see why it should be judged based on someone else's DRN on another topic. I see we're both listed in the other DRN but I haven't looked at it and I see you haven't made any contribution to Setanta's DRN. So, as I say I'm baffled by what relevance it has. In fact, having now read a bit of Setata's DRN on IRA naming I'm even more puzzled than I was before about why Cailil has mentioned it here. In fact, I don't even see it's relevance to the AE case brought against Setanta, as that relates to interpreting whether the London 7/7 bombing article is Troubles related and subject to 1RR. I don't think any AE case involves the IRA naming issue.--Flexdream (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have opened my own DRN about nthe Irish naming convention of PIRA because I would rather have calm discussion than be frustrated by constantly being reverted on articles when I put in what I consider to be truthful and accurate information. All it has earned me is bullying tactics by an experienced tag team who sit like vultures hoping you will make a 1RR mistake so they can get a complaint raised at the first opportunity to get you banned, off the scene, and unable to contribute to the articles they have established their POV on.  The only way forward in all contentious zones is to identify the bullies and curb their intent.  I don't believe Wikipedia has formulated the correct policy yet but I'm convinced they will when all the facts are tasken intyo consideration.  In the meantime we seekers of truth have to be content with the procedures in existence and try and use them as they were intended. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Cailil. You write "The behaviour here on this board by a number of the parties here has been just as appalling as their conduct in articles" and you then propose that I be banned. Can you please give me any example where my behaviour has been appalling and merits any sanction? What's changed since you posted this []? Unless I've missed it I don't think any of the admins either here or in Setanta's AE have criticised my behaviour. Thanks. --Flexdream (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Cailil. You write "Flexdream was already warned and has continued to edit war". Where have I done that?--Flexdream (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland
Uninvolved comment - Regarding the edit here that said that the IRA planned to bomb a "public music performance", the source actually cited in the article, Peter Taylor's Brits: The War against the IRA, says that the intended target was the changing of the guard ceremony (as do many other sources), so the edit is inconsistent with the source and apparently deliberately so. I think it's exactly the kind of edit that in a topic area covered by sanctions should result in a sevesup>re warning or a temporary topic ban. Tampering with what sources say is far worse than a 1RR violation and the fact that the editor is trying to defend it suggests that they probably need a reminder that it's not okay.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 20:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Except the changing of the guard was right outside the entrance to the Governor's house and the planned location for the bomb was right beside where the band would be parading. This was a planned mass atrocity at a public event and would have resulted in heavy civilian casualties. They were planning to set off 140lb of Semtex wrapped in a ton of steel right beside a block of flats.--FergusM1970 (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, and I've been close enough to IRA bombs to feel the blast wave twice and seen what they do plenty more times than that, so please don't try to lecture me about it. What you added isn't in the source. That is all that matters here.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 21:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No offence intended, I've been too close to a couple of CIRA bombs and a couple more Taliban ones myself. However the planned location of the attack was at the band assembly area which was right next to a large residential building, not at the steps of the Governor's residence where the guard would be changed, and that is in the source. The issue here is editors pushing a POV by trying to grant some sort of legal respectability to the murders of Howes and Wood and simultaneously trying to minimise the scale of the atrocity planned by Farrell, McCann and Savage. Unfortunately they're very good at using WP rules to push this agenda, but hopefully the admins will see through it and come to a ruling about terminology to be used in this article.--FergusM1970 (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. It's easy to find more details about the intended target. There's no reason for editors to put their editing privileges at risk by making unsourced edits, edit warring over stuff like this or having to spend time filing reports about it. It's all avoidable with a bit of searching and collaboration.
 * "They are reported to have planted a 500lb car bomb near the British Governor's residence. It was primed to go off tomorrow during a changing of the guard ceremony, which is popular with tourists." BBC -here
 * "The target of the car bomb was apparently the band of the Royal Anglian Regiment, which was to have performed on March 8 to mark the changing of the guard outside the Governor's office on Main Street, an area surrounded by a school, a home for the elderly and a bank. If the bomb had exploded, there would have been many civilian casualties." - The New York Times here.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 21:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks for the link. It's not actually relevant as the target of the bomb seems to have been the band assembly area, where Savage was seen making a dry run in a parked car, but either location would certainly have caused mass civilian casualties.--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Domer48
That the violation of the restrictions is clear and unambiguous goes without saying. That the editor, despite this report continues to flout it is inexcusable. It also makes this statement by them here at best misleading at worst completely dishonest. That they are deliberately provocative simultaneously on a number of articles is blatantly obvious. That Flexdream having just been placed on notice, could even suggest that this is simply a content dispute is quite inexplicable, having offered the same excuse in their case above. This needs to be addressed. I agree with Sean above, having the same sources. -- Domer48  'fenian'  22:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The target of the bomb was the band, either during their performance on Main Street or more likely at their assembly area beside a residential block. This is made clear in a number of sources, including the ECHR report which is one of the sources listed. The repeated attempts to remove this information from the article and minimise the nature of the planned attack is the real provocation.--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Having been warned, topic banned, and being reported again you then go and revert again despite this report dose not bode well. That I will not be entertaining you goes without saying. That ONIH has illustrated above that you have been deliberately miss quoting sources supports Sean's comments above, which leaves nothing more to be said. Bye. -- Domer48  'fenian'  22:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Misquoting sources? Where? Please give examples of misquotes.--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears that since they have no excuse for their flouting of the editing restrictions, and attempting to suggest that it is a content dispute has been debunked with nothing else to lose they have decided to insert as much POV claptrap as possible before sanctions are imposed which will have to be removed. --  Domer48  'fenian'  15:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight: I'm being accused of inserting "POV claptrap" by someone who claims a lynching is a legal process and signs himself "Fenian"? Yes Domer48, your neutrality is on display for all of us to see.--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Domer is correct. Since the topic ban is still in place, all of Fergus's edits to Troubles-related articles should be reverted on sight, regardless of 1RR.  By administrator decision, and with good reason, he has been banned from editing those articles, hence all of those edits should be regarded as vandalism. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  16:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The topic ban isn't in place, the previous one expired. 2 lines of K  303  16:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, its the 1RR restrictions that are being blatantly flouted. That they are now seeing things that aren't there, such as me making "claims" of some sort, should be seen for what they are, delusional. -- Domer48  'fenian'  16:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't reverted anything since Flexdream reminded me of the 1RR rule last night. It's a one REVERT rule, remember, not a one EDIT rule. Anyway, why the eagerness to rush straight to EA rather than try to find a form of words that's acceptable to everyone? Is anyone going to finally explain why they think "summarily executed" is the appropriate wording for what happened, or are you just going to keep on gaming WP rules to keep it in there despite the fact that it's embarrassingly POV? The rules are there to assist the WP project, not stifle any disagreement.
 * As for me "seeing things that aren't there," your comment about me inserting "POV claptrap" is five comments up. Are you seriously arguing that your determination to describe this incident as "summary execution" isn't connected with the POV implied by the word "Fenian" in your signature?--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

1RR prevents editwarring and invites editors to the talk page, promoting discussion. Ignoring the talk page discussion, using a disruptive IP possibly socking to get round the 1RR and then filing a baseless AE report and then reverting with a misleading edit summary, can all be addressed here. Content disputes have no place here, and trying to conflate this into one dose not change the facts behind this report.-- Domer48  'fenian'  14:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Except the editor in question has not discussed it on the talk page until now and has ignored the dispute resolution request I opened. To suggest that I have ignored the talk page discussion is frankly delusional. I removed my AE request against TheOldJacobite when I noticed that his reverts were in response to an anonymous editor's 1RR violation and were thus justified, EXACTLY as I said in my edit summary. Otherwise I'd have left it open, wouldn't I?--FergusM1970 (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it was the intension of Admin's when holding off closing this case, that the time would be used to extend the scope of whats described as Pointed editing. The editor clearly indicates their willingness to continue this type of tit for tat editing. The articles effected now are, all covered by the restrictions and what appears to me at least as point of view editing. -- Domer48  'fenian'  22:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I find this edit very offensive and Saville himself acknowledged that all those who died were unarmed when they were killed by British soldiers saying "there was no point in trying to soften or equivocate" as "what happened should never, ever have happened". Cameron apologized on behalf of the British Government by saying he was "deeply sorry".-- Domer48  'fenian'  22:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you find it offensive is utterly irrelevant both to me and to Wikipedia's mission as an encyclopaedia; as the dead were all civilians it could reasonably be assumed that they were unarmed, and I see no reason why it is any more necessary to state it than it is to state that the victims of, say, the Harrods bombing were unarmed. Insisting on the use of "unarmed" in respect to victims of the British security forces - even when by PIRA's own admission they were terrorists in the process of carrying out a major bombing - while objecting every time it's applied to victims of PIRA, is POV-pushing.--FergusM1970 (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Another violation of 1RR by the same editor:
''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.'' Despite the good grace being shown here. -- Domer48  'fenian'  23:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) 1st Revert here of John. John had reverted their edits.
 * 2) 2nd Revert here of ONIH.
 * 3) 3rd Revert here of DagosNavy
 * 4) 4th Revert here
 * 5) 5th Revert here
 * You're stretching the definition of "revert" a bit now. I left the flag in, as per ONIH's revert, but re-added the Garda as a belligerent. As they carried out operations against PIRA, and lost men in the process, I don't see a problem with that. I'll shortly be adding the Irish Army, as they fought PIRA and lost a man in the process too. I also initiated a discussion to sort out the flag issue with ONIH.--FergusM1970 (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Insulting the intelligence of editors by allowing blatant POV editing and violations of editing restrictions "While bright-line violations of restrictions like 1RR are easy to address" but are being ignored. That is what I find offensive!-- Domer48  'fenian'  10:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

@Slp1 having omitted my reason for the revert, which I gave in this post here in full you have grossly misrepresented my edit.

Having checked the source, you will notice: ''All kinds of intimidation followed. Businesses were boycotted, shopkeepers refused to serve soldiers while children faced insults and bullying at school. Before a ruthless enemy UDR soldiers were restricted in their response and highly vulnerable living in sectarian communities or isolated areas.'' So the attacks and intimidation were applicable to both sections of the community, not just one side, as the edit suggested otherwise it was unsourced.

Slp1 you go on to say that ''The topic area needs people are exceptionally careful with their edits; not people, who are quick to revert and revert, and inflame the situation which is just Domer48's (and the many others') pattern. In contrast, I don't see evidence that Flexdream has reached that point based on the edits of the last few weeks.'' So this is the type of editor who fits your criteria, I also noted this is my rational for my edit which you neglected to mention.

Review the latest addition by the editor here and here.Now check out the additional sources used here and here and count the number of reasons given for the reduction in numbers. How many reasons are given in the editors edits here and contribution here. It certainly lacks balance, weight, gives a lot of undue weight, is as far from a NPOV as you could possibly get, and you miss that? You also miss the fact that While the Irish New is a reliably source Slp1, and Roy Garland is a newspaper columnist for the nationalist Irish News he is also a member of the Ulster Unionist Party. Their views would at the very least need attribution. So we have an editor who's edits are "exceptionally careful" in the selective and biased manner in which they omit copious amounts of information. Did you also note how they deliberately misrepresented sources here and this was not the first time, did you even read this discussion?. This is there latest issue here and like everyone one of the other ones, you will not get any source from them, and if you do, based on previous experience it will be misleading. -- Domer48  'fenian'  23:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did check your explanation, and found no valid reason given for what I am talking about.... your revert. That's what we are discussing here; I'm not commenting on your critiques of any subsequent edit and its sourcing, which you are entitled to have, but which belong on the talkpage (where I notice they are entirely absent). You have given no credible explanation at all for using an edit summary "unsupported by the reference, no mention of IRA at all" when there was no mention of the IRA in the edit. The edit actually added "this together with intimidation and attacks on Catholic soldiers"; and in your highly selective quoting of the source above, you missed out quoting"Up to 25% of early recruits were Catholics, some courageously defying intimidation to serve the community as they saw fit.... Internment brought threats to Catholic soldiers who were sometimes told to leave their homes." It's ironic that you call out another editor  for the "selective and biased manner in which they omit copious amounts of information" in the same post that you do exactly the same.  On the other hand, if you don't like Roy Garland as a source then discuss that on the talkpage, attribute the opinion to him or even revert with that as the reason if you must.  Don't revert with an incorrect edit summary. Don't try and justify it later with wikilawyering flannel.  If you do make a mistake, which we all do once in a while, apologize.    Frankly, this post and its attack is the best form of defense approach makes it even clearer to me that you need a break from this topic area.--Slp1 (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ironic. You misrepresent my edits, I respond and its an attack. I explained my edit at the time and you omit to mention it and because I raise it you say that I'm "justify it later with wikilawyering flannel." My revert 20:52, 11 August 2012 explained my edit, it was a partial revert and responded to the editors edit summary. Now you want to get into a discussion about content despite the fact that Arbcom don't get involved in it. When you deliberately leave out information that is relevant, you are misrepresenting the source. The information is logically therefore unsupportable by the source, its that simple. This is not the first time that they have done this, and claims like that need to be backed up, and I have. The editor who reported my edit here, I addressed in full against the accusation. That you see nothing wrong with the edit despite my detailed critic and see nothing wrong with this editors editing, regardless of the links I've provided in response to you claims. Now you raised a number of issues in your first post, all of which I addressed. The editor misrepresented the source, I've backed up that claim with diff's. What we are discussing here is your comments on me, and not just one edit I made. You have studiously ignored the issues I raised and that is the issue. -- Domer48  'fenian'  07:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Mo ainm
It would appear Flexdream and Fergus are trying to make as much noise as possible to try and turn this into a content dispute on this noticeboard, when we should be just focussing on the 1RR breach from an editor with a documented history of problematic editing in this area. Mo ainm ~Talk  23:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mo ainm. This seems like smoke and mirrors to distract from Fergus's disruptive editing, refusal to show good faith, and his all around nasty attitude in an area where he is already topic-banned.  I really have to wonder what more needs to be said here.  He claims to have forgotten the 1RR rule and that he was topic-banned in any articles related to the Troubles?  That beggars both imagination and credulity. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  01:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What seems like smoke and mirrors is the determined effort to use a narrow and legalistic interpretation of WP rules to stop anyone removing the inaccurate term summary execution from an article about the murder of two British citizens by a mob.--FergusM1970 (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have invented a content dispute to distract from your problematic editing. And your repeated claims to both ignorance and innocence are laughable.  Even as this discussion has been ongoing, you have continued to edit war and push your POV in the article.  So, pull the other one. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  03:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't invented anything. This whole issue has come up because of the repeated insertion of inaccurate content.--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To expand: This whole problem has arisen solely because of a content dispute. Multiple editors are repeatedly inserting the term "summary execution" into this article when it is quite clearly incorrect according to Wikipedia's own articles on executions. This is being done solely to push a fringe, pro-IRA POV; the idea that torture and killing by a mob is an execution - "a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime" - is bizarre to say the least. All attempts to change this wording have been frustrated and the editors responsible have been extremely quick to resort to AE to preserve their POV, while refusing to discuss the wording or even explain the reasoning behind it. Any attempt to ask why they want this wording is brushed off with "You don't know what a summary execution is" - we do; it's right there in the relevant article - and any attempt to change it to anything else, even the neutral "killed," is immediately reverted. We can get caught up in the letter of 1RR here, but I think it also may be beneficial to look at the spirit of trying to create an accurate, unbiased reference source.--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Or to expand properly: FergusM1970 has been edit warring to remove a long standing term from the article, one that he attempted to remove in April and was reverted at the time. 2 lines of K  303  16:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fallacy: Argument from antiquity. It doesn't matter how long-standing it is; it's still POV and wrong.--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As has already been identified "summary execution" was not a 'long standing term".[]. It was added on 19 March [] and reverted by Fergus on 4 April []. I make that 16 days later, and Hackney claims that is 'long standing'? I think from an experienced editor who can check these things that is misleading.--Flexdream (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd class April to August as long-standing. 2 lines of K  303  14:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And I will repeat that that's irrelevant. It's only survived because you have been edit-warring to keep it there, and it is both POV and factually incorrect.--FergusM1970 (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hackeny, you said it was long standing at the time Fergus attempted to remove it in April i.e. "remove a long standing term from the article, one that he attempted to remove in April and was reverted at the time." It was not long standing in April. --Flexdream (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And... *crickets* --FergusM1970 (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved My very best wishes
I never edited in this subject area, but just looking at the edit/revert in question by FergusM, one can easily see that it is his edit that complies with our basic NPOV policy, which is not negotiable. I believe the filer of this request is attempting to subvert WP:CONSENSUS to promote their personal POV. Worse, he is trying to use this noticeboard as a weapon against his content opponent. If anyone needs to be sanctioned here, this is filer of this request (and not FergusM) per "boomerang" rule. My very best wishes (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hackney is now stating that the term "summary execution" gives more information to the reader than "killed" does. I agree that this is his intention. However the additional information it implies is that Howes and Wood were legtimately killed as punishment for a crime, which is in fact not the case. Therefore the repeated inclusion of this wording is POV-pushing.--FergusM1970 (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I's not only "murdered" versus "summary execution", but also IRA "members" instead of IRA "volunteers" and the removed word "unarmed" ("unarmed IRA members preparing for a bomb attack") what makes your version obviously more neutral. This is not really a big deal, but the attempt to sanction an editor for following WP:NPOV policy makes this case interesting so common. Admins think they should not rule at all on the content. Let me politely disagree. I believe in the simplest cases like that, they must rule if they care about the project. Of course they should not rule on the more complicated matters that require very good understanding of the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You'd have to explain how a bomb found in a car boot after the event (found due to keys on the body of one of the people killed) about 80km away doesn't make the three people killed "unarmed"? The whole point of the long controversy over the event is that they were indeed unarmed. As after all it's FergusM1970's contention that "Terrorists in possession of a bomb are not unarmed" when the bomb was 80km away. Obviously that they were indeed unarmed is backed up by quite a few dozen sources. 2 lines of K  303  18:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Unarmed" means "not in control of a weapon," not the narrow definition you seem to mean of "not carrying a firearm on their persons." The dead terrorists were in control of a weapon, specifically a large IED. The exact location of the IED itself is not all that relevant; they had control of it. I suspect that you want "unarmed" in there to give the impression that they were somehow innocent victims. They were not. They were planning to detonate a large explosive device in a public location, and their decision to do this led directly to their deaths. If they hadn't taken a car bomb on holiday with them they would not have ended up dead on a Gibralter street, so the inclusion of "unarmed" is at best unnecessary and at worst misleading. --FergusM1970 (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I refer you to the dozens, if not hundreds, of reliable sources that state they were unarmed. Your own opinion of whether they were unarmed or not is irrelevant, except for being evidence that you were not trying to adhere to NPOV at all but to push your own POV. 2 lines of K  303  19:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What POV was I pushing? I didn't edit the article to say that they were armed, after all. However I don't see what's gained by having "unarmed" in there. It gives an unwarranted impression of innocence to them. Unless you're OK with me adding the word "unarmed" to every one of the IRA's victims who didn't actually have a gun in their hands when they were killed? Of course as PIRA murdered over 2,000 people who fall into that category it might take me a while, so perhaps you'd like to help out.--FergusM1970 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I have edited 1971_Scottish_soldiers%27_killings to include the word "unarmed." I assume you're fine with that. --FergusM1970 (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, apparently not.--FergusM1970 (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * They may or may not be armed at the moment, but insisting that a group of bombers must be described as "unarmed" is a POV of enormous proportion. I did not see that level of POV even in the subject areas related to Chechen wars. But this is not why I commented. This case clearly shows the problem with the system of discretionary sanctions. A group of editors with whatever ridiculous POV can easily take possession of such areas and rule with an iron fist by (mis)using this noticeboard. That's why I am not really contributing in such areas any longer, just like many other editors better than me who were banned or stopped participation. My very best wishes (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Is your account still inactive?-- Domer48  'fenian'  14:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Ebe123
I also think, as a DRN volunteer, not a sysop that we should wait for the result of the DRN discussion. Ebe 123  → report 17:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Steven Zhang
Hi. I'm also a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Given the fact that at least two out of the five listed participants have made their lack of intent to participate at DRN clear, either implicitly or explicitly, I don't think AE should wait any longer. Whether the decision to not participate in content dispute resolution should be seen as stonewalling and addressed by the AE admins here is another matter, but it probably should be considered. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 22:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Steven. I see your point, but seeing as I requested dispute resolution on a Friday night and it's now Saturday night, the editors in question may have social commitments that mean they don't have time to participate in WP beyond making a few more reverts edits to their favourite articles. Maybe we could leave the DRN open for another day or two, just to give them a chance to take part.--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I was notified here 19:55, 4 August 2012, are you seriously suggesting that I'm stonewalling? The discussion was closed by you here 22:42, 4 August 2012. I have a RL, and was away from my PC. -- Domer48  'fenian'  22:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Domer48, I don't think you were one of the editors he was referring to, but I tend to agree. It's too early to close the DRN. The other two were notified last night but apparently you didn't get the message for some reason. --FergusM1970 (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think you were stonewalling - my point is that there were two people mentioned in the DRN thread that declined on their talk page to comment in the discussion. For DR to be worthwhile (especially in the face of AE) all need to participate. As this will not take place, there's not much alternative. Mediation could be tried, but if all don't agree to participate, then again, it's pointless. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 23:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to go to mediation if there's a chance it can solve the issue. Obviously that is going to require that the other editors participate, and that's problematic. I think Domer48 would be willing to, but ONIH and TheOldJacobite are dubious. However anything has to be better than this stupid wikilawyering, and I'm sure most of the admins who've looked at this case would agree, so if they keep stonewalling DRN until, say, Tuesday I'll ask for mediation and see how it goes. My aim here is to improve the encyclopaedia, not score political points, so I'm happy to put in the effort if others are.--FergusM1970 (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously that depends on the DRN being open, so I'd be grateful if you could open it again. Thanks.--FergusM1970 (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @all the admins. OK, both DRN volunteers now concur that DRN will not work due to the refusal of ONIH and TheOldJacobite to participate. While I personally think DRN should be given more time, I am willing to take this to mediation instead. Comments?--FergusM1970 (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't declined to take part, I frequently clear my talk page. I was actually planning on adding something today, re-open the thread and I'll be happy to do so. I'll also add that I've continued discussing on the article's tslk page since the DRN thread was opened. 2 lines of K  303  06:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your "discussion" consists of repetitively saying "Read the summary execution article," over and over again. You declined to explain why you think your preferred wording is more appropriate than "killed," you declined to explain what additional information you think it gives the reader and you declined to explain why you think a summary execution is not in fact an execution. Not really helpful, I'm afraid.--FergusM1970 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Domer - you may have been notified about the DRN at 19:55 but you were aware of it earlier when you replied to Fergus at 08:31 []. I still think you should be given more time though. @Hackney - you're usually very quick to comment, but I think you should be given more time also. Similarily OldJacobite is welcome to change their mind and contribute.--Flexdream (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am quite aware that I am free to change my mind. But, frankly, I would consider this all laughable if it weren't so disgusting and offensive.  We are to be lectured on NPOV and dispute resolution by Fergus, who has, without question, violated 1RR, who has repeatedly demanded that he be allowed to have his own way (his idea of a resolution, as suggested on the article talk page, was that we editors who disagree with him simply change our minds, or shut up, and allow him to make the changes he has called for since the beginning), who has moved from article to article making POV changes, and who has repeatedly displayed an arrogant attitude toward those he considers "Provos."  We are to enter dispute resolution with this man, who has a track record of disruption in Troubles-related articles, who has been topic-banned in this area of Wikipedia, and who is currently being considered for another topic ban in this same area.  And yet, the admins, in their wisdom, have decided that resolution of the "content dispute," invented out of whole cloth, should precede enforcement of the long-standing rules that resulted from the Arbcom.  We are to take this seriously?  We are to trust that dispute resolution will now solve this matter?  And we are to believe that this man, who has shown no good faith in the last 96 hours, is going to engage in discussion with a straight face?  And, if he does not, are we to trust that the admins are going to do their job, which they have shown no sign of doing up to this point?  He violated 1RR, and now emboldened by their refusal to act, he has expanded his campaign to multiple Troubles-related articles, including deliberately pointy edits.  Yes, Flexdream, I am free to change my mind, but, given these facts, I'd say there isn't an ice cube's chance in hell of that happening.  You will all have to forgive me for now regarding this entire process as a fucking joke. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  15:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Stephen, I don't know where this leaves the DRN process. I have a lot of sympathy for you and Ebe as volunteers trying to facilitate a discussion between editors with strongly contrasting views. I honestly don't know now who wants to contribute to the discussion but I think it's still worth a shot, but if you decide otherwise I'd understand. Personally I think it would be best if several editors just wrote less and calmed down a bit. --Flexdream (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the DRN process can be salvaged, but if not we need to find some other way to get an impartial judgement about what is or is not NPOV on the article. This back and forth reverting and refusal to discuss the issue is just stupid.--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jon C.
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that One Night In Hackney filed two AE reports over a content dispute in quick succession and declined to participate in the DRN shows his own non-collegial, bad-faith attitude towards editing here. This should be taken into account when deciding the outcome of the request against FergusM1970. — JonC ॐ 09:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Jon, in fact he doesn't edit here. All he does is revert any change made to Troubles-related articles which is intended to promote NPOV. The actual content he's added to Wikipedia is minimal if it isn't actually nil.--FergusM1970 (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

@Cailil
I must take issue with you regarding your claim that I am edit warring. I have removed POV material from the articles I have edited on. My most recent edits have a concensus here [] here [] and here []. I have edited the Wiki in accordance with what has been accepted as fact that the assumption of the name Óglaigh na hÉireann by stateless, banned terrorist organisations is 'styling' and in no way an official representation of usage of a name which belongs to a body of the Irish state. If you, along with the others disagree with this or any of the other edits I have made I am more than willing to enter into dispute resolution and to abide by the concensus arrived at. As Steven Zhang has already pointed out on this page however there are parties who are refusing to enter into DR and appear to be "stonewalling". Their only objective can thus be seen as an attempt to manipulate adjudications on this page and to force a POV onto articles. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @Calil. Your note about my DRN discussion is unwarranted on this occasion in my opinion.  The DRN does not discuss any of the subject matter on this page AFAIK but rather deals with a naming convention. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Scolaire
I would like to draw attention to these four posts by FergusM1970 in the last 24 hours: one, two, three and four. At a time when he is aware that he is likely to be sanctioned for his behaviour, he is using words like "scum", "murderous criminals", "saddo terrorist wannabes" and "actual PIRA terrorists" in a calculated attempt to raise the temperature of an already heated discussion. I think it is not innapropriate to describe this as trolling, and I think it should be taken into account when sanctions are being considered. Scolaire (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, "scum" is POV, no debate there. However PIRA as an organisation used terrorism as its primary tactic while both CIRA and RIRA have committed murder and are criminals, therefore these are factual descriptions. The fact that they may not be to everyone's taste is unfortunate, but if a group doesn't want to be described as murderous criminals they may want to consider not breaking the law and murdering people. "Saddo terrorist wannabes"? Well, what sort of person decides to dress up in a German Army uniform and balaclava and pose with an airsoft AKM?--FergusM1970The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on. 15:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The worrying thing is that you think (or pretend to think) that it is a POV issue. It's not, it's a trolling issue. Scolaire (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggested two edits to the article, one of which (use of PIRA) has already been done anyway and the other being getting rid of that appalling image and replacing it with one actually relevant to PIRA. I don't see how that's trolling.--FergusM1970The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on. 21:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ban from mediation
@AGK, Cailil and KillerChihuaha: I initiated the mediation case in question as an attempt to end the cycle of edit warring that has led to this whole mess. Before that I initiated a DRN in an attempt to find a concensus. Before that I tried to discuss the issue on the article talk page. However all I got was repeated instructions to "learn what a summary execution is" despite the link provided by the complaining editor making it absolutely clear that a summary execution was not what happened. Those other editors, as can be seen here, showed no interest in discussing the issue and simply stonewalled by referring all objections to the summary execution article, which does not support their argument. Whatever other errors I have made, I have been willing to look for a compromise solution throughout and have suggested alternative wordings to the other editors, all of which have been rejected without explanation. ONIH, TheOldJacobite and Domer48 went into the mediation process making it quite clear that they considered it pointless and irrelevant, whereas I have tried to work towards a solution and remain willing to do so.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 13:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Second statement by Steve Zhang
I note that the possibility of excluding mediation from the topic bans has been discussed and supported by some below, opposed by others. Putting my dispute resolution hat on for a minute, I am in favour of allowing the parties to participate in the mediation. I agree that there has been disruption caused by the parties and this requires sanction, but if we impose time-limited topic bans then we are just kicking the problem down the road. Allowing them to participate in mediation allows for the possibility of some sort of dispute resolution to take place. This sort of action does have precedent (AE discussion, ban modification) and while the mediation stalled in the end due to slow participation, discussion was civilised and constructive. So, here's what I propose for sanctions: all the sanctions as discussed below are implemented, and the formal mediation proceedings are excluded from the scope of the topic ban. If the participants fail to maintain order, their topic ban is reset and doubled, and they lose the ability to dispute the outcome of the mediation - this prevents them from deliberately disrupting the mediation in order to torpedo a result later. I don't see the harm in giving this a go - otherwise the content issues will just re-arise when the topic bans expire. Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 13:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning FergusM1970

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


 * FergusM1970 broke the Troubles 1RR restriction at Corporals killings. The question of how to describe the planned bomb attack in Gibraltar is a side issue. The editors on the other side of this dispute did not break 1RR. Meanwhile, since Fergus's last topic ban was for three months I suggest imposing a new topic ban for six months. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @FergusM1970: Do you believe that admins should rule on whether 'summary execution' can be used to describe killings by the IRA? I share your distaste for that language but it falls into the realm of content disputes, so far as I can tell. In any case, removing those words is not an exception to the 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @FergusM1970 this section is for uninvolved sysop discussion of the case *only*. PLease do not comment here.-- Cailil  talk 17:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As Ed says above, content is not relevant to ArbCom enforcement. The diffs speak for themselves FergusM1970 has breached the WP:TROUBLES single revert restriction. Concur with Ed that ban of 6 months length for FergusM1970 is appropriate under the terms of WP:TROUBLES-- Cailil  talk 17:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the sort of thing arbitration, and Wikipedia in general, is terrible at. Things like 1RR can minimize disruptive edit warring but don't succeed at resolving the actual dispute; instead they result in the side with the numerical advantage winning by default. In a better Wikipedia, I would say "hold off on sanctions, let's find a way to resolve the content dispute via actual consensus first." But Wikipedia refuses to provide a method, so I guess sanctions it is. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion above is already tl;dr for me, but you might have: do you see anything by any party that looks like it would be called poor editing (POV writing, misrepresenting sources, etc.) by any objective observer? Who knows, maybe we will actually get an agreement to go after that. NW ( Talk ) 23:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to agree with NW (including that I just skimmed the above), but if there's clear POV editing, baiting, nastiness during discussions, or the like, we can certainly act on those things. I definitely do not want to open up the can of worms of arbitrating content disputes here, but just because bad behavior happens while editing content doesn't mean we can't address that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer, no, nothing is blatantly obvious. I'm a bit concerned about the use of "summary execution", but I haven't looked closely for fear of getting too involved, content-wise. As far as closing this, I think it's clear that, while sanctioning Fergus will deal with the specific problem of his edit warring, it won't solve the problem of content. And no, I haven't got any better ideas. I just think this is a really sucky weakness of our dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It also won't solve the problem of the use RFAE and 1rr as a blunt instrument to "win" over opponents and remove them from the arena.  I'm concerned that User:One Night In Hackney has used this board twice within 9 hours to open 1rr reports. In the first, concerning Flexdream, a fairly infrequent editor, who reverted as soon as the 1rr problem acknowledged that they had broken 1RR as soon as it was brought to his/her attention (and the report closed as a warning); and  here we have FergusM1970 also acknowledging that he had erred too. I think Flexdream had a point that the collegial, WP:AGF thing to do would be to assume that breaking 1RR was an error, and remind them on their talkage, and only report them here if they refuse.  I've seen this done by other editors in other dispute areas.  It is clear that strictly speaking FergusM1970 has broken 1RR, but I am concerned that the 1RR rule as written and applied rewards editors who have the bigger group of allies to revert and who use battleground approaches to get their way in a topic area. Slp1 (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case Slp1 where FergusM1970 has already been topic-banned a breach of WP:TROUBLES is recidivism. I do see your point vis-a-vis gaming but don't see it here. FergusM has a history of bans and blocks over edit-warring in the WP:TROUBLES area (going back to '09) an "oops" is not going to cut it-- Cailil  talk 17:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Fergus' issues all have been Troubles related (in fact, I think only the last one was), but yes, he does have a history in this area, and yes, an "oops" doesn't cut it. I wasn't defending Fergus' actions but rather seeking to take a look at this whole situation. It seems like editors (on both sides) seem to prefer to revert and report rather engage with the evidence and with each other. The suggestion below seems a possible way forward.  --Slp1 (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to clarify my comment above. FergusM1970 has a long history of edit-warring blocks and bans going back to '09 in a number of national topic areas (Israel-Palestine 09-'11 & Britain-Ireland '11-present) but also at BLPs. Per my remarks below I, at this point see what you were concerned about Slp1 (ie gaming) but I also see a lot of gaming from the other side too-- Cailil  talk 12:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Although I agree with Heimstern that the underlying issue is deeper (I think perhaps fully protecting the page for a while might do some good, but that seems hamfisted at best) we can at least resolve this specific problem with this editor. I concur that a 6 month topic ban would be in the works here.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 13:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * FergusM1970 has now opened a discussion at DRN. Does anyone object if we hold off closing this AE request until we see if DRN can do something useful? My guess is that this report would have to kept open as much as five more days, if other admins agree with that idea. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually think that's quite a good idea, and would like to caution everyone involved there that for anyone who chooses to participate, negotiation in good faith and in compliance with our behavioral requirements is expected. While bright-line violations of restrictions like 1RR are easy to address, they are generally a symptom rather than a root cause, and we will in due course address patterns of misbehavior like stonewalling discussions, tag team reverting, or chronic incivility/sniping. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved statement by Ebe123 to section above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also think it's a good idea; at the very least, worth a shot. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I like it too; if everything goes well and we don't have to resort to sanctions, that'd be great. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 20:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So do I; I'd also like to emphasize that all the participants in this dispute are very strongly encouraged to participate.  As Seraphimblade says, stonewalling behaviours  are not appropriate or helpful when it comes to writing an encyclopedia --Slp1 (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment moved to proper section. Please don't deliberately make work. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * With this cases referral back here & Steven's comment above, I'd move that at this point we consider conduct of ALL parties. FergusM1970 has breached the WP:TROUBLES ruling but in light of the conduct of all parties at WP:DRN and here I must retract me above and agree with SLP1: there is stonewalling here and I'm concerned that there are battle-lines being drawn by both sides, rather than attempts to find source based consensus-- Cailil  talk 15:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I more or less have to agree with Cailil here. Unfortunately, that leaves the editors here to determine what kind of sanctions to be levied, and which editors to levy them against. John Carter (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK enough is enough. There are games being played on Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997 with a current edit war including FergusM1970 (for clarity only the 2nd of these diffs is a revert the first is the original edit), DagosNavy, One Night In Hackney, a throw-away-account, Portugalpete (who's ONLY edit to WP is in this edit-war), OldJacobite, and Son of Setanta. I'm suggesting a topic-ban for all the above (except Portugalpete who is clearly a sock) from WP:TROUBLES related topics for a duration of 3 months (none of them heeded repeated urgings from a series of admins to engage in constructive discussion and have within the last 24 hours begun further disruptive behaviour), with a 6 month ban for FergusM1970. The reason for the higher sanction on FergusM1970 is recidivism (as well as numerous conduct issues including an attempt at canvassing) but I'd support a 3 month ban as minimum. However given that FergusM1970's dispute withDagosNavy (which I consider them equally at fault for) has spilled over from Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade to Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997 (both of which began within the last 24 hours) and considering the level of caution he has recieved above his behaviour is showing no signs of change or recognizing what the issues are-- Cailil  talk 16:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll need to look into the edits further before commenting on the merits of the proposed sanctions, but if the situation is as you described, we might want to try importing WP:ARBFLG2 into this topic and see how that works out. T. Canens (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that this has become ridiculous. It is ironic that Tim comments that the only RFAE come from Palestine-Israel ArbCom and discuss whether it needs to go back, and here we are overrun with Troubles requests. I am starting to wonder if this whole thing doesn't need to go back to ArbCom, though possibly the WP:ARBFLG2 would be worth a try.
 * As far as what to do with all these requests, I am learning towards Cailil's suggestion, as so many editors are behaving badly. The history of 7 July 2005 London bombings] which has been slow (and fast) edit warred over for 2 weeks now), with this reversion by User:SonofSetanta of unsourced contentious material today, being particularly ridiculous and unhelpful.  To add to Cailil's comments, I was appalled by FergusM1970's pointy editing about being "unarmed" (some egs ), but slightly mollified by the fact that he did take the point and initiate the two DR resolution attempts, and one of them actually seems like it might be a go. On the other hand, I find clear gaming and wikilawyering in One Night in Hackney's editing.  Here,  and here, here here and here,  s/he, quite reasonably, asks for sources for edits which s/he opposes, but when an independent editor on the mediation page makes the same point about the absence of any good sourcing for a phrasing s/he supports (and lots of good sources for what s/he has opposed}, ONIH wants to argue on, based on the merits of the phrasing, rather that the clear WP:V and WP:UNDUE policy issues. --Slp1 (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * After the last negotiations breakdown, I've been doing a review of the major players involved here, and I agree with Cailil that all their behavior in the area has been, frankly, appalling. I was quite unimpressed with the canvassing message left on my talk page, and regardless, Fergus has pretty unequivocally breached 1RR. However, I don't think at this point that the further participation of any of the editors Cailil mentions is constructive in this area. I suggest a 3-month topic ban for all from Troubles articles, broadly construed, with a clear warning that next time is not likely to have an expiration date. I also have no objection to Cailil's suggestion of a longer sanction for Fergus, given the 1RR violations and further misbehavior. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that Son Of Setanta has opened a DRN discussion after 2 sysops have commented in the thread below that his edits have breached WP:TROUBLES and 3 of us here have highlighted their general misconduct in the topic I am inclined to look very wryly on the mediation. Processes of this site should not be used to undermine or otherwise attempt to evade policy or arbitration remedies-- Cailil   talk 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Motion to close
The behaviour here on this board by a number of the parties here has been just as appalling as their conduct in articles. This thread has been open 10 days. There is no reason for it to remain open as there is a consensus above to: a) Topic ban FergusM1970 for 6 months from WP:TROUBLES articles and discussions. b) Topic ban Son of Setanta, One Night In Hackney, Old Jacobite, DagosNavy & Flexdream for 3 months from WP:Troubles articles and discussions. c) Block Portugalpete as a WP:SPA used to editwar and harass (and probably also a sock- or meatpuppet per WP:DUCK). Since August 7th User:Domer48 has engaged in battleground behaviour with Son of Setanta. At this point in time I believe a final warning to Domer48 that further battleground conduct will result in sanction. Given that Domer48 was on a 6 month probation any further sanctions would escalate from that (ie year-long or indefinite). I think a reminder of that should be sufficient These sanctions take into account the bahviour of multiple parties in this thread at WP:DRN and in the articles space. It also encompasses the consensus of discussion in two threads on this page (both filed against Son of Setanta), please see below. Unless there is disagreement here from other sysops I will implement the topic bans in 48 hours. If anyone else wants to do so before that, please feel free-- Cailil  talk 19:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's close this. However, I would prefer 3 months for everybody, as they all have been as bad as each other, including Domer48, but a strong warning only to Flexdream.
 * Reasoning: Domer48's continuing battleground mentality is shown by yesterday's events where it that s/he thinks it is okay to revert based on a incorrect edit summary. This edit of Fergus'  mentions PIRA in the edit summary but nowhere in the actual edit. Domer reverts  claiming that "unsupported by the reference, no mention of IRA at all", when, as I and Mabuska have noted, the actual edit was well-supported by a reliable source, the Irish News.  The topic area needs people are exceptionally careful with their edits; not people, who are quick to revert and revert, and inflame the situation which is just Domer48's (and the many others') pattern.  In contrast, I don't see evidence that Flexdream has reached that point based on the edits of the last few weeks.
 * I would also like an exception to be made for the topic-banned editors to participate in the mediation,which AGK says should should start within 2 weeks. I think this would provide an opportunity for the various parties to learn to discuss an issue and come to an agreed-upon solution with each other, a much preferred method that the current approach. I think we can also give a strong warning that this is a final chance for many editors.--Slp1 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that Flexdream was already warned and has continued to revert this group I have my concern that continued warning is insufficient but if you're happy with a warning I wont quibble. I see where you're coming from re: Domer and have no issue with that. However I'll just not that One Night In Hackney (a party to the original WP:TROUBLES rfar) claims that he has no due warning re: discretionary sanctions and so I've asked for the input of yourself T Canens and Seraphimblade before closing. I'll also note that there has been yet another thread opened on this same issue, this time by Son of Setanta - I'm suggesting WP:Boomarang there and consider it an aggravating circumstance and would consider increasing the ban for them from 3 to 4 months in light of that-- Cailil  talk 12:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm noting here the response not only of Tim Canens but also KillerChihuahua and EdJohnston to One Night In Hackney's assertion that they have not received appropriate warning under WP:AC/DS. There is overwhelming consensus supporting action against ONiH and TheOldJacobite and supporting the view that this is, as Tim is a case where "presumed notice is appropriate". ONiH was a party to the original WP:TROUBLES RFAR and both parties have been involved in this topic area, editing on articles with large boxes notifying users of the RFAR remedies and/or have been involved here either discussing or bringing cases under WP:TROUBLES-- Cailil  talk 12:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In specific reference to One Night in Hackney and The Old Jacobite's claim that they were never properly "warned", and therefore may not be sanctioned, I find this ludicrous. The current state of affairs is that Troubles articles are under standard discretionary sanctions. The warning required from discretionary sanctions is so editors are not blindsided by restrictions they didn't know existed&mdash;not everyone follows ArbCom cases, and there are a substantial number of editors who are only dimly if at all aware that the ArbCom even exists. But ONIH and The Old Jacobite are clearly aware of the sanctions, because they participate in their enforcement! There's also the fact that Troubles articles carry a prominent notice on them regarding them.
 * In conclusion, then, I find the objection to be baseless and border on an attempt at gaming and lawyering. If anything, that reinforces my belief that the sanctions are necessary. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above, I should also state that the top of this very page states that editors coming here with unclean hands may well face sanctions themselves. I haven't seen too many clean hands in this request. What I see are battle lines drawn, and ownership taken of articles by the side with numerical superiority or best able to game the restrictions, and reverts just being used at a slightly slower pace due to 1RR. Negotiation in good faith is almost nonexistent, and when anyone bothers to hold a discussion about their reverts at all, it is full of mudslinging and namecalling rather than any attempt to come to an understanding. That behavior has been shown by everyone who faces sanctions here, it is unconstructive and drives other editors away who might actually be able to make improvements, it has been going on for a long time, and it is enough.
 * I do agree that any editors sanctioned should be allowed to participate in the mediation, with the caveat that if their participation there is disruptive or not in good faith, we'll not hesitate to remove them from that either. I hope it works, I sincerely do, because what's been happening in this area to date is totally unacceptable. After the mediation is done and the topic bans expire, hopefully we won't have to see anyone involved back here again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The only thing I would add is, maybe, asking ArbCom how they saw the Mandated external review would be applied in other cases, specifically, whether it would be possible for AE editors to impose such sanctions, or whether only ArbCom could do so. I'm not sure that the conduct issues of some editors indicated above, and taking place above, would not maybe be sufficient for those individual editors to be at least temporarily completely banned from the related content for some period of time, and I would probably support such a temporary ban in some cases. But I would also like to know if the MER option would be one that could be used in this context, and/or whether it could be applied by AE enforcers. John Carter (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Without commenting on the specific case in question, exempting an open mediation case from any topic-ban is an inherently flawed idea. I strongly encourage you to reconsider. AGK  [•] 12:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I must agree with AGK here; how can it possibly be a good idea to include topic banned editors in making a decision about the topic they are banned from? this makes zero sense to me. Please explain your rationale. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Slp1 & Seraphimblade are arguing that they should learn to co-operate. I think this is laudable but it's not something I see working either. IMO even if we ban them and send them to MedCab when the ban expires we're looking at a repeat of the same behaviour. I'd favour the straight forward topic ban, with the possible imposition of Mandated External Review if the Committee approves it-- Cailil  talk 12:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the should cooperate, no argument there. But they have not been cooperating, hence the topic ban. Mediation will be difficult enough without topic banned editors repeating the behavior which got them topic banned to begin with muddying the waters, and I see absolutely no reason to think they won't do just that. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * AGK has been on MedCom for a while, and has seen many of these tough ones go through. If he thinks this is a bad idea, I'll defer to his judgment and favor implementation of the topic ban without exception. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. It would be nice if it could have been a stepping stone to better communication, but if AGK doesn't think it is workable then I am very happy to accept that and simply have a full topic ban. Slp1 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the inclination to help the respondents work together, but believe rehabilitation has no place in arbitration enforcement. Topics subject to AE are demonstrably problematic areas of the encyclopedia, so misconduct reported here needs to be dealt with swiftly and effectively. If a user cannot contribute constructively to a topic which is subject to AE, then frankly you need to remove them. (Oh, and please understand my intention is not to try to chastise anybody here :-). Rather, I simply want to share my own experience—as a sysop who worked this noticeboard, and as a contributor to similar processes.) AGK  [•] 22:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the level of consensus and the time that this thread has been open, I'm closing this with the result:
 * 1) Topic ban FergusM1970 for 6 months from WP:TROUBLES articles and discussions.
 * 2) Topic ban Son of Setanta for 4 months from WP:Troubles articles and discussions (increased from 3 months in light of conduct on this page below).
 * 3) Topic ban One Night In Hackney, Old Jacobite, DagosNavy & Domer48 for 3 months from WP:Troubles articles and discussions.
 * 4) Indefinitely block Portugalpete.
 * 5) Warn Flexdream that further "tag team" edit warring or any misconduct in the areas covered by WP:TROUBLES will result in sanction.
 * 6) Request ArbCom look at Mandated External Review for WP:Troubles: I'll open a request for clarification if we can impose this via the existing ruling (ie discretionary sanctions) or if an amendment needs to be made if so I'll request that in due course-- Cailil   talk 12:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In before this thread closes: my view is that you can authorise MER under the authority of discretionary sanctions, but I agree a clarification request is probably needed to confirm. AGK  [•] 12:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)