Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mo ainm (talk | contribs) at 09:31, 22 June 2016 (→Request concerning Rms125a@hotmail.com: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Debresser

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Debresser

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jerusalem (I understand Im linking to an RFC here, however that RFC was mandated by ArbCom and is binding through July 9, 2016, and this topic area is covered by discretionary sanctions

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

1. 7 June 2016 Revert in violation of binding RFC

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 15 March 2016.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There was a binding RFC on claims to Jerusalem being capital of Israel and Palestine and its location that was mandated by the Arbitration Committee (Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jerusalem). That RFC resulted in the material currently in the lead of the Jerusalem article and per the Arbitration Committee is binding for three years. A user added material to the lead that violated that RFC, was reverted, which was also reverted. This was prior to any talk page discussion. I reverted that final revert and opened a talk page section detailing why (here, with the user I had reverted agreeing that the material shouldnt be included. Debresser then ignores the binding RFC and re-reverts, writing in the talk page Sourced, relevant, neutrally worded. The Rfc is expiring. The Rfc avoided the issue. All in all, ample reason to keep this addition. By the way, is there anything you think is wrong with the text, apart from bureaucratic arguments? When Debresser was reverted he or she posted to that users talkpage that their revert was "hothead revert" (here). Im not quite sure why this user thinks that binding means something other than all users have to follow this, but a reminder is surely in order.

Re the idea that this is a personal issue, no, not at all. Debresser is the only one to have reverted following the explanation that the material violated a binding RFC. And when asked to revert declined to do so. And then complained when somebody reverted him or her. Debresser's comment on the talk page of that article implied that he or she felt that a binding RFC did not apply to him or her. That is what brought me here. nableezy - 00:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Debresser, I guess an edit summary that says the RFC is expiring in a month, a comment on the talk page saying the edit should stand, a comment on the talk page of the person that reverted you calling their revert hotheaded, those things dont lead to the reasonable conclusion that a. you knew that you were prohibited from making said edit due to a binding revert, b. didnt care, and c. wouldnt self-revert. Silly me, where could I have possibly gotten that idea. You know what I find disruptive? Editors thinking the rules that apply to everybody else dont apply to them. Editors who knowingly revert against a consensus (thats what an RFC determines fyi). Basically, you. nableezy - 21:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@OID, I object to that edit on a number of grounds. However, the rule breaking is what is relevant on this board for a topic area that is covered under discretionary sanctions. Bright line rules only work if when somebody breaks them there isnt hand waving about well its only a technicality.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Debresser

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Debresser

Nableezy seems to have a personal issue with me, because of the three editors who made this same edit, I am the only one he is reporting. Nableezy has a huge POV in the I/P-conflict area, and we have conflicted on many articles already. He is now trying to fight his personal vendetta against me through the editors at WP:AE. I think that is fair reason to dismiss this report. Recently he engaged in an edit wat at Ancient synagogues in Palestine, for which I decided not to report him. I am disappointed that he should repay me in this way.

As to the actual matter at hand, I think Talk:Jerusalem#addition_to_the_lead is where the discussion is taking place, and where I have made my arguments, and have already stated, that I will not challenge the Rfc, which stands till July 9. At the same time, I think the issue will have to be re-visited in the near future, if only to avoid edit wars, blocks and a lot of bad blood, and the proposed edit is a very good NPOV candidate, summing up the issue well and along the same lines as the Rfc.

In short, I think this report should boomerang back on Nableezy for the blatant personal motives behind this report, as well as his own recent WP:ARBPIA violations on "Ancient synagogues in Palestine".Debresser (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnson The 9 July date comes from counting 3 years after the Rfc reached a conclusion. Debresser (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nableezy No need to say things you can't possibly know. I didn't refuse to revert. Somebody else reverted my edit even before I read your post on my talkpage. You continue with your bad faith assumptions, viewing Misplaced Pages as a battlefield, and me as the enemy. I find this attitude of yours disruptive. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@GoldenRing I know it is not advised to antagonize editors here, but I don't understand what further "backing down" is needed, after I have already stated both here and on the talkpage that I will not challenge the status quo? You did read my posts here and on the talkpage, didn't you? Debresser (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC) @GoldenRing In view of the above, neither do I understand what you claim I am "doubling down on". Debresser (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@GoldenRing The Rfc specifically states that the consensus reached in it is binding only for a 3-year period. There is no rule on Misplaced Pages that an Rfc is needed to establish consensus, including to establish if there has been a change of consensus. A simple talkpage discussion, or even a bold edit that is accepted by the community, per definition can establish a new consensus. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by OID

Ed, dates from RFC's are always taken from the closure of an RFC as that is the point at which consensus has been determined by the closer. There would be no point in a fixed for 3 years consensus being valid until the actual consensus was determined. Saying that, it would still be up in a month anyway, so suggest close with trouts for everyone. Nableezy, if you have to rely on technical rule-breaking to revert an edit, rather than addressing the substance of the edit, it tends to get peoples backs up. 'Would this edit be controversial in a months time?' should be the question you ask yourself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by GoldenRing

I think Timoetheus has the right of it here; RfCs do not expire as such. Consensus can change, but the right way to go about changing consensus established in an RfC is a new RfC, not gung-ho edits to the article before the time limit established by the RfC has even expired and especially not in an article as contentious as this one. I suggest User:Debresser backs down and apologises and we let this lie; if not, sanctions are probably appropriate. GoldenRing (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: Consensus is always binding. It doesn't expire. I read the three-year limit in that RfC as essentially the same as a moratorium on further discussion. But however you read it, the essential point is that it hasn't expired. Of course it doesn't take an RfC to establish consensus - but when one has been held, a change made without any discussion whatsoever doesn't cut it. Since you're doubling down on this, I can't see what else to recommend but sanctions. GoldenRing (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia

Consensus-wise, where things will probably now turn ugly is that there are perceptions among some editors that consensus is established by carrying out a show of hands and that personal opinions, rather than the contents of reliable sources, establish what is factual and what is neutral.     ←   ZScarpia   17:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Debresser

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

• The original Arbcom motion was passed on December 27, 2012. It provided that the ban on changing the lead of Jerusalem 'will be binding for three years from the adoption of this motion'. To me, that implies December 27, 2015, so the freeze on changing the lead has already expired. The RfC closers stated that 'this decision is binding for three years' on 9 July, 2013 but I don't see that the closers were given authority to change the date specified in Arbcom's own motion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• Ed makes an interesting point. I do not recall any discussion about it, but then when we passed the appointments motion I don't think any of us expected the process to take half a year to conclude.

  That said, in my view, even after the three-year period ends, the conclusions reached in the RFC remain consensus until and unless the existence of a different consensus is demonstrated, and until then edits that are substantially contrary to those conclusions remain sanctionable under DS for failure to "comply with all applicable policies and guidelines" and "follow editorial and behavioural best practice" (see WP:AC/DS#guide.expect). T. Canens (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• If we accept T. Canens' view, we should place a new banner on the talk page of Jerusalem. We should tell editors they are risking a block if they change the lead away from the 2013 RfC version before such time as a different consensus is demonstrated. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• It appears that extending the freeze at Jerusalem is an option that is within our power, under discretionary sanctions. See WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms where the committee is still considering a parallel issue regarding GMO. See the comments by User:Salvio giuliano and User:Drmies in that ARCA, though not everyone agrees with them. Why not keep this Jerusalem-related AE open until the ARCA finishes, and see if we want to propose something for Jerusalem. We could make a DS stating that the wording of the Jerusalem lead is still frozen until a new RfC is held. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I have reopened the thread, because that request for clarification has been dealt with. As I said there, as far as I'm concerned, a restriction along the lines of that one would be a cromulent use of DS. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Rms125a@hotmail.com

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mo ainm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages: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. 22:15, 16 June 2016 First revert, of what was in my opinion a correct and constructive edit, with no explanation in edit summary
2. 02:41, 17 June 2016 Second revert, rather hypocritically saying "undo unexplained changes -- pls explain in edit summary or on the article talk page" when he himself made no effort to explain what he considered to be wrong with the initial edit

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 11:09, 22 March 2015 Previously sanctioned for Troubles related disruption

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 12:35, 17 February 2014 by Thryduulf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Mabuska's claims are baseless accusations possibly deserving sanction. That is not vandalism, neither is that, or that, or that, or that, or that, and that request was clearly not vandalism. Mo ainm~Talk 11:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting that Mabuska and OID have decided in their wisdom that RMS was reverting vandalism or biased editing when this wasn't stated by RMS in any edit summary. Mo ainm~Talk 12:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The edit I have said is reasonable was this one, and according to Mabuska "I strongly disagree with that interpretation, especially as DanceHallCrasher's edits show a clear bias that denigrates articles". The edit is reasonable as at no place in the article did "volunteer" ever link to "volunteer", and the article had an inconsistent acronym usage with IRA used for the majority of the time and a couple of uses of PIRA. All the edit did was add a needed wikilink and standardize acronym usage, that is emphatically not demonstative of "a clear bias that denigrates articles". Mo ainm~Talk 12:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Rms your first edit summary in its totality was "(Undid revision 725615867 by DanceHallCrasher (talk))" Your second edit summary in its totality was "(Undid revision 725635554 by DanceHallCrasher (talk) undo unexplained changes -- pls explain in edit summary or on the article talk page)" Perhaps you can explain in which of those you "clearly stated what my concerns with the edits in question were" as I don't see it? Mo ainm~Talk 11:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Rms since when is filing a report of a breach of 1RR harassment? Love the battlefield mentality that you are showing, suppose you got lucky because no admins came to this report for days but as soon as @Newyorkbrad says what he says you personally attack me and accuse me of harassment. Mo ainm~Talk 21:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Rms on what article have I breached 1RR? Also why should I AGF when you have history? Mo ainm~Talk 23:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Like you AGF when you accused me of harassment? Mo ainm~Talk 23:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

A lack of action by admins here should not be seen as an endorsement if that was the case then the lack of action has essentially told editors that 1RR is no longer in place. Mo ainm~Talk 09:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification

Discussion concerning Rms125a@hotmail.com

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Rms125a@hotmail.com

This is trivial nonsense, in my opinion, and an abuse of process. I clearly stated what my concerns with the edits in question were and asked the editor in question to "pls explain in edit summary or on the article talk page", as that was something he/she had not done. I don't know how I am "hypocritical" in this regard as my edits are self-explanatory, those of @Mo ainm were/are not self-explanatory or transparent. PIRA and IRA are not identical and his/her reasons for changing them were my concern. Perhaps, in retrospect, I should have requested an explanation sooner and on @Mo ainm's talk page rather than via edit summary, and if so, I acknowledge my error in this regard.

This entire reporting action, however, is over the top and unwarranted. My edits were minimal in nature and dealt with the same narrow issue of acronyms. @Mo ainm had more than ample opportunities to de-escalate and explain why he was making these edits, given that it is related to a topic that can be extremely contentious, and thus seemingly innocuous but unexplained edits can take on greater importance than they perhaps deserve. This is a tempest in a teapot over trivia, IMO, a form of harassment and a patently obvious attempt to try to get me barred from editing on any Troubles-related theme.Quis separabit? 23:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

"Rms since when is filing a report of a breach of 1RR harassment?" -- well, since you violated 1RR yourself, the best you can hope for from this bad faith overreach is a Pyrrhic victory. Quis separabit? 23:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, it was User:DanceHallCrasher that violated WP:1RR. And we all have to abide by AGF. BTW: nobody who has edited for a decade or more has not garnered a "history". I did not coincide my comments with @Newyorkbrad's comments as I was composing my thoughts when he left his message and I didn't see it until afterwards (see ). Quis separabit? 23:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I got "lucky"?? Has any other editor endorsed your version of events? Perhaps no admins got involved because the MO is tiresome and trivial. Quis separabit? 00:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because AGF extends only so far and you wrought this over-reaction (the most generous time I can think of) on me. Had I done the same over the same trivialities then I would not expect you to AGF, either. Quis separabit? 00:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Mabuska

Obviously Rms should have engaged in discussion with the editor over the edit after they reinserted their challenged edit, however the key point to remember is whether they were reverting vandalism, whichnis exempt from the Troubles restrictons. Looking at the edits of the editor in question, they do edit with a POV and agenda that is quite similar to Mo ainm's, which explains why Mo ainm sees their edit as reasonable, however I strongly disagree with that interpretation, especially as DanceHallCrasher's edits show a clear bias that denigrates articles. The reverting of such bias can be classified as reverting vandalism. Though that doesn't excuse the lack of discussion on DanceHallCrasher's edit. ThisMabuska 11:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your statement, however to clarify I should of stated "in Rms' view can be classified", or rather "to some, can be classified", though I'd more argue that they are instead POV pushing edits. Mabuska 16:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

A question for Mo ainm... why didn't you simply ask Rms to self-revert due to 1rr and/or asking for a proper explanation from them before going straight to here? More dialogue and less jumping the gun should have been the the way to go rather than knee-jerk reporting an editor who has a different POV to your own. Mabuska 00:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by OID

Just to correct Mabuska, WP:Vandalism is very clear on what is not vandalism. The relevant section would be here. Biased/POV editing is explicitly not vandalism and anyone reverting non-neutral edits *in the belief* they are reverting vandalism, needs to be corrected. (Due to the lack of discussion/edit summaries there is no indication Rms125a was using 'vandalism' as an excuse, even if they were it would not be valid) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

I only know Quis Separabit? because (s)he was the only editor I've come across as I plugged away on the obscure details of the I/P conflict, involving a tediously long list, who took the trouble to check minutely my sources, and edits, often finding slips that escaped what I thought was my close scrutiny. That is the only conflict of interest I have here. I like meticulous editors, even, perhaps esp.if, their precision causes me woe (making me pull my finger the extra inch). Under the Ir rules for this area, we read:-

Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.

DanceHallCrasher started editing 10 days ago in this POV minefield and has made 22 edits, mostly with a redlinked handle. Though Don't bite the newbie has some relevance, the editor has all the appearance of an anonymous IP. To date they have only 3 talk page comments, and not on the Dolours Price page.In the equally tough I/P area, we have a rule that only editors with 500 edits elsewhere and at least a month on wiki can work there, otherwise such editors can be reverted without regard to the 1R rule. Something like that seems to apply here, though it is not policy. So I think Quis Separabit's revert can be read as reasonable, since the status of DanceHallCrasher is virtually indistinguishable functionally from an anonymous IP, and, by analogy with the other slough of despond, pop-up editors coming in out of the blue to make edits and then revert experienced editors who revert them, do look like handy extras throwing their brief weight in to support the POV of one of the two sides. I think therefore the complaint is trivial, and should be dismissed. AE is a court of last recourse for editors suffering extreme exasperation from obstinate abusers, not a trip-wire to be used for advantage (no doubt this is not the case here, but one should avoid giving even the appearance of frivolity).Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Valenciano

If we are going to go down the road of blocks, this SPI is relevant. Reverts of sockpuppets do not breach WP:1RR. Valenciano (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment/question by Beyond My Ken

Where are the usual AE-patrolling admins? Has everyone gone on vacation/holiday to Mexico/the south of France? BMK (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rms125a@hotmail.com

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

• I don't perceive that any action is required here (especially since the report is now a few days old and no further issues have been raised). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)