From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Closed - SonofSetanta is topic banned from WP:TROUBLES related articles for 4 months per this AE thread.
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[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
2 lines of K303 16:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
SonofSetanta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 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
  4. 15:30, 6 August 2012 Revert #1 on a different article
  5. 11:59, 7 August 2012 Revert #2 on that article, within 24 hours of the first
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Previously blocked 3 times under this remedy.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Since I'm sure I'll get cries of "content dispute" from the usual suspects, I'd better explain this fully. Flexdream initially removed content on 29 July, and was reverted by Nick Cooper. Flexdream then decided to add this content on 31 July, and was reverted by me. In the discussion at Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings#Relevance of IRA bombings I made it clear the addition of the new content was problematic, as was the existing content, but that you don't solve problems with bad content by adding more bad content. I further made it clear why I hadn't removed the prior content at the same time, as the removal of that had already been reverted by Nick Cooper. Nick Cooper hadn't participated in the discussion and no sources have been produced as requested, so the existing problematic content was removed by me. SonofSetanta has restored the new problematic content in revert 1, and the existing problematic content in revert 2. Quite why he's doing this when my removal of the existing problematic content is supposed to solve the dispute is anyone's guess? 2 lines of K303 16:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
No 1RR breach from me, since a self-reverted edit by JonChapple makes my edits consecutive. You'll find reverting content relating to the IRA is very much covered by the Troubles restrictions, try reading them. And there's no "harassment" inolved, you turn up again after months away and revert on two articles without any attempt to take part in the ongoing discussions. 2 lines of K303 16:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't be bothered to correct the laughable attacks and assumptions of bad faith below, except to point out the restriction is "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles" and if that information has got information in it relating to the IRA during the Troubles then, yes, edits to that information are covered by 1RR. That's a long-established principle of what "related" actually means. 2 lines of K303 06:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The article is about a terrorist bombing carried out by islamists. It has nothing to do with the Troubles. This is blindingly obvious. The 1RR rule only applies to articles about the Troubles, not to any mention of the IRA anywhere on Wikipedia.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 08:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
If it mentions the IRA, editing those parts of the article is covered by 1RR. That's what "related" means. Or are you suggesting the phrase "More people were killed by the bombings than in any single Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) attack during The Troubles" is nothing to do with the Troubles at all? 2 lines of K303 12:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
3rd revert added. 2 lines of K303 12:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
1RR violation added for another article. 2 lines of K303 12:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
He has self-reverted that. 2 lines of K303 12:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Further to SonofSetanta's spurious allegations below, it seems he is totally unaware of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Corporals killings and the lengthy discussions on that page's talk page. 2 lines of K303 12:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Make that lengthy and pointless discussions, seeing as you have refused to give any reason why you think your version of that article is superior to the suggested alternatives which are backed up by a majority of WP:RS. I asked two days ago for any reason why "killed" is not a suitable NPOV wording for that article, and despite the fact that you've had plenty to say elsewhere your response to that request has been *crickets*.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 01:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for editing an article three hours within the time restriction for 1RR. As noted I have self reverted. It is nice to know my mistakes will be pointed out quickly. I feel quite privileged to have my own watchkeeper. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning SonofSetanta[edit]

Statement by SonofSetanta[edit]

Firstly: the article 7 July 2005 London bombings is not covered by the 1RR restriction, it is under the 3RR rule. Secondly: If I am guilty of breaking 1RR so is the complainant for his reversions here [[2]] and here [[3]]. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional information: It needs to be noted that this complaint is part of a campaign of edit warring which the complainant and several others are part of and has resulted in the complainant making three separate cases on this page against me, FergusM1970 and Flexdream. What we are seeing here is gaming on a major scale with the intended result being the subversion of the Wiki. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning SonofSetanta[edit]

Statement by Domer48[edit]

All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.

The editor is well aware of this.--Domer48'fenian' 16:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume he's also well aware that the 7/7 bombings had absolutely nothing to do with the Troubles, what with them being carried out in London by islamic terrorists rather than in Londonderry by Irish ones. To apply the Troubles 1RR rule to this is simply absurd.--FergusM1970 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Per both NW and Cailil: The diffs presented here show clear and unambiguous breaches of the 1RR and therefor discretionary sanctions apply here. That SonofSetanta, is being discussed above in the thread about FergusM1970 as they have been involved with ongoing problems only compounds the violation. Application of 1RR would prevent the type of disruptive editing at articles such as this. Were having reverted two editors, both of whom have used the talk page to explain their edits, they not only fail to respond on the talk, but cynically attempt to open a dispute resolution process, and then what I consider to be canvassing support from like minded editors [4][5][6], bizarrely giving notice to two Arb's also two of whom have not edited the article? --Domer48'fenian' 19:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Addition:The editor when filing their Dispute resolution notice when asked: Have you discussed this on a talk page? They replied: Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. When asked: Have you tried to resolve this previously? they replied: I, and others, have made all editors aware through the talk page what the facts are and have tried to include the information in the article. This has sparked an edit war with several opposing editors.

However, the editor has never used the talk page, ever and if they did it was not under their current user name? --Domer48'fenian' 21:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Domer. It's possible that Fergus and Setanta's apparent bizarre canvassing of Admins is because they don't know about the canvassing rule. Has anyone actually told Fergus or Setanta about it do you know? Regards --Flexdream (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
No Flexdream, I wasn't aware of it. Now that I am I won't do it again.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 01:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I had no idea. I didn't canvas however as instinctively I felt that would have been wrong. what I did do was place a notice on Calil's page that a discussion he was involved in had been raised at DRN, in case he wanted to provide input. It was an honest mistake, very much regretted and which won't be repeated. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

@Cailil: This is will probably not endear me with Arbcom, but can I just say this: The 1RR is an Arbcom imposed sanction! Now Arbcom was not set up to police the articles that have editing restrictions, the editors do that. When like now we have editors who repeatedly violate Arbcom imposed sanctions, it is the editors of these articles who come here with a report and Arbcom do the rest. A simple rule for those who want to avoid snactions, is simple, don't violate them. I've engaged in the discussions with these editors, and its a lot more frustrating than anything on this page. If Arbcom had of addressed the first report, I seriously doubt that we would have had the continued disruption we have now. No offense! --Domer48'fenian' 15:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC) @Cailil: RE: "boomerang" I've no problem with that, if in fact the report is frivolous and there was in fact no violation. But it would seem very arbitrary to sanction an editor who filed a 1rr Arbcom imposed sanction. If for example I was a returning editor, with a clean slate, fresh start an all that, and I acted the maggot, I could understand were your coming from. But my less than glowing record, most of which were reversed, is something I have not ran away from, and I've edited away without a report or any sanctions. --Domer48'fenian' 16:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jon C.[edit]

This is getting beyond a joke. You're a big boy, Mr Hackney, can't you settle your own disputes without constantly running to the admins? This is not what AE is supposed to be used for. JonC 19:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a clear pattern here. ONIH goes straight to AE without any attempt whatsoever to find a compromise. It's also obvious that every 1RR violation he complains about involves the same small group of editors who repeat his reverts. It's very hard to escape the conclusion that a tag-team is operating on anything that might cast Irish Republican terrorists in a bad light.--FergusM1970 (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by FergusM1970[edit]

This is the third time this editor has gone to AE in the past four days, all to do with 1RR violations and all to do with edits which have presented an image of the IRA which he happens not to like. On no occasion has he engaged in any attempt to find a compromise or discuss meaningfully on talk pages, preferring to accuse the other party of not knowing what they are talking about. When I raised a DRN in an attempt to solve a content dispute he ignored it, and only became involved in mediation after admins dealing with his complaint against me began expressing a desire for a resolution to the dispute rather than AE action. At the same time he contributes little or no content to Wikipedia himself; his edit history consists almost entirely of reverts. It seems likely that his only aim is to push his own POV regarding the Troubles and that he is not above gaming WP rules to do so.--FergusM1970 (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Flexdream[edit]

Domer quotes that "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related." An article on the London 7/7 bombings, which has no Irish connection or dimension, cannot reasonably be construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland. 1RR does not apply. This rush to AE is an abuse of process and should be treated accordingly. --Flexdream (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused now. The complainant has removed from the London 7/7 article the references to the IRA [[7]] and seems to now be agreeing with my making the same edit [8] when I made the comment that the IRA was irrelevant. So the complainant seems to agree with me that the IRA is irrelevant. The London 7/7 article is not Troubles related for 1RR, and even the complainant seems to think that by the edit they have made which is a repeat of the edit I made. And now they raise an AE on the basis that the article is Troubles related for 1RR? I don't follow the reasoning. --Flexdream (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
@NW I find your analogy hard to follow. Your analogy seems to be taking two incidents in Japanese/American relations and comparing them. The attack on Pearl Harbour is obviously relevant to Japanes/American relations - but was the sinking of the USS Maine relevant? What if you had an editor trying to insert the sinking of the USS Maine into an article about Pearl Harbour? How does an article about an Islamic terrorist attack on London, relate to IRA attacks when there is no link of Irish or IRA involvement? I think its better to keep it simple. Whether the article is Troubles related determines whether it is subject to 1RR determines whether, which and on whom sanctions should be applied. I wouldn't preclude other admins expressing an opinion. Regards. --Flexdream (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's the simplified version: Pearl Harbor is of course relevant to US/Japan relations. 9/11 is not, normally. If someone is trying to push material about US/Japan relations into the 9/11 article, then their behavior is sanctionable per US/Japan discretionary sanctions. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter on which articles the edits were made; what matters is whether the edits themselves are related to the Troubles dispute. And here they clearly are. NW (Talk) 22:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
@NW Thanks, that's a much clearer explanation. I always thought the Troubles restriction applied to articles, not the edits which may have been inserted into articles. That's how I interpret "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland". I still don't see how the London 7/7 article can be reasonably construed as Troubles related because someone had inserted an IRA link into it. I doubt that I'm alone in my understanding. The complainant and I both agree the IRA link does not belong in this article. So I repeat, how can an article be Troubles related for this complaint, when the complainant does not think it should have an IRA reference? I'd welcome comments from others on what their interpretation is now that you and I have established what we think it is. Regards. --Flexdream (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade. It's an assumption to say of Setanta that they were "disingenuous to then claim they had no idea the restrictions applied there". Setanta thought 3RR restrictions applied, if you assume good faith. They were never made aware that 1RR applied and given a chance to accept that. Instead this AE was raised against them. I am not the only editor to have pointed out here that even the complainant, Hackney, has edited to remove all mention of the IRA from the London 7/7 article [[9]]. I think Setanta's position is credible.--Flexdream (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Son of Setanta[edit]

I would call on adjudicating editors to be aware of the Statement by Steven Zhang above (under the FergusM1970 complaint) which states clearly that the editors in opposition here, including the complainant, have refused to take part in dispute resolution regarding the complaint against Fergus. With this knowledge it should be obvious to anyone that resolution is not the agenda of Hackney and his associates. Rather we are seeing attempts to subvert the Wiki to their own aim - the glorification of the Provisional IRA. This has been going on for years but so far the well intended volunteers who do their best to police the Wiki have been unable to find a solution to it. I would respectfully suggest a very long term ban on Hackney for a start and perhaps the same for Domer48. These two seem to be the main exponents of the bullying which stops other editors from removing POV from articles which contain references to the Provisional IRA. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

* I also respectfully submit that perhaps adjudicators might examine the number of 1RR complaints made by all particpiants in this discussion on articles relating to the Troubles. I believe the results would be quite interesting. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Crystalfile[edit]

How does this have anything to do with IRA? One night in Hackney claims this one sentence is the link - "More people were killed by the bombings than in any single Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) attack during The Troubles" and even he removes this from the article! He is trying to get editor in trouble unfairly.


I have not breached 1RR. The London Bombings are a 3RR page. On the other occasion where I inadvertantly breached 1RR on another page I reverted myself with an apology. Could you outline please anywhere where you allege I have actually breached the protocol? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution has now been requested by me here [Republican Army] to try and resolve the issue I am involved in. I respectfully suggest that adjudication here be suspended pending the outcome of such resolution. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

@Calil I honestly can't see how claiming the London Bombings page is wikilawering and request you withdraw such a spurious comment. The page is not about the Northern Ireland Troubles. Simple as that. The reference to PIRA was simply a bit of interest and I couldn't understand why it was continually deleted. I've lost interest in it now anyway. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

@Calil. I included your page on the DRN as a courtesy. You are involved in a discussion concerning the subject matter. No disrespect is intended, just courtesy. I am truly sorry you have misinterpreted my efforts. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I would respectfully request comment from other sysops on this matter. I feel I am being corralled because I made one mistake which I immediately reverted. The other issue is abundantly clear. I made two or three edits on a 3RR page - nothing to do with the Irish troubles. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

@ Seraphimblade. I did not however bring a Troubles related item to a 3RR page. I reintroduced a fact which did not alter the status of the article in any way. We have to accept that the Troubles happened and there are statistics out there concerning the general British public which, while referring to the Troubles, do not make the article Troubles related. I could have used statistics from the Blitz but it wouldn't make the article Blitz-related. I feel that's a better analogy. The fact remains that this is, in my humble opinion, a spurious complaint by someone who regularly uses 1RR complaints to control editors whose prose he doesn't like. I request that the matter be closed and warnings issued. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

@Calil. I do not wish to appear disrespectful but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that you are an Irish editor and whilst I extend every good faith to you, as I hope you do to I, your input could be misconstrued, as mine is. I would also respectfully ask you to note that every case here has been made by a certain group of editors who have violation histories of their own. My own opinion is that I, Fergus and Flexdream should be guided through this difficult time in our editing history with Wikipedia. The people making the complaints should receive some guidance as well to avoid turning minor infringements into complaints in the future. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

@Calil. I have no wish to breach any Wikipedia etiquette but I would like my own edits to be taken in good faith. The people who are complaining about me here are the same people who hounded me on the Ulster Defence Regiment page when I was a novice editor just six months ago. I have returned to edit in my areas of interest and whilst I may have made one or two silly mistakes my intentions are good but I have been set about by the same people, all of whom have long histories in edit warring on Troubles articles. As you can see by the way I've engaged recently my behaviour pattern is not the same as it was eight months ago. I have taken deep breaths and not become personally involved. I am less quick to react and taking on board every piece of advice given to me. I would appreciate your guidance too in adapting a style of editing which suits the more controversial articles. I can't do that however when my every move is watched and my every mistake reported as a misdemeanour. Have you looked at some of the articles I have written, or the ones where I have successfully edited without difficulty? That is the type of effort I am bringing to the table here - not an edit warring style. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

@ Seraphimblade. With respect but you are mistaken. There is no battleground mentality on my part. Just a fear that I am being gamed into a corner for these marginal difficulties. All my edits are being made in good faith and I'd like to see evidence from the other particpants on the articles that they accept this rather than reporting me for every little thing and refusing to take part in DRN. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that the other complaint has been closed I request that this one be as well. The comments by sysops on the other one were clear, these were marginal errors held up by the complainant as deliberate edit warring. There has been no perpetuation of that by me and I respectfully seek closure. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

After a six month voluntary break I was expecting an easier ride but hey ho. If sanctions for all are what it takes to calm down this gaming then I volunteer to be included to show fair play. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning SonofSetanta[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I'm not going comment yet on whether I feel sanctions or 1RR is warranted. But here's my position on whether the article falls under sanctions or not in the form of a thought experiment:

    Imagine that in 2050, relations between America and Japan have deteriorated significantly. The attack on Pearl Harbor is no longer seen just as a surprise military attack in violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact but nothing less than state-sponsored terrorism. An anti-Japanese editor goes to September 11 attacks and repeatedly inserts into the lead the phrase “while the attacks killed more people than any previous incident in American history, it was not as damaging as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (1941).” This edit is opposed by the normal editors of the page, who feel that comparisons with Pearl Harbor are too much of a stretch to include in the lead. But our anti-Japanese editor is insistent and opposed to all reason and is acting in a nationalistic fashion that we see today in Israel-Palestine or Eastern Europe disputes. I would hope that you would agree with me that the root cause of the dispute is not anything about September 11 but is instead about America-Japanese relations (broadly construed). If there were discretionary sanctions on that topic, I would not hesitate to apply them.

    That’s my position anyway, that discretionary sanctions apply here. The rest of the analogy is not to be taken as stated; I haven’t more than glanced at SonofSetanta’s edits. But any further comments from other editors should focus on whether he should be sanctioned, not whether the article falls under WP:TROUBLES. NW (Talk) 17:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Just a procedural note. This editor, SonofSetanta, is being discussed above in the thread about FergusM1970 as they have been involved with ongoing problems being examined in that request. Besides that the diffs presented here show clear and unambiguous breaches of the 1RR - a 3 month ban for SonofSetanta is being mooted above taking in to account both the conduct presented here and other issues--Cailil talk 12:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • @SonofSetanta: NuclearWarfare has explain this above my comment. Putting it very simply: WP:TROUBLES and its remedies cover any and all edits relating to that topic (widely construed) in any article anywhere on en-wikipedia. Your edit referenced the Omagh bombing - an event from The Troubles and thus your edits are covered by the ruling. End of story.
    Also please desist from wikilawyering it will not help your case - if other sysops disagree with me they will say so-Cailil talk 17:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm going to warn you SonofSetanta edits like this[10] look a lot like you are trying to muddy the waters. I am commenting here as a sysop in determining wether you have breached an arbitration remedy. I am not in any way involved in any edits relating to this topic. You cannot use WP:DRN to evade sanctions and/or otherwise grief process--Cailil talk 17:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with NW and Cailil that the Troubles restrictions clearly are intended to cover Troubles-related areas and edits, wherever those may lie. If an editor is bringing Troubles-related edits to a previously unrelated article, I think it's pretty disingenuous to then claim they had no idea the restrictions applied there. I fully endorse NW's 9-11 example as an analogy to the situation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Those who recall my telling someone (under topic ban sanction at the time) not to edit an article about a bird found in Ireland if they wanted to be absolutely certain not to edit Troubles related articles will not be surprised when I concur with NW et al; this falls under the Troubles and is subject to the sanctions therein. That said, I am willing to concede that it may not have been clear to the editor at the time that this article would fall under such sanctions, and advise applying limited 1RR moving forward, with no further sanctions. Should SonofSetanta or any of the other editors involved in this case appear here again, of course, we will have to consider stronger measures. KillerChihuahua?!? 05:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • KC just BTW Son of Stenata is being discussed above in the thread on FergusM1970, and below for further (borderline) violations. Given the full panoply of behaviour here the time for warnings is past. Furthermore they have once again been edit-warring. I am of a mind that Son of Setanta and all the parties listed above in the FergusM1970 thread should be topic banned for 3 months at a minimum. I'm not precluding boomerang for inappropriate reports either (in reference to the below). There is a morase of inappropriate behaviour in this topic by the 5 or 6 same editors for the last 10 days--Cailil talk 15:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll add further that SoS was topic banned under WP:TROUBLES for 90 days this January--Cailil talk 16:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no objection. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@SoS: It is highly inappropriate to equate a person's place of birth with a point of view, that kind of ad hominem has no place on this site as it is a breach both of our talk page guidelines and civility policies. I will remind you that british sysops like HJ Mitchell also enforce WP:TROUBLEs because where any us come from has ZERO bearing on the issues. None of us are "involved" in a content issue related to the subject, none of us have ever edited in that topic area, and our decisions are being made as a group rather than individually. Anyone's place of birth has precisely zero bearing on your conduct, and you are not helping yourself by engaging in such remarks. I will advise you that no matter how politely phrased a personal attack is it remains incivil--Cailil talk 16:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  • And SoS, in case you need to hear it from someone else, I'm American, and have no opinion regarding the Troubles other than that it's a terrible shame they happened at all. If I saw an "uninvolved" admin acting with bias or malice here, I would not hesitate to call them out for it. Not only have I seen Cailil act very fairly in many areas including this one, but I had no idea Cailil was Irish until you said so, so I think that pretty much answers the question of bias. Implying that someone should recuse because of their nationality, apart from any actual display of bias, is indicative of a battleground mindset and totally unacceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Closed per above [11]--Cailil talk 13:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous user known as 71.191.*.*, 96.231.*.*, 96.241.*.*, etc.[edit]

This IP-hopping user is already banned from the Shakespeare authorship question, so further action here is unnecessary. Report any further problems at RFPP or AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Anonymous user known as 71.191.*.*, 96.231.*.*, 96.241.*.*, etc.[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Cal Engime (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Anonymous user known as 71.191.*.*, 96.231.*.*, 96.241.*.*, etc. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 2011-09-15 POV-pushing in violation of topic ban; the "strong circumstantial case" for de Vere has only failed to take off because of censorship, and "many otherwise intelligent people adhere to the orthodox view of the man from Stratford as the true author of the plays."
  2. 2011-11-21 POV-pushing in violation of topic ban; "plenty of evidence" for Oxford, Shakespeare "amply demonstrated" to be a pseudonym
  3. 2011-12-18 POV-pushing in violation of topic ban; plenty of evidence for Oxford, case overwhelmingly demonstrated, and so on
  4. 2012-05-17 POV-pushing in violation of topic ban; most Shakespeare scholars "refuse to see that "Shake-speare" or "Shakespeare" was probably a pseudonym", and Oxfordians "use common sense and logic to deduce that the author likely was someone of Oxford's background".
  5. 2012-05-17 Changed first sentence of article from "The Oxfordian theory of Shakespearean authorship proposes..." to "The Oxfordian theory of Shakespearean authorship convincingly demonstrates..."
  6. 2012-07-14 Raising Oxfordian fringe views on dating of the plays on Talk:William Shakespeare in violation of topic ban
  7. 2012-08-13 POV-pushing in violation of topic ban; a large majority of scholars dismiss the authorship question "because acknowledging an alternative candidate would ruin the reactionary fantasy held by these scholars for so long," and there are "clear connections between [de Vere's] life and the plays".
  8. 2012-08-13 One of several reversions in violation of both topic ban and 3RR, leading to semi-protection of the page and an immediate ban of user's account User:Paull Barlow, named in imitation of User:Paul Barlow
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 2011-03-25 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on 2011-12-18 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) (in an edit summary, twice)
  3. Warned on 2012-07-15 by Cengime (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Ever since their topic ban was instated, this user has continued to make extremely POV edits on the subject, denouncing administrative action against him or her as censorship and insisting on promoting a fringe view over the view of all reliable sources. Their numerous edit wars and ranting on the talk page have been extremely disruptive to Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship in particular, and further action needs to be taken to help this user become a productive member of the community. - Cal Engime (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Anonymous user known as 71.191.*.*, 96.231.*.*, 96.241.*.*, etc.[edit]

Statement by Anonymous user known as 71.191.*.*, 96.231.*.*, 96.241.*.*, etc.[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Anonymous user known as 71.191.*.*, 96.231.*.*, 96.241.*.*, etc.[edit]

Note that this user has created many other accounts with names that copy, parody or attack the user-names of editors he opposes. See Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_HenryVIIIyes. The user is utterly impervious to argument or to appeals to policy. He adopts the manner of a quasi-religious fanatic. Paul B (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't think administrators can effectively prevent the user from editing due to his constantly changing IP, I understand that a series of token blocks could pave the way for escalation to action with his ISP through WP:ABUSE if the abusive behaviour continues. Correct me if I'm wrong. - Cal Engime (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Anonymous user known as 71.191.*.*, 96.231.*.*, 96.241.*.*, etc.[edit]

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

It's pretty clear it's him again, and he's about as banished from the topic as Falstaff from King Hal, but what exactly can we do about him, apart from semiprotections and short-term blocks? Fut.Perf. 18:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Cal Engime, if you see him editing any of the WP:ARBSAQ articles again, I suggest going to WP:RFPP to request a month of semiprotection based on the topic ban that is clearly visible in the ARBSAQ log. My guess is that all of his registered socks are currently blocked, but if you find any that are not blocked let us know. Further socking can be reported at WP:AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney[edit]

Request declined--Cailil talk 13:30, 17 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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
SonofSetanta (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [(] Multiple reverts in one edit constiting a severe violation of 1RR.
  2. 15/8/12 Explanation
  3. Date Explanation
  4. Date Explanation 
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This editor has a history of agressive editing on articles concerning The Troubles. He has recently made several frivolous complaints on this page about editors whom he wishes to remove from articles concerning the Troubles. He is therefore well aware of the Arbcom sanctions and the path of conduct necessary to allow discussion and concensus on articles. Instead of joining the discussion on the talk page he made a sweeping condemnation of the work of three other editors here Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army#Totally_disagree_with_the_new_lead and removed approximately 40 edits by the three editors involved in discussion on the article. I am aware of recent discussions concerning using this page as a weapon to resolve contentious disagreements. I can assure admins this isn't the case. I am greatly concerned that this one man seems to believe he can exercise such ownership of an article that he can make such sweeping changes without discussion with others who were working hard to arrive at concensus.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning One Night In Hackney[edit]

Statement by One Night In Hackney[edit]

Frivolous. SonofSetanta tried the same flawed argument that one edit equals several reverts at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive107#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SonofSetanta. It appears my comment from there of "If, for a second, we accepted SonofSetanta's notion that one edit equals four reverts if it happens to revert four edits at the same time, surely that would mean by making four edits in one day he is attempting to game 1RR by making so many edits they cannot be reverted without breaching 1RR? Food for thought..." needs to be repeated just so it isn't missed. The same archive also contains similar frivolous reports at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive107#One Night in Hackney and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive107#Mo ainm where anyone who dares to make a single revert of SonofSetanta's edits are reported, and it was making frivolous reports such as that which resulted in SonofSetanta being banned from filing AE reports. 2 lines of K303 11:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The sectarianism section referred to is this which was added very recently by SonofSetanta. As anyone remotely familiar with policy knows isn't a reliable source, and it was used repeatedly. As I explained on talk there was no point leaving what was left after removing that, especially since the main source apart from that was being cherry picked. Those wanting to include information from it are welcome to discuss on the article's talk page, but instead chose to restore material in clear violation of WP:SPS then cry "foul" here. 2 lines of K303 12:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Considering the DRN thread (which doesn't even relate to the current changes!!) was opened and closed while I was not editing, I fail to see how I can be expected to have participated? Let's just get the true sequence of events here in chronological order. Extensive bold changes were made, particularly to the lead of the article. I posted on the talk page with extensive reasoning as to why I objected to the new version, reverted the changes I objected to, removed the addition of unsourced and factually incorrect commentary I objected to (I forgot to do this is the previous edit, both edits were consecutive). SonofSetanta then reverted to his preferred bold version, then made this talk page post which while acknowledging I have made specific objections to the new lead, basically dismisses them in a "and see if I can put anything in which addresses your concerns" way. He's not actually attempted to discuss my objections, and neither did he make any changes to the article when reverting. It was bold, reverted, reverted back to bold version. I started the discussion, there's been no attempt to actually discuss it yet despite a request. SonofSetanta can easily try resolve the dispute by posting in the discussion section in question, instead he's continuing to argue here. 2 lines of K303 13:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning One Night In Hackney[edit]

Comment by Son of Setanta[edit]

In addition to the complaint I note that User:Mo aimn has again reverted the article here ( This appears to be tag teaming and although I am continuing in the discussion I do not think it is the correct way to behave on contentious articles. I request that sysops who look at this complaint take an overview of the work which has been done under discussion and the forcing through of Hackney and Mo's POV. I will not edit war but I do not wish to be gamed. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

@Calil. In all sincerity if I didn't think there was a case then I wouldn't have taken the risk of posting a complaint. One edit (shown in the diff above) by Hackney culled about 40 edits by three editors who were calmly and productively improving the article. At best that's 2 violations of 1RR, at worst it's 39 (approx). I restored the last discussed version and opened dialogue on the talk page. Mo aimn immediately reverted my changes with no attempt at discussion - that's edit warring and deserves a sanction. It's very difficult to show good faith in this situation. The edits removed were largely well written and well sourced or, as in the case of the lead, taken from the main body of the article. I see that Flexdream made a change to retore the information under the heading "sectarianism" which was immediately reverted by TheOldJacobite. Forgive me for asking but my understanding of the sanctions imposed by Arbcom is that they are to stop edit warring on articles and to encourage editors to discuss and agree. Can you see this happening here or do you think, as I do, that there is a gaming strategy in place to prevent honest editors from including information which doesn't show the Provisional IRA in a good light? As things stand the article is uneditable by editors who don't have a Troubles POV as there will be more minions standing by to revert their edits. I want nothing to do with behaviour like this but the only remedy open to me is to raise the problem here. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

@Calil. Concerning your comment about sanctions: if that's what you think it needs then I accept that. I don't feel I breached 1RR deliberately and I reverted myself when it was alleged I had. I didn't on the London Bombing article because I felt (and still feel) it was 3RR. You're the sysop though and I think I've done all I can to announce my good intentions. Furthermore I successfully resisted attempts to game me into an edit war on the PIRA article vis-a-vis this complaint. If that doesn't demonstrate my preferred behavioural pattern I don't know what can. Plus, as you can see, another complaint on this page about me was closed as it was frivolous but it had the effect of establishing me as a troublemaker to sysops. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't see that WP:BRD applies here and in any case the reverts by Hackney were after bold editing had been done by DagosNavy, Scolaire and me. Plus the ARBCOM sanctions call for care on editing contentious articles. The naming issue had largely been dealt with and although I expressed dissatisfaction had accepted Scolaire's edits That is arriving at concensus by discussion. You correctly note I had opened a DRN which was not entered into by ANY of the editors involved here. I hope you can appreciate my frustration that having attempted DRN, discussed my edits with others on the talk page and accepted changes willingly by other editors, I now find myself gamed by another contrived edit war - which I stress I am NOT involved in, as you can see. I would accept page protection but I request that you restore the page to the discussed version (prior to Hackney's edits) so that the work of the editors who haven't engaged in editwarring isn't dismissed. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC) moved out of my comment for clarity. IRWolfie- (talk)
Comment by RolandR[edit]

Even if this had been forty consecutive edits, it would still not have been forbidden. "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." It is genuinely hard to see how the initiator of this request misinterpreted policy so wildly. RolandR (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is under 1RR, not 3RR and is subject to discretionary sanctions for editwarring. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment by IRWolfie-[edit]

The diff shown of removing bold changes (that he reverted a number of small edits is irrelevant, it's still only a single revert), is not particularly contentious, and is standard operating procedure per WP:BRD. What is not standard is re-inserting changes [12] after they are reverted (particularly after I asked him not to do that in a previous discussion: User_talk:IRWolfie-#Provisional_IRA). For example, SonofSetanta has been quite adamant about changing or altering the common names: "The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) (Irish: Óglaigh na hÉireann)", despite a lack of consensus and a lack of significant discussion, and has made the changes a number of times recently. [13][14][15][16].

My involvement with the topic is that I was (briefly) a DRN volunteer for a filling about the topic. The DRN didn't get off the ground as not many participated. In summary, I think this particular filing is a case of blowing something innocuous out of proportion over a content dispute.IRWolfie- (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering all the edit warring at the article, I suggest temporary page protection. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Τασουλα[edit]

May I suggest that the two editors simply keep their distance from one another..? Unless they agree to stop coming here and filing reports and just try to resolve conflicts on talk pages. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning One Night In Hackney[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • There is no case here. The diffs provided so far show precisely nothing[17]. And I am inclined to say that this is frivolous. Given the context of the disruption by Son of Setanta (2 open threads above about to sanction them) this is significant misuse of this page. The FergusM1970 thread (open for nearly two weeks) has a pending decision related to the editwarring discussed in the above thread and all of this disruption needs to stop. I will advise you in the strongest possible terms Son of Setanta to STOP, disengage and drop the stick - you are making matters worse. Suggest close and WP:BOOMARANG--Cailil talk 11:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Furthermore while yes I see further issues with editwarring at that page I believe the decision above covers all of this. This thread is just being used to add emphasis in retaliation for the other threads opened--Cailil talk 12:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • @Son of Setanta: You are all about to be sanctioned above. None of you are being singled out. The fact that you all continue to dig is only wasting everyone else's time and making it worse for yourselves. This particuar instance is a non-issue in comparison to the generalized conduct of you all--Cailil talk 15:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Full agreement with Cailil. Would close the discussion myself right now were it not so closely related to those above, but, under the circumstances, I think that they should probably all be closed at once. The only thing I could see coming from this might be some additional sanctions against the filer for conduct issues, but I'm not sure that would be particularly useful. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


Indefinitely blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:55, 19 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 Historylover4[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Historylover4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Standard discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. August 1, 2012 Removes picture of Israeli without explanation
  2. August 13, 2012 Again removes picture of Israeli without explanation (after adding pictures of Palestinians and Turks)
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on June 26, 2012 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

A review of Historylover4's Talk page shows a history of edit-warring on articles related to Israel and Palestine that dates to September 2011. Historylover4's contributions to this discussion also make for interesting reading. I believe a topic ban would be appropriate.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Historylover4[edit]

Statement by Historylover4[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Historylover4[edit]

I think this diff proves that the user hasn't come to edit here in neutral and collaborative way [18]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Historylover4 (talk · contribs) has already been blocked three times at the 3RR noticeboard since July 7. The last time was a one-week block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Many of his edits concern, in one way or another, Ashkenazi Jews. I reverted an addition of his where he just used a google books link with no page number, as his interpretation of sources can be quite different from mine to say the least. Last night he replaced it here with the edit summary "Steinberg refutes the claims of "jewish horatio alger" of people advancing the "master race of holy people" ideology)". If you search for "master race of holy people" on the web, you will see that this isn't exactly an academic phrase but one usually used only by anti-Semites. This was 5 edits and 23 minutes after he removed the notice about this AE discussion from his talk page. This and his edit removing the image of the Israeli doctor and when it was replaced removing it again and adding images of Palestinians and Turkish aide seem clear indicators of his pov. A six month ban seems in order. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Ashkenazi Jews and other Jewish topics are not in the scope of WP:ARBPIA but he clearly use this to WP:COATRACK his POV in I/P conflict.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
While Jews and Judaism are outside the scope of ARBPIA, Historylover4 seems somewhat enamored with the Khazar theory that most European Jews do not originate in the Middle East. Perhaps an uninvolved administrator could comment on whether that would make Historylover4's edits to Jewish articles part of the subject area "broadly construed". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering R1a1 and haplogroup Q prove the Khazar hypothesis true I don't know why your claiming I'm "enamored" with anything. And scholar Eran Elhaik, PhD from John Hopkins University who yet again demonstrated the reliability of the Khazaria hypothesis and the only "response" offered (and quickly put up by Zionist propagandists here) is "information" from a BLOG!! Yet with people citing the geographer Jared Diamond as a supposed "source" on Jewish people against actual geneticists [19][20][21] what else can be expected from Zionist propagandists like you guys.Historylover4 (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is similoar to his response to EdJohnston's post to his talk page suggesting he comment here is "The only bias people are the Zionist propagandists posting nonsense from invalid "sources", and wanting to remove the academic material I cite in favor of "geographers" like Jared Diamond (versus PNAS, Biology-Online, Sergio Tofanelli, and on and on). The biases are the Zionist propagandists and spammers you guys should be monitoring". In other words, "everyone else is the problem and they're Zionist propagandists." Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Six months over all the I/P area including any Jewish topics is on the lenient side of fair. If he uses 'zionist propagandists' again on his return, permaban him for cliché-bashing. Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Can the admins check out this account, which may be a possible sockpuppet of Historylover4? The names are very similar and he/she jumps straight into a highly controversial topic, apparently knowing (more or less, as the refs aren't proper) how to edit on Wikipedia, on articles relating to I-P, using a load of weasel words, personal statements, and "Zionist narrative," which reminds me of the comments above "Zionist propagandists." Thanks. --Activism1234 17:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

SPI was opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Historylover4--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
That investigation has concluded. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 21:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

On Y-chromosomal Aaron this user has been pushing a highly controversial source to back up an otherwise non-notable (or at least non-noted) opinion. The phrasing has been non-NPOV and revert warring started despite an attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 21:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Historylover4[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Recommend a six-month topic ban from the I/P area. Historylover4 has managed to get himself blocked three times for 3RR violations since April 29, and is active on I/P articles. I was asked to issue a topic ban in July, but declined since I wanted to see if he would improve his editing style. His career since then is quite unpromising, since he managed to refer to Daniel Pipes as a 'racist hack' on the talk page of Dome of the Rock. His comment was removed by another editor as a BLP violation against Pipes. Historylover4 is free to disagree with Pipes' opinion about the significance of Dome of the Rock, but Pipes' view of the history needs to be weighed against other evidence according to our usual sourcing rules. POV vituperation on an article talk page is not helping Wikipedia create better articles. Another example of Historylover4 venting his strongly-held personal animosities can be seen at Talk:Y-chromosomal Aaron#Disputes, where he refers to a particular academic opinion as 'completely farcical.' In response to an editor who disagrees with him, he says "your attempts to exclude sourced information simply shows your clear biases and personal views not mine." EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Given Historylover4's history, I agree that a 6 month topic ban in may be likely to encourage Historylover4 to re-examine his approach and gain experience in working with others in areas where he does not hold such strong views. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    Historylover4, this edit is entirely about content, except for the part where you violate NPA by calling your fellow editors "propagandists". This is AE. We deal with behavior here, not content. Your entire post is off topic. Please cease your attacks on your fellow editors. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I've not been active at AE for a while, but I thought I'd poke my head round the door and see what state things were in. Having reviewed this request, it doesn't seem to me that Historylover4 is particularly interested in adhering to the expected level of decorum in controversial topic areas, nor in responding to this request, nor indeed in editing in a collaborative environment at all. I'm actually inclined towards an indefinite block, or at the very least an indefinite topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    I would not object to a 1 year topic ban or an indef topic ban, but am more than willing to give 6 mo a chance. If he goes back to his old ways, we can always re-topic ban him. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty inclined to agree with HJ Mitchell. Given Historylover4's conduct even at this discussion, I don't see how a time-limited ban is anything but an invitation to have this discussion again shortly after the ban expires, as I do not see any hope of improvement from someone who believes anyone who disagrees is a member of some vast conspiracy. However, if there's no agreement to that, I think six months would be an absolute minimum. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with HJ's suggestion to simply indef block, given the socking. T. Canens (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by FergusM1970[edit]

Appeal granted. The portion of the topic ban levied against FergusM1970 which prohibited editing in the area of British baronets is lifted. The remainder of sanctions remain in effect. We should also discuss whether to remove these from the standard wording altogether, as it seems the area is no longer a trouble spot. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:35, 18 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).

Appealing user 
FergusM1970 (talk · contribs)--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 15:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
Topic ban as per the discussion at [22]
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Cailil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 

Statement by FergusM1970[edit]

I was topic banned from all Troubles-related articles for 6 months as per the discussion at [24]. I am not challenging this ban as I understand the reasoning behind it and accept that my behaviour fell below the acceptable standard. However the ban has been extended to two further areas in which I am not aware of any issues, namely the Ulster Banner (which I understand may be seen as Troubles-related, so am not appealing) and British baronets. The latter seems irrelevant to the Troubles, I do not see why I have been banned from editing on the topic and I would like to appeal against this part of the sanction.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 15:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

@T. Canens, the impression I got was that Vintagekits had been edit-warring on that topic as well as on the Troubles, which is why he was banned from both. It does seem a bit odd to link them for every case.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 21:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Cailil[edit]

Per Tim's comments below: I've no problem with this part being lifted, I was just using the standard wording--Cailil talk 21:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by FergusM1970[edit]

Result of the appeal by FergusM1970[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Do we have any recent (as in, within the last couple of years) disputes involving the baronets? A quick read of the original decision suggests that the baronets were subject of a spillover dispute from the Troubles at the time and just got grandfathered in when the discretionary sanctions were later enacted. If there hasn't been any spillover since then, I'm open to lifting this part of the topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    I am not aware of any. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    I can confirm that the arbitrators haven't heard anything about baronets for at least a year and a half. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    Then I see no reason not to grant the adjustment; should we also examine changing the standard wording to remove Baronets? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Domer48[edit]

Appeal denied. NW (Talk) 20:00, 18 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).

Appealing user 
Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Domer48'fenian' 19:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Cailil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 

Statement by Domer48[edit]

  1. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:39, 20 October 2011 See "Result concerning Jonchapple" and related discussion.
  2. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:49, 20 October 2011
  3. Timotheus Canens 16:33, 27 October 2011
  4. EdJohnston 19:16, 6 December 2011
  5. EdJohnston 06:19, 7 December 2011
  6. NuclearWarfare 16:12, 7 December 2011

The above diff's offer a timeline which will explain why I'm appealing this topic ban. An issue arose in relation to a report I filed against an editor who violated an Arbcom imposed sancton, which suggested that AE had not got the scope to impose such a sanction under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. The editor was topic banned, and a motion was passed to clear out any uncertainty as to its scope that superseded "all extant remedies" of this case, "as amended and clarified" and placed under an 1RR rule under the authority of #Standard discretionary sanctions. A new section for notices, was added to Requests for arbitration/The Troubles since TROUBLES was now under standard discretionary sanctions with the following text added:

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In addition a 'Guide to enforcement' in the light of the Committee's Oct. 27 motion superseding the old remedies was also added. And the section was then re-written. The updated Troubles template which can be added to articles is here.

It clearly states that prior to any sanctions being imposed that I should have been given a warning, and I should have been told what I was doing wrong (counseled) with a supporting diff of any edits of mine which were felt to be objectionable and I should have been placed on the List of editors placed on notice which I was not. I would also note that I have still not been placed on it. I even asked for (counseling) from the Arb who imposed the ban, and still have not got a reply.

I also find this discussion very disturbing, that the Arb who imposed the ban all be it in conjunction with a number of Arbs, is now looking for clarity on the ban they have already imposed. This should really have been done first, I would have thought. There was already a motion on the Troubles to clarify the sanctions which could be imposed and I've linked to above.

I do not have any problem with Cailil at all. I think that they are doing a thankless job, and is doing it the best way they can. I have no problem with being sanctioned if I deserve it. If my name was on the list of editors placed on notice I could possibly understand the ban. I'd still look for offending diff's but that neither here nor there. I hope I've come across as being reasonable, and I'm more than willing to discuss the Threads which have brought us here, but I'd really like this issue to be addressed first if thats ok.

@KillerChihuahua in this instance, I don't consider you to be involved in the normal sense of the word as it is used here. I don't think the cases are unrelated, they provide the background to the introduction of #Standard discretionary sanctions to Troubles related articles. There was an uncertainty around the sanctions which could be imposed, and this was clarified. The #Standard discretionary sanctions superseded "all extant remedies" and that having been clarified, "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions." If it is presumed that I'm aware of the sanctions, one would also presume then that prior to any sanctions being imposed I would be warned, and that I would be placed on notice on my talk page and that my name would be added to the List of editors placed on notice. That is a reasonable presumption is it not? --Domer48'fenian' 20:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Reply @KillerChihuahua. No worries at all. The links are just there to help Arbcom and editors see how the discretionary sanctions came about. It was the result of confusion on what sanctions could and could not be applied. I note in the discussions that you needed some reminding as do we all sometimes and you put your hand up when it happens and I like that. I note that you accept that the exact wording states that editors must be notified, and I welcome that. I also note that you say that the list "is more for reference by admins than protection for editors" while I was not aware of it being simply a reference, I never considered it to be any sort of protection. My attitude is that if your on it your basically screwed if you mess up. Are you aware that during the various threads that has led up to this, not once was it mentioned that some of those involved were already on the list. Are you also aware that during the various threads that there was no reference to the list at all by anyone? I could be wrong, but I think I'd remember. Thanks again for the reply.--Domer48'fenian' 21:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Reply @KillerChihuahua. In reply to your comment: "If you're already aware, placing a warning on your page could be (and has in the past been) viewed as combative and accusatory". Why were notices placed on the pages of the editors who are currently on the list. If your placed on notice I'd suggest that it has already gone beyond accusatory and is an established fact. If one were placed on my talk page now, I'd obviously want it justified, and I suppose demanding that it be justified would be then labeled as me being combative. I'd suggest describing my reasonable request as being 'lawyering' is combative but I hope we can move on in a more constructive manner. --Domer48'fenian' 22:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Reply @KillerChihuahua: Hi again, in addition re above, you say that "You might presume it, but you would be in error to presume it was at all required..." re being given a warning. Well if it says "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning" I would presume that a warning shall be given. I hope that dose not sound too simplistic?--Domer48'fenian' 23:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Reply @KillerChihuahua. Thanks for the reply and your measured tone. Could we not at the very least agree that being aware of the sanctions and how they came about, I would have had a reasonable presumption that I would be given the same notice as the editors already on the list. If Arbcom have and do need to have their own sanctions clarified for them on occasion, I should have the same courtesy shown. I have not violated any sanctions if I have what prohibition was breached? With the addition of #Standard discretionary sanctions I've being very conscious about how I edit not that I've edited very much of late, so finding offending diff's should not really be an issue. Thanks again reply. I will be off today trying out a new lens so I will not be in a position to respond. --Domer48'fenian' 08:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
@Cailil. Please provide a diff for the "multiple notifications" that I have received under the #Standard discretionary sanctions. As to previous sanctions, a motion was passed which superseding the old remedies. I've never been sanctioned under any of the Standard discretionary sanctions. As has already been stated above and has been accepted, that the exact wording states that editors must be notified. I have not as yet been provided with any diff which would warrant such a notice let alone a topic ban. I don't know what you mean by "formal probation" but that you see no reason that a user needs to be placed on further notice, I suggest that you do. Not only should you give an editor notice "Prior to any sanctions being imposed", that you suggest I've already being give it is not helpful. That you would even suggest using 'lawyering' in is not helpful espically when again, Arb's are looking for clarification. For me to be sanctioned I need to be told how I violated the sanctions. Please read the list agian and explain why these editors were given notice and I was not. Also explain why dispite some of the same editors were involved in the threads for violations of 1RR that not only were they allowed to continue, but no mention of them having being placed on noticed was mentioned by any Arb during the whole course of the discussion. --Domer48'fenian' 22:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
@Cailil. The Committee's Oct. 27 motion superseded the old remedies, therefore the old Final remedies for AE case are irrelevant. Bringing them up now is questionable. However even under the old remedies would have required you provide diff's to support your claims of misconduct, and you have provided nothing. You again provide an nonsensical link on legalistic argument as if that can in some way explain away your in ability to address the reasonable, rational and logical issue I've raised. Please link me to were it says in #Standard discretionary sanctions the basis of "presumed warning" is a given? Yet again you hark back to the old remedies, despite the fact that they have been superseded, and you omit to mention that in almost all cases the sanctions were overturned. That AE has had to ask on two occasions for clarification on Troubles, that AE considered and rejected dose not mean it is right. I was topic banned on one occasion under the old remedies and it later transpires that it was not in AE's gift to have imposed such a sanction. Please provide me with a diff of me being warned that I could be sanctioned under the #Standard discretionary sanctions, you stated before that I have had "multiple notifications" provide a diff for one of them? Let me clarify something for you, I'm not exercised by this situation. I calm, relaxed and a little disappointed with the stonewalling I had to witness here from Arb's. I now consider it a mistake to have come here, and feel it would have been better that I take it to Committee/Clerks. It seems nonsensical now that you accept that you are wrong. --Domer48'fenian' 20:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Cailil[edit]

As per the above on SonofSetanta I closed a thread and enacted a decision of a consensus of uninvolved sysops[25] - this was not an individual action.
Given that Domer48 has been placed under multiple Sanctions relating to WP:TROUBLES he has received multiple notifications. Furthermore like User:One Night In Hackney and User:TheOldJacobite, Domer48 has edited numerous pages where the formal probation is clearly advertised. I see no reason that a user needs to be placed on further notice before sanctions and indeed such argumentation contradicts the WP:TROUBLES 1RR clause stating that editors may be blocked "without warning".
I still hold the position that Domer48's sanction was lenient given that his last probation was for 6 months normal escalation of sanctions would have seen this ban set at 12 months or an indefinite duration--Cailil talk 21:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Regarding the request for clarification this was not a request for clarification on the ruling given. This was a request made as part of that ruling. (That's convoluted so let me say it again). The clarification has nothing to do with the sanctions imposed, the request was made on foot of a suggestion by Tim Canens that Mandated External Review should be added to WP:TROUBLES.
    I made a request for clarification rather than amendment on foot of both my and AGK's opinion that this could be done via WP:AC/DS. In the closing statements I stated that I would perform the sanctions and request the clarification as part of the close.
    Again the request for clarification has no bearing on the bans as enacted but on how new enforcement processes might work--Cailil talk 22:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Domer it doesn't matter that the case's remedies were amended for streamlining of enforcement - you would have been sanctioned under the old probation and 1RR (and rules for conduct on this page). Your legalistic argument doesn't have any weight because this is not a court, such argumentation is a cul de sac, & furthermore as I referenced above when ONiH and TheOldJacobite raised this argument before closure it was considered and rejected on the basis of "presumed warning". Furthermore you are listed as one of the original parties and have been sanctioned under that RFAR ten times from 2008 to present (I'm not mud slinging Domer these are merely facts) there has never been a situation where parties are required further warnings in such circumstances. You may not like this decision, we don't expect you too (and I understand why you don't), but we do expect that you can get on with constructive editing elsewhere in nearly 4,000,000 articles on this site. I wont be making anymore input to this particular request--Cailil talk 11:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]

I'm calling myself involved as i highlighted Domer48s questionable edit summary they made when reverting an edit of FergusM1970. Which i pointed out above in FergusM1970s enforcement discussion due to the possibility of hounding and a possible attempt to bait Fergus into further edit-warring.

Why am i commenting here? Because i don't believe Domer48 is correct when they say they are "very conscious" of the edits they make. Reason being not only the questionable revert and edit summary they got in trouble for but due to their quickness to fully revert sourced edits and reinsert incorrect information: [26], the edit summary also didn't entrely add up either. See here for the problems of his edit and summary of Domer48s. From what i gather above, it was edits like this that got Domer48 added to the list of editors to face sanctions.

Mabuska (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Domer48[edit]

Result of the appeal by Domer48[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I note you've used two statements of mine in your evidence, from an unrelated case. If anyone feels this places me in the involved category, please feel free to move this post to an appropriate section. I wish to note that although the exact wording may state that editors must be notified a certain way, and their names placed in a list, that is more for reference by admins than protection for editors. It is so we can check easily to see that someone is aware of the sanctions. If an editor was involved in the original ArbCom case, or has participated in discussion about the sanctions, or has been party to a sanctions discussion about the case, then WP:COMMON applies and he is presumed to be aware of the sanctions. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    re to Domer48: K, I was fairly sure that you considered me uninvolved and were using the links as evidence of common practice or whathaveyou, thanks for confirming. Regarding "unrelated" of course the cases are somewhat related, but not closely. Depending on one's perspective, the argument could be made that all AE cases are related, or even all Wikipedia sanctions. I trust that my choice of verbiage has not confused the issue; I should probably have said "different case" not "unrelated case". KillerChihuahua?!? 21:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    Regarding being placed on a list: You state "If it is presumed that I'm aware of the sanctions, one would also presume then that prior to any sanctions being imposed I would be warned, and that I would be placed on notice on my talk page and that my name would be added to the List of editors placed on notice" - no, not necessarily. If you're already aware, placing a warning on your page could be (and has in the past been) viewed as combative and accusatory; I can provide examples of multiple hostile accusations on my page when I was merely trying to ensure an editor was aware of sanctions. The list is precisely the same, I have seen it referred to as a "list of shame" and editors have objected strongly to having their names on it unless they have actually been sanctioned. So, no. You might presume it, but you would be in error to presume it was at all required, or even without an opposing view held by many. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    See WP:NOTLAW and WP:COMMON. You may presume that in the normal course of events you would be warned and listed, but you would be wrong to presume that is 'always necessary, or grounds for appeal or reversal. For a different example of this in action, look at vandalism. Most vandals are warned before blocking, but some are not. Some are indef'd with no notice on their page at all (blatant vandals.) If you are involved in a case, discussed that case, etc, the presumption is that you are aware. And as Calil points out, some cases such as TROUBLES don't even require that you be made specifically aware of the sanctions. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    Again, no. Using a somewhat lame example: You don't automatically get a warning before you get a ticket, you are presumed to know the speed limit signs are for a reason. The warnings and listings are to ensure that no one is sanctioned who is unaware of the case, but you were well aware of the case. Calil's argument that you were sanctioned under a case which does not require any notification also applies; however for the record even if the case is not such a case, if you were an original party to the case, participated in discussions about the case, or discussions about sanctions resulting from the case, then you are ipso facto aware of the case and no separate notification is necessary. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    Perhaps this will explain it better: you ask "being aware of the sanctions and how they came about, I would have had a reasonable presumption that I would be given the same notice as the editors already on the list" - no, you would have less of an expectation, because you are already aware. Why tell someone who was in the case already about the case? That is a bit pointless, and could be taken as hostile and insulting. Of course, if someone were unaware you knew about the case and notified you, that would be perfectly acceptable because they were acting in good faith. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Appeal denied No wrongdoing, no error, no action to be taken. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • As I wrote in October 2011 (as a clerk action, which does not disqualify me from hearing this appeal), "[the standardization of discretionary sanctions] would replace the remedy in this case that allows administrators to unilaterally apply sanctions to editors within the designated topic area with a standardized remedy that essentially allows for the same thing. Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected." Furthermore, the time to raise this matter was in your original post or as soon as you were aware that you might be sanctioned; it is too late to do so now.

    I am going to close this appeal as denied. NW (Talk) 19:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount[edit]

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

Request concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Skäpperöd (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

sig to prevent premature archiving by bot: Skäpperöd (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested 
Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Discretionary sanctions (DIGWUREN)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 


Volunteer Marek (VM) and Molobo have already been subject to many sanctions (sysop decisions, 3RR, EEML arbitration remedies and AE) for disruptive behavior, including blocks, 1RRs, civility paroles, a topic ban (VM) and a permaban (Molobo). Some of these sanctions resulted from them harassing me, and/or offline coordination. I edit this project since 2007, my record is clean. From April to July this year, I was taking a wikibreak.

When I returned, I received a wikimail from VM, calling me a shithead and making a reference to Molobo getting annoying when encouraged. I had not interacted with VM after returning from my break. Molobo was still taking a wikibreak. On the day I received the mail, me and another editor (HerkusMonte) who was harrassed by VM and Molobo before, edited the article "Königsberg."

VM then came to the article, reverted a lot (incl 3RR breach), assumed bad faith from the beginning, and insulted me on the talk page. Later, Molobo returned from his wikibreak to revert articles where I or HM had edited before to ultimatively arrive at the Königsberg article.

Details and diffs[edit]

Volunteer Marek (VM) has e-mailed me via wikipediamail on 28 Jul 2012 and called me a "shithead," said that he missed me, and that I'd encourage Molobo to get annoying. I am willing to forward this mail to a sysop, but I want to know first how this appropriately (i.e. legally) works. When I received this mail, I had not come across VM or Molobo for months, I haven't even edited between 5 April and 19 July at all, Molobo has not edited during the last months either. I had (?) however been a target of a subgroup of the WP:EEML, where VM and Molobo were (?) active members.

On the same day I received the e-mail, I edited the article Königsberg. VM has only edited this article before to twice revert an IP and do a minor edit on 11 Dec 2011, 2 Jan 2011, and also 2 Jan 2012, so I did not interfere with him at that point. A user had added a large, unsourced piece of text to the article [27], which three other users - Herkus Monte (HM), M.K. and an IP objected to because of WP:UNDUE and the lack of sources [28] [29][30]. My first edits were one minor c/e [31] and adding a reference to a corrected sentence [32]. Then HM made a few other edits.

Thereafter, VM came to the article and already in the first 24 hours violated 3RR:

  1. 31 Jul 2012 6:52 VM "joins" editing with a revert of HM ([33])
  2. 31 Jul 2012 14:54 VM reverts HM ([34])
  3. 31 Jul 2012 16:41 VM reverts HM and IP ([35]), "battleground" accusation in e/s
  4. 1 Aug 2012 6:16 VM reverts HM ([36])

More reverts followed.

My further edits to the article were:

That means that VM reverted half of my edits. I stopped editing the article.

What triggered this AE request is the following talk page posting I read this morning, where VM attacks me as follows:

  1. 3 Aug 2012: "You're lying your ass off," "little fake-diff," "you engage in these kind of deceitful tactics regularly," "*YOU* are misrepresenting the Bock source," "you're mistaking 'UNDUE' with 'IDONTLIKEIT'," "it's the same nationalist little group that's been running rough shod over Wikipedia content policies for years," "tag teaming," "your knee-jerk mindless support of your fellow POV pusher," "ganging up on me just to gang up"

I have not responded to that anymore and withdrew from the article.

Examples from VM's first talk page contributions directed at various editors, showing that ABF was there from the beginning, are

  1. 31 Jul 2012 VM's first post to talk page: attacks HM with "tendentious and battleground-y," "battleground" and motivated by "IDONTLIKEIT"
  2. [53] accusing HM of POV-pushing and double standard
  3. [54] accusing HM of bad faith and disruption
  4. [55] accusation of tag teaming
  5. [56] accusing M.K of "instead of mindlessly reverting and removing sourced text you actually try and do some constructive work"
  6. [57] accusation of "trying to sabotage good faithed attempts"
  7. [58] "Sorry to get all bad faith on you, but I know bait when I see it - this is just mindless tag-teamed reverts trying to draw me into a 3RR violation"
  8. and so on

Volunteer Marek has also assumed bad faith, insulted and accused other people recently (Jimbo got annoyed too [59]) so it is not just me but a general problem, as his block log and these random reactions indicate [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68].

I also can not accept the addition of references which do not support the sentences referenced to them: In this post I compared in detail sources VM added to four sentences, and they do not match. VM did look in the source again, as is obvious from the diff before, and still restored it after my removal, so that it is now in the protected version - making wp not only unreliable, but misleading.

VM further engaged in a kind of retaliatory tagging: He announced that unsourced sentences of the newly added section could only be removed when all other sentences lacking references would be removed, too (31 Jul 2012 16:40), and started to tag as cn various sentences throughout the article which did not have an inline ref [69] [70] [71] [72] [73], thereby overlooking the fact that there are a lot of references given, just not inline but in the section for sources, and that most (all?) of these sentences have been in there and stable for years. Just before the article was protected, he started to remove sentences tagged by him, e.g. [74].

Molobo, VM's tag team partner from the EEML, who was mentioned in VM's e-mail (28 Jul) as getting annoying when "encouraged," has not edited since 7 April. Let's look at his first contributions upon returning one by one:

  1. [75] Molobo returned to editing on 4 Aug, reverting a move HM had made ([76])
  2. [77] Molobo reverted an edit of mine ([78]) (breaking the ref fmt btw)
  3. [79] then reverted some edits from an article where the EEML had attacked me before (was subject to the EEML arbcom and is in the evidence and in VM's FoFs of that case), last edit before Molobo was made by HM
  4. [80] Molobo returned to previous article and makes another edit [81] to a talkpage
  5. [82] Molobo arrived at the Königsberg article

I do not believe that Molobo returned from his break by coincidence just to revert HM, then revert me, then go straight to the Königsberg article, given the content of VM's email and the recorded history of VM's and Molobo's cooperation within the EEML.

I do not want to have to put up with all that again and again. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

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

both editors have been subject to EEML

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The evidence submitted by me shows that

  • (1) VM's and Molobo's attitude towards me (and others) is confrontational and bad faithed.
  • (2) The confrontation with me was unprovoked.
  • (3) The confrontation with me was announced.
  • (4) The confrontation with me goes along with massive insults.

Further, as the (largely off-wiki) evidence of the EEML case shows, this bullying of mine primarily by these persons (VM and Molobo) has been going on for a long long time, and I can not accept that my return from a break is answered by these two editors with an announced attack. I am an editor in perfectly good standing. I have created numerous articles for the benefit of the project. My block log is clean. The editors bullying me on the other hand have a long history of disruption.

This goes straight against the very idea of wikipedia and heavily impacts my ability to edit. I ask the sysops here to consider scenarios to change that. One scenario would be re-instating Molobo's permaban and VM's EE-topic ban, making it permanent this time. Another scenario would be to prohibit VM and Molobo from interacting with me (and possibly others, e.g. HM; M.K asked for that too, below) in any way, i.e. prohibit them from talking to me, editing the same articles, talking about me.

History of disruption by VM and Molobo[edit]

Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) aka MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was already in 2008 identified as the alter ego of the nationalist forumtroll Shade2 [83] (IPs and behavioral evidence) [84] (behavioral evidence) [85] (confirmation by meanwhile retired sysop). He was identified as sockpuppeteer [86] [87]. He has an extensive block log [88]. He was permabanned [89]. The permaban was lifted only conditionally [90]. He was active in the EEML, especially with respect to hounding and harassing me, but not blocked as he was at that time already blocked for socking (1 year for socking with a throw-away account used to harass me [91]). He is subject to the general remedies of the EEML case though [92], his contrary statement is false. (placeholder)

In response to VM's post below: This is not a content dispute, but a behavioral issue, and sysops should, in this respect, consider the WP:EEML case where Volunteer Marek aka Radeksz was subject to, especially with respect to hounding and harassing me (evidence is largely off-wiki, but part of it is accessible in the "Disruption"-FoF at Wikipedia:EEML#Radeksz), the conditions under which his remedies were eased, his block log, and previous AE requests where he was sanctioned:

Re: Misrepresentation of sources[edit]

I provide some response for that "misrepresentation of sources"-thing only for sysops to evaluate whether I actually did so or not, and whether my insistence is justified on the instance that VM's references were not actually sourcing what they were supposed to.

  • VM insists below that the references added by him were fine. I encourage sysops to evaluate the following analysis of mine to decide whether I am "lying my ass off" as VM said or not. Diffs, quotes and links to the sources are included:
Response to VM, detailed analysis of his references not sourcing the sentences they had been added to

lines sourced to Wodecki/Krasovec by you [93] [94] and removed by me [95] (e/s "per failed verification for the most part") were

  • quote 1st sentence: "In 1545 in Königsberg the first Polish catechism was printed by [[Jan Seklucjan]].<ref name="bibel">{{cite book | title=Interpretation Der Bibel | publisher=Continuum International Publishing Group | author=Krašovec, Jože | year=1988 | pages=1223 |isbn=1850759693}}</ref>":
failed verification: Given ref Wodecki p. 1223 does not mention 1545 at all, neither does it say anything about the first Polish catechism.
  • quote 2nd sentence: "In 1551 the first translation of the [[New Testament]] in [[Polish language]] came out, issued by [[Stanisław Murzynowski]].<ref name="bibel"/>":
failed verification: Given ref Wodecki p. 1223 however says that "[p. 1222] in 1551 published [p. 1223] first the gospel of Matthew, some months later all four gospels, in 1552 other New Testament books, and finally in 1533 [sic!] the whole new Testament in one volume." Either the 1533 date or the preceding dates are most certainly a typo, as the sentence makes no sense as it is > not a good source for these dates. Nonetheless, even though the source on the (not attributed!) page 1222 states that "the publishing of the first printed non-Catholic translation of the New Testament was procured by Jan Seklucjan" with M. "as translator" (ibid), the source does not say that happened in 1551, but as shown above gives the conflicting, not trustworthy date of 1533; and it does not say that M "issued" the NT. The source thus contradicts the sentence except for the rump where it says that the translation came out.
  • quote 3rd and 4th senternces: Murzynowski's collections of sermons were delivered by [[Eustace Trepka]] and in 1574 by [[Jerome Malecki]]. The works of [[Mikolaj Rej]] were printed here and [[Martin Stryjkowski]] announced here the publication of his ''Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Żmudz and all Rus''.<ref>[]</ref>":
failed verification: No reference to these sentences in the given ref at all: neither cited names nor cited dates are on that (or the next) page.

Obviously, the source does not support what you sourced to it. Apart from that, it was not published in 1988, the author was Wodecki not Krašovec, and bare urls are not recommended as refs.

Since you cited the source here, you should have noticed at least when you revisited the source that nothing in that source supports the sentences you sourced to it as I have shown in detail above. You failed to do so not only when you added the source in the first place, which is not good, but you also failed to do so when you went through the source again for your above post [96] to quote the only line from the source referencing at least something from the text (rump of the 2nd sentence), which is far worse. And then you even accuse me of being "misleading" and "not true" in my e/s about that...

Note to VM's response, quote "Compare the text of the article, to the text of the source as I've done in the section right above. Do they match up? Yes?". The "section right above" referred to in VM's post is this one, titled "Illustrative example of Skapperod's misreprentations". This is however the current version, not the one that was debated by me above. The current version differs, VM is comparing apples and oranges here. Also, sysops need to closely examine this, as "the source" he used in his response here [97] is not the one he used in the article! This is the current protected article version. Please compare:
quote VM [98]: "The relevant current text of the article states: “ In 1545 in Königsberg a Polish catechism was printed by Jan Seklucjan” The source states: “In 1545 Seklucjan published a “Simple Text of the Catechism for the Simple People” [99]"
Compare the source given here by VM (i.e. Frick) to the reference given in the article (i.e. Krasovec, ed.), it is a completely different one! The reference in the article is still the one I analyzed above and does not mention 1545 at all! In his quote from the source for the second sentence "[...] and finally in 1553 the whole New Testament in one volume", he misquoted "1533" (in the source) for "1553," which was part of my criticism above. The rest of the paragraph was rewritten/got other sources in the meantime, so no comment on that.
  • VM's accusation [100] that I had misrepresented a source is also a serious PA. I encourage sysops to compare the source to that allegation:
"Comparison of VM's allegation to actual quotes from the source showing that I did not misrepresent the source"
quote VM below [101]: "And the info itself added by Skapp is true enough, but what it fails to mention is that Weinrich was invited to Konigsberg with the specific purpose of printing Polish books and that the first translations of Luther Small Catechism were made by Jan Seklucjan, a Pole."
source: online preview
quotes regarding the reason for Weinreich to settle in Königsberg: "[p. 127] Die Einrichtung der ersten Druckerei im Deutschordensland und nachmaligen Herzogtum Preußen ist auf das Engagement Albrechts zurückzuführen. Die Dokumentation der Geschäftsbeziehungen zwischen Hans Weinreich und Albrecht von Brandenburg-Ansbach beschränkt sich allerdings nur auf die aktenmäßige Überlieferung der Zustimmung Albrechts zur Königsberger Druckerei [... about Weinreich in Danzig...] bevor er 1524 den ersten [p.128] nachweisbaren Druck in Königsberg publizierte. [...] Ebenso wie viele andere Drucker seiner Zeit profitierte auch er von der Reformation, [...] Weinreichs erster Königsberger Druck ist dementsprechend die Weihnachtspredigt des samländischen Bischofs Georg von Polentz, der mit dieser den religiösen Wandel in Preußen einleitete und legitimierte. Die Gründe für die Verlegung der Druckerei Weinreichs in die herzogliche Residenzstadt sind vielfältig, aufgrund fehlender Quellen jedoch auch Gegenstand von Spekulationen. [...] [p.129] Wann Weinreich nach Königsberg wechselte, ist nicht genau bekannt. Ausschlaggebend für seinen Umzug dürften sowohl seine bereits zuvor bestehenden Kontakte in das Umfeld Albrechts als auch die religiöse Entwicklung im Ordensland gewesen sein. [... about early prints of W in Kbg. and church orders ...] [p. 130] Hans Weinreich entschloß sich jedoch erst nach einer ersten Absatzkrise um 1528, polnische Drucke zu fertigen."
--> Weinreich was not "invited to Konigsberg with the specific purpose of printing Polish books" as VM says, but came there for multiple reasons, printed several German works, and only in 1528 decided for economic reasons to publish Polish prints in addition. I did not misrepresent the source.
quotes with regard to Seklucjan and the first catechism: "[p.130] Als erstes verließ ein noch anonym verfaßter »Kleiner Katechismus« 1530 seine [i.e. Weinreich's] Königsberger Offizin." This first Polish translation of the small catechism is also listed on p. 144.
---> the first translation of Luther's Small Catechism were NOT made by Jan Seklucjan. I did not misrepresent the source.
quote regarding "Seklucjan, a Pole:" "[p. 132] Seklucjan war während seiner Tätigkeit als deutscher Pfarrer in Posen zum Luthertum konvertiert und mußte schließlich vor der Gegenreformation in das Herzogtum Preußen fliehen, wo er 1544 der erste Prediger der polnischen Gemeinde [...]"
---> Seklucjan was a German priest in Posen before he came to Kbg., and "failure to mention" him and that he was a "Pole" should not be an issue here. The quote however provides inside how dangerous it is to apply modern national categories to the 16th century. I did, however not misrepresent the source.
--> Can a German-speaking sysop please evaluate and clear me from the accusation that I have misrepresented the source and take the accusation as what it really is, a PA. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding misrepresentation by omission"-allegation: Ext. preview link to the book. Numerous authors discuss numerous details of libraries and printeries in Königsberg. That I did not include the whole book in an overview about the history of Königsberg is not misrepresentation.

Re: Cn-tags[edit]

  • re VM below: "Herkus and M.K and also Skapp where at this point adding "citation needed" tags": I have to the best of my knowledge not added a single cn tag. Please provide a diff. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Update: VM has now clarified below that I did not add a single cn tag and thus his assumption was false. To the contrary, I have added sources to previously unsourced sentences, responding to the justified "unreferenced" and "undue" comments of three other users. M.K has alo denied below that they had added cn tags. About VM's own retaliatory tagging - see above.

Re: "Outing"/username[edit]

What VM referred to below is an old discussion comment by NYB in an AN/I thread, my response to that comment still stands [103]. I encourage sysops to follow that link and actually read the whole AN/I thread. VM claimed there that using his former username was outing him, and NYB in good faith made a comment w/o investigating the issue (quote NYB: "I've accepted Volunteer Marek's statement of concerns on good faith at this time; I hope that it will not be necessary to delve more deeply into the matter."). The thread however took a very different turn when I posted my response:

Actually, I had had a dispute with VM and had asked for a 3o that was provided by no other than Molobo. I protested, because I wanted an outside comment. I pointed out the on-wiki identity of VM and Molobo prior to their username changes (which happend during/after the EEML case) on my talk. Then VM ran to AN/I, called pointing to his former username "outing" and asked for an indef block of my account. If that story illustrates anything, then only that VM and Molobo have a long history of harassing me, which did not stop after the EEML case.

That Shade2 and Molobo were identified as being the same person by on-wiki revealed IP-adresses and behavioral evidence is on-wiki since 2008, I just linked it here, the RL identity of the respective user is not revealed in any of these diffs [104] [105] [106].

Even more "outing" allegations"[edit]

re VM's comment below: "I accidentally posted some personal real life info on wiki, including info about my family and friends (names, email addresses etc). This was oversighted. However, Skapperod “captured” the info before it was oversighted and spread it around on Wikipedia. This was oversighted as well."

  • 1st sentence - true, that happened while proxying for blocked Molobo, and revealed, in the final phase of the EEML case, that you continued offline coordinating with Molobo and others.
  • 2nd sentence - true
  • 3rd sentence - false. I took the diff (not the RL infos!) to arbcom (not "around wikipedia"), nowhere else!, and they oversighted it. Never have I "“captured” the info before it was oversighted and spread it around on Wikipedia." That is a very serious, completely unfounded charge.
  • 4th sentence - false. There was nothing to oversight.

I request that the allegation contained in the 3rd and 4th sentence is withdrawn at once.

I also request that Volunteer Marek is forbidden to claim that I outed him. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: previous "unfounded" AE[edit]

The AE VM referred to, concerned with what I perceived as ABF, insults etc at the Kołobrzeg article, was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive43#Radeksz. It is true that the sysop then judged this as a content dispute requiring no action. What the sysop did not know then was that all this was part of a larger, coordinated attack by the EEML, i.e. by VM, Molobo and others, to expel me from that article (note: it is the same article where Molobo reverted just after leaving his last wikibreak, diffs above). The evidence is largely off-wiki, some on-wiki [107], part of it is accessible in the "Disruption"-FoF at Wikipedia:EEML#Radeksz.

Digging up that AE again and declare that my "standard modus operandi" does not reflect well on VM.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount[edit]

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

This statement by Skapperod consists of his usual tactic of "diff-padding" - of providing lots of "[diff]" which are either completely irrelevant (my argument with Jimbo over unrelated matters quite some time ago), or which simply don't support what he claims they show. I'm getting a little fed up with this behavior by Skapperod which happens in relation to both sources (sources don't support what he claims) and his perennially filed AE requests (diffs don't support what he claims.

My statement was a response to a direct nasty personal attack made by Skapperod

This diff, which Skapp gives above is in response to a statement by Skapperod where he said to me and remember that you first provided false sources. This was a straight up, false, personal attack, as I had NOT provided any false sources. What happened was that User:HerkusMonte was disruptively tagging every other word of a particular section of the article (one which he didn't like) with "citation needed" tags, while the remainder of the article sat there mostly unsourced and written like crap. As a result I was trying to get the sources he was asking for into the article. He kept moving and re-adding the "citation tags" which resulted in edit-conflicts and loss of a good time's worth of work, as I had to retype numerous citations again and again (anyone who's formatted citations knows what a pain in the ass that can be). As a result, I just started adding relevant diffs to end of paragraphs rather than particular sentences, standard practice for DYK articles, just to get them "down on paper".

What Skapperod is lying about is that just because a ref I provided was at the end of the paragraph and didn't support every single claim in that paragraph (I was still working on this), I "provided false sources". I explained to him several times what had happened, and he responded, ergo, he read the explanation (and seemingly understood it). Yet here again he makes this nonsense accusation, which is soooo bad faithed that yes, I referred to it as "lying your ass off". What is worse, lying your ass off in a dispute in order to win it, or, driven by frustration, to point this out?

I take sources, and my reputation for integrity in using those very seriously, and it was clear that Skapperod's attack was completely unwarrented, bad faithed and false (false + bad faithed = ?)

This is typical battleground behavior for Skapperod.

Abuse of a source by Skapperod which prompted this exchange

Keep in mind that the section under dispute is "Poles in Konigsberg". Skapperod added this German language source to the article, although in a completely different section. I went and retrieved the source and then spend some considerable time translating it from German. As it turns out the source itself is very reliable and high quality. Unfortunetly Skapperod's edits based on the source [108] do not reflect what the source says or what it is about.

Specifically, Skapperod's edit says Duke Albrecht thus called in a Danzig book printer, Weinrich, who was soon joined by other book printers, to publish Lutheran literature not only in German and (New) Latin, but also in Latvian, Lithuanian, Old Prussian and Polish. Königsberg thus became a center of printing German- and other language books: In 1530, the first Polish translation of Luther's Small Catechism was published by Weinrich

Note that in the citation provided Skapperod explicitly says pp. 127-155; esp. p. 127-131. Pages 127 to 131 are the ones which I specifically translated. And the info itself added by Skapp is true enough, but what it fails to mention is that Weinrich was invited to Konigsberg with the specific purpose of printing Polish books and that the first translations of Luther Small Catechism New Testament (corected) were made by Jan Seklucjan, a Pole. In fact, Skapperod then edit warred to remove any mention of Seklucjan (or other Poles mentioned by his source) from the article, despite the fact that the very (German) source HE provided talks about him at length. More generally, pages 127 to 131 of the source he provided are all about Polish printing and religious life in the city at the time, but somehow he managed to pull out of all that just the fact that a print maker with a German name was invited (from Danzig/Gdansk, which was part of Poland at the time) to the city.

I tried to point out similar problems with the mis-use of the Bock source (again, the source itself is perfectly reliable) on the talk page [109] but Skapperod has not bothered to respond. VolunteerMarek 22:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Extensive tag teaming by the same old group

The users involved in this dispute, User:M.K, User:HerkusMonte, User:Estlandia (only active on the talk page) and Skapperod himself have long history of supporting each other in POV disputes involving Polish and German topics. In this instance the first two, as well as an anon IP, tag-team edit warred on the article while simultaneous refusing to participate in meaningful discussion on the talk page, aside from empty "IDONTLIKEIT" statements or simple "I support the other guy" claims.

As this was going on, I repeatedly raised issues on talk and tried to add in references which HerkusMonte was demanding (for like every other word of the section) with his citation needed tags. As I mentioned above in several instances, Herkus would add a {{cn}} tag, I would spend a good chunk of time looking up a reference, go to the article to insert it, only to find that the text had been removed by one of the other tag teamers - how are you suppose to provide a reference, to a piece of text that has been removed?

But no, I did not break 3RR on the article (unless you count adding references after someone slaps in a "cn" tag "reverting"). So Skapperod is making stuff up again. Instead, extremely frustrated (especially for having my time wasted) I asked for advice at [3RR talk].

The behavior of the above users, including Skapperod on the article has been extremely disruptive. In particular this practice of first adding a "citation needed" tag to a piece of text, then after another person (myself) spends considerable time finding citations, removing the text all together is very very very annoying. It is also obviously done in bad faithed - why are you even adding "citation needed" tags if your intent is to remove the text anyway? Unless you are *trying* to waste people's time?

The ... "misrepresentative" diff padding by Skapperod

This diff - as my comment clearly states, HerkusMonte started removing several portions of the article very shortly after they've first been added, but well after I've began the work of providing sources (my first additions of sources were at 6:51 July 31, Herkus' comment was 15:12 July 31). It was clear that I was working on providing the sources so why was he trying to make my job harder by removing stuff in the middle of this work? Additionally, as I point out, ALMOST THE WHOLE article was unsourced at this point, yet Herkus chose to pick on just this one section - so yes, this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT kind of thing.

Actually, you know what, I don't want to make this any more tl;dr then it already is. So here I am just going to relist the diffs Skapperod provides as "evidence". Please click them.

  • [110] - statement of fact, that Herkus is spamming {cn} tags into what at that point is the best sourced part of the article.
  • [111] - me pointing out to Herkus that he just wasted a whole bunch of my time by causing edit conflicts by adding {cn} tags to every other word in the section at the same time as I was clearly busy finding and adding sources
  • [112] - the anon IP involved in the tag team reverting responded to my comment with a comment which clearly indicated that s/he had not read the sources I provided. It was a knee-jerk denial by the anon IP. And yes at this point the tag-teaming was in full swing.
  • [113] - again, my post just describes what has happened. M.K had not bothered to provide any sources, to participate in discussion, just kept hitting that revert button, as if it was a button on a game controller.
  • [114] - yup, at this point I was extremely frustrated. Herkus and M.K and also Skapp where at this point adding "citation needed" tags, then when I would add the requested citations, just remove the now sourced text. Wouldn't you call that "disruptive"? Isn't it a bit like purposeful sabotage? At the same time, minimal to no participation in talk page discussion, except "I don't like it" stuff.

Illustrative example of Skapperod's misreprentations

Skapperod says:

VM also added references he found on the web. I can not accept the addition of references which do not support the sentences referenced to them: In this post I compared in detail sources VM added to four sentences, and they do not match. VM did look in the source again, as is obvious from the diff before, and still restored it after my removal, so that it is now in the protected version - making wp not only unreliable, but misleading.

First, these were not "references found on the web" but rather academically published works. Skapp doesn't tell you that and instead insinuates that I ... I dunno added links to blogs or something.

In his post he notes his objections, sure. But, as it has already been explained to him, there was a simple misunderstanding - the relevant diff was at the end of the paragraph rather than the end of the appropriate sentence.

Now, let's look at this super-wrong-evil text that got protected into the WP:WRONGVERSION, which makes Wikipedia oh so unreliable and misleading.

The relevant current text of the article states: “ In 1545 in Königsberg a Polish catechism was printed by Jan Seklucjan”

The source states: “In 1545 Seklucjan published a “Simple Text of the Catechism for the Simple People” [115]

The relevant current text of the article states: “ In 1551 the first translation of the New Testament in Polish language came out, issued by Stanisław Murzynowski.”"

The source states: “(Seklucjan) used a very modest but talented humanist Stanisalw Murzynowski from Krolewiec as translator, and in 1551 published first the Gospel of Matthew, some months later all four Gospels, in 1552 other New Testament books, and finally in 1553 the whole New Testament in one volume”" [116]

The relevant current text of the article states: “Murzynowski's collections of sermons were delivered by Eustace Trepka and in 1574 by Hieronim Malecki. The works of Mikolaj Rej were printed here by Seklucjan”

The source states: "Source:”Seklucjan also published the works of Mikolaj Rej, the father of Polish literature”[117]

Note the previous source also discusses Malecki and I was about to add a source for Trepka – part of the difficulty is that his name was misspelled – but the article got protected before I had a chance to do so

The relevant current text of the article states:

“ Marcin Stryjkowski announced in Krolewiec the publication of his Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmudzka, i wszystkiej Rusi ("A Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Samogitia and all Rus")”

The source states: "Source: In 1582, Stryjkowski published his chronicle at Konigsberg (Krolewiec)" [118]

So please, tell me, is there any truth to Skapperod's contention that I was using 'false source' (which I "found on the web") and that these references do not support the text referred to? Is Wikipedia really going to lose all credibility because this material is included in the WP:WRONGVERSION that got protected?

If not, then just keep in mind what's going on here and that this kind of ... mischaracterization, well, characterizes Skapperod's entire report.

--> Response to Skapperod's "Response to VM, detailed analysis of his references not sourcing the sentences they had been added to"
Look, it's not that hard. Compare the text of the article, to the text of the source as I've done in the section right above. Do they match up? Yes? Then your accusations that I was "presenting false sources" is ... well, "untrue".
What you are doing is very typical - you're picking on minor points, like the fact that I included the name of the editor of a work rather than the author originally, and hanging your whole "you're misrepresenting sources" on that very feeble peg. All the issues you raised were answered and addressed on the talk page and the section right above makes it clear that the sources do indeed align very well with the text. And since you acknowledged that by responding, why do you turn around and keep making this accusation that I "presented false sources". Since you know what is actually going on, yet you insist on making these accusations, is that not "lying"? VolunteerMarek 07:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
---> Response to Skapperod's latest
re VM below: "Herkus and M.K and also Skapp where at this point adding "citation needed" tags": I have to the best of my knowledge not added a single cn tag. Please provide a diff. - my bad, you weren't the one adding {cn} tags, you were just the one removing text that had first been {cn} tagged by Herkus, which I then apparently wasted my valuable time finding sources for [119]
Seklucjan was a German priest in Posen before he came to Kbg., and "failure to mention" him and that he was a "Pole" should not be an issue here. - nope, Seklucjan was a "German priest" only in the sense that he spoke German and was a priest for the German congregation in Poznan. Sources clearly call him a Pole ("Ducal Prussia provided refuge for Poles such as Jan Seklucjan from Poznan". He was born in Stare Siekluki deep within central Poland (not even in any of the "disputed" areas). So this is just more typical misrepresentation.
The bottomline here is that the very source YOU added, Vanessa Bock, discusses Seklucjan at length, including his role in translating works into Polish, with help from Weinreich.
the first translation of Luther's Small Catechism were NOT made by Jan Seklucjan. I did not misrepresent the source. - a small mistake on my part, Seklucjan was the first to translate the New Testament not Luther's Small Catechism. Which I already explained on article's talk. The misrepresentation of the source involves completely omitting Seklucjan from the article (whether he was the first to translate NT or LSM) and additionally to mention the first translation by Liboriusz Schadlika. Yes, it is perfectly possible to misrepresent sources BY OMISSION.
Overall, here are the relevant passages from the source which are very relevant but which Skapperod just... "skipped" over (he did mention the Seindammer church):
Die Kirchenordung legte zudem die Bereitstellung von Buchern zum Lesen und Singen fur die Gemeinden fest. Durch den Druck reformatorischer, religionspolitischer und fremdsprachiger Literatur wurde diese Forderung vom ersten Konigsberger Drucker erfullt. Fur die Wirksamkeit landesherrlicher Verwaltungs- und Kirchenordungen und die Verbreitung des neuen Glaubens war die Existenz dieser ersten Offizin unentbehrlich. Auch Herzog Albert selbst forderte die Predigt in der jeweiligen Muttersprache. Die Polen und Litauer, oftmals Glaubensfluchtlinge, hielten ihre Gottesdienste in Konigsberg in der Seindammer Kirche, spater auch in der Elisabeth kirche; zudem wurde vierzehntägig im Dom und in der altstadtischen Kirche eine polnische Mittagspredigt gehalten, wodurch die Reformierung des Gesindes gewahrleister werden sollte.
Als erstes erliess ein noch anonym Kleiner Kathechismus 1530 seine Konigsberg Offizin. Die eiligst angefertige polnische Ubersetzung des Kathechismus wies jedoch sprachliche Mangel auf, die dem Herzog durch Liborius Schadlika, einen polnischen Philologen aufgezeigt wurden. Schadlika selbst nahm sich der Uberarbeitung an, so dass 1533 ein zweiter, sprachlich verbesserter polnischer Kathechismus in der Druckerei von Weinreich entstand. Zwar sind diese ersten polnischen Drucke auf Initiative Weinreichs (und somit durchaus auf Geschaftsinteresse) entstanden, sie erfullt jedoch zugleich die in der Kirchenordung geforderte und von Herzog Albert aktiv unterstutze Ubersetzung zentraler evangelischer Schriften in die jeweiligen Volkssprachen.
1543 und 1544 wurden in Preussen erstmals staatliche Verordnungen ins Polnische ubersetz und ebenfalls von Weinreich gedruckt. Dem Herzog und seinen Beamten ging es zugleich mit der religiosen Unterweisung seiner polnischen Untertanen um deren Intagration in der preussischen Territorialstaat. Allerdings bleibt ungewiss, warum nicht bereits fruhere Landes -oder zumindest Kirchenordnungen ubersetz und gedruckt wurden. Die Notwendigkeit, liturgische und religiose Grundtexte in die Sprache des Volkes ubersetzen zu lassen und dafur zunachst Tolken einzusetzen, hatte bereits die Kirchenordnungen von 1525 betont, doch herrschte im sakularisierten Ordensland offensichtlich zunachst noch ein Mangel an sprachkompetenten Predigern.
Herzog Albert personlichem Engagement war es zu verdanken, dass aus Polen viele Pfarrer, die sich dem Luthertum zugewandt hatten, nach Preussen ubersiedelten. Seit 1530 wirkten in Ostpreussen u.a. "seit 1537 Johann Maletius in Lyck, und seit 1544 Johann Seclutian an der Polnische Kirche auf dem Steindamm in Konigsberg als Pfarrer in herzoglich-preussischen Gemeinden" Ihre Berufungen waren fur die Entwicklung des polnischen Buchdrucks in Konigsberg ausserst folgenreich. Nach wie vor war die Zahl der polnischen Pfarrer jedoch unzureichend. Mit der Grundung der Universitat im Jahre 1544 wurde deshalb auch das Ziel verfolgt, die Versorgung v.a. der landlichen Bevolkerung mit polnischen - aber ebenso litauischen - Pfarren zu verbessern:
Herzog Albert hatten sieben Stipendien fur Studenten mit guten Polnisch - kenntnissen gestiftet und zugleich Universitatsbehorden angeordnet, solche Studenten desto eifriger zu suchen und aufzunehmen, weil solche Pastoren und Kirchenleute auch die Schule in preussischen Landen wegen Unkenntnis der deutschen Sprache besonders notig haben.
Die polnischen Pfarrer spielten die entscheidende Rolle in den Anfangsjahren des polnischen Buchdrucks in Konigsberg. Drei Jahre nach der Publikation der Ubersetzung von Schadlika verliess ein weitere Ausgabe des polnischen Katechismus die Presse Weinreichs. Ob dieser Druck eine zweite Auflage von der Schadlika bearbeiteten Ubersetzung war, ist nicht nachweisbar, doch wurde auf Veranlassung von Paul Speratus 1545 in eine Auflage von dreihundert Exemplaren diese Ubersatzung in Wittenberg erneut gedruckt.
Again, this is misrepresentation by OMISSION, not your run of the mill pretend-source-says-something-it-doesn't kind that only newbie POV pushers engage in. How can you take source whose title is "Beginnings of Polish Printing in Konigsberg" and write about it so as to almost completely fail to mention anything to do with Poles?
Skapperod says This is however the current version, not the one that was debated by me above - yes, 1) you were complaining that the WP:WRONGVERSION got protected so I discussed the current "wrong version" and 2) the first version was "debated" and I explained what was going on to you, then made corrections.
Skapperod says sysops need to closely examine this, as "the source" he used in his response here [88] is not the one he used in the article! - let them examine, please! The source I gave is the one I suggested on the talk page, along with a statement about Trepka [120]. Keep in mind that the article was protected shortly thereafter. Since you were participating in that discussion YOU KNOW THIS. Additionally that source was being used elsewhere in the article already. You know this as well. Does the source support the text? It does, which you are also well aware of. So why are you playing these games?

VolunteerMarek 08:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This is standard MO of Skapperod for which he has been warned before

This AE request bares an uncanny resemblance to this one filed a while back by Skapperod, (as well as numerous others of his). In that AE request Skapperod was trying to get me blocked for stating that Skapperod was behaving "disruptively" (he was). Here he is trying to get me sanctioned for pointing out that several users, himself included, were behaving badly on the Konigsberg article, by spamming {cn} tags (while remainder of the article was unreferenced), by removing text and making it hard to actually provide the citations they requested, and then by removing the text which was now sourced, as well as misrepresenting sources (Skapperod in particular with the Bock source, as outlined above). All the time not bothering to participate in talk page discussion.

In fact, User:Sandstein's closure of that AE request is worth quoting in full:

This looks like a misuse of WP:AE (by Skapperod - VM) in order to win the upper hand in a content dispute. The edits cited in the request are not objectionable; rather, they reflect routine disagreements about content. In particular, it is not disruptive to state one's opinion that "Removing a large chunk of text without discussing it first is generally seen as "disruptive"". Unless other administrators disagree, I will close this thread with a warning to Skäpperöd that AE is not a substitute for, or part of, proper dispute resolution, and that he may face sanctions if he files more unfounded enforcement requests. (my emphasis -VM)

and then this comment made by former arbitrator Shell Kinney

I am in complete agreement with your reading of the situation Sandstein. (consequently Skapperod would attempt to get Shell in trouble, possibly in retaliation)

and then Sandstein concluded:

No action. Skäpperöd is warned not to file more unfounded requests.

That's all that is going on over here. Again. In fact, Skapperod has been trying to "get me" for quite awhile now. I had the hope that he turned a new leaf and was ready to participate in a constructive manner in improving the relevant articles, since he is somewhat knowledgeable about sources (how he uses them, is another matter). But I guess not. Same ol' same ol'.

I have no comment on anything by MyMoloboaccount and I haven't even really looked at his edits. I did not ask him in any way what so ever to comment, edit or otherwise become involved in this article.

@Devil's Advocate

Actually, MyMoloboaccount's first edit since returning WAS NOT in support of any edit I have made. His first edit was to Konigsberg but it was not related to any issues I have been involved in [121]. In fact, I disagree with him in this regard - he thinks the article should be moved/merged to "Kaliningrad", I'm ok with where it is.

His second or so edit was to the Battle of Dirschau article (btw, Herkus is now move warring on that page). I actually have no strong opinion as to what name the article should be under either (though I find this tendentious insistence on German names for places/events in Poland annoying and a waste of time).

So actually, two of MyMoloboaccount's first couple edits are not even ones with which I agree with. Skapperod is just paranoid/trying to use imaginary non-happenings as a way of winning a content dispute.

Anyway. If you're involved in Polish-German topics, you come back from a four month absence and you look at your watchlist what are you gonna see? Well, people are discussing Konigsberg a lot, so you go there to check out what happens.

And seriously, don't you just see how dripping with bad faith statements like "where EEML attacked me before" by Skapperod are? Just because someone reverted him once somewhere. This is just the usual "oh noes they won't let me push my POV in peace" complainin'.

And with regard to this EEML well-poisoning (which Skapperod also has been warned about in the past) let me just point out a Principles from a recent ArbCom case:

  • Editors are expected to comment on the substance of other's edits, and not attempt to use editors' affiliations in an ad hominem method to attempt to discredit their views. Attempts to do so may be considered a Personal Attack. [122]. I assume that applies equally to some vague affiliations from almost three years ago.

Please also see my comment at DA's talk page [123]. Bottomline is that if there's supposed to be some kind of tag-teaming by me and MMA then ... well, where is it?

Response to MK's post

All that M.K does is throw the at-this-point-ridiculous EEML boogeyman around (if there's an EEML around these days, which I seriously doubt, I am not part of it nor am I even aware of it) and then throw in some completely irrelevant diffs about how one time I told somebody who was harassing me on my talk page (whom I asked not to post there half a dozen times) to "fuck off". Note that none of these diffs resulted in any kind of sanction (though the harassment by the other user was discussed by admins). It's just tired old battleground mentality and poisoning the well.

Again, M.K and others *were* behaving disruptively on the Konigsberg article - spamming {cn} tags, then after citations were provided, removing the relevant text altogether, and they were tag teaming to do so. To refer to that behavior as "disruptive" is perfectly valid.

What exactly is this report about anyway? That MyMoloboaccount posted a short comment to the talk page (he did not make any edits to the article itself)? That I said the users were behaving disruptively? This is a content dispute which, as he has done numerous times before, Skapperod (and his friends) is trying to win via WP:AE instead of discussion on the article talk page.

One more time @ Skapperod

Skapperod, this is getting ridiculous. Your evidence doesn't show anything of the kind.

  • Your own attitude towards me (and yes, also MyMoloboaccount) is what is causing all the problems. I have tried numerous times to be friendly and nice towards you "thank you" "sincere thanks" "much improved" etc. And each time you have responded with completely out-of-the-left field battleground behavior, of which very report is an excellent example.
  • There was no "confrontation" with you - just discussion. Then you initiated a confrontation by accusing me of "presenting false source", which as I've shown was complete nonsense. If the atmosphere on the talk page deteriorated you only have yourself to blame.
  • There were no "massive insults" against you, nor anyone else. You're making stuff up. All I said is that some of you were behaving disruptively on the article. Adding {cn} tags, then removing text after the citations were provided *is* disruptive (and it wasted a whole bunch of my valuable time)
  • Molobo aka MyMoloboaccount was already in 2008 identified as the alter ego of the nationalist forumtroll Shade2 - thank you, thank you, thank you, for providing a clear example of your entrenched battleground mentality. In that one little sentence you manage to combine 1) an egregerious personal attack, which, if made anywhere else would get you immediately blocked, 2) an attempt at WP:OUTING someone, which, should get you immediately blocked even if it is made here, and 3) more unsubstantiated accusations - your evidence is two posts by your former friends (one of them posting anonymously - gee, I wonder why? Online harassment is no fun when you put your name behind it?) which are just more accusations. There is no substance there.
  • As to my block log, since that keeps getting dredged up and misrepresented (yes, you are being dishonest again). I have ONE block for incivility (recent) which has nothing to do with any WP:AE areas, I just mouthed off to an admin for abusively blocking someone else. I have three blocks which were due to mutual violations of the interaction bans with Russavia (he got blocked much more than I did) which were due simply to the confusing wording of that interaction ban. And I have one, very very very old block for edit warring with Malik Shabazz, whom I am currently friends with. So don't make stuff up. And I have been on Wikipedia for seven years. If you really want to entertain yourself by dwelling on my block log - which has nothing to do with WP:DIGWUREN - then I suggest you bring this up on AN/I. Let's have a community wide discussion there. Of course your own hijinks might be examined as well.
  • Volunteer Marek aka Radeksz was subject to, especially with respect to hounding and harassing me, the conditions under which his remedies were eased - this is complete nonsense. Notice no diff. YOU however where reprimanded several times for engaging in disruptive commentary at WP:AE, and at ArbCom pages, as well as your continued attempts to WP:OUT me, for instance by User:Newyorkbrad. That one actually is worth looking at seperately:

Skäpperöd, from now on please refer to Volunteer Marek on-wiki only by his current username. This appears to be a reasonable request on his part given the history and circumstances. Please see the ANI thread for more comments. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk)

You've violated this injunction at least several times on this request, including for no apparent reason except intentional harassment. And it is worth reminding everyone WHY you were required to not mention my former username (and hell, the main reason why I changed my username in the first place): you were one of the two users who posted my personal information, all over Wikipedia and spread it around (the info had to be oversighted later on).

You seem to be stuck in the same entrenched, tendentious, win-at-all-cost, battleground mode just as when you used that tactic to mess with my real life, two years ago.

Just one diff which speaks volumes

Skapperod refusing an arbitrator's request

VolunteerMarek 05:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

VolunteerMarek 22:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A not short enough summary by Volunteer Marek[edit]

I'm sorry, it's hard to keep this short. This issue is both simple and complex. Please read the following carefully.

The simple part is that this is just Skapperod’s special way of fighting a battleground action. He’s done this many many times before. The complex issue involves the associated details, the history of my interaction with Skapperod and the participation of other users. This AE report by Skapperod is a spurious attempt to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. Skapperod has been instructed in the past not to file these kinds of AE reports, specifically with regard to myself, and has been told that any such reports will result in sanctions against him [124]. The essence of Skapperod’s report, once you strip away the irrelevant diffs and ranting, the innuendo, the scare mongering and conspiracy theories is that:

  1. MyMoloboaccount posted a comment to the talk page of the article. Here it is [125]. Ooohhh, scary, isn’t it? Seriously, MyMoloboaccount is not under any sanction, he can post comments to any talk page he pleases (or the article themselves) and I have not asked him to make any edit on this or any other article. How can you in good faith ask that somebody be sanctioned for making a single, simple, civil, constructive talk page comment? Where is the objectionable action? The fact that Skapperod reacts this insanely to a simple talk page comment is about as much evidence as is needed of Skapperod’s entrenched battleground mentality
  2. That I replied to Skapperod’s repeated hounding and false accusations by saying that he was “lying his ass off”. He was. A citation was added to an end of a paragraph rather end of a sentence. Based on this Skapperod, despite numerous explanations, kept taunting me that I “presented false sources”. He knows what the actual situation was. He knows that his own sources support the text cited. Yet he continued casting false aspersions, and actually has continued doing this on this very report – the whole experience has been extremely frustrating to deal with. This is a cheap attempt to score “points”, to intimidate and once again perfectly illustrates Skapperod’s battleground mentality.
  3. Skapperod has a pretty extensive history of misrepresenting sources. See here for another example (there are many more). Unfortunately this is the kind of Civil POV pushing that is hard to show unless someone is also familiar with the topic area and is willing to go to the trouble of acquiring and often translating, the relevant sources. The way he misrepresents sources parallels the way he misrepresents diffs and individuals he’s waging a crusade against in noticeboard discussions. These WP:AE reports of his ALWAYS are filed right after someone convincingly challenges him on his use of sources on some article’s talk page.


  1. On the article HerkusMonte first tagged a section as “unsourced”, despite the fact that remainder of the article is mostly unsourced as well, then when I began adding sources tried to remove chunks of the section itself. When I kept adding sources he began spamming [citation needed] tags into every sentence of the section in some kind of “I can add [citation needed] tags faster than you can find references” game. This was disruptive, annoying (it led to much wasted time due to edit conflicts) and violation of WP:POINT. However, to his credit, he desisted after I raised the issue on another venue and warned him.
  2. Other users, M.K, anon IP and Skapperod began removing text which Herkus had previously tagged with [citation needed] per some kind of tag-team WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is the text that I spend a considerable amount of my time (I estimate about 20 hours overall) referencing. How frustrating is it when somebody asks you to do something (provide citations), you spend time doing it, only to have one of their friends come along and completely destroy your efforts anyway? A confounding factor is that Skapperod was removing text which his own sources supported, as he was well aware (he indicated “especially pg xx” in his citation).

The history with Skapperod

  1. Skapperod has been explicitly warned about filing spurious and battleground-y WP:AE reports, specifically with regard to myself, and was threatened with sanction for it.
  2. In his report above Skapperod strings together a series of diffs where, supposedly, I was “incivil”. None of these resulted in any admin actions and some are outright false misrepresentations. For example, in one of them I made a joke, which was perfectly understood by the other party ([126] - I was made a mentor to a potentially problematic user), but Skapperod pretends that it was some serious offense. And all of them are completely irrelevant to this dispute, to the topic area and did not involve him in any way. Additionally he manages to even pull in obscure comments I made at Commons, on Jimbo’s talk page and other hard-to-find-and-irrelevant places. This is, frankly, super creepy –it’s obvious he keeps some kind of file on me, watches all my edits, even ones which don’t concern him in the least bit, looking for some “dirt”. This is explicit evidence of ‘’’long term, sustained, stalking’’’.
  3. Skapperod has long “pursued” me, as well as Piotrus, across Wikipedia, having shown up to many discussions always trying to stir stuff up. His comments have generally been ignored by admins, by arbitrators and by uninvolved commentators, if he has not actually been explicitly warned about them. Some of the “funnier” instances include the time he tried to get me (or Piotrus) sanctioned because… Piotrus gave me a barnstar! Or when he tried to get Arbitrator Shell Kinney into trouble because she went to the same Wiki-meetup as Piotrus.
  4. More seriously, during the EEML case (more than 2.5 years ago), I accidentally posted some personal real life info on wiki, including info about my family and friends (names, email addresses etc). This was oversighted. However, Skapperod “captured” the info before it was oversighted and spread it around on Wikipedia. This was oversighted as well. Due to some real life harassment resulting partly from these actions of his, I changed my username subsequently so that it would no longer be connected to my real life name. I asked a number of users I was familiar with, including Skapperod, to please use my current user name (VM) – all of them ‘’’except Skapperod’’’ said they had no problem with that.
Over the next months (years?) Skapperod made a WP: POINT of it to keep using my former username (the one connected to my real life identity). After repeatedly requesting him to desist, exasperated, I finally had to risk a Streisand Effect and raised the issue on ANI [127]. As a result Arbitrator Newyorkbrad specifically instructed Skapperod to please refer to Volunteer Marek on-wiki only by his current username... given the history and circumstances.
Skapperod responded belligerently then and now he has violated Newyorkbrad’s injunction by spamming my former username in this very report. I have asked him to refactor [128]. He is now making crappy excuses about how it’s ok for him to keep up with the harassment because recently I used my former name myself (in an ArbCom appeal to change that username in ArbCom pages!).
This sorry story is yet another example of how seriously battleground minded Skapperod is on Wikipedia. Basically, any tactic appears to be fair game.


  1. This is just a disruptive use of WP:AE as a battleground. Skapperod has been warned about this before. In regard to myself and MyMoloboaccount there’s absolutely nothing here. Skapperod has a long history of weird obsession with myself. Skapperod has played a role in outing me in the past and has used my former username as an intimidation tactic. Skapperod has a history of misrepresenting sources and usually files WP:AE reports like this when he’s called on it.

Statement by MyMoloboaccount[edit]

UPDATE:Only now I realized what trick Skapperod used. He flooded his request with so many links, that one crucial element is missing. What exactly should be enforced ? I am not DIGWUREN of sanctions nor was I subject to EEML sanctions. In fact Skapperod falsely claims: Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) both editors have been subject to EEML. I haven't been placed on EEML sanctions. If Skapperod disagrees then he should give a link to the post where I am placed on any sanctions regarding EEML. In fact he failed to provide any diff for such thing. This is a typical shotgun shooting for sanctions, especially as the case open against VM, block wall of links which lead often to unrelated things provided then casually another user(me) thrown in, even when I am not on any sanctions mentioned, and no link is provided to any sanction to be enforced. Now to continue

  • First of all, this yet again another part of never ending saga regarding Skapperod's constant attempts to get me or VM blocked, and which probably started somewhere around when I discovered Skapperod was using Nazi propaganda as sources for Polish history[129]. Since then he behaved aggressively towards me while occassionally repeating attempts to introduce sources of such nature into Wikipedia.
  • Second of all I was present at the article about Kaliningrad/Konigsberg since years ago, as the history of the city is part of my interests, any brief search of the history of the article will discover my edits there since at least 2008[130]. And the topics discussed by VolunteerMarek were debated by me years ago on that page already

[131] In fact in 2008 I already wrote 'In the meantime still gathering research to NPOV the article, extermination of Jews whose population count I added above, discrimination of Polish minority(classified as lower then animals by German state in WW2), use of slaves to develop a city within 1000 year planned Reich, local Nazi movement, and post war revanchist role the city played in contrast to other Germanised territories that underwent degermanisation after the war are interesting subjects which need expansion. --Molobo (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Third of all the revert I did to HM was regarding a move of an page name to Germanised version of Polish location without end of Request for Move-perfectly in order as per Wikipedia rules.
  • Fourth of all my long absence is due to my sickness and stay at hospital, to which I am returning tomorrow, and won't be able to respond further this week and probably throughout the next month as well.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC) PS:I love the title "Ex-leader of EEML". Actually we title ourselves Silver, Red Dragon. And the leader is titled the Golden Egg on Emerald Throne. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC) BTW: What is exactly that I am accused of? Of editing articles that aren't even subject to any discussion between Skappoerod and VM?:"[] Molobo returned to previous article and makes another edit [132] to a talkpage? This is ridiculous, and seems just shotgun shooting of Enforcement request in hopes that somebody doesn't even follow the links that lead to nothing of substance or anything controversial. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Devil's Advocate-I was present on the page for years and took part in many discussions there. The topic is close to my interests.I edited the page as Molobo before that account was hacked. Do feel free to see history of talk and page history-you will find me there debating those things before Skapperod arrived to that page[133], [134]

What Skapperod mislead here(among many other things) was both editors have been subject to EEML-I haven't been subject to ANY sanctions in EEML case. This very typical-he usually throws numerous accusations that are baseless, eventually someone doesn't double check what he writes or doesn't follow the links, so something manages to go through. Note that he avoided giving link to support his statement-because there isn't any. In any case I performed all my edits on my own, and I haven't been in contact with VM or Piotrus in any way, either by email, or by any other means.

Molobo's first edit is to comment on the talk page of this article in support of Marek.- Where? I commented on other issues. As far I remember I didn't comment on the issue VM was debating at all, can you provide a diff supporting this claim? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount[edit]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

It is rather conspicuous that after nearly four months Molobo's first edit is to comment on the talk page of this article in support of Marek. To Molobo's query, the DIGWUREN case has since been renamed to be consistent with its function as an Eastern Europe arbitration case and that case allowed admins to issue sanctions at their own discretion against anyone editing in the topic area in violation of policy. The EEML mention appears to be referring to the admonishment to all members of the mailing list to avoid off-wiki collaboration. So there is nothing inappropriate about Skap's report in that respect.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by HerkusMonte[edit]

I don't have the time and the patience to go into detail, just a short comment

1. Marek's claim:

"The users involved in this dispute, User:M.K, User:HerkusMonte, User:Estlandia (only active on the talk page) and Skapperod himself have long history of supporting each other in POV disputes involving Polish and German topics. In this instance the first two, as well as an anon IP, tag-team edit warred on the article.."

This is absurd, I didn't even know M.K. before and we never made any edits on the same article. To call this "Extensive tag teaming by the same old group" leaves me speechless. The whole tag team allegation is completely absurd and just shows Marek's persistent assumption of bad faith.

2. I (not Marek) tried to start a discussion about the lack of sources [135] , however Marek's answer was extremely aggressive [136] ("Tell you what Herkus..." followed by the ususal allegations of "disruptive","tendentious" and "battlegroundy" editing, hardly a constructive way to react). Honestly, I don't see a reason to discuss on such a level of bad faith.

3. Maybe I missed something, but Marek doesn't deny he called Skäpperöd a "shithead" in his email, does he? HerkusMonte (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Piotrus[edit]

I try to avoid getting involved in AE, but seeing as Skapperod mentioned me already "Piotrus, ex-(?)-leader of the EEML", I would like to point out that dragging an old (2009) ArbCom case is not only a case of poisoning the well, but of a personal attack; I do not enjoy seeing my name dragged through ancient mud, and I'd very much prefer if Skapperod would try to move on from the old battlegrounds. What's more, Skapperod uses a single diff to imply I am still a leader of EEML; this is a slanderous claim without any basis in fact, to say the least, and I request that it is refactored, and apologized for.

Further, VM cites an example of an AE where Skapperod was warned not to abuse AE to win content disputes. It is worth noting that complaining about VM seems to be a popular pastime of Skapperod's: March 2012; September 2011, and others I don't have time to find. He has also been warned about outing VM ([137]). Back in 2011, when the last of EEML remedies were amended and discarded by the Committee, he was very active in campaigning against them; see my comment here, where I list close to a ten of examples of Skapperod either requesting sanctions against VM and other EEML members, or commenting in support. And almost always, his requests have been denied.

I don't want to get too involved here; I'd suggest that both VM and Skapperod are asked to be more civil in his on-wiki comments, and that Skapperod's engagement with AE is scrutinized by the admins; I feel it may be a time that a restriction from filling AE requests is served here, or perhaps an interaction ban would do more good, as it seems clear to me that Skapperod still feels the need to drag out old incidents and relive old battlegrounds. As most of us have no wish to join him in those reenactions, some remedy is clearly needed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: Skapperod has refactored his comment to remove the comment about myself I complained above. This is commendable. Now, if only he and VM could see past their differences... they are both productive editors, but I don't see how they can be made to behave without some community sanctions. I wonder if the we don't need to do as follows: interaction ban on both, civility warning for VM, and ban from AE for Skapperod? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Lothar von Richthofen[edit]

Few things here annoy me more than unwarranted resurrection of EEML (“curly quotes” and dynamic IPs might trump that). Really what I see here is the standard back-and-forth of two "national interest groups" which is typical of basically anywhere in the topic realm of Eastern Europe. The phantom mailing list stopped being spooky a long time ago, and invoking its name nowadays just comes off as petty mud-slinging. But neither side has clean hands here. A stern and final warning would be my prescription for this, given that both sides have a lot to contribute to the project in spite of their at-times problematic behaviour. I'm not too keen at all on an interaction ban, given that those have tended to compound problems in the past *cough*Polandball*cough*. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by M.K[edit]

Wherever VolunteerMarek goes there will be trouble. I don't like being dragged into these types of his quarrels, least of all involving him. Initially I decided not to comment here, however after noticing user: Volunteer Marek (aka user:Radeksz) insinuations regarding my character I can’t be mute.

VolunteerMarek’s claim of tag teaming is fiction

It seems that I am only editor who edited Königsberg article back in 2008, but still VolunteerMarek is filling various pages emphasizing that I am in some sort of tag team ending with various editors. [138]Herkus, M.K, Skapperod and now you {Estlandia}? We've got a full house here. Have you guys EVER broken ranks and NOT supported each other mindlessly in these discussions?

Then Estlandia is actually Miacek, one of the former members of tag team. Only user: Miacek now renamed user account to user: Estlandia. This clear illustration how desperate this guy to mud other editors and fuel another battleground.

VolunteerMarek’s actions are below any reasonable standard

Just look into his block log and various reactions which this person had. I just scrolled down of the recent VolunteerMarek’s “contributions” and Königsberg article’s talk page is not exception . Behavior like You're lying your ass off, Oh and btw, my query on RSN in regard to your knee-jerk mindless support of your fellow POV pusher is became a standard to this user:

On the Königsberg article’s talk page past few days VolunteerMarek brought my name at least 9 times if I counted all, in negative context included, like in “disruption”, “tag teaming” etc. Then I brought this name ZERO times. And this is not the isolated article I am afraid. Mostly due to this type of harassment I limited my time on Wikipedia to minimum. Thus I requesting that VolunteerMarek would be placed on interaction ban towards me as I am disgust to see my name all over the place, spammed by this editor. Re-institution of his topic ban should be considered as well, which had only been lifted on the false expectancy that "any relapse is likely to be poorly received." [139]

Good standing editors should be protected

My clean block log perfectly well shows that I am following good editorial practice from all my heart. Yet, I had to limit my time on WP as good standing editors are not protected from similar harassment and mistreatment (most Lithuanian editors departed unable to withstand such level of harassment). I understand that uninvolved administrators are sick and tired from EE conflicts, but failure to act or comparing the EEML to people targetted by them only bolsters such editors like VolunteerMarek. Action should be taken at least now that “knee-jerk mindless support” “you're an abusive asshole” “*real* nationalist edit warriors” harassment would never show up again.

Old WP:EEML is not gone, at least the most of it

I belive that no one can honestly say VolunteerMarek, Piotrus and other members have changed their ways. The same behavior which was stressed during WP:EEML arbitration. Everyone wanted to believe the EEML was gone immediately after the revelation in September 2009. In December new mails leaked again. When does that blind-believer crowd vanish? Apparently, Abd, who had joined the EEML, admitted only last year the EEML still exists. I say it is time to end this now. M.K. (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Response to VolunteerMarek misleading information

I hoped that with my statement I could point to VolunteerMarek his pastern which is troubling me and hoped that he would knowledge his mistakes and distance himself from them. However after seeing his reply I have no even slightest hopes. As he continuously falsely accuses me of behaving disruptively on the Konigsberg article - spamming {cn} tags among others. In fact I applied no more no less then ZERO {cn} tags in that article. This is another example of desperate VolunteerMarek tactics, to make false claims towards various editors, in hope that neutral editors would not investigate those diffs and take drastic actions involving all parties at least. Not surprisingly that VolunteerMarek is already found to abuse of dispute resolution processes. I kindly suggest neutral editors to be very careful and disregard completely such insinuations. And this is only prove my previous request that I need to be protected form this editor, as his behavior would not change . M.K. (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Vecrumba[edit]

I have some knowledge of Königsberg. All VM did was expand content on the role and contribution of Poles to Königsberg as a cultural and intellectual center, content which was all perfectly valid, and which VM kept in its own section, not to glorify Poles but simply to better manage working on expanding content. Rather than other editors expanding the contributions of other ethnic or religious groups, said other editors set upon VM mercilessly, culminating in the crap here.

Lastly, I am FUCKING TIRED of hearing about EEML. VєсrumЬаTALK 16:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Estlandia[edit]

The mere length of the measures already implemented with regard to Volunteer Marek (listed by Skäpperöd under History of disruption by VM and Molobo) reveals, that a more permanent solution is needed. In the light of this, the lifting of Volunteer Marek's topic ban in 2010 has not justified itself. I suggest considering an indefinite topic ban from Eastern European articles for this user, as he is constantly disruptive and edit warring (just on 25 July he broke 3RR, as explained here, followed by a similar violation on 31 July, as explained by Skäpperöd above). Add to this his constant incivility [140], [141], [142], [143] and the harassment of users with a clean blocklog and in good standing like Skäpperöd to get the full picture. Where battleground is, there's Volunteer Marek. Where Volunteer Marek is, there's incivility. Users like that we can do without. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 14:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Shrike(uninvolved)[edit]

If he really abused Wikipedia email system then to avoid further disruption his email should be blocked.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Verbosity is not equivalent to correctness. If you really need to put that much forth to present your case, please provide a brief summary along with all the detail, so we know what to look for in the detail section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks to those who have provided summaries. There's a lot to look through here, I'll try to get to it over this weekend. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SonofSetanta[edit]

Appeal declined. T. Canens (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Appealing user 
SonofSetanta (talk · contribs) – SonofSetanta (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

Topic ban as per the discussion at [144]

Administrator imposing the sanction 
Cailil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by SonofSetanta[edit]

I was topic banned under a 1RR because I reverted on a 3RR page twice and had a complaint lodged about me. Another complaint was lodged against me for making a marginal 1RR on another page which I reverted but this was dimsissed. I did not edit war on ANY page and indeed lodged my own complaint against an editor who I felt was displaying a battleground mentality. Unfortunately, despite my objections and good behaviour, it was decided I should be banned along with the troublemakers who were gaming a number of pages, including Provisional IRA where I was actively editing and in full discussion with a number of other editors. I have been accused of WP:Boomerang which I hotly dispute. I felt strongly about the way another editor wiped out two days of work without discussion on a 1RR page. I appeal on the basis that; 1, I was not editwarring; 2, that the topic ban of four months is unjustified; 3, that my behaviour pattern was not of a battleground mentality. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

In response to Calil's comments I would further add that I was NOT involved in tag teaming. It can clearly be seen from my edits that I have no editing partners on Wikipedia and any inference of that is false, unlike the others who WERE actually tag teaming. My involvement in any of the articles, barring {{Provisional IRA]] was miniscule. The edit history at the IRA article is undisputable. Attempts were made to game me and I felt the only way forward was to take the risk of a complaint. I note that further input has been requested from Arbcom. What I have not said until now is that I have been in contact with Arbcom all along as I could see a situation developing which was sucking my name into it even though I had little or no involvement. I have basically been banned because of my proximity and because I dared to make one complaint - unlike the others who have made multiple complaints at 1RR without discussion or justification. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Something which everyone has failed to note is the fact that I have voluntarily stayed away from Troubles arguments until just last week. My reason for doing so was because of the tag teaming and gaming which goes on there. It's impossible to edit an article freely, even under discussion. I have raised this with multiple admins and members of Arbcom since joining. My feeling is that; with the three MAIN exponents of the gaming now topic banned (although one remains outside the sweep at the moment) that there will be NO editwarring on any article related to the Troubles. All three un-named editors have extensive histories whereas I only joined last October, despite many unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry etc. If Calil and others are able to observe the peaceful pattern of editing which follows these bans and come to the same conclusion as me, then I am glad everyone was banned because it has done some good. For me to be banned for longer than someone like Hackney or Domer though is unwarranted because they are here much longer than I and have histories of battleground behaviour. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
@Calil. You've misinterpreted my comments. That seems to be a common feature here but I will put it down to my lack of English prose skills. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
@ KillerChihuahua. I'm grateful for your question. What I'm saying is that I wasn't intentionally involved in any edit warring. One revert I made at the London Bombings article was considered a 1RR violation even though I, and others, felt the article was 3RR. The adjudication here is that I must have known it was 1RR because the revert I made allowed a fact about the Provisional IRA appear in the article again. I felt that fact was innocuous. I still do but some sysops feel that the mere mention of the Provisional IRA makes the article 1RR. Let's play Devil's Advocate and say that the sysops are right in their interpretation of the Arbcom settlement: It's still a very marginal error on my part. Hackney complained about me here immediately however - no discussion, nothing, that immediately makes sysops feel I am engaged in some sort of problematic behaviour. I wasn't and I stopped editing the article the minute I saw the complaint and haven't been back. Second problem: I came online and made a revert a day later than previously on another article. A complaint was immediately lodged and I recognised I was wrong so I self reverted and apologised - that complaint was dismissed. Then; after two or three days working at Provisional IRA, Hackney comes along and claiming WP:Bold reverts around 40 edits I and two others had made, restoring the article to what he called the "stable version". To me that felt like I wasn't allowed to edit that article by Hackney. I made one revert back to the version Scolaire had left the previous day and invited discussion. Before that could happen others had stepped in and the edt war started. I didn't become involved. I felt a 1RR violation had taken place through Hackney's revert of 40 edits and thought that he, as a much more experienced editor than I, should know his move would be controversial, so I made what I thought was a justified complaint here. Unfortunately my complaint was interpreted as WP:Boomerang which I have protested all along. I took a step back then, didn't become involved in an edit war and stopped editing the article. There was nothing else I could do in my opinion. Hackney, Domer, Old Jacobit and Mo aimn have a long history of starting, controlling and winning edit wars. I got involved before and was gamed into falling for it and got topic banned for three months because of it. That's why I've stayed off those articles ever since (January 2012). I still haven't been back to Ulster Defence Regiment because that would have shown bad form on my part and I don't want that. No I think my mistake was going onto articles where Hackney & Co were conducting edit wars. As soon as my name gets mentioned on this board and they are allowed to refer to my ban in January then my name is blackened. The fact that I haven't actually edit warred but made two silly errors and one justified (in my opinion) complaint means that I am doomed because I have been discussed here because I made an edit in support of Fergus, had two frivolous complaints against me and was foolish enough to complain myself. It seems I can't do anything right, no matter what I do. I might point out as well that I am an historian and have much to give in my specialised areas: milhist and Ireland. I'm just not getting rhe chance to do anything on Ireland because there seems to be a determined effort by the tag team I mentioned to keep their own POV slant on certain articles. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: It would perhaps be a more bearable if I were banned for a lesser period than the more experienced editors who have a history of battleground behaviour. I hate edit-warring and you're right to point out that a more collegiate situation is my desired scenario when editing, as displayed by me and others at milhist. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
@ KillerChihuahua. I really am not in any hurry to get involved with any other editors who cause trouble, nor do I want further trouble myself. I do want to edit articles on some aspects of the Irish Troubles but only one or two articles. A self imposed ban on problematic pages will be applied until I see that the problem of editwarring has been combatted. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
@ KillerChihuahua. I appreciate your comments but I live in hope that Wikipedia can find a solution to this problem. I joined here expecting to get a collegiate atmosphere on articles. One does on milhist articles but not on anything to do with The Troubles. It's disappointing really. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Cailil[edit]

As a procedural note I closed the above thread with an overwhelming consensus for the sanctions as spelt out there. This was not a simple imposition of discretionary sanctions, the thread was open 2 weeks with significant and active sysop input.
In terms of this appeal, as evidenced in two threads SonofSetanta was not only in breach of the single revert restriction imposed on the WP:Troubles area (shown here), but also in breach of the simple rules on tag team editwarring (explained here). They were also sanction per Wikipedia:BOOMARANG in this thread[145] - hence the increase of the ban from 3 to 4 months. Further more SoS was sanctioned this January - banned from the WP:TROUBLES area for 90 days (3 months). We could have escalated to 6 months in this situation.
All of this has been explained to SoS as well as why the 1RR applied to the 7/7 Bombings article. If he doesn't want to hear it or lacks the competence to understand this after 3 sysops explained it perhaps a ban of definite duration is not going to work--Cailil talk 14:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Your second comment is precisely why you were all banned - WP:AE is not for taking others "out of the game" - your behaviour was unacceptable and your refusal to get the message or to take responsibility for your conduct makes that worse. Despite your continued rhetoric you were banned for 3 months in January 2012 for misconduct in this topic area, banned for issues relating to your behaviour. Seriously, if after that and after 4 Arbitration Enforcement threads and the input of 7 different sysops within 2 weeks and you cannot follow or don't want to hear this, then there is no reason for you to edit in a topic under probation. This is my last input here in this particular thread but I would suggest that if this WP:IDHT conduct continues an extension of the ban to indefinite seems only appropriate--Cailil talk 13:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SonofSetanta[edit]

Result of the appeal by SonofSetanta[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Question: Are you saying you shouldn't be topic banned because other people also erred? Or are you claiming you were not engaged in any activity which could be considered combative or non collegiate? It reads like you are appealing your ban on the basis of "I have also made good edits, and they did more bad things" if you don't mind my over-simplification. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    SoS: Thank you for your response, that clarifies things.
    That was a long and complex case, and many factors entered into the decision. The histories of the other editors was considered. SoS was originally to receive the same duration topic ban as the other involved editors, but that was increased by one month "in light of conduct on this page." SoS has not addressed his conduct during that case; not that I advise it but I note since that is the rationale for the extra month, then that is the logical grounds for requesting the month be lifted. I note with some dismay that although SoS cites the problematic history of the other editors, he himself has been here fairly often recently. I am willing to accept the assertion that he is mending his ways, and will be more circumspect in the future. I am not, however, willing to reduce the time of a topic ban of only 4 months duration based upon a perceived unfairness. The very fact that SoS finds it worthwhile to pursue this approach gives me concerns; what is the rush to get back to a topic which you have had trouble editing in a collegiate fashion in the past? I suggest that very haste to return to the topic indicates that SoS has not quite managed to distance himself enough from the topic and his views on it.
    Tl, dr version: No. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    SoS: While I appreciate the sentiment, I think you might want to reconsider. If you're going to not edit TROUBLES until "problem of editwarring" is no more, you are never going to edit them. I've been here 8 years and the ArbCom case was 6 years ago and it is still, and probably will be for 100 years to come, a combative area. Simply wait out your 4 months, and try to work with others and avoid hostile interactions and edit warring when you return. And yes, I know you didn't mean to paint yourself into a corner. I just think you're being a little overly optimistic with your choice of words. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I concur with KillerChihuahua; I don't see any grounds to overturn the sanction. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)