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

User requesting enforcement

Dicklyon (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare topic banned ("banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months")
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare restricted ("...repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.")

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

• [1] This most recent, and hundreds of others (including a dozen on that page today alone), edits on essays and guidelines about how to write scientific articles in wikipedia should be interpreted as within the scope of talk pages of physics topics, broadly construed. Since his restriction, Brews ohare has done nothing but carry on his voluminous fights and disruption at a meta level, by going to wikipedia space instead of article space.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)

• [2] Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_2 In a 'request for clarification' just a few days ago, Brews was sternly warned: "I would tend to agree that the specific incident of pointing to the talk page of a banned topic while discussing policy was not a violation of the letter of the sanction. That being said, it drags the spirit of the sanction into a dark alley and beats it senseless before having its way with it. Brews ohare, you would do well to listen to the oft repeated advice to stop beating the dead horse and move on. I would rather not have to tighten your restriction or impose new ones, but if you insist on pushing an agenda (however right you believe it may be) then we will have no choice." Brews's reaction there was not contructive or promising.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Clarify the "broadly construed" of the topic ban, and block if he keeps this up.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Numerous editors and admins have advised Brews ohare to find a constructive way to contribute to wikipedia, but he will not let go of the troubles that got him sanctioned. He provides an ongoing disruption by pouring his energy into trying to change policies around the editing of scientific articles (physics and electronics being his main expertise); he often outshouts all other editors who are trying to have a discussion, as his contribs history as a whole will attest.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

User talk:Brews ohare#Enforcement request notification

An action is open here for clarification of the remedies imposed upon Brews ohare. Despite that open action, we have now a new Requests/Enforcement brought by Dicklyon, which properly belongs as part of that clarification proceeding, and indeed, cites as its justification a comment from the "Arbitrator views and discussion" segment of that proceeding as though this comment in a discussion thread were, in fact, the determination of that clarification process. The other diff provided as "evidence" of misbehavior is a contribution to a discussion of how WP articles might be written, and has no bearing at all upon "physics related" discussion, as Dicklyon is well aware. There is, thus, no evidence whatsoever to support this action.

In view of the subsidiary nature of this Requests/Enforcement, being properly part of the Clarification proceeding, the various arguments I have advanced in that proceeding are equally relevant here, and I hereby incorporate them in this proceeding. This Requests/Enforcement hearing cannot properly proceed until the Clarification proceeding is concluded, and therefore the present Requests/Enforcement should be refused. If the Clarification proceeding resolution ultimately appears to warrant an enforcement hearing, this Requests/Enforcement can be re-opened using the conclusions of that action instead of an intermediary comment from a discussion there, as is only proper. Furthermore, the restriction upon my activity imposed by Tznkai is an arbitrary and unsupported action that presumes upon the results of an open Clarification hearing, and should be overridden. Brews ohare (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The final remarks below appear to indicate that Tznkai considers this matter closed, and that there is no requirement whatsoever that the evidence and the statements presented here, whether from Brews ohare or from others, need be considered in any way. In fact, Tznkai considers this outrageous action taken with no justification whatsoever, and with no intention to provide justification, is a mild and generous action compared to what Tznkai considers appropriate to Brews ohare. Brews ohare (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just what Tznkai considers an indefinite block is unclear, and no circumstances that could lift this block are identified. Brews ohare (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please indef block until Brews agrees to drop the stick and edit something else. He's gaming his topic ban, engaging in the same sort of disruptive behavior that lead to the sanction in the first place. Jehochman ^Talk 20:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this really so pressing that it can't wait on arbcom finishing up with the request for clarification? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In the current request for enforcement, it appears that there is only one diff that was presented as evidence. [4] There doesn't appear to be any disruption at the talk page of the diff as a result of that comment by Brews, contrary to Jehochman's remark. See the section We are writing for Wikipedia readers, not for University students of WT:Editing scientific articles.--Bob K31416 (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. John R. Brews was wrongly banned from editing all physics pages by an incompetent Arbcom. Brews has been working constructively with Michael C. Price, Likebox me and a few others on the essay WP:ESCA. Most of the people he works with strongly disagreed with what Brews was trying to edit in te speed of light article. Also the problem that led to the Arbcom case had to do with Brews dominating the talk page to get his way. There s no trace of that kind of behavior now. The editors on thepages that Brews is working on are not complaining at all. The people who are complaining are Jehochman, Dicklyon, Headbomb etc. who are not editing the pages Brews is editing now.

What they are doing is checking what Brews is doing, finding out that Brews is not editing the articles they have said Brews should edit (e.g. the article on Apple pie, making such suggestions to Brews is an act of incivility, i.m.o), instead they see that Brews is editing the essay I started WP:ESCA which they do not like, they get irritated and then they declare that to be disruptive behavior.

I hope that Arbcom would let engineering professor Brews edit in his area of expertise again asap. Note that fundamental physics is not his expertise and that this was a factor in the speed of light page. It would be a loss to Wikipedia if a retired Prof. cannot edit in his area of experise.

A note about Dicklyon. Dicklyon was editing together with Brews some articles in which Brews is an expert. There Dicklyon and Brews also did not go along. It could be that Arbcom chose Dicklyon's side in these conflicts, perhaps getting the impression that Brews is a physics crank. It was often Dicklyon who was behaving in an unreasonable way there, based on the physics. If you do not understand any physics and are a Wiki-Lawyer, then it may look like Dicklyon was behaving in a reasonable way.

E.g. what Dicklyon would often do was objecting to edits simply because he could not find a literal quote in a source using his text editor's search facility, while refusing to read/study the source. Collaborating with Dicklyon was extremely frustating to Brews. Dicklyon has continued to behave in this unreasonable way. Unfortunately, the Wiki rules allow Dicklyon to do this. Count Iblis (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reliance on WP:V is a typical way to push back on ideosyncratic original research. The rules don't just allow it, they encourage it. But it has never been about "a literal quote"; I did sometimes get impatient with reading his sources when he wouldn't point out where to find what he was referring to and I couldn't easily spot it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Brews never responded when I asked if I could address him by his real-life name; are you sure that's OK? Dicklyon (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brews has written an open letter to Jimbo Wales some time ago giving his real name and credentials. In fact, Headbomb argued that this open latter was itelf a infraction of his Arbcom restriction when he filed the AE last week.

About the "literal quotes" issue, I agree that if Brews edits a lot then it may be difficult to keep up. This domination of the talk pages was always the real problem. If we look at what Brews is doing now, then I don't see the relevance to that problem. After all, he is now collaborating with Michael C. Price, one of his strongest critics in the speed of light dispute. Count Iblis (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I would describe it as "collaborating". --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is not really causing any trouble there. You could easily let him write a new paragraph in the essay without causing much trouble. Can we say that about Jayjg? Count Iblis (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg is not topical. He isn't even remotely topical.--Tznkai (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of disruption or breaking topic ban ... what I see is a witch-hunt and it should stop or be stopped. When will it be realised that what ohare needs is a mentor not a block? And Tznkai, your restriction below and the way you refer to 'repeated violations' (or whatever) is outrageous ... he has done nothing wrong (verbosity and energy are hardly crimes) and is certainly not harming wp atm. Abtract (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And when it comes to the original problem that prompted the Arbcom case in the first place, i.e. trouble on the speed of light page, then we can all see that it is again a horrible mess over there. Dicklyon's attitude is absolutely not helpful there. I think all editors were reminded by Arbcom to behave, so perhaps Arbcom should look at the behavior of the current speed of light editors and see if some editors to be sanctioned.

I also question what Dicklyon's motivation to attack Brews is right now. On the speed of light page, you see Dicklyon arguing fanatically against doing a Kindergarten level unit conversion, because that would be OR in his opinion. At the same time, he is attacking the essay WP:ESCA which would allow this (after proper discussions on the talk page, of course). It is clear that he sees the essay as a threat to his editing philosophy, so perhaps he is doing what Jayjg did last week: Try to get one of the contributors of the essay kicked out of Wikipedia? Count Iblis (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that essay as a threat to WP:NOR. But I am not attacking Brews. And I don't think most Kindergarteners would be able to work out the conversion to the unsourced 186,282+39937⁄100584 miles per second. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brews ohare is restricted indefinitely from editing any page except for his own talk page, WP:AE responding to this thread, or the relevant arbitration discussion, OR to open a single thread on the administrator's message board of his choice contesting this decision. This is in lieu of a block for repeated violations of topic ban, misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, and also authorized under the general probation provision of the relevant Arbitration case. This will be revisited upon the closure of the relevant clarification thread.--Tznkai (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brews ohare, two things. One, this isn't a court, there herebys and such . Two, you've misunderstood the relevant procedures, opening a clarification does not exempt you in the meantime. If you'd prefer, I can block you outright, and a clerk will transcribe your comments for you on the necessary threads. That would after all, be a clearer example of well established procedure.--Tznkai (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has this action been accepted? Has this action been concluded with the statement above by Tznkai? Is an indefinite ban from WP actually allowed based upon one prosecuting administrator's notions? Shouldn't an independent non-involved administrator look at this? Shouldn't diffs and statements by other editors be considered? How is "indefinitely" identified, or is "forever" what is meant? The requested action was not a block but a clarification. Brews ohare (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A site ban is a sanction; the relevant arbitration case provides that a single administrator may sanction you for failing to abide by WP policies. Indefinitely in this case would extend for the year term of your probation. MBisanz ^talk 19:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of days ago I was put on restrictions by admin Future Perfect who in my humble opinion acted in controversial fashion. The story is as follows: I made a good faith edit in which I reverted some edit made by admin Future Perfect: [264] The revert was a minor one but I honestly didn't know you can't change name of city inside some quotes. It was a completely good faith mistake. But Future Perfect reacted by writing this long intimidatory rant on my talk page: [265] I was shocked by his tone and even more by the assumption of bad faith. Nevetheless I went to his talk and explained all those other edits he mentioned on my talk page and self-reverted the error I made. To my dismay the next day I arrived on wikipedia I see that apparently he followed me around and he put me on restrictions because of this, in my opinion perfectly valid, edit: [266] Apparently the big problem according to Future Perfect is I don't use edit summaries, well most editors in the area I edit don't use them too much either and singling me out seems weird to me.. but ok.

The problem is the restrictions itself:
"1. a 1R/24h on any page, with the following additional restrictions:
2. You must accompany every edit in content namespaces, no matter if it's a revert or not, with an informative edit summary.
3. You may make any revert only after providing an explanation for it on the talk page, and then waiting a minimum of 3 hours between the talk explanation and the actual revert to allow time for discussion."

I find this problematic because:
1) I don't understand at all why I have to be put on 1R/24H since both times I have made only one single edit one of which I even self-reverted. This is like as if a policeman would give a guy a speeding ticket for going over 50mph and then say well you haven't crossed the 50mph but I give a ticket anyway so you won't speed in the future.
2) I admit I did not use edit summaries enough and I have to improve there. However imposing me that I have to always use edit summaries seems really harsh because I make tons of edits and many are totally self-explanatory
3) That one is completely problematic. I almost never edit for 3 hours in row, so basically he's condemning me to have to make a comment on talk page and wait for the next day to revert. In the mean time the page might have 3 or 4 others edits so doing the revert I wanted to do is really complicated for me. I have also examined some of the sanctions Future Perfect issues to other editors and I have not seen this 3 hours thing applied even to most crazy edit warriors and I completely don't get why I have to be treated worse than them. (in comparison with them my block log is clean). Loosmark (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reverted more than once why the hell have I to be put on 1RR for 6 months ???? This is surreal. Loosmark (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"and to be fair, there's probably some truth to that" hear, hear. anyway I will state once again that I have not reverted more than once thus the 1RR imposed on me was and is totally unnecesary and I can't help but to think it was designed with the sole purpose to make me look like a problematic user. thus now the talk is that "I have to stay out of trouble" (even if there was no trouble - I did revert not more than once, and nobody complained about the lack of edit summary, nobody even noticed). Admin Future Perfect simply invented that there were problems. To make the whole story look worse the whole thing started with the reverting of German name of Polish city into Polish and dispute on German-Polish names cities where German admin Future Perfect shares the same POV as the German users. Many German users editing in the same area as me don't edit summaries, just like I didn't, and they don't even get a warning (why not?). Can I prepare a list of them and Future Perfect will put them on same restrictions as myself? He also accused me of "falsifying a source" even if I made a completely good faith error. Given that he was recently desyoped for 3 months, because of, among things, failure to asume good faith, it is all the more amazing that he's doing it again and fellow Admins pretend this didn't happen. Was I really trying to "falsify the source"? I have not falsified anything in my entire life. Was I reverting more than once? I wasn't, I made two single reverts one of each I even self-reverted. The is 1RR unnecesary and has to go. Loosmark (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the correct format to make your request in the future, the instructions are in the bright red box at the top of this page.

These restrictions are relatively mild, they are formalization of good editing practices every editor should follow, especially in contentious areas. From looking into your history, this is not coming totally out of the blue, you've been given ample warning that some sort of editing restriction would follow unless you changed behavior. I would suggest you abide by them for a reasonable amount of time, then ask Fut.Perf to remove them on the grounds of being unnecessary.

I'm not finding fault with Fut.Perf's actions in this case. henrik•talk 15:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain to me why do I have to be put on 1RR if I have not reverted more than once? Loosmark (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem Fut.Perf tries to solve is lack of communication, the 1RR remedy is a manner of trying to get you to discuss changes rather than doing unexplained reverts. Also, this is not the place for extended discussions. Should another admin feel that Fut.Perf has behaved unreasonably and that I am mistaken, they will post that here. henrik•talk 15:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the 1RR remedy is a manner of trying to get you to discuss changes rather than doing unexplained reverts. That doesn't make any sense. How can preventing me doing something I have not done encourage me to do anything? Loosmark (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Perhaps if you edit within these restrictions without any problems for a couple of months, the editors here would be inclined to consider modifying or lifting them. If, as you say, you never revert more than once in 24 hours anyway, you shouldn't find that a difficult or onerous condition to continue to edit under.

I presume that the 3-hour restriction is meanwhile designed to discourage the slow-motion edit warring that a one-revert-per-day restriction would otherwise allow. Further, it will ecnourage you to explain your edits and wait for input before reverting — an area where the diffs provided seem to suggest you do need improvement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if, as you say, you never revert more than once in 24 hours anyway, you shouldn't find that a difficult or onerous condition to continue to edit under. If I have not reverted more than once in 24 hours I simply should be put on 1RR in first place. Going by this logic we could for example put everybody who didn't revert more than once on 1RR and then say well you won't have problem being inside 1RR. Loosmark (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support Henrik's advice, and would also propose a fixed term, for example six months. I wonder if there was any reason for FP to restrict Loosmark on *all* articles, not just those subject to Digwuren. In my opinion, Loosmark should be able to appeal here to have the restriction lifted after three months. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdJohnston, could you please explain why I have to be put on a 1RR? Because I still don't get it. Loosmark (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re to Henrik bellow: Again what problems? There were no problems. You are trying to me paint me as a problematic user when clearly I am not. The only one who saw problems was Admin Future Perfect who "beat me down" with restriction awhile after I reverted him. (and that is a clear case of conflict of interests, since we both edited the article he should have called another admin to warn me and deal with me). I also have not reverted more than once and yet am I put on a 1 RR. I have now repeatedly asked Future Perfect why I need to be put on 1RR and he gives me no answer. I bet because there is no answer. Loosmark (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem, to quote from Fut.Perf.: I have now repeatedly seen you making contentious reverts without even the common courtesy of a minimally informative edit summary (e.g. [267], [268], [269], [270]. This, in itself, is disruptive, and I am therefore now officially warning you (again) to be more careful when making reverts, as you were already close to being sanctioned for disruptive revert-warring a few weeks ago.

Most areas of Wikipedia are not very contentious, but when you chose to edit areas which has longstanding historical problems you must meet a higher standard of conduct. The things that are merely good ideas elsewhere become essential to avoid unnecessary conflicts. One important aspect of that is to always explain your actions thoroughly. Reverting without discussing essentially says to the other editor "your edit was worthless, and not only was it worthless - it was so bad I can't be bothered to explain why". This leads to tons of unnecessary strife and bad blood, and can poison the atmosphere so that collaboration becomes impossible. That is why edit summaries and restricting reverts are essential. I hope I've both explained what the problem was and why (I think) Fut.Perf. chose these remedies. (Had you simply included edit summaries explaining why you did those reverts, I doubt you'd be here today) henrik•talk 18:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik are you even aware that the last time I tried to interect with the editor whom I reverted he told me to "go somewhere else"?[271]. As such don't you think that maybe I understandbly wasn't to motivated to explain him my revert? And another thing is that there are tons of German users who doesn't use edit summaries either but since they share Future Perfect's same POV he doesn't care to restric them. The reality of the matter is the following: my not using edit summaries caused no disruption and caused no other problems, nobody reported me anywhere, nobody even complained. It all of a sudden became a big problem moments after I reverted admin Future Perfect for which he accused me of "falsifying the source" no less, which is a colossal failure to asume good faith. Since somewhere bellow he mentioned his work in the Balkan area I think he forgot to mention this [272]. Seems sort of a deja-vu. And with all due respect you still haven't explained why I need to be put on 1RR, you only explained the edit summaries part. Loosmark (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just two notes: the thing about the three-hours waiting period may sound uncommon to some, but I've previously done the same thing in Balkans cases under WP:ARBMAC, and I find it works quite well in some cases. Second thing: as I already said on the ANI thread, it appears I forgot to place a fixed expiry date on this sanction. I'm quite open to have this modified: if other admins would prefer to limit this restriction to a fixed duration (like, 6 months or whatever), we can fix it here; otherwise, I intend to let it run for a few months and then lift it if Loosmark stays out of trouble. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What trouble? There was no trouble, nobody even complained about me. I didn't reverted more than once and you put me on a 1RR, you still haven't explained that one. Loosmark (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the emerging consensus here, I'll set an expiry date of 6 months and add a clarification that the limitation extends only to Eastern-Europe-related topics. My offer of lifting it earlier than that in case of good conduct stands, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you put me on a 1RR if have not reverted more than once? Loosmark (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I find no reason to overrule Fut.Perf. in this matter. We'll leave it open for a while longer to allow others to chime in though. (side note: Setting an expiration time of, say, 6 months might not be a bad idea - it's a more definite and easier to understand restriction. If any problems reoccur at that time, it can always be reinstated. If the only reason was that is was forgotten originally, we might as well take care of it here) henrik•talk 16:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with setting a time limit. An indefinite 1RR is rarely justified. 6 months seems OK; so would 3. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get involved in this since Loosmark considers me to be FutPerf's "buddy" and won't accept me as neutral (and to be fair, there's probably some truth to that), but just a reminder that he said himself that he'd be willing to lift it earlier for good behaviour. So if indeed you don't revert more than once, you should be able to get off your restriction fairly soon. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement:
2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2#Lapsed Pacifist restricted

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

1. [273] First revert on John Adams Project, made without discussion on the talk page which is required
2. [274] Second revert (see below for extended commentary as to why this is a revert in my opinion), made in less than a week which is a breach of the remedy, and again made without discussion on the talk page which is required
3. [275] Revert without discussion on the talk page. Although a talk page post was made, it would require extreme amounts of wikilawyering to argue that "I agree, we need an Indochina section" is actually discussing the revert being made and the merits or otherwise of it
4. [276] Revert to his own version, made without discussion on the talk page which is required
5. [277] Another revert made without discussion on the talk page which is required
6. [278] Another revert made without discussion on the talk page which is required

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Admin discretion

Additional comments by 2 lines of K₃₀₃:
Brief explanation of why I believe the second revert on John Adams Project qualifies. The edit is an attempt to claim that the people being held at Guantanamo Bay are internees. This is basically the same as the first edit and first revert, regardless of the fact it's being added to a different sentence. Adding that they were internees is still a revert in my opinion, especially as claiming they are resulted in the first two edits being reverted.

There are more diffs which show Lapsed Pacifist is ignoring his editing restrictions, but I believe the above should be sufficient. Lapsed Pacifist has a long history of ignoring such restrictions, as evidenced by the four blocks he received for violating his topic ban from the first arbitration case. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[279]

I have already left LP a gentle reminder about their conduct as part of this post. This went unanswered. From the last RfAR LP was restricted to a 1RR which they have been technically keeping to but may not been honoring the spirit of the sanction. This diff shows a second revert just barely outside the 7 day restriction period. The RfAR also required a discussion of reversions which as can be seen from LPs contribution hasn't happened with the exception of one revert where they reintroduced a picture back into the lead of article, that was designed to show an anti-US POV and had no context (ie pic is of My Lai Massacre and there was no section on Vietnam in article). Coming from RfAR:-

• LP was encouraged to use edit summaries, there has been no change of behaviour in this area. LP used confrontational edit summaries in the past and has done so again since this being raised as an issue.
• Personal attacks were also raised and LP was reminded to comment on content and not the contributor but has breached that here.
• LP was topic banned from for introduction of POV material, Original research, and soapboxing in support of a campaign group they are involved with. They have been petitioning on talk pages of related articles for introduction of material [280], [281]. In this example they have named a Garda Siochana Superintendent as being subject of a disciplinary procedure on a talk page, despite them not being named in the ref supplied. This was advocating a breach of WP:V and was OR. I also considered the comment to be a BLP breach and renamed the thread.
• LP was subject of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist which had an outcome of a topic ban on articles relating to the conflict in Northern Ireland. The Irish section of this diff contains edits which I believe is again pushing the bounds of what is acceptable under the previous RfAR. LP admits on their userpage that at least one of the articles which is linked would be an article that Admins could interpret them being topic banned on. Their last block was related this sort of behaviour and was the fourth for violation of sanctions.

It should be noted that during their last RfAR, LP didn't make much input. Despite editing actively throughout the time it was open LP neglected to enter a statement or to contribute in any meaningful way apart from rebuttal of one set of evidence. LP made no response at all to the last RfE. LPs behaviour has shown they have scant regard for wikipedias process. One Night in Hackney has asked for enforcement to be at admins discretion which I agree with. I would also ask that LP be required to make much better use of edit summaries and for clarification of what is or isn't acceptable on talk pages of topic banned articles. GainLine ♠ _♥ 20:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first thoughts (and it may not be supported by the AE stuff, since that is 1 week, up to the 5th, which can be 1 year, but I consider it discretionary, since he has a history of violating topic restriction, having violated the OTHER topic restriction he is under four times so far), that Lapsed Pacifist is a strong net negative to this project, not interested in collaborative encyclopedia building. Two ArbCom cases against him (with repeated findings that he was an edit warrior, etcetera). No participation in his most recent ArbCom, indeed edit warring his way into a two week block during it. If I had the decision here, it would to block him for a month or so as a result of the AE report, and possibly open an AN/ANI report into an indefinite block and/or community ban. I will not take action due to appearances of bias (being the person who handled the LAST AE report for him), but will support any such items per above. SirFozzie (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I share Fozzie's sense of frustration with LP, I'm leaning towards a 1-week block, partially because of the ArbCom ruling, and partially because the 2nd revert is borderline. PhilKnight (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that LP was required by ArbCom to discuss any content reversions on the talk page. I'm not seeing that from him either. 19:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs)

Indeed. Although I acknowledge myself the 1RR breach is somewhat borderline, the lack of discussion of reverts isn't. The restriction says "Should Lapsed Pacifist exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below", so that seems pretty clear cut to me. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, this was auto-archived. Can someone take care of this, please? Sad to see it fall off the table. SirFozzie (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) It seems this may be left because of the time lapse but before this is closed could we have clarification as what is acceptable on the talk pages of topic banned articles? LP is continuing to try and push their agenda on talk pages. Also this edit made today is another example of pushing the limits of what may or may not acceptable from the remedy at their first RfAR. I would really appreciate input an the talk page matter. Thanks GainLine ♠ _♥ 17:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the edits GainLine has pointed out, as well as his unxplained revert here, I think that these are new violations of his restrictions (not just the revert one, but the requirement that he fully discuss all content reversions before doing them. Tznkai, would you take a hard look at these? (My thoughts is until such time as he responds to the community's concerns, that he be indefblocked) SirFozzie (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC) SirFozzie (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the situation, I would urge some consideration of past behaviour, and not just behaviour at this point in time. Simply stopping editing for a short period of time and expecting to avoid consequences doesn't and shouldn't work. It's not that easy, and it doesn't work that way in the real world. Lapsed Pacifist has repeatedly tried to game the system, and is pushing the boundaries as far as he can. This situation needs to be looked at and appropriate sanctions may need to be looked at, though perhaps ANI might be a better option? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to echo Steve and SirFozzies sentiments. Its not like the current behaviour is something new here and its not even a gradual slip back into old ways. LP has resumed from where they have left off from before their last RfAR. Despite remedies designed to help them steer clear of trouble, they have pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable and indeed past it in not discussing reversions as well as continuing to seek the razors edge of acceptability from their first RfAR. If anything behaviour has deteriorated even further in failing to engage in any meaningful with communication attempts. GainLine ♠ _♥ 13:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up - Lapsed Pacifist has violated his topic ban here, right after his block expired, and has clearly a) Edited an article related to Corrib gas, which he is indefinitely topic banned from. He also made this revert without discussing issues on the talk page. There have been other incidents which will be elaborated on by another editor. Perhaps further measures need to be taken? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no ambiguity about this, the article in question is part of the Category:Corrib gas controversy. There's no way at all this could be construed as taking "broadly defined" to its limits. The edit itself is a prime example of problems LP created during the height of the dispute on Corrib gas articles. I.E, a straight revert citing POV as the reason.

LP returned from their block to create this article: Afri (organisation). On the face of it, not a problem but a quick google search reveals they are involved in campaigning against the Corrib gas project. Its even on the front page of their website to which a link is provided. IMO it was created in the hope another editor will come along in the future to add details on the Corrib gas controversy and is in effect soapboxing by proxy. Next up LP picks up where they left off in this edit war. This edit while not in breach of any remedies, is pushing the boundaries again and considering they have been topic banned for conducting a campaign against a gas pipeline, its certainly against the spirit of the remedy. Its incredible that all this has come on the day they have returned from a block.

The actions of this user aren't those of someone trying to reform their behaviour and it seems the the remedies of the last RfAR are not working in modifying LPs approach. Instead LP is gaming the injunction and continuing to push the limits of what they can get away with. The frustration that comes from being involved with LP is making itself apparent. I'd ask Tznkai to have a closer look at LPs history here. 2 blocks in 3 days and a number of other edits that push the limits of acceptability show a continued pattern of disruptive behaviour that as both Steve and SirFozzie have alluded to, needs something more to address. GainLine ♠ _♥ 12:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to those mentioned above, there's also this edit which is an undiscussed revert to reinstate an edit made previously. So within 18 hours of being unblocked after a violation of his restrictions, LP managed yet another undiscussed revert, one unambiguous violation of his topic ban relating to the Corrib gas project and one reasonably clear violation of the same topic ban. When you add that to the repeated violations of his first topic ban (arguably five if you believe the first 24 hour block should include his violation of that topic ban in addition for violating his revert restriction), the evidence is pretty clear. LP doesn't intent to abide by any of his restrictions, so I'd suggest if his next block can't be an indef then it's time for a community ban. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor brought up this diff at the ANI on Lapsed Pacifist this morning. They believe it is breaching the resolution of their first RfAR:-

Lapsed Pacifist banned from affected articles

1) Lapsed Pacifist is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland.''

The article contains details of two IRA bombings. GainLine ♠ _♥ 15:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Going to lean towards declining as stale, LP doesn't seem to be editing all that much, and I had been under the impression that someone had handled this several days ago. I'll act immediately next time, presuming I'm online.--Tznkai (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a huge fan of the sanction structure here, but LP has ignored a point blank request to follow the very reasonable requests of his remedy, and has been blocked for 24 hours. I will note for the record that while ignoring communications and reports will delay my actions, it will also encourage me to do them in the end. Will log tomorrow.--Tznkai (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 72 hrs following unambiguous topic ban violation. This is getting irritating.--Tznkai (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion seems to be continuing at AN/I [282]. , I note that this was the 6th violation, and arb com specified for up to one year is this case--I think that such might have been a more appropriate length, as i commented at AN/I. This is beyond the level of irritating. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the 6th violation - the first case has four, and second case has two, but are we supposed to combine them? If so why did ArbCom create separate logs? PhilKnight (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the reason I suggested to GainLine that he create the ANI thread and seek community sanctions. We have an editor who basically ignores just about every attempt to engage (no comments at all to his second RfArb, and indeed blocked for violating the first ARbCom case sanction while being sanctioned for edit warring in a different area. SirFozzie (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<--I have come here from the ANI. In the past I crossed swords with LP. I did not know that LP was subject to a Arbcom ruling until I read the ANI, but it does explain why over the last few months the edits by LP, that I have seen on pages I watch, have been much more constructive. I am sorry to see that LP has been edit warring over the John Adams Project article (even if it is slowed down by adhering to the letter of the ruling). A one week ban is not long enough given that LP is in a one revert a week cycle. I would suggest a longer one. But given that LP has made many constructive edits over the last few months, I would suggest that it be two weeks. I also propose that he must gain majority support on the talk page before reverting to a previous sentence that he writes or alters in an article. --Making such rules explicit makes it easier to police. Any breach of this or any other condition should earn LP a longer ban than two weeks, say double. It is our intention here to allow editors to lean by their mistakes, and given the positive contribution I think that LP is making to other articles, I think the restrictions are by an large working, so I do not think that a year ban at this time is appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussion on a Request for Clarification, I've elected to suspend my previous restriction on Brews ohare and replace it with the following:

Brews ohare is indefinitely restricted from editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. (Exceptions listed below) Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to begin, or comment on physics related content, disputes stemming from physics-related content, meta-discussion or meta-content (policy, guidelines, essays, polls, RfCs and the like) concerning the editing of scientific topics in general, or physics in particular, or the recognition of minority views. As always, there a recognized exception for Arbitration proceedings concerning the Brews ohare (up to the discretion of the Arbitration Committee and appropriate clerks), as well as as the natural exception for responding to administrative threads seeking to sanction Brews ohare, as well as participating in Arbitration related elections and election discussions. This sanction will be reviewed in two weeks.

In case anyone cares, authority supporting this action stems from the general probation remedy. The new restriction and suspension of the previous one has been recorded in the case log.--Tznkai (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9) Pedrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in
the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating
in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.