- 1 Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Devil's Advocate
- 1.1 Statement by The Devil's Advocate
- 1.2 Statement by WGFinley
- 1.3 Statement by MONGO
- 1.4 Statement by NuclearWarfare
- 1.5 Statement by Toa Nidhiki05
- 1.6 Statement by Cla68
- 1.7 Statement by Mathsci
- 1.8 Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by The Devil's Advocate
- 1.9 Result of the appeal by The Devil's Advocate
- 2 SonofSetanta
- 3 FergusM1970
- 3.1 Request concerning FergusM1970
- 3.2 Discussion concerning FergusM1970
- 3.2.1 Statement by FergusM1970
- 3.2.2 Comment from Son of Setanta
- 3.2.3 Request for Mediation
- 3.2.4 Confession
- 3.2.5 Further Allegations
- 3.2.6 Final Comments
- 3.2.7 Comments by others about the request concerning FergusM1970
- 3.2.8 Comment by Mabuska
- 3.2.9 Statement by Flexdream
- 3.2.10 Statement by Sean.hoyland
- 3.2.11 Statement by Domer48
- 3.2.12 Another violation of 1RR by the same editor:
- 3.2.13 Statement by Mo ainm
- 3.2.14 Comment by uninvolved My very best wishes
- 3.2.15 Statement by uninvolved Ebe123
- 3.2.16 Statement by Steven Zhang
- 3.2.17 Statement by Jon C.
- 3.2.18 @Cailil
- 3.2.19 Statement by Scolaire
- 3.2.20 Ban from mediation
- 3.2.21 Second statement by Steve Zhang
- 3.3 Result concerning FergusM1970
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Devil's Advocate
|Appeal declined. T. Canens (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)|
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
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).
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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's Advocate (talk) 05:06, 7 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's Advocate (talk) 14:50, 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'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
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)
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)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by The Devil's Advocate
Result of the appeal by The Devil's Advocate
|Request declined. NW (Talk) 13:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)|
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning SonofSetanta
@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)
@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:
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:
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)
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
Discussion concerning SonofSetanta
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 Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army. 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)
Comments by others about the request concerning SonofSetanta
Result concerning SonofSetanta
|FergusM1970 is topic banned from WP:TROUBLES articles and discussions for 6 months. User:SonofSetanta is topic banned from WP:TROUBLES articles and discussions for 4 months. One Night In Hackney, User:TheOldJacobite, User:DagosNavy & User:Domer48 are topic banned for 3 months from WP:Troubles articles and discussions. User:Flexdream is cautioned that further misconduct in the areas covered by WP:TROUBLES will result in sanction; and a request that ArbCom consider implementing Mandated External Review for WP:Troubles will be made first by way of a request for clarification and then by request for ammendment if necessary--Cailil talk 12:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)|
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
Request concerning FergusM1970
Discussion concerning FergusM1970
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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
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)
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)
Comments by others about the request concerning FergusM1970
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Statement by uninvolved Ebe123
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)
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. — JonCॐ 09:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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:
Given the level of consensus and the time that this thread has been open, I'm closing this with the result: