Arbitration enforcement archives .mw-parser-output .hlist dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul{margin:0;padding:0}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt,.mw-parser-output .hlist li{margin:0;display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ul{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist .mw-empty-li{display:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dt::after{content:": "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li::after{content:" · ";font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li:last-child::after{content:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:first-child::before{content:" (";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:last-child::after{content:")";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol{counter-reset:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li{counter-increment:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li::before{content:" "counter(listitem)"\a0 "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li ol>li:first-child::before{content:" ("counter(listitem)"\a0 "}.mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}v t e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334

User:Chrisjnelson[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

User blocked by Durova for one week. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson. I was involved with a discussion with Chris at Talk:Michael Vick about the way that we should list information in the infobox. Chris was asking me some hypothetical questions about how to do the infobox if certain things happen in the situation. I kindly told him that I didn't feel the need to respond to hypothetical questions because that wasn't something we need to concern ourselves with at the present time. He continued to ask me the same hypothetical questions, to which I continued to respond by saying that there was no need to respond to them at the present time. In this edit, he made what I viewed as a personal attack, which is against the ruling of the ArbCom (personal attacks aren't allowed anyway, but this was outlined in the ruling).

Also, recently, Chris made this edit at User talk:Durova, yet another personal attack. Ksy92003(talk) 02:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I believe that the block was implemented before I submitted this report. Ksy92003(talk) 03:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Durova doesn't mess around! :) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Zeq - edit warring, tendentious editing, removing sourced content, reverting under Wikipedia:article probation[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Stale. Please bring new reports in a new section. Thatcher131

Zeq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Allegations of Israeli Apartheid is a frequent site of edit warring, and the subject of a current ArbCom matter.

user:Zeq is subject to the terms of probation:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq#Zeq banned from articles he has disrupted and placed on Probation states that "Zeq is banned indefinitely from 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Palestinian exodus, and is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans and the reasons for them to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq#Log of blocks and bans."

Also, Zeq was warned as part of the same decision:

3) Zeq is cautioned to avoid removing information backed by reliable scholarly sources.

The article had seen little editing in the few days previous to this edit by Zeq. After being reverted, Zeq's reverts in a two step edit (making the revert harder to see: [1] [2]. He edit wars over a fact tag: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Tendentiously edits: [8] [9] Removes sourced material, and wars over it: [10] with a misleading edit summary

At the same time time he was reverting, Zeq did open a new section on the talk page. However,

I have yet to see any of the reverters addersing the issue raised here on talk. Please use talk instead of just trying to win by being a larger group of reverters

understandably did not lead to any sort of cooling off/discussion. The page was just fully protected.

Could an admin look this over and see if in fact this is a violation of Zeq's probation? Jd2718 01:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is a very problematic article. The issues were raised on talk (by at least 3 editors) and there was absolutly no response (until the protection) to the issue raised. The article is now protected in the version that the reverts wanted it so they have no incentive to engage in talk.

2. Accusation that I used misleading edit summary are foundless: the article was tagged with "too many quotes" for month and I have revoved (in an NPOV fashion) quotes from both sides that were not eneclopedic making the artiocle a bit readable.

3. I have tagged some claims in the lead with a {fact} tag - but instead of providing source the reverters removed the tag.

all together, what takes place in this article is relativly minor, it is unfortunate that instead of tryong to help resolve the issues (I don't think the disagreement is so large) there is only intervention to protect it. Instead I suggest that all participants will be encourage to use talk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Concerns_with_lead_paragraphs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Policy_analysis_section_--_lead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Accuracy

Zeq 05:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I pose the question to you that you have thus far refused to answer...how is it that you think you can swoop in and delete a section of the article without discussion, and when others reverse that you demand that they discuss that reversal first? Tarc 12:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Reverting#Do. You [Tarc] should discuss the edit rather than just jumping right into reverting it. Yahel Guhan 17:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq's wholesale content deletion without discussion amounts to simple vandalism, and can and should be reverted until he provides justification. But this ANI report isn't about me, so unless you plan to file a separate one, try to keep focus. Tarc 00:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, you are the one that reverted, you are the one that should provide justification. I have explained very clearly that the article included too many quotes (it was tagged this way for 5 months) and since there was no known objection I deleted some quotes. Stop calling good faith edits "vandalism" - this is something you do ofetn and you were requated to appologize. I suggest next time when you object an edit you discuss it on talk and appologize those you call vandals. Zeq 04:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe much justification is required to restore sourced content. Tarc 18:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Anyeverybody[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Anyeverybody was blocked by Geogre.

Please see this edit for Anyeverybody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly User:Anynobody) focusing negative attention on me (User:Justanother) in violation of the "harassment ban" imposed as a condition of the COFS arbitration. Anyeverybody is turning a discussion on sourcing and verbage into an attack on me. Please see decision and related remedies and enforcement. --Justanother 02:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was actually the edit, provided for easy access to the links within:

If you feel harassed, then report it to the arbcom, but you haven't been very helpful in resolving the disputes here. Almost from the start you have displayed a negative attitude and not observed WP:AGF. (This despite insisting we all do so toward you. Q:...would you please provide a better link? A:WP:AGF my friend....)
You've made irrelevant comments about points to other editors. And all but refused to commit to any position, as this response which ignored the issue at hand helps illustrate. Yet another example was provided after I asked a reasonable question to help resolve the Personality section issue, you also ignored.

The point being made is that he is not really trying resolve disputes, either by ignoring simple questions to gain a consensus or adding remarks which are unrelated to the issues at hand. Anynobody 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It continues in direct violation of the terms of the arbitration in which Anyeverybody is subject to increasing blocks for making negative comments about me is various forums. It continues in this forum right here with his trying to remake his case against me above and it continues at Talk:L. Ron Hubbard with comments such as "As to the negativity aspect, it brings me no joy to point out behavior which disrupts the discussion here." It brings him "no joy" but he violates the spirit and letter of the arbitration anyway. --Justanother 13:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin response II[edit]

Hi, Anynobody, I understand that it's difficult, for you and Justanother both, to completely leave each other alone on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard, since you both edit the article. This is how I understand the situation: both of you may discuss any article edits on the talkpage, including the edits of one another. But here's the thing: you don't get to comment on Justanother. Don't "make points" about him such as "the point is being made that he is not really trying resolve disputes, either by ignoring simple questions to gain a consensus or adding remarks which are unrelated to the issues at hand." Make points about specific edits only. Don't start talking about Justanother's "attitude", or anything remotely like that. This is the only warning you'll get, and you're only getting it because I'm willing to assume that you genuinely haven't grasped the difference. But I hope it's starting to get through, with the help of this example of what is not acceptable. The next time I see an edit like "If you feel harassed..." from you, it'll be block time. Here's how to avoid that: just stay a long way away from discussing Justanother and you'll be fine. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In order to keep things simple let's discuss your answer tomy earlier question before going into this one. Anynobody 20:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hkelkar[edit]

Behenuir (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of banned user Hkelkar, going by the set of articles edited and the nature of the edits - mostly undiscussed reverts in support of a Hindutva pov or on Timeline of antisemitism. Doldrums 12:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've requested a checkuser here for Behenuir. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, fails the duck test. Obviously a troll even if the checkuser does come back negative for some reason. Probably is Hkelkar, but IMO a lot gets pinned on him that may not be his fault. Moreschi ^Talk 19:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makthusian (talk · contribs)
Townsman (talk · contribs) sock created by Makthusian.
Benjamin P. Holder (talk · contribs) not active since October 8. Doldrums 14:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parishan[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

The difficulty with evaluating a report like this is that it is impossible to say for certain whether this was an act of intentional disruption without being an expert in the topic and making a content decision. That it was an intentional act of disruption to make a point is certainly one reasonable explanation, and I think a word of caution is in order. Parishan has not continued with these edits after being reverted, so there does not seem to be a current problem. In looking more broadly at the dispute, I notice that New York City does not include in the first sentence New Amsterdam, and that Beijing lists alternative current names but has a separate section for historical names. The naming guidelines here state, Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution. I am not an expert, but it appears that this instruction and the linked guideline suggest that the article header should only include widely used common current alternate names for the place in question. Historic names and names that are not widely used could be included in the body of the article with appropriate references when the name is controversial. The guideline suggests that to determine whether a name is "widely used" one might consult Google Scholar, international news services, LexisNexis, and other similar sources. Disputes should be discussed on the individual talk pages. You could attempt to holder a broader conversation on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Thatcher131 01:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parishan is an involved party to both Armenia-Azerbaijan arbcom cases and has been wikipedian since July, 2004. After I rightfully added Armenian and Persian names to the Ganja article[11]. The city was part of the Persian Empire and the name itself has Persian origin. The city has had a significant Armenian history, was part of ~~Greater Armenia~~ Kingdom of Armenia, number of notable Armenians are from there etc... After seeing my edit Parishan added the Azeri name to every Armenian city.

His phobia of Armenian language was covered in the last arbcom case[12] when he searched the word Armenian and added the Azeri just because Armenian was there. His not Assuming Good Faith, his making a [[WP:Point]|Point]] and retaliating, non of which are constructive. VartanM 08:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long standing dispute with Armenian users, who keep on adding Armenian names to Azerbaijani towns and places and remove Azerbaijani names from Armenian places. See for example Syunik, where Azerbaijani name was completely erased, even though I added it back in 2006 [13] I think there should be some sort of a decision made as to whether Armenian names should be included to Azerbaijani places and vice versa. Otherwise this dispute has no end. I even filed an RFC back in April 2006 with regard to this issue, see: [14] Unfortunately it generated no interest. I don't think Parishan violated any rule by his edits, but there's a naming dispute that needs to be addressed. Grandmaster 10:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth mentioning that VartanM reverted all the above edits of Parishan and removed Azerbaijani names from all those articles without any discussion. Such massive reverting also requires attention. Grandmaster 11:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that VartanM added a name to one city by which it has been known throughout most of its history. So obviously that name is relevant. Parishan retaliated by violating WP:POINT and WP:AGF with an overkill, adding names with no history or relevance to a plethora of articles.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a great surprise to meet like a false claim. VartanM is shooting his heel at nomination paragraph;Ganja..has had a significant Armenian history, was part of Greater Armenia.., Selfexplanatory, Greater Armenia is a Pan-Armenian, irredentist allegation..(see article). All the cities which Parishan added Azeri names, have very deep historical relations with Azerbaican,Turkey and Turks.Parishan is not violating any rule here, but VartanM did. Grandmaster's solution is suitable to stop dispute.Regards to all.Must.^T ^C 17:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely false. First of all Greater Armenia is the name of a historical state that covered all those cities, it was known so in contrast to Lesser Armenia. It has nothing to do with Greater Armenia (political concept), but you know that very well since you are familiar with both topics. Second of all Parishan has no excuse to add those names wikiwide to Armenian cities in retaliation. They have no historical or etymological value, not to mention that a good chunk of them don't even exist and have been just been made up. The Armenian names on the other had existed before the Azerbaijani people, their language or alphabet existed.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see any logic here. Armenia as an independent state stopped existing in the 4th century A.D., and Ganja was founded in the 5th century A.D. Therefore Ganja could not be a part of Greater Armenia, whatever meaning you put into it. As for the Azerbaijani names, they are well documented in the Russian sources, most of the above locations were given present names after 1918. The article on Vanadzor even admits existence of the name of Qarakilisa. So why is it OK to add Armenian names to Azerbaijani cities and not the other way around? Grandmaster 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Armenia ceased to exist in 428 AD when it was annexed by the Sassanid Empire. That's in the fifth century and it didn't change names or populations. The fact remains that the Armenian name of the city is the exact same name of the city when it was founded: Gandzak. That alone is notable. Some cities in Armenia had contemporary Turkic names during Turkic occupation periods (mostly under Safavids), obviously the language of the occupiers was in common use. Some of them could ahve been founded under their rule. That doesn't make it Azeri but Turkic. I don't think anyone has ever objected to including historical names of cities regardless of their origin. Adding an Armenian name to Baku makes no sense even if it was once dominated by Armenians but adding an Armenian name to Ganja is absolutely required because we have early medieval and later Armenian sources that refer to it and its Armenian significance. This doesn't change the fact that Parishan clearly stepped over several boundaries here.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is again not related to Parishan's behaviour but again if and when we add relevant Turkic names to Armenian cities, they must be added only in the ARABIC or modified Persian Arabic in some cases but never in Latin.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was already documented in the last arbitration cases. It is obvious it continued since the Arbitrators did nothing about it. Most probably when they saw the long list of evidences they didn’t even want to read it.

Grandmaster’s justification actually shows that his intention here isn’t for the better of Wikipedia. It has been explained to him and Parishan that Armenian names have etymologic value in those articles and Armenian name preceded Azerbaijani names even in the case of territories now part of the republic of Azerbaijan. Armenian names were used even in British historic documents. On the other hand Azerbaijani names are modern, the Azerbaijani alphabet is modern. Parishan adds the Azerbaijani term in those articles when those regions were never called by any Azerbaijani name… not in the past, nor now. The Azerbaijani names are either Turkic derived also shared from Ottoman Turkish OR Persian derived.

When those regions were not yet part of the Armenian republic, there was no Azerbaijani alphabet, no standardized modern Azerbaijani language. In short, what Parishan is doing and unacceptably supported by Grandmaster (and I don't know what this is if it is not POV pushing) is adding a modern word which was never used to call those regions. It is the equivalent of adding the Chinese word for that region.

This sort of retaliatory measure is unacceptable, just because Armenian words are in some article for regions part of Azerbaijan or Turkey, without understanding the context Parishan has again wiki-wide retaliated. If we read the evidences of the last Arbcom we could see the extent of Parishan’s POV pushing in this case. He had, in the past, Wiki searched Armenian words to add for each of those Azerbaijani words without understanding the context. One funny example was the article for Jerusalem, where Parishan added the Azerbaijani word because the Armenian word was there. He even justified it, when it was explained to him that the reason why the Armenian word was there was because Old Jerusalem has an Armenian Quarter, dating over a millennium ago, and that the Armenian word had a scripted value, while the Azerbaijani modern word was simply the Islamic word. I think something must be done to stop Parishan’s POV pushing.

Also, Grandmaster’s argument about Ganja is ridiculous; in the 5th century there was an Armenian nation right on that area with a written language and with its distinct name for that place. He claims that an Armenian state ceased to exist in the fourth century, when there were continuing Armenian Kingdoms such as the one reinstated in the 9th century, admitted by scholars that he himself uses to support his arguments. In the 5th century there were no Azerbaijani people or languages.

And Grandmaster still repeats why Armenian names could be there and not Azerbaijani. Well, we have been explaining this hundreds of times. Prior to the Azerbaijani republic or modern Turkey, those places were mostly called by their Armenian name; Armenian names were mostly the origin etymologically of those words. The Azerbaijani name has never been used to call places now part of Armenia. They were either Persian or Turkic, the modern Azerbaijani language has no connection. - Fedayee 20:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start with commenting on Vartan's edit to Ganja. Ganja was never part of the Armenian Kingdom, regardless of its ethnic composition. It made no contribution to the development of Armenia as a state, and certainly did not change the course of Armenia's history. So why should the Armenian name be there? If you wish to go by ethnic presence, then let's add an Azeri name to Yerevan as well: not only is it in the immediate vicinity of the ethnic Azeri homeland, but Azeris at one point were outnumbering even the city's Armenian population. The Azeri community of Yerevan flourished and produced important personalities in many fields, which proves its great sociocultural role in Azeri history. So... why not? And given the fact that Azeris once populated "...almost all of Russian Armenia" (phrase taken straight out of Brockhaus and Efron), more than one article on the Armenian cities should undergo such edits.

I don't think the example with Names of Jerusalem was "funny", as Fedayee referred to it. What was funny is the fact that none of my opponents managed to convince me, why the Azeri name shouldn't be there. The claim of "historical linguistic relevance" could have worked; too bad, my opponents' double-standard attitude prevented them from being able to account for the presence of Persian, Urdu, Hindi, and Old Norse variations of "Jerusalem." In other words, if one can agree that the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, or Armenian name must be present due to their cultural influence within the city, languages such as Persian, Urdu, Hindi, and Old Norse must not, because none of them has been traditional to Jerusalem throughout the centuries. Just like Azeri. However VartanM and Eupator chose to pick on Azeri only. Which is why it seems strange to me, that they are the ones blaming others for assuming bad faith.

Now let's get onto the issue of the day. It looks like VartanM has not made as thorough research on the Armenian cities, as he has on Ganja and its history. Let's see how these cities "have never been called by Azerbaijani names", shall we?

Vardenis (until 1969 - Basargechar) is an urban-type community and centre of the Armenian SSR's Vardenis rayon. [15]
Kirovakan (Soviet name for Vanadzor - P.) (until 1935 - Karaklis; renamed after S.Kirov) is a city in the Armenian SSR. [16]
Tsakhkadzor (until 1947 - Darachichag), Kechanis, is a city in Armenia. [17]
Abovyan, Armenia Page. Other names: Elar [18]
Maralik, Armenia Page. Other names: Molla Gekcha, Molla Gëkcha. [19]. Also check Vardges Petrosyan's Армянские эскизы where he uses the name Molla Gekcha and mentions that it is now known as Maralik.
Yeghegnadzor, Armenia Page. Other names: Mikoyan, Yeghegik, Keshishkend, Yekhegnadzor, Keshishkent [20]. Keshishkend is also mentioned by Simon Yerevantsi in Jambr.
Spitak is a city in Armenia. In the past [it was known as] the village of Amamlu. Renamed in 1948. [21]
A right turn from modern S Highway leads to Masis (formerly Zangibasar, Narimanlu and Ulukhanlu villages) used to be a main transportation depot of the S. Caucasus. [22]
Ijevan is a city in Armenia. After being granted the status of a town in 1961, it was renamed from Karavansaray to Ijevan.[23]
Soon afterwards, he returned, and moved to Echmiadzin (Uch Kilisa) and stopped at two farsakhs' distance from Ashtarak (Hashtarak). [24]
Dilijan, Armenia Page. Other names: Tilichan, Dilizhan, Delijan, Tili, Dili Pʼokʼr, Dili P'ok'r, Dilishan, Delishan, Dilichan, Delizhan, Hin, Dili [25]
The town of Noyemberyan (until 1938 - Barana) is situated in a distance of 185 km from Yerevan. [26]
Kapan. Other names: Qafan, Katan, Kafan, Madan, Ghap'an, Ghapʼan, Zangezur, Kafi. [27]
The name Kyavar for Gavar is even mentioned in the name of the city's Internet portal: http://www.kyavar.com/
Berd, Armenia Page. Other names: <...> Tovuzkala, T'ovuz, Tʼovuz, Taua Kale. [28]
Artashat, Armenia Page. Other names: Kamarl, Kamarlu, Kamarlyu. [29]
Ararat, Armenia Page. Other names: Davalu. [30]

The argument that the names "aren't Azeri but Turkish and Persian" is comic. It's like saying, all cities in Portugal have Spanish names, given the similarity between the two languages. I do understand the urge to attribute Azeri heritage to as many surrounding cultures as possible, but even that should be done with a certain degree of adequacy. The place names in the medieval era weren't defined and administered by government committees, like they are nowadays. Villages were referred to by whatever name the local population called them. There was little or no Turkish or Persian ethnic presence in our area of interest. It was the Azeri ethnic presence that ensured the usage of most of these toponyms, and it was the Azeris that used those names in the Azeri language to refer to the respectives towns they once populated. As far as the alphabet is concerned, yes, it is a good idea to show the name in Arabic script, and I'm volunteering to do that, but the Latin script must remain, as a) It is the only literal form of Azeri nowadays; and b) It is conventional on Wikipedia, as you see with the Kurdish names in Arbil, Mosul, Sulaymaniyah, etc. Parishan 02:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This board is not for content disputes. I reported a WP:POINT violation. An administrator is yet to comment on it. VartanM 03:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the content dispute demonstrates how disruptive your own mass reverting of my edits was. Parishan 03:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't change the fact that you yourself started that disruption. The correct response to my edit was to revert the article and start a discussion in the talkpage. VartanM 03:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP IT! I have addressed Parishan’s POV pushing, including Jerusalem here. [31]

Persian and Urdu are all dating languages which have scripture values, unlike the modern Azerbaijani which was introduced in the 1930's. Parishan’s wiki-wide POV pushing has been covered in the last arbitration case, added by TigranTheGreat, and I followed there.

The fact is that if administrators check the last contributions by Parishan they will see that Parishan retaliated just after Vartan added an Armenian name which preceded Azerbaijani and was etymologically valid considering the modern name, for one single article. This was clearly against the WP:POINT. The retaliation was done on various articles and ironically closing all this by finally reverting Vartan.

THE FACT is that region wide before the Azerbaijani language even existed most of the names were etymologically Armenian. Those places were never called in Azerbaijani, they were Turkic with Arabic scripts for a while when Turkic populations invaded them. Parishan has to accept the fact that Armenian is an older language than Azerbaijani, its alphabet exists since the beginning of the fifth century and that Armenian terms on various occasions were the etymology of the modern current terms. Turkic and Persian for some places true, but not modern Azerbaijani.

Parishan is still continuing on the line of battle ground mentality by calling those with who he disagree with as his “opponents”. He doesn't seem to have learned anything from the two last arbitrations and if there was any doubt still remaining that the decision to include him in the restriction was a mistake, there should not remain any such doubts anymore. - Fedayee 03:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fedayee??? Parishan was not included, even though his behavior doesn't seem to have stopped and I hope that administrators take note and at least warn him.VartanM 04:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how important of a "scripted value" Hindi has to Jerusalem, with which it does not have any common cultural background. Same goes for the Persian and Urdu versions, which are simply copies of the "scripted value" of Arabic. But let's not go off topic. Parishan 02:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that modern Azerbaijani language cannot be used for the Armenian places holds no water. All those places have Azerbaijani names, and the Azerbaijani language exists in a written form at least since the 13th century. Azerbaijani population left those places during the deportations of 1988, and most of those places were renamed in Soviet times, so I don't see why we cannot use Azerbaijani language to transcribe Azerbaijani names for those locations. For example Azerbaijani name of Basarkecher was changed to Armenian Vardenis in 1969. By the same token Armenian name for Ganja is not justified at all. The city was founded either by Sasanian Persians in the 5th century or (which is a more prevalent version) by Arabs in the 9th century, and the name is of Persian origin. The city never had an Armenian majority population or was part of any Armenian state. Tell me then why Armenian spelling of Ganja needs to be included? This is a very long dispute than continues for years. I think it is time to attract the attention of wiki community to this issue. Grandmaster 04:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only after the community pays attention to Parishans disruptions. VartanM 04:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he was disruptive, you were even more disruptive with massive reverting over multiple pages. Grandmaster 04:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again I didn't start this. I only added one word to one article. In return Parishan disrupted 20 articles. I also did not violate any rules by reverting him. While he violated wp:Point VartanM 04:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. The nationalist undertones in VartanM's original report and several of the resulting responses are despicable. I know there haven't been too many blocks since the conclusion of the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ArbCom case, but the mere discussion of potential ArbCom violations has become disruptive. I don't know how far it extends into the real world, but this dispute (whatever it's about) is appearing increasingly petty. -- tariqabjotu 04:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty simple I add one word to one article, Parishan adds 20 words to 20 articles then reverts my edit. The rest are just frustrated users. VartanM 04:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He made 1 rv, and you made 20. Sorry, but I don't see how he is more disruptive than you. Your claims that Ganja had anything to do with the kingdom of Armenia have no grounds. It is a well known fact that Armenia lost the territories south of Kura to Caucasian Albania in 387 A.D. The scholars date foundation of Ganja to the 5th century at the earliest, so it is still not logically possible that Ganja was part of the kingdom of Armenia. Yet you made your edit and reverted Parishan, whose edits had more basis, because most of those locations were renamed in Soviet times. Grandmaster 05:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that I broke no rules while he made a point by disturbing wikipedia. My reverts would have been disruptive if I reverted Ganja article as well. Like I said this whole situation would have been taken care of professionally if Parishan used the talkpage of the Ganja article instead of disturbing 20 different articles. VartanM 05:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made no use of the talk page either, and 20 rvs is nothing but edit warring, considering that Parishan's edits were not vandalism and had factual basis. Grandmaster 05:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made use of this noticeboard. Disturbing 20 articles in retaliation to one edit is very disruptive and might make cool headed users do things that they normally wouldn't. Those reverts wouldn't have been necessary if he used the talkpage. VartanM 06:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, what you mean by the "factual basis"? The Encyclopedia of Brockauz and Efron marks the Armenian name of Baku as Bagavan. Noone added it as Baku as it founded was never a part of Armenian Kingdom.

And Parishan is also making personal attacks on me (a Russian-speaker) by using his own OR on Russian linguistics against a number of sourced quotations by me: "I do have tremendous respect for the ability of people to learn languages despite the difficulties they face. Yet I find it appropriate to correct your grammar in this case: in Russian, "шы" ("shy") does not exist. It is not allowed under any circumstance to use the letter ы after ш or ж. Ironically, it is a grammatical rule that students learn in a form of a nursery rhyme in grade one" , etc.[32]. Andranikpasha 12:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that is a personal attack. He only corrected your error in Russian translation. It is not an OR either, you can ask any native Russian speaker, and he would tell you the same. Parishan was very patient and polite while explaining you the errors you've made when translating a Russian text. And factual basis for Parishan's edits is very obvious, most of those locations in Armenian were renamed in Soviet times, so previous Azerbaijani names need to be mentioned as well. Grandmaster 13:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, it wasnt "my error". I cited many different sources, and even according to Parishan, "The violation of this rule is merely an example of low quality translation". The marked translation published... by Russian BBC [33], not me:) I dont sure if for Englishi Wiki there is something related to Russian linguistics, which is so "obvious", that no sources needed and a translation by BBC (and some other newspapers) is ... just an error. While making Russian "classes" here with such a non-correct style (I finished my "grade one classes" many years ago, my Russian grammar is not need an OR correction, and I see nothing "ironical" in this case), its better just cite few Russian linguistic sources marking the "rule" according to which the word by BBC is an error! Andranikpasha 15:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several things. Number one, this notice lets us know that at any point any one of us can go on a POINT spree such as this in retaliation given how no admin said that this was a violation of WP:POINT. Second Parishan didn't make an addition, he made reverts since he had added these names to those articles in the past and they were all revert instantly years ago. Most importantly Parishan has no argument for those names at all. Even if he could prove that those names have a Turkic etymology, he then has to prove and cite their connection to modern Azerbaijani people. Good luck with that. Then he has to explain why we should use them given how all those cities have their original names. It is asburd to want to add a nomadic turkic tribe's name to a city like Artashat that existed since the second century BC! Is Parishan insinuating that there was a Turkic designation for the city prior to that? A Turkic name for Vagharshapat? Grandmaster claims that an Azerbaijani language existed since the 13th century. That's very interesting, but shouldn't the Azerbaijani people exist first? It's tough to prove and explain their existance today, look at the Azeri people article much less for 7 centuries back. Grandmaster, if those names were renamed in Soviet times when were they renamed to allegedly Turkic names (which have NOTHING to do with Azeris that live today in the Republic of Azerbaijan anyway)? -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who were Turkic people who in the 19th century constituted the majority of population of what is now the Republic of Armenia? Of course Azerbaijanis, whom Russians called back then Azerbaijani Tatars. Obviously all those names are historically more justified than Armenian name for Ganja, which never was an official name of the city. And yes, the first written source in Azerbaijani language dates back to 13th century, you can find that info in any encyclopedia, and of course Azerbaijani people existed back then, even if the modern ethnonym is relatively new. Not a valid argument to dismiss historical names. Grandmaster 18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were no such people. The Azerbaijani Tatar designation began to be applied by Russians to certain groups only in the late 19th century. We can consider them as proto-Azeris. None of those names are justified. How can a name with an unclear etymology be historically justified when it didn't even have an official status? At best you could say "Safavid occupiers" called the city this and this. Arabs used the name Dabil for the city Dvin when they occupied it but it's not the cities name and it cannot be used in any other context. Gandzak on the other hand was the name of Ganja long before the first Turkic speakers ever set foot in any region West of Urals or the Caspian. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parishan didn't make an addition, he made reverts since he had added these names to those articles in the past - that's a lie. I have never added Azerbaijani names to Armenia-related articles other than to Lake Sevan and Sayat-Nova, which weren't blind edits either and were justified. There is no need to make connexions to Azeris: they were the sole Turkic-speakers in the given region, which can be proven by every pre-Soviet source dealing with the issue. Even if you attribute those names to the Persian rule, the Turkic language spoken in Persia is considered by scholars an earlier form of Azeri: you can see for yourself at Ismail I (he was the first Safavi shah, and one of the first known classical poets who wrote in Azeri). Finally, those names were widely in use long after the region stopped being part of Persia, all due to Azeri ethnic and linguistic influence in the region. Parishan 20:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were no Azeris. There were Turkic speaker but they were not Azeris. The modern definition of an Azeri can in no way be applied to any person living before the late 19th century. Simple as that. Again, this has very little to do with the fact that those names are illegitimate. Turkic names that had an official status under Soviet rule could of course be added but we can't say they're of Azeri origin. Still, the main point here is your disruption via retaliation. Do you deny that you did that in retaliation?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were Turkic speaker but they were not Azeris - another piece of OR. All pre-19th century sources refer to the Turkic-speaking inhabitants of Russian Armenia as either Azerbaijani Tatars, or Transcaucasian Tatars, both of which used to be common ways of refering to Azeris by the Russian academia. For more information check Azerbaijani people, a featured article containing enough sources to disprove your POV. It makes a lot more sense than to claim the sudden disappearance of the Turkic-speaking population and their automatic replacement by a "brand new and in no way similar ethnic group."

There is also no proof of these places not having Azeri names initially. That's another case of OR on your part. It is physically impossible of a large group of inhabitants, who originated and populated these lands for centuries, to not have founded a single village or town. Parishan 02:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parishan, do you think people are blind and they'r enot goign to see how you so obviously avoided th main question here? I'll just copy paste it until you answer: Still, the main point here is your disruption via retaliation. Do you deny that you did that in retaliation? There is not a single source pre-19th century calling any Turkics Azerbaijanis, not one. Why would primitive nomads or at best pastoral people create their own towns on foreign land? Makes no sense. I'm sure there was a village or two populated primarily by Azeris, Armenia has always been very tolerant towards its ethnic minorities and guests. There are many villages today in Armenia populated only by Kurds.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Andranik, you know perfectly well that in Russian language the words’ ends change depending on the case, therefore the text that you quoted uses only 1 spelling of the name, but in different cases. I suggest we ask a neutral native Russian speaker if you still insist that you are right. In any case this is an English encyclopedia and English spelling prevails here. Grandmaster 18:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, I do not need language classes here, I marked sources and only answer by Parishan was a personal attack on my knowledge. I asked many times, I need sources proving "rules" you mark to see if all marked reliable materials (not me) are non-correct, nothing more. My skills are not important here, I'd like to know why the sources use different rules than Parishan and you. if you want to prove Shushy form by all of that sources are non-correct, than mark reliable linguistical sources, without OR and personal attacks on my knowledge. Andranikpasha 19:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't giving you language classes. The only reason I corrected your grammar is because your unawareness of a Russian grammatical rule led you to erroneous conclusions regarding the content of the article. Parishan 20:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also about why it is necessary to use Ganja's Armenian name: I looked just in 2 respected Russian encyclopedias:

Great Soviet Encyclopedia in different articles mark the city as Gandzak while describing an important event "union of Georgian and Armenian armies near Gandzak" or person "Mkhitar Gosh was born in Gandzak",
Ryzhov K., All the monarches of the world... (Рыжов К.В. Все монархи мира. Древняя Греция. Древний Рим. Византия - М.: 2002. - 576 с. (илл.)) ."Irakly with his army.... took Karin (Erzeroum), Dvin, Nakhichevan and Gandzak (Ganja)" [34].

This sources also prefer the Armenian name for the events happened before the Azerbaijan state was founded. Andranikpasha 19:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a group of Armenians soldiers set foot in Ganja at one point in the past isn't enough to include the Armenian name of the city into the article. Parishan 20:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And because VartanM adds one word to one article doesn't give you the right to disturb 20 different articles. Talkpages are there for a reason. VartanM 21:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by banned user Tajik (talk · contribs), and replies to it, have been removed. Picaroon (t) 05:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

48 hour mark[edit]

All I got from administrators, was one "I don't get it" and then an insult. You might as well tell me to go away and close this thread before anymore banned users show up. VartanM 09:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5th day anniversary[edit]

Still no response. VartanM 03:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Nrcprm2026[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Repeating my comments here from WP:ANI because I don't know which board will work faster:

3 clear sockpuppets in violation of probation/block on Nrcprm2026

User Nrcprm2026 (James Salsman) was 2-month-blocked 9/19 for sockpuppet LossIsNotMore in violation of ArbCom probation. About 9/28 his 1-year-old puppet BenB4 was blocked. Last night I testified that 1of3 was also a clear 1-year-old sockpuppet, which was used hot and heavy since 9/29. Being relatively new myself to WP policy, I'd be really encouraged to hear that this is ripe for indefinite ban. Thanks! I ask because it's really inconvenient to see a POV tag get added to the Ron Paul article every week or two over basically a single objectionable sentence (which sentence is usually immediately cut and does not appear the majority of the time the POV tag stands). This appears to me as serious article hijacking. Please also alert my talk page, thanks.

BTW, just in researching this, I happened to search on "WP:pov tag" in the main namespace and, would you believe, "Ron Paul" came up third. <rolling eyes> Just to illustrate the seriousness of this issue. John J. Bulten 14:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As previously noted, also see Acct4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Andy r2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). - Crockspot 16:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1of3 was indefinitely blocked 10/18 by Morven
Acct4 was indefinitely blocked 10/3 by Tariqabjotu
Andy r2 was indefinitely blocked 10/18 by EliminatorJR

Admins, there are more outbreaks, please keep up with WP:SSP for latest, thanks for all your help. John J. Bulten 17:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section of the same title on this page back circa September 29 dealing with this same user. He has previously stated that his interpretation of WP:IAR calls for him to continue to create accounts and edit, in spite of his ban. This issue will probably be ongoing for some time. - Crockspot 17:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you should continue to report suspects here, and also at Checkuser. AN/I will also probably get a faster response when the case is simple enforcement of a ban. Thatcher131 15:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Anyeverybody - 6RR and tendentious editing under article probation[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Anyeverybody was blocked by Geogre for 24 hours. Thatcher131 14:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyeverybody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (AKA User:Anynobody) has been reinserting a highly one-sided POV "Personality" section into the article on L. Ron Hubbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the objections of multiple editors (User:Wikipediatrix, User:Misou, myself, User:Gscshoyru). The Scientology articles are under article probation as a condition of the COFS arbitration. A look at the history shows four reverts in 24 hours and six in not much more than that, over multiple editors and against talk page advices. He has also been warned on the talk page against edit warring in an article that is under probation. I apologize that I am the one to report this but I figured that clear violation of 3RR and article probation where I am one of the "victims" of the edit-warring is an allowable exception, i.e. I am not going out of my way to be "interested" in Anynobody and, if I cannot report this sort of stuff, then I am at a disadvantage and effectively being punished. --Justanother 13:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, when I went to let AN know about this I see that he has a 6-hour block for 3RR violation. I will not comment further. --Justanother 13:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the section under dispute: Personality. Using WP:RS already which included:

I started a section to discuss Hubbard's personality, since it is discussed in several sources. Misou and Justanother reverted text which had valid information, which is specifically something not to do when reverting so Help:Reverting says:Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

Essentially, the Scientologists are trying to prevent other editors from using reliable sources in an effort to artificially create an illusion of neutrality in the name of their confused understanding of WP:NPOV. What they are doing would be the same thing as a person removing information about Hitler which makes him look bad by arguing that all the sources are biased. They might be, but second guessing on our part seems like it would be going into original research. Justanother and Misou might not like the information, but it comes exclusively from sources. They seem to be confusing the sources with my personal opinions, despite the fact that I use <ref>s. Anynobody 02:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are leaving out the vital information that those references are in the article since about a year or even longer and used for other parts of it. You did neither locate nor put them in, you are trying to "recycle" them in a POV-pushing way and created a new chapter with the sole purpose adding a derogatory section to the article. Just as you did on the LRH/Military section some months ago. This is absolutely unnecessary. Just as your snide remarks on "Scientologists" (re-read WP:NPA for that). Shutterbug 03:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To address your concern about my use of the word Scientologists, it wasn't meant to be snide. Aren't you, Misou, and Justanother Scientologists? As to the rest of your post, I've tried to explain several times to you how POV actually works. User talk:Shutterbug#A quick point about POV and me, so I honestly don't feel another attempt on my part would do any good. Anynobody 03:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?s about harassment, NPOV[edit]

I had actually wanted to bring this issue here sooner, but was concerned it would be interpreted as more harassment since it involved Justanother. I see this as several biased editors removing valid information they don't like because it is about about someone near and dear to them.

The way I understand Wikipedia to work is based on what we can reference. In this case most references only discuss "negative" aspects of the subject, as I understand it we should write what can be sourced regardless of whether it talks about him as a hero or crook. If we were to wait for some "positive" info from a RS before adding "negative" info from a source or sources just as reliable, many articles would find a majority of their content should be removed. (Naturally if a RS says something positive about him, I'd recommend including it. Also, positive or negative it should be assumed that the information is relevant.)

So, would it have been harassment to have brought my concerns here? and What is NPOV, am I even close? Anynobody 03:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (PS, I'm only asking so that I can abide by the ruling and policy, not because I plan on accusing anyone of harassment.) Anynobody 01:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I mean no disrespect to the responding admin, but my question wasn't answered. Would it have been harassment to mention what I said above? Also I'm still interested to know if my interpretation of NPOV is correct. Anynobody 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin response[edit]

Compare my response above. Don't comment on Justanother and you'll be fine. Apart from your harassment injunction, I have to remind you that you're not supposed to comment on any editors. Here's a good example right here. Why the [unprintable] can't you simply say "I see this as several editors removing valid information they don't like because it is about someone near and dear to them"? See the difference? What would you lose, by not describing the editors involved as "biased"? Nothing. You would gain something: your post would make a better and more sensible impression, the editors in question would not feel quite as attacked, you would not stoke the flames as much. I see you quoting a lot of policy on this page. Have a read of WP:NPA already: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Bishonen | talk 16:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen I appreciate your effort to answer my questions, here is mine to yours.

Q:Why don't I say:"I see this as several editors removing valid information they don't like because it is about about someone near and dear to them"?

A:To minimize confusion, general statements like you're advocating can easily be misinterpreted by people not being referred to and ignored by those who the message does apply to.

About your point: Apart from your harassment injunction, I have to remind you that you're not supposed to comment on any editors.

Could you please provide a diff of the particular occasion you are referring to? This discussion is lacking the context in which I said an editor is biased. Without context, it almost never sounds appropriate to discuss editorial bias which could explain why you seem to think I'm pointing it out for any other reason than the truth (or my opinion of it.)

Counterpoint: Generally speaking, if everybody took your advice literally then having rules like WP:COI would be useless, since it is an editor problem how would you propose handling it without addressing the editor involved? (Same goes for NPA or NLT) The answer of course is that there are times when it is appropriate to discuss editors.

Q:What would you lose, by not describing the editors involved as "biased"? Nothing.

A:Actually it's not so much what I'd lose as what Wikipedia would and I'll put it this way; If you think editors like Justanother or Shutterbug aren't biased, I'd be happy to discuss why you think so (I could be wrong after all). However the idea of simply "not" discussing such issues whether accurate or not is at best an incomplete solution.

Please also consider that it requires a big assumption of good faith on my part to discuss this issue with you since you have said you do not assume good faith on my part. Anynobody 20:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If you think editors like Justanother or Shutterbug aren't biased . . ." AN, why are mentioning my name in a negative context? --Justanother 20:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is an honest question on your part, or an attempt at baiting so if someone uninvolved wants to know the answer I'll gladly explain. To you all I can say is that you're the only one interpreting a bias for your religion as "negative context". Anynobody 02:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User page contents[edit]

About a month ago, I was advised [35] by administrator User:Froth to remove information that may be deemed as political or propagandistic. While I went ahead and removed information from my user page [36], I am still seeing similar and even more political propaganda content on user pages of User:Fedayee and User:Andranikpasha. User:MarshallBagramyan went a bit further hosting photo of license plates [37], which he considers "glorious", which nevertheless were taken from cars of people murdered or harassed based on their ethnicity. I am asking, especially to those who discussed content of my user page, to have decisions of ArbCOm [38] apply equally to everyone. Thanks. Atabek 01:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just mind your own business and keep yourself above the usage of userspace to push a point of view. By placing propaganda on their userpages, they signal that they agree not to edit subjects related to said propaganda. Fedayee, for examples, agrees not to edit Nagorno-Karabakh or related pages, as he has a userbox advocating for it. And so on. Picaroon (t) 01:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picaroon, I don't see how User:Andranikpasha does not edit pages related to Armenia or Azerbaijan, by having userboxes on his userpage. I do mind my own business, but I also believe targeting only one user in such case is not quite a neutral stance. Atabek 05:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I probably laughed a good five minutes when I saw Froth's message. It was so innocent and out of nowhere, and then to top it off, how fast Atabek removed the content. Priceless. By the way Atabek I don't believe Froth's an administrator. On a more serious note. You were using a fair use image, which is against the fair use policy and you were comparing the murder of 1.5 million with the murder of 600. Oh and nice job with two separate posts, I'll take this into consideration next time I need to report something. VartanM 02:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I don't think there is anything in the current versions of Fedayee and Andranikpasha's user pages that crosses the line, nor do I have a problem with the content Atabek removed at Froth's request. An example of what would be unacceptable would be, "This editor is dedicated to opposing [event] denialists" as it would target other editors rather than state a personal viewpoint. The license plate photo of MarshallBagramyan is hard to evaluate without more context. If he stated in the photo caption that he thought that this collection (confiscated under disputed circumstances) was "glorious" that would be a problem, and it might be best to ask him to take down that one photo on the basis of its disputed and divisive circumstances. I can see an argument for removing userboxes that say "This user opposes/supports [some regional controversy]" but I doubt it would have any effect on the article disputes or the editors' opinions of each other. Maybe you could negotiate a mutual disarmament agreement for the sake of calm discourse. Thatcher131 15:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using sockpuppets to avoid user:COFS/User:Shutterbug article topic ban?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

User:COFS AKA User:Shutterbug, per admin User:Bishonen is "You have been pagebanned for 30 days from editing scientology-related articles and their talkpages, per the terms of Article probation". Banned by Bishonen, per Arbitration
From this Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS page, it appears that User:Misou, among other editors, is a sockpuppet of User:COFS AKA User:Shutterbug and is editing from Church of Scientology computers.
Misou (talk · contribs), Misou contributions, the sockpuppet of the user that is "pagebanned" from "scientology-related articles", gets to continue to edit those selfsame articles ?

What am I missing here ? Does this seem to you like a way of using multiple user names to avoid a ban and get around Arbitration Committee decisions ? I would appreciate your advice before doing anything else.

I wanted to check to make sure this was the right place to post this troubling issue, but ChrisO (talk · contribs) did suggest [39] that this was the right spot to see what other Arbitrators and Admins think of this. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 07:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

From the Arbitration itself -

Sorry I didn't post this initially as well, but looking through the resolutions by the Arbitrators at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS - it looks like there is some interesting conclusive language here regarding just this issue.
I refer specifically to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Multiple_editors_with_a_single_voice, and to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Use_of_Church_of_Scientology-owned_IPs. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 07:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked for 3 days, and general topic ban extended for 30 days from today. Thatcher131 19:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional user evading the block/ban

I must also point out that another sockpuppet according to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, Makoshack (talk · contribs), is instead now editing Wikipedia, which seems to be an attempt to avoid this editing topic ban per the Arbitration, as well. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A lie spread after Misou pointed out that you are a sock puppet or a single-purpose account. I am not surprised about your reaction, but I might point out to responsible administrators that injustice is being done here. I am not a "sock puppet" nor am I operating any. You refused to answer on what recourse exists and one of your colleagues blocked my talk page. I will not stop. It is arbitrary, injustice and promoting a lie. Have you ever asked yourself why the checkuser was not enforced for many months? Because it is non-conclusive, because a shared IP is not evidence for anything. Review the subject, thank you. Makoshack 23:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.157.193 (talk) [reply]

Thatcher131 (talk · contribs) has acted most appropriately in this matter, and I stand by all of his actions, and all of the evidence, above. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unblocking and modification of the probation[edit]

Both Maksoshack and Misou have asked to be unblocked, as apparently there was an earlier acceptance of a claim that they were different people, although editing from a shared IP address. The problem with editing from a shared IP address (see checkuser) is that it is impossible for us to tell if multiple accounts with similar interests are really separate people or not. When one account edits disruptively, another account could be a different person who behaves more reasonably, or it could be a calculated good cop/bad cop strategy by one person, or two people coordinating their efforts, both of which are not allowed. Likewise, if one editor is blocked or banned, it is impossible to tell whether the other accounts are being used to circumvent the block or ban, either by one person using multiple accounts (sock puppets), or through multiple people coordinating their edits (sometimes called meat-puppetry). The alternative to blocking all but one account is to apply the same remedies, blocks and bans to all the accounts, which is consistent with the ruling at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Multiple_editors_with_a_single_voice. If one account edits disruptively and is banned or blocked, the same ban or block will apply to all the accounts. It appears that CSI LA (talk · contribs) and Grrrilla (talk · contribs) are inactive for the time being, so this notice applies to Shutterbug (talk · contribs), Misou (talk · contribs) and Makoshack (talk · contribs). All for one and one for all. If one of you is blocked or banned for any reason, that block or ban will be applied to all of you. For the time being, Shutterbug is banned from editing Scientology-related articles for 30 days from October 2, so that topic ban applies to Makoshack and Misou as well. You may make suggestions on the talk pages, and are encouraged to pursue the dispute resolution process (such as request for comment and request for third opinion) rather than getting into arguments. I will withdraw the 30-day extension of the topic ban, since you were not previously notified that bans applied to one apply to all. I hope this works out, and you should also be on notice that if there are repeated violations someone will eventually decide to stop accepting the shared account explanation. Good luck. Thatcher131 13:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of contrib history

Correct me if I am wrong, but looking at the contrib history of the sockpuppets, it does seem like this was the chain of events here:

COFS (talk · contribs)/Shutterbug (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Scientology related articles.
Subsequently, Misou (talk · contribs) begins to edit in the exact same fashion on the same tight range of articles that COFS (talk · contribs)/Shutterbug (talk · contribs) was being disruptive on.
And then, after Misou (talk · contribs) was blocked, Makoshack (talk · contribs) crops up and begins to do the exact same thing.

I could provide DIFFs if you all like, but this appears to be fairly obvious from the Contrib history of each of the three sockpuppets, that, per the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, are at the very least "meatpuppets", and at the most "sockpuppets", and, per the Arbitration, are "editing with a single voice." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Multiple_editors_with_a_single_voice. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 20:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Which is why the topic ban applied to any one of them will be extended to all of them. Thatcher131 00:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that does sound most appropriate. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your behavior isn't. And you are lying above or dreaming along. Give me those diffs, I am interested. Misou 01:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to defer to Thatcher131 (talk · contribs) and not dignify these types of comments with a response. I trust User:Thatcher131's judgement, and trust that if needed, Thatcher131 or others will act appropriately in the future. The arbitration judgement that these controversial individuals are "editing with a single voice", seems to word this rather well. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

WTF??[edit]

Can someone explain what a "new editor" that is using wiki syntax in his edit summaries from his "second edit" is doing over here complaining about sock puppets and checkuser? (Kettle, black - I have a pretty good idea of whom we are dealing with.) And an experienced admin is indef blocking an established editor?? This just went through a long arbitration and don't you think that if blocks were called for then they would have been specified in the final outcome? There are no sock puppets, that was never determined anywhere. What was discussed was considering as if all of them were speaking with one voice. But extending that concept to "they are sockpuppets" is a reach indeed. This needs some serious scrutiny! --Justanother 05:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, VonSavage is obviously a sock; it's so transparent I doubt he'd bother to deny it if you asked him. But is there any evidence it is being used abusively? Who do you suspect he is a sockpuppet of? Picaroon (t) 05:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I asked (smile). --Justanother 06:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really really abusive as far as I can see on casual glance. She seems to be revisiting articles that she edited in a previous incarnation and reverting them back so that is problematic as it just stirs issues that have settled out and moved on already and so it makes more work for others and she has complaints on her talk page about it. But that is not against the rules. 05:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC) --Justanother 05:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who Curt WVS is, he/she is still subject to the same article probation as other editor on Scientology topics, and distruptive editing can result in a topic ban. Make a report in a new section if you feel there is enough evidence to justify this. Thatcher131 12:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue is if a tendentious editor is whitewashing a long block history and starts carrying on with the same activity that got her blocked on multiple occasions previously. As I said elsewhere, "time will tell." --Justanother 17:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She pulled out that time when under scrutiny for PR firm type editing. Maybe a new client now? Misou 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Atabek[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Atabek was quoting someone else [40]. Does not rise to the level of enforcement. Thatcher131 21:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Andranikpasha, I believe, you have been already warned about hogwash"[41]

How is this civil and not a bait. VartanM 18:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, WP:AGF, it wasn't me who gave the warning [[42] I mentioned above, using the word "hogwash" specifically. I believe the issue with POV pushing, revert warring and original research conducted by User:MarshallBagramyan, yourself and User:Andranikpasha at Khachen, should be addressed by RfC which I just opened as a first step in mediation attempt. So please, address your content concerns there. Thanks. Atabek 18:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, despite Im always trying to keep the civility when we're discussing anything, only during the yesterday there were some other "warnings" by Atabek addressed to me: "Andranik, calm down please, geographic Albania (in Balkans) is different from Caucasian Albania"; other reply "If you still don't know the difference between Albania and Caucasian Albania, then perhaps, editing Khachen page is not such a good idea"; than "Andranik, I have no interest or time to engage in wasteful discussions about obvious facts and we are not in a kindergarten." [43] Andranikpasha 19:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Enforcement request re Indian Rebellion of 1857[edit]

Tendentious editing by multiple editors - User:Bobby Awasthi and User:DemolitionMan who continue to bring a hindu nationalist NPOV into the article. Edits by others are greeted with abuse (DemolitionMan loves to call me a "janitor", because, well, I'm an ISP postmaster), or summarily reverted, with 3RR skated around by tag team editing, or in the case of User:DemolitionMan by creating sockpuppets, for which he was banned for a day and his sock perm-banned some days back.

Mediation has failed - Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-15 Indian Rebellion of 1857 - a mediator, User:Phoenix-wiki has recused himself and suggested that the case be taken to the arbcomm.

Case accordingly placed before the arbcomm srs 15:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking forward to the case handled by arbcomm so that things can be put in perspective once and for all. DemolitionMan 03:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for arbitration are made here. This page is for requesting that previous cases be enforced. Is there a previous case that applies? Otherwise please make a new request on the appropriate page. Thatcher131 13:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin action by User:Ronnotel

In response to a WP:3RR request, I have blocked User:DemolitionMan for 1 week for persistent violation of WP:3RR and disruptive editing - particularly in regards to Indian Rebellion of 1857. I will unblock if it is deemed necessary so that User:DemolitionMan can participate in this case. I've been following this situation for a while, however, I've found User:DemolitionMan unusually tendentious. Ronnotel 17:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement request re: History of Moldova in scope of Eastern European edits[edit]

I only noticed the last few reverts of the section Establishment of the MSSR and World War II in History of Moldova, which were enough to prompt me to rewrite the section as neither occupation or non-occupation versions had any citation of references. Since then, I went back to reconstruct the timeline of edits to the section and uncovered what I consider disturbing editorial behavior on the part of User:Anonimu and User:Irpen, particularly after ArbCom's notification of its Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren case, which promulgated a general enforcement on all Eastern European articles indicating editors engaging in bad faith edits, edit warring,... can be subject to disciplinary action. (ArbCom notification by User:Cbrown1023)

Details.

Please note the timeline of edits (manly reverts), original ("occupied") and Anonimu's "not occupied" version:

original, indicated occupied - 00:47, 2007 July 8, DBaba, had edited something else, this is the base version using the term occupation, note this version remains unchanged for over three months until the next edit
- not occupied - 08:34, 2007 October 18 Anonimu rewrites, replaces occupy/occupation with ceding, receiving and retaking, also has Nazis "giving" territory to Romania
occupied - 15:44, 2007 October 18 Biruitorul reverts to original, (rv Soviet occupation denialism) to occupation
- not occupied - 16:01, 2007 October 18 Irpen reverts to Anonimu's, ("ceded" is exactly what it was, read the ultimatum article. stick to hard facts please, not opinionated terminology and avoid inflammatory edit summaries)
occupied - 16:01, 2007 October 18 Dpotop reverts to original
- not occupied - 16:03, 2007 October 18 Anittas reverts to Anonimu's, (rv, it was ceded not occupied. there is a difference.)
occupied - 16:07, 2007 October 18 Dpotop reverts to original, (Undid revision 165428545 by Anittas (talk) See talk)
- not occupied - 17:11, 2007 October 18 Anonimu reverts to his, (rv propaganda. let's stick to facts. (like romanian gov saying: ok, we accept your conditions, we'll leave))
occupied - 16:02, 2007 October 19 Dpotop reverts to original, (rv to last by Dpotop: Anonimu, cease this pro-Soviet propaganda.)
- not occupied - 16:07, 2007 October 19 Anonimu reverts to his, (Undid revision 165651233 by Dpotop (talk) you'd better check NPA)
occupied - 21:19, 2007 October 19 Biruitorul reverts to original, (Rv Soviet occupation denialism. If this is "inflammatory", it's also the truth, which is more important (WP:NPA is being respected).)
- not occupied - 22:20, 2007 October 19 Anonimu reverts to his, (no denial, just sticking to the facts. soviets can't be blamed for interwar romania being a coward thief)
occupied - 22:48, 2007 October 19 Dpotop reverts to original, (Undid revision 165724141 by Anonimu (talk) per Biruitorul.)
- not occupied - 05:50, 2007 October 20 Irpen reverts to Anonimu's, (rv deliberate addition of POV language to substitute facts) - note this avoids Anonimu violating 3RR (Anonimu's having done three reverts in a row)
occupied - 08:18, 2007 October 20 Dpotop reverts to original, (rv deliberate addition of POV language to substitute facts)
citation request for term occupation 11:25, 2007 October 20 Alaexis inserts fact tags following "occupied" and "re-occupied", (→Establishment of the MSSR and World War II - references?), tags are then updated by Smackbot
- not occupied - 16:20, 2007 October 20 Irpen reverts to Anonimu's, (rv Dpotop), also wiping out citation request tags
occupied, mentions use of terms "liberation" and "occupation" - 17:46, 2007 October 21 Dc76 edits Anonimu's to observe both terms are used, also restores occupation sense while retaining Anonimu's "reinstatement" of administsrative divisions, so a compromise version based on Anonimu's

With regard to an ArbCom decision regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, Irpen receives notification on his talk page: "There has also been a general restriction to all editors working on topis related to Eastern Europe and a warning to all those who may, in the future, attempt to use Wikipedia as a battleground that they may be banned when the matter is reported to the Committee. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]" (My preferences are set to 0:00 offset from UTC, so the chronological order here is correct.)

This appears to be a non-event with regards to the continuum of reverts here.

- not occupied - 19:04, 2007 October 21 Anonimu reverts to his, (Undid revision 166088948 by Dc76 (talk) rv pov push & bad grammar)
occupied (compromise) - 21:06, 2007 October 21 Dc76 reverts to compromise version, m (Undid revision 166105395 by Anonimu (talk) please stop it)
- not occupied - 00:18, 2007 October 22 Anonimu reverts to his, (please stick to facts and avoid the POV terminology)
occupied - 12:26, 2007 October 22 Dpotop reverts to original since compromise is not working, (rv to Dpotop - I presume you reverted it without even read it.)
- not occupied - 16:16, 2007 October 22 Anonimu reverts to his, (correction)
occupied - 17:03, 2007 October 22 AdrianTM reverts to original, (undo Communits POV pushing)
- not occupied - 17:17, 2007 October 22 Irpen reverts to Anonimu's, (restore from poor revert with abusive edit summary) - note this avoids Anonimu violating 3RR (Anonimu's having done three reverts in a row)
occupied - 18:09, 2007 October 22 Dpotop reverts to original, (Undid revision 166318933 by Irpen (talk) rv pro-Soviet POV pushing)
- not occupied - 15:12, 2007 October 23 Anonimu reverts to his, (rv uncivil pov pusher)
occupied - 15:58, 2007 October 23 AdrianTM reverts to original, m (Reverted 1 edit by Anonimu; Rv pro-Soviet POV pushing. using TW)
- not occupied - 06:50, 2007 October 24 Anonimu reverts to his, note "NPOV", (restored pro-NPOV version)
occupied - 08:38, 2007 October 24 Dpotop reverts to original, (Undid revision 166697111 by Anonimu (talk) rv POV-pusher)
- not occupied - 15:35, 2007 October 25 Anonimu reverts to his, (undid twisting of facts)
occupied - 16:29, 2007 October 25 AdrianTM reverts to original, (Undid revision 166999949 by Anonimu (talk) rv Soviet POV)
- not occupied - 18:43, 2007 October 25 Irpen reverts to Anonimu's, (rv anti-Soviet POV) - note this avoids Anonimu violating 3RR (Anonimu's having done three reverts in a row)
occupied - 19:39, 2007 October 25, Dpotop reverts to original, (Undid revision 167037007 by Irpen (talk) rv pro-Soviet POV)
- not occupied - 19:39, 2007 October 25, Irpen reverts to Anonimu's, (please stick to facts and avoid judgments)
occupied - 19:57, 2007 October 25 AdrianTM reverts to original, (Undid revision 167048523 by Irpen (talk) which facts do you dispute?)
- not occupied - [44] Anonimu reverts to his, (Undid revision 167052524 by AdrianTM (talk)restored factual version)
occupied, new version (mine) - 05:55, 2007 October 26 new version by Vecrumba, (both versions were problematic, completely rewritten based on the most respected source available) - in talk I requested no reverts please, if anyone has a problem with "occupy" get the source and show how I've misrepresented it (here), I should mention this edit is based on the best English-language source available and it employs the terms occupy, annex, etc. with regards to Soviet actions
a number of factual improvements and copyedit changes (Alaexis, Dpotop, mine) since then

My original motivation in rewriting the section was, frankly, to save editors on "both" sides in the post-Digwuren ruling world. It was only after looking through the edit history that I realized how systematic the actions of User:Anonimu, with User:Irpen supporting, had been with regards to attempting to eliminate the portrayal of Soviet acts as occupation--more disturbingly, and the impetus for my action here, that there was no discernible impact on editorial behaviors by the ruling. That said, I am not here seeking any specific punitive action. If it's decided that the end (reputably referenced rewrite) justifies the means (long sequence of reverts), then that's fine too. PētersV 19:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing but block-shopping in this. Vecrumba and his friends used ANI, IRC, talk pages of administrators and now try another page for the same. Putting words in other people's mouth, assigning foul motives, same old. ArbCom was impotent to seriously study two cases on the subject and instead issued general rulings unwilling to address the substance of the conflict. This lead to vague rulings which allow wide interpretation and this is being attempted to use as another lever to "win" the dispute and "get" others. --Irpen 19:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I and my friends? I suppose that's a promotion to some sort of leadership position. Quite honestly, if ArbCom decides that this is how Wikipedia works (my ends justify the means comment), I'm quite content. My rewrite faithfully represents the most reputable English-language source available. If an endless chain of reverts of unsourced material (and it takes two sides to tango) is what it takes to get there and that's how Wikiepdia works, it's not the strangest thing to happen.

You accuse me of block shopping, that's not my purpose here. In fact, I'll be glad to make the declaration that if ArbCom decides there is some basis for action, I am personally satisfied with a block of one minute of any party deemed to not have observed the ArbCom ruling—only a warning shot across the bow. PētersV 20:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. That includes myself if this is deemed to be a bad faith act on my part, as you contest. If ArbCom decides I'm truly using the ruling in a bad faith manner to "get" other editors, they can choose to take disiplinary action against me as well. PētersV 20:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. This appeared to be the most appropriate place, based on NewYorkBrad's suggestion, as I haven't ever taken up any sort of case before. It's not a case of finding yet "another page"/venue to launch an attack. PētersV 20:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin response As the decision says, "when the matter is reported to the Committee." The Committee did not put in any enforcement measures that can be dispensed by admins. You may wish to file a request to reopen the case at WP:RFAR or email the Arbitrators who voted in the previous case. Thatcher131 21:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response appreciated, I was just following NewYorkBrad's suggestion, I've posted plenty of comments in these sorts of proceedings but I have no idea how to navigate them myself.PētersV 22:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it can get compliated, because the provisions of every decision are slightly different. Thatcher131 is probably right that in this instance, the matter has to be brought back to the arbitrators. Whether they will be glad they provided for that when someone returns is a very separate question. Newyorkbrad 02:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Irish Famine[edit]

Per remedy 1.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine, we need three to five administrators to act as mentors for Great Irish Famine. Interested parties are asked to write the arbcom mailing list forthwith. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, Andranikpasha, MarshallBagramyan[edit]

1. User:VartanM, a participant to recent ArbCom [45], keeps removing an important source to Oxford scholar CJF Dowsett from Khachen page [46]. He is joined in this effort by User:Andranikpasha - [47]. who was recently blocked indefinitely for aggressive edit warring, but whose block was later shortened and placed under User:VartanM's supervision. It's still incomprehensible how one violating user can be placed under supervision of another edit warrior who went through ArbCom, but of course, this is a call by administrators. Meanwhile, here are further reverts by User:VartanM, without any willingness to constructively discuss but simply removing references:

[48], [49] - removing Anti-Turkism category and other relevant information from a page about a terrorist organization, specialized on killing Turkish nationals;
[50],[51],[52],[53]- removing Anti-Turkism and Terrorist category from a page of a convicted terrorist, who murdered Consul General of Turkey in Los Angeles for "being a Turk".
[54] - assisted by User:Andranikpasha in misrepresenting information on the same page.
[55]- removing Anti-Turkism category from a page about a convicted terrorist, whose bomb plot at Turkish Airlines counter at Paris Airport in 1983 killed 8 people.

I am not sure that User:VartanM has quite learned much from ArbCom case, and without any restriction at all continues to non-constructively edit, remove references in a flip and not showing any willingness to compromise for consensus on talk pages.

I realize that my posting will open another endless thread by User:VartanM, in trying to overshadow the content of this report and yield it useless to read. But I am just wondering how many times this user will have to ignore ArbCom decisions and continue freely revert warring, before ArbCom parole rules finally apply to him as they do to everyone. It really is turning into one-sided POV presentation of information otherwise. Thanks. Atabek 01:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the above closely, but just to note that I placed Andranikpasha under the supervision of VartanM following the recommendation and assurances of Ali doostzadeh (who was the original candidate but was too busy) that VartanM is suited for this task. El_C 03:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear El C, with all due respect to User:Ali doostzadeh, his non neutral stance on Azerbaijan related subjects does not make him authority in advising who is suitable and not for the task of supervising someone on Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute pages. I believe, given User:VartanM's disruptive record and direct involvement in this dispute on one of the sides, makes him absolutely unsuitable to supervise someone editing the same group of pages. This, as it's now obvious, results in coordination of reverts between VartanM and Andranikpasha, more than any kind of constructive editing. Thanks. Atabek 05:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek the above point was brought to my attention. May I ask which article in Wikipedia I was non neutral? I have fixed up major articles already that were conflict ridden. I have been neutral in the Azerbaijan-Armenian conflict and have accommodated Azeri users in several Iran-Azeri content disputes. Either way, I chose VartanM, given his clean record in Wikipedia and I believe my choice was right. Also it is about conducting oneself properly in Wikipedia despite not agreeing with someone else (here probably since we have content disagreement on some articles, it does not make you neutral and me non neutral! That is an incorrect assumption to begin with). I believe the above articles you have listed are right now are content disputes and not behavioral disputes. Weather an organization like ASLA is a terrorist organization or freedom fighting group or weather Bush is a promoter of democracy/freedom or promoter of destruction are co,ntent disputes. Category of terrorism might be the view of some users for both cases while category of freedm fighter for others. Actually, I would remove the word "terrorist" labeling from every organization since I do not see it fit as Encyclopedic. Al-Qaeda which I believe is a terrorist organization should not be labeled as such in an Encyclopedia but the content of the Encyclopedia itself should bring the truth out. To some Iraqi users, Mr. Bush might be viewed as a "terrorist", but such labels I believe degrade the quality of Encyclopedia since others might disagree with the label. I believe in keeping Wikipedia to a higher standard than using emotional categories/words. Weather Caucasian Albania was a province of Armenia at that time or independent territory and weather Dowswett meant it as a province/territory of Armenia or independent entity, again a content dispute. This one I do not judge about until further study is made. So content dispute is not a behavioral dispute and there is ways to solve content disputes starting with RfC. I would like to know per you accusation which article I was non-neutral as I always have sourced my assertions with verifiable sources. For example, I have been accommodating with the opening sentence of Safavids. I have had no issues with both Azeri and Armenian users in Wikipedia. I think your out of bounds on your accusation as my conduct in Wikipedia has been trying to accommodate all users, specially when they have brought valid sources. In other words, when I recommended VartanM (and he is doing a good job I believe in stabilizing the other user and explaining to him Wikipedia rules), I didn't choose him because I have had content dispute on Safavids with Atabek! If you meant disagreement on content, then I can equally say "I am neutral and you are not neutral". But if it is dispute on conduct/behavior, I have been neutral in Azeri-Armenian articles and have good relations with everyone thus far or have tried to have cordial and respectful relationship. Ultimately, if one gets involved in Azeri-Armenian articles, they would be accused of non-neutrality by one side or another. I do not see one Azeri (I mean from the republic of Azerbaijan) or Armenian user that have had a normal relationship in Wikipedia. On the other hand, I have been friends with many of these users. Thus I did not get involved with Andranik Pasha, but left it to VartanM who has a clean record (which shows excellent Wiki behavior and few users have it after all this back and forth bickering) and a cool head. Either way, rest assured to all readers that I am not trying to be a mediator or trying to become admin (who has time?) or anything. I am not interested in the Azeri-Armenian disputes. Thanks. --alidoostzadeh 10:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snif, snif. You guys smell that, its awfully smokey in here. Never mind... It took User:Atabek two days, since his return to report me for a content dispute. If my report on Parishan, who broke the rules of Wikipedia, was ignored why should any administrator pay attention to a content dispute. You should probably know by know that ArbCom doesn't do content disputes. Lets take a look at the evidence shall we.

ASALA - I removed the category and asked for a source, and were discussing the sourced in the talkpage. The other is a revert of a indef banned user.
Harry Sassounian - I removed the anti-Turkish category and asked for a source, Atabek added a terrorist category in return, which I removed per WP:BLP He claims him to be a convicted terrorist but he was convicted for a murder and no reliable sources call him terrorist. Also Atabek failed to give the evidence for my self revert for the anti-Turkish category.
Do you have any proof that I actually assisted AndranikPasha? What is he trying to imply?
Varoujan Garabedian - Atabek claims him to be a convicted terrorist, another WP:BLP violation. He was never convicted for terrorism. If the French juridical system didn't call him terrorist, Wikipedia is not in the position to label him as such.

Also as a side note. None of the above articles have anything to do with Azerbaijan or Azerbaijanis. May I ask, why is Atabek so obsessed with calling Armenians terrorist? WP:AGF Atabek. VartanM 03:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, before making further comments on California wild fires and relating to me, please, mind WP:STALK. I don't think your constant disruptions are in any way related to when I edit, so WP:AGF. And I don't see why you treat every report along national lines. What relevance does Azerbaijan have here at all for you to mention it? The person who is a member of a terrorist organization (ASALA), commits a mass murder, tried and convicted by above mentioned French judicial system, is a terrorist. Anyone planting a bomb in airline counter to kill innocent civilians is a terrorist, anyone doing so with intent to kill individuals of certain ethnicity is anti-that ethnicity. Why is it so hard to accept the category? And this has nothing to do with Garabedian being Armenian. It's actually damaging for anyone to defend such terrorist and promote someone killing innocent civilians as a "freedom fighter". Same applies to Sassounian, who deliberately killed Turkish consul in LA, as he admitted in testimony using terrorist methods, whose action was called as such by president Reagan. As for ASALA, it is a terrorist organization, as properly classified by U.S. State Department. Any group committing mass murders of civilians for political goals is a terrorist organization. I am sorry for bringing this content up here, but unfortunately, there is no other way to achieve any form of consensus with User:VartanM on talk pages. Try it if you believe my reports are annoying. And most importantly, what about removal of references at Khachen, never explained above? Atabek 05:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the latest above closely, either. Just quickly ordering VartanM to stay safe! El_C 03:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your information Atabek, I was referring to my self with the Wildfire comment, as I live very close to one of those fires and the smoke was getting thick. I don't see how mentioning a wildfire constituted to WP:STALK? Tell me how should I treat this report Atabek, You reported 4 users all of whom were Armenian. Are you claiming that it wasn't nationally motivated? As for Varoujan Garabedian or Harry Sasounian or anybody else who was not convicted as a terrorist, is not a terrorist for wikipedia. Any user who has a mild understanding of NPOV and WTA will tell you that. Again if you have questions about my edits take them to the talkpage. Creating a bogus reports are not gonna help your cause. Whatever that cause may be. VartanM 07:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, where you live is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. Stop bringing irrelevant disputes to AE to overshadow reports of your disruptions. Discuss the content on relevant pages. Atabek 16:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one claiming that I'm somehow stalking you, it was only logical for me to explain myself. Irrelevant disputes? I only addressed the misleading evidence you brought forward against me and 3 other Armenian users. So who is actually being disruptive here? VartanM 21:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. And here is another new edit by User:VartanM - [56], trying to incite another conflict on Iran-Azerbaijan related pages, reinserting the controversial POV earlier inserted by temporarily banned User:Hajji Piruz. Is there more evidence needed to show that User:VartanM is clearly trying to fuel the conflict? Not only he reverts the article, reinserting long disputed and irrelevant text, but didn't even comment on the talk page. Atabek 07:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side-note, Haji Piruz is not currently banned as his ban was reduced to a week. I think the above is also a content dispute. I have no interest in editing that article despite the article having been created in revenge attacks against Haji Piruz (fueling the conflict), but I believe Rfc and further steps like mediation is simple to proceed on any content. --alidoostzadeh 10:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali, please, WP:AGF, the article was created by User:Hajji Piruz himself - [57], not by someone else for as you say "revenge attacks against" him. I think your claim above as well as your proposal of User:VartanM, obviously disruptive edit warring contributor and ArbCom participant, as someone to supervise User:Andranikpasha should be explanatory why I made this conclusion about neutrality. I guess I don't have to take more space to address your lengthy response above. With all due respect neither you can be a neutral party in the dispute which involves Iran-related articles. Thanks. Atabek 16:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek thats for the correction. But Haji Piruz created the article after the issue was cut & pasted on different Iran articles in form of retaliation and it seems it more of obligation. I would WP:AGF but unfortunately I have some proof with this regard which I don't want to delve into. Anyways, I described my neutrality in another place. My main point in choosing VartanM was due to the fact that he offered his mentoring and I saw he has a clean record (and he still does it seems). So it was a decision simply based on the users behavior. I would support GM monitoring an Azeri replica of Andranik Pasha. If someone is new and has not used vulgarities.. As long as such user does not engage in vulgarity, it is fine and I would endorse it. Since I was involved in Iran related articles, I do not believe this makes me non-neutral with regards to the behavior (not content). I might have read the issue differently and it is now past us. Thanks.

On a side note to everyone. Now EIC knows too why it is almost impossible to get involved in arm/az issues. It is better for admins/users not from the region who are knowledgeable about the region to be involved. I can of course edit articles like Khachen, Sahl and etc. and I have access to a good amount of Arabic/Persian sources but ultimately this will lead to misjudgments. May there be peace one-day in ghd region. --alidoostzadeh 00:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rule that prevents me from editing that article? So far you filled one bogus report after another. And its starting to get irritating. If you have a problem with my edit, voice your concerns in the talkpage of that article. This board is only when a policy is violated. And speaking of fueling. I'm not the one who report 4 Armenian users only after 2 days being back from a Wikibreak. If that isn't disruptive behavior... VartanM 07:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just now I saw this notice! Atabek, you wrote: "keeps removing an important source to Oxford scholar CJF Dowsett from Khachen page [6]." I discussed at the talk page the minunderstanding of that source and then reverted to the previous version by adding one more source. You also wrote: "User:Andranikpasha - [7]. who was recently blocked indefinitely for aggressive edit warring, but whose block was later shortened and placed under User:VartanM's supervision." It never means I cant discuss (with new sources!) anything at Wiki and make even one revert during a week! so what's the problem? Andranikpasha 11:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another misunderstanding of a source: Atabek, here [58] you called Mkhitar Gosh an "Albanian" by using an academic source as reference (C. J. F. Dowsett. "The Albanian Chronicle of Mxit'ar Goš", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 21, No. 1/3. (1958), p. 475). you didnt cite what this source is asking, cuz it is a misunderstanding of the article's name, nothing more. Its obvious fact that Gosh was an Armenian philosopher and priest [59][60] [61], so a quotation from Dowsett is needed! To not have problems with deletion of such "relevant" sources, pls just check what they are asking! Andranikpasha 12:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. User:MarshallBagramyan joined the war by reverting even the compromise edits by User:Picaroon - [62]. and removing all relevant references again. Atabek 22:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, pls read more carefully the talk. Picaroon asks if it is a compromiss or no? Only you agreed, two users (Marshall and me) didnt agree, as the source asks nothing about Caucasian Albania, which fell earlier. Andranikpasha 23:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, seriously, I say this with no bad intent, no aggressiveness, no conspiracy plan... take it easy! Take a step back, a deep breath, and start just concentrating on cooperative, reasonable (NPOV), quality edits. Practice what you preach (assume good faith), and this site will be a lot more productive both for you and in general. The atmosphere would definitely improve a great deal. Your approach/style both hinders all work and progress, and wastes great deals of time. Including hindering your work and wasting your time. Good luck... --RaffiKojian 19:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Enforcement request re Kosovo[edit]

Gazimestan speech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nikola Smolenski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Articles related to Kosovo are currently under article probation following Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. Unfortunately the probation has repeatedly been broken by User:Nikola Smolenski on Gazimestan speech, with edit-warring, POV-pushing and repeated reversions against consensus. The dispute concerns the characterisation of an historical issue on which Serbian and non-Serbian sources have different views. Nikola has repeatedly sought to delete any mention of the non-Serbian POV, declaring a particular Serbian nationalist POV to be a "a scientifically established fact." (See the article history.)

A request for comments was held on the article's talk page (at Talk:Gazimestan speech#Request for comments), in which two other editors uninvolved in editing Balkans-related articles participated. Armon, an experienced editor of Middle Eastern articles, found a compromise form of words. Nikola has now repeatedly reverted it, claiming it to be "nonsense".

After attempting over a period of two months (1) to explain what NPOV means, (2) involving other editors and (3) finding a compromise form of words, I now believe that Nikola has no intention of respecting NPOV or the article probation. I have refrained from reporting his violations of article probation until now, but following his latest bout of edit warring I see no likelihood that further attempts to discuss the matter will reach any useful result.

It is probably relevant that according to his talk page, he has described himself as a sympathiser of an ultra-nationalist far-right party in Serbia; his edits reflect this political alignment and it seems to me that we have a case of soapboxing here. At any rate, he has clearly repeatedly and systematically violated article probation. I would be grateful if another administrator could review this matter and take any appropriate action. I should note for the record that I have previously blocked Nikola for knowingly linking to external copyvios (he has also been blocked in the past by JzG for edit warring). -- ChrisO 23:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Nikola doesn't seem to "get" the principle of NPOV and isn't providing evidence for his position other than one partisan source. Chris has been dealing with him for a lot longer than I have, so I'll defer to his judgement as to whether Nikola should be blocked now, or blocked if he continues to edit in opposition to policy, article probation, and the RfC. <<-armon->> 23:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Chris wrote here is completely devoid of any connection to reality.

First of all, it should be noted that Gazimestan speech was not part of the Kosovo arbitration. It was pushed under probation by ChrisO, after he completely rewrote it. The article is not central to Kosovo issues, either in reality or on Wikipedia, and doesn't need to be held under the same scrutiny as central Kosovo-related articles. Four months after I wrote it, it had no significant edits.

The dispute seems to be about whether during a period of Albanian rule over the province Kosovo Serbs were abused by Kosovo Albanians, which led to them emigrating from the province, or merely complained about being abused without actually being abused. Version of the article which I initially preferred was:

The province had controversially been given extensive rights of autonomy in the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution and had been run by the province's majority-Albanian population. This development led to Kosovo's Serbs and Montenegrins being opressed by Albanian authorities, which, together with poor economy, caused their emigration from Kosovo[reference: Ruza Petrovic; Marina Blagojevic. The Migration of Serbs and Montenegrins from Kosovo and Metohija.].

while version which Chris initially preferred was:

The province had controversially been given extensive rights of autonomy in the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution and had been run by the province's majority-Albanian population. This development led to complaints from the Kosovo Serbs that they were being discriminated against by the province's predominately Albanian police force and local government.[reference: David Bruce MacDonald, Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian victim-centred propaganda and the war in Yugoslavia, p. 65. Manchester University Press, 2002. ISBN 0719064678] [differences highlighted]

I believe that saying "this led to complaints from the Kosovo Serbs that they were being discriminated" implies that they were not in fact discriminated. This was never called into question during any discussion, so I believe other editors agree.

It is not true that Serbian and non-Serbian sources have different views about this. I support my version with an extensive study of this specific issue. Chris supports his version with a few cherry-picked quotes from various books about Kosovo. Chris never established notability and expertise of the authors of the books. Furthermore, the quotes he picked don't support his assertions. No author said that Kosovo Serbs were not abused: they either don't mention the emigration at all or claim that it was because of other reasons (while not explicitly saying that there was no abuse). And, no author supported their words by anything: what they write is their personal opinion about the events. All Chris has to offer is his interpretation of personal opinion of a handful of authors. The authors are non-notable and not experts in the field, and Chris' interpretation is wrong.

So, Chris calls the assertion that Kosovo Serbs were abused "serbian POV", and the assertion that Kosovo Serbs were not abused "non-Serbian POV". I believe that Serbian POV has much stronger backing than non-Serbian POV. Even mentioning both would be OK, but no: Chris' version of the article mentions only this non-Serbian POV, while Serbian POV is nowhere to be found. He then calls his version of the article NPOV. While conversing with me, Chris will frequently cite me some policies, apparently to create impression that I don't know them: I know them well, and he is not respecting them.

During the course of the last RfC, User:Armon suggested a compromise rewording:

The reassertion of Albanian nationalism and a worsening economy led to a large number of Serbs and Montenegrins leaving the area in the 80's.

I agreed with this rewording. However, while Armon suggested (or so I understood) that the problematic sentence in question is replaced by his, currently, Armon's compromise rewording is in the article next to the problematic sentence, which remained unchanged. So, the article still pushed non-Serbian POV.

Chris claims that I am edit-warring, POV pushing and reverting against consensus: I see that it is he and User:PalestineRemembered who are edit warring and POV pushing and I don't see that there is a consensus. For example, during the RfC, I haven't edited the article at all - I even reverted myself when I saw that Armon initiated a discussion. After the RfC was seemingly finished and I saw that Armon's proposal was in the article, I have only removed the problematic sentence without touching Armon's proposal. I don't think that this is edit warring, this is exactly how things should be done: during the discussion the article was stable, after the discussion I continued to edit. I haven't participated in the discussion since, because I have not noticed it - I removed the sentence on October 22, and Armon replied on October 24. I of course do not intend to revert during this discussion but I would be glad if other editors would have as much courtesy.

Chris finishes his tirade a personal attack on me. On my talk page, user User:PaxEquilibrium asked me what I find sympathetic about Serbian Radical Party (which, by the way, cannot be reasonably described as far-right), claiming that I told him that I am their sympathiser. I don't recall of ever telling him so, and it is not true. And even if it would be true, it is accepted across entire political spectrum of Serbia that Kosovo Serbs were abused during this period and so it is irrelevant. I also find it strange that he is asking me that out of the blue, without any apparent reason, in precisely the same moment in which Chris could find it so convenient to use his question against me.

Blocking of me by Chris was wrongful, because the links in question are acceptable by Wikipedia policies, and Chris is lucky that I didn't have the nerves to push the issue further. Blocking of me by JzG was also wrongful as, in that point of time, it was PalestineRemembered who started the edit warring, and he reverted the article more times than me, so if anyone, it was he who should be blocked.

I cannot agree with Armon's statement that I provide one partisan source. I did provide two sources, and neither of them is partisan. The first is the already mentioned study, and the second is a standard history textbook. Nikola 05:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside all the above verbiage, this matter resolves to the following key points:

Serbian and non-Serbian sources provide different interpretations of the historical issue in question.
You regard the Serbian POV as "a scientific fact" ([63]) and the non-Serbian view as "nonsense" ([64]). This is entirely your personal opinion.
You have repeatedly edit-warred over a period of two months, reverting the contributions of three different editors to delete the non-Serbian view from the article. ([65], [66], [67], [68], [69], and so on back to August).
Your attempts to present the Serbian POV as "the truth" with no mention of the non-Serbian view violate WP:NPOV, a non-negotiable principle, which states: "multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one." This has been explained repeatedly to you on the talk page, but you have completely disregarded it.
Your attempts to elevate your personal opinion above multiple reliable scholarly sources are an obvious violation of WP:OR.
The article is currently under probation, which is intended to prevent "continuous edit warring", "questionable ... editing" and "any persistent violations of policies", all of which we've seen from you in this case. You have been aware of this from the start, but you haven't shown any hesitation in edit warring or seeking to violate NPOV.

Your conduct has seriously disrupted the editing of this article. As we've seen before, you seem to think that a reliable source is one that supports your personal POV, and that an unreliable source is anything that contradicts your personal POV. Obviously that's not the way that Wikipedia works. But given your refusal to accept Wikipedia's most basic policies, I've been left with no choice but to request enforcement action. -- ChrisO 08:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing of that is true also.

Serbian and non-Serbian sources provide very similar interpretations of this historical issue. The only difference is whether abuse of Serbs or economic factors were primary for the emigration of Serbs from Kosovo. Serbian sources claim that abuse was the primary factor, where some non-Serbian sources claim that economic factors are primary, but even these sources do not dispute that abuse was one of the factors. You claim that there was no abuse at all, and that Serbs only complained about it. That is not supported by any sources.
If a view is supported by a peer-reviewed scientific study, published by a respected institution, then it is a scientific fact, and I don't think that anyone will disagree. If you claim that a group of people complained about being abused, but were not abused, and don't provide anything to back your claim, sorry, I will call it nonsense. I do not see why is that a bad thing.
Your description of the edit war is very wrong. The last consensus version of the article was created by me on August 13 when I, in response to concerns stated on Talk, added economic reasons for the migration to the sentence in question[70]. The article remained stable for nearly two months when, on October 5, PalestineRemembered, completely replaced this sentence while using a misleading edit summary of Badly spelled POV been inserted into this paragraph.[71]. After this, you and he started reverting to his version repeatedly. During this time, Isarig edited my version trivially and apparently found no problems with it[72], Armon reverted only once, and I stopped reverting after that while discussion was underway.
To avoid the trap you are luring me into, yes there were previous edit wars, but not over this period of two months.
It is you who are constantly presenting anti-Serbian POV as "the truth", with no mention of Serbian view anywhere. As I explained, it is generally accepted among both Serbian and non-Serbian sources that Kosovo Serbs were abused, and that this was one of the reasons for their emigration from Kosovo. I believe that view that this was the main reason has much stronger support, but I am open to all compromise solutions, and have suggested a few. Armon suggested a compromise which I accepted, though either I misunderstood him or he later changed his opinion to also include the POV sentence in the article. So far, you suggested no compromise whatsoever, and kept pushing for the version of the article which strongly implies that Kosovo Serbs were not abused at all. This your version is the one that does not present one of conflicting perspectives, and which gives undue weight to an unsupported minority view.
I made no attempt to elevate my personal opinion above multiple reliable scholarly sources. It is in fact you who is elevating your interpretation of several sources, which could hardly be called scholarly, reliability of which you never bothered to establish, over a reliable scholarly source. That is prime example of WP:OR. Sources you cite do not say what you want them to say, get over with it already!
As I explained above, the edit warring wasn't started by me, but by PalestineRemembered. Why are you not filing a complaint about him?

Your crusade against Francisco Gil-White and TENC under guise of removing linkspam only shows that you mislead people then as you are doing now. It is you who are introducing unreliable sources to support your personal POV. Nikola 09:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reference I found today, in response to Armin's inquiry for more references: expert report by Audrey Helfant Budding given to the ICTY for the prosecution against Slobodan Milosevic[73]:

Yet it is one-sided to ignore economic factors in discussing Slavic emigration from Kosovo, it is also inaccurate to present them as the only reason for emigration. In 1985-86, the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences conducted a survey [that is the study we are talking about all the time] [...] This study must be treated with some caution [...] Nevertheless, a review of the SANU survey and a consideration of other more anecdotal evidence suggests that inter-ethnic tensions - and in some cases acts of intimidation or violence - played a role in many emigration decisions.²³¹

Audrey Helfant Budding has a PhD in history and is a lecturer at Harvard. She is more reliable than all of Chris' authors together squared, even if they would say what he would like them to say. Nikola 10:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the content issues, it is clear that Armon and Nikola have been both been edit warring at Gazimestan speech recently. If it either continues, they should expect a block, but this is a bit old now. Dmcdevit·t 06:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? OK, well don't worry about me then. I was just trying to help. You guys work it out. <<-armon->> 10:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a total misreading of it, Dmcdevit. This request for enforcement was occasioned by Nikola edit warring to state one side's version of events as "the truth". In doing this, he's opposing the consensus of the other editors on the article. Three editors - Armon, PR and I - have tried to find a compromise solution, but have been rebuffed by Nikola. He seems to have given up trying to push his POV for now; however, given his past record, I expect that he will resume edit warring in due course. I can understand your confusion; Nikola is adept at obfuscating the issues with verbiage. -- ChrisO 13:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, do not repeat lies about me. I am asking you to withdraw what you said. You are the one who is POV pushing and representing a non-notable opinion as "the truth". I am not edit warring. I have not "given up" but was patiently waiting for someone to continue discussion in talk with new sources I presented.

Given that it did not happenened, I have edited the article to what I believe is a compromise version. If it is reverted, I'll start a mediation about this.

I absolutely agree that Armon is not edit warring. Nikola 08:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have in fact started a mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gazimestan speech. Nikola 08:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please give a gentle reminder in regards to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2[edit]

Resolved

User:DreamGuy's edits at Talk:Jack the Ripper continue to approach, and occasionally cross, the lines drawn by the edit restrictions imposed on him by this RfArb. He is very knowledgeable on the subject and I am not sure I really think a block is appropriate at this time... But I think he needs at least a gentle reminder.

User:Arcayne believes DreamGuy may have used an IP login in bad faith to bolster his position, although DreamGuy denies it. I have not looked at the evidence myself. In any case, DreamGuy is not really adhering to the edit restrictions imposed by the previous arb, and I think at the very least he could use a reminder that his behavior could lead to a block. --Jaysweet 20:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he didn't deny it; he simply evaded answering the question. That way, if he was shown to have been using the account, he couldn't be shown to have lied about it. He has been specifically told not to edit under duplicate accounts, and the one in question, 71.203.223.65 has a substantial history behind it, something you wouldn't ordinarily see with someone who simply forgot to sign in (most IP addresses aren't that static). He's rather screwed up here, as admitting to it is a violation of the RfC and ArbCom restrictions placed upon him, and denying it would get him banned outright. He has even created yet another account using this anonymous account, as seen here, anon 82.38.177.222, who has also contributed to the Jack the Ripper article. So what we are essentially dealing with here is someone who is creating at least two different anonymous IP addresses to edit within the article, and the edits and comments of one (71...) his DreamGuy account eventually defends.

I had noted some of the edit summaries in the last section of the ripper article Discussion regarding unprotection, but here are the specific diffs showing anon user:71's contributions and then DG's reentry under his primary account:

As user:71.203.223.65

August 31, 2007@12:42
September 4, 2007@10:17
September 11, 2007@9:51
September 13, 2007@17:10
September 15, 2007@17:59 - reverting to "last good version"
September 21, 2007@08:32
September 25, 2007@08:52
September 26, 2007@11:46
September 27, 2007@17:08
September 27, 2007@17:10 - created account 82.38.177.222

(posts from anon user 82.38.177.222 occur in this gap - see below for posts to Jack the Ripper article under that anon IP)

As user:82.38.177.222

September 12, 2007@15:56 - this edit is actually vandalsim of the Scrubs (tv series) article
September 27, 2007@16:43
September 27, 2007@16:44

Again, as user:71.203.223.65

September 29, 2007@14:56
October 18, 2007@12:33
October 20, 2007@09.59 - edit summary: "Reverting back to last good version... absolute nonsense that some editor would blind revert changes to approved version of page just out of spite"
October 20, 2007@10:03 - post to my User Talk page, referring to "blind reverts"
October 20, 2007@10;06
October 20, 2007@10:07
October 20, 2007@10:16 - created discussion section entitled "Blind reverting"
October 20, 2007@10:24 - posting replies to own user talk page. Note the similarity in language to that of DreamGuy_2.
October 21, 2007@16:19 - edit summary "reverting back to last good version -- got some editors here who insist upon ignoring long standing consensus out of misplaced ownership or anti-IP editor status or something"
October 21, 2007@16:21 - article discussion attack "not paying attention"
October 21, 2007@16:23 - article discussion again, "blind revert accusations"
October 21, 2007@16:29 - article discussion yet again, referring to 'prior consensus', 'blind reverts', how I need a "crash course" (in editing, I presume), and bizarrely, how the user recalls me and Colin working the article at some point in the past (don't think I was on my watchlist until very recently)
October 21, 2007@16:31 - article discussion again, referring to "prior consensus"
October 21, 2007@16:32 - article discussion again, referring to 'prior concensus' and how colin needed to seek a new consensus, but points out that it "won't happen"
October 23, 2007@14:54 - blanking user talk page of comments and complaints over behavior

At this point, user 71.203.223.65 went silent. During the first of the edits by this anon user, DreamGuy's account was silent (ie., no edits from August 24th until October 22nd), After DreamGuy's account became active, he frequently posted around the same times as user 71..., in one instance only 10-15 minutes apart (here and here).

As the civility of the responses as well as some of the exact wording was utilized by both anon user 71.., and DreamGuy_2, it almost positive that these two users are in fact the same. I have not heard back the results of the CheckUser I filed a few days ago, but considering the backlog, itmight be a while. Repeated requests asking if DG was in fact the anonymous user went specifically unanswered. It should be noted that not all of the diffs of users 82... and 71... are contentious, but it is my reasoned belief that they aren't meant to be such, but instead hidden 'supporters' of DG's edits, to be utilized in providing 'consensus'. However, writing styles as confrontational as DG's are pretty hard to mask, and the similarities between the two are both remarkable and unmistakable.

Additionally, DreamGuy_2 has engaged in edit warring in the article (both under his primary ID and the two anons), reverting the versions of the main article until it was locked by admins. Furthermore, he has continued to make accusations, personal attacks and in generally raising the bar for uncivility. His uncivil behavior and edits under his DG account begin less than 10 days after his ArbCom restriction.

As per his ArbCom restrictions, DG is:

"subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below."

As well, he has been repeatedly asked by admins and editors to not create alternate accounts to edit from, as per both ArbCom as well his his first and second RfC's.

This continued pattern of uncivility, personal and ad hominem attacks and evasive use of alternate accounts to avoid editorial linkage to his primary account seem to clearly (at least to me) indicate that DreamGuy_2 is aware that he is violating the ArbCom restrictions, and simply tinks himself the smartest guy in the room. Normally, that last part could be applied tomany of us, but when coupled with the lack of respect shown his fellow editors, the edit-warring and the barely-concealed hostility he has for anyone 'daring' to question his edits, it presents a picture of a deleterious and corrosive influence in Wikipedia. I think that blocking is absolutely necessary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the issue here? There is a lot of general complaining here, but I don't see any links to actual ongoing civility or edit warring problems. If there are any, please supply the relevant diffs. Dmcdevit·t 06:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not being clear. The many above-noted diffs were to point out that DreamGuy_2 specifically created anonymous IP addresses to use while editing within the article Jack the Ripper, and then denied editing using them. His edit summaries under the first anon IP address (71.203.223.65) reverted en masse previous edits by another editor without discussion, using as it's edit summary,"Reverting back to last good version... absolute nonsense that some editor would blind revert changes to approved version of page just out of spite". he then posted to my User Talk page, accusing me of "blindly reverting" his version. this turn of phrase kept recurring under both the anon IP and DreamGuy_2, when he eventually signed in under his primary account. As the anonymous user, he edit-warred with another user and was uncivil in both edit summaries for article edits ("reverting back to last good version -- got some editors here who insist upon ignoring long standing consensus out of misplaced ownership or anti-IP editor status or something") and in the discussion page.

After signing out as the anon users 71.203.223.65 and 82.38.177.222, Dreamguy signed back in to edit Jack the Ripper. The uncivil edit summaries, however, continued: "reverting back to last good version, over the blind revert of an editor who has a long history of wikistalking me", continuing the edit war and eventually violating 3RR (though it became stale before the connection between the anon user and DreamGuy became apparent) through the last mass revert of the article version here which, despite the edit summary, did not occur asa result of discussion agreement. the page was locked a day later until the underlying disputes could be resolved, and extended when the discussion bore no resolution.

I wish I could provide a single diff that would indicate the level of civility displayed in the discussion page, but that would literally be over a dozen instances of digs on other users, assumptions that they "need to learn how WP works", making veiled accusations of collusion with other editors, and so on. It would present a smaller list to provide examples of when he has been civil.

While DG provides a lot of insight into the subject of Jack the Ripper, his behavior there is toxic, driving away and intimidating other editors. i approached the article determined to give DG a chance to redeem himself and acted politely and civilly towards him. It has been tedious to sidestep his personal attacks and uncivil behavior. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, and he simply sucks all of the fun out of editing in the article - in any article - he contributes to. He is not reverting and being uncivil to simple vandals; he is behaving to editors who are contributing in good faith to the article - or at least, trying to do so before being reverted by DG or his anonymous IPs.

The ArbCom and double RfC in specifically addressing DreamGuy's behaviorhave restricted his behavior, enjoins him to be more civil in his interactions with other editors - a unanimous decision from ArbCom. After looking at his behavior from before the RfC's and ArbCom and after, I find no improvement of his behavior. I see no real attempt to be civil, polite, and his personal attacks litter and gum down the discussion page, as others address them instead of focusing on the article. I see no attempt to reign in what appears to be a consistent patern of uncivil behavior, of ownership of articles he contributes to, specifically Jack the Ripper (where he claims to be an expert, a "Ripperologist", dismissing and berating the comments of 'amateurs').

He has created at least two anonymous IP accounts (that we know of) to edit in the same article to provide a false consensus for his views, and has argued unremittingly (without a single example of compromise) for a version of the article which he has made twice as many edits as any two other editors combined. He has used these accounts to sidestep the ArbCom decision, evidenced by his uncivil behavior as the anonymous IP, and edit-warring and 3RR violation by reverting the article under both the anonymous IP addres and as DreamGuy.

This is someone who has had almost two dozen editors contribute to two different RfCs and an actual ArbCom interaction, complaining about his behavior. this is someone who was specifically told in no uncertain terms that his behavior needed to improve or else. Are the actions described above the actions of someone attempting to modify or attenuate their behavior? From even a cursory examination of just the Ripper article discussion, it is clear that DreamGuy_2 sees no reason to heed ArbCom's rulings and in fact considers them to be a 'club' to be feared. He has not learned how to work with others. He chooses not to learn how to work with others. Wikipedia only works when people works together, and when two dozen, long-time, editors with solid backgrounds say that this guy is toxic, then its time to consider that maybe they are right. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of a specific diff that shows DG going way over the line is why I was hesitant to make this report in the first place. In fact, his present behavior is only worrisome in the context of the previous ArbCom ruling: He was warned to pay particular attention to civility and personal attacks. I have not seen him break WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in a manner which I would normally consider reportable -- but at the same time, in terms of the good faith editors I come in contact with, he would probably rank in the bottom quartile in terms of his level of civility and respect for other editors. Given the previous ArbCom ruling, I found that troubling.

I don't know, I'm starting to reconsider the original report. I just wish I knew how to make DG chill out a little bit! --Jaysweet 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that DG wasn't aware of the enforcement complaint at the time of its filing. I've remedied by notifying him via all three accounts (Dreamguy_2's, User:71.203.223.65 and User:82.38.177.222). I just noticed that DG had not responded here as of yet, and went a-looking. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has looked at my edits I am bending over backwards to try to be civil, even in the face of many rude comments, assumptions of bad faith, and so forth, by User:Arcayne and User:Colin4C as a result of differences in opinion over the article Jack the Ripper, for which they cannot gain consensus (in fact they don't even seem to support each other on the topics they feel most strongly about). User:Colin4C said straight out that he doesn't consider my opinions valid and tried to use the ArbCom ruling as justification for why others should ignore me as well, while User:Arcayne seems to be taking a slightly different tack, for example claiming that I am using sockpuppets to try to get a false consensus when the actions of the IP addresses he is trying to connect with me couldn't possibly be construed as sockpuppet behavior, and trying to claim that my saying he had blind reverted the article is a personal attack when he himself admits that he reverted and didn't care what errors and so forth were included in the revert as long as it undid what I had done. Jaysweet seems very well intentioned here, but I think the biggest reminder that I need to always stay civil is that certain people are watching me like a hawk. Certainly ArbCom decision to encourage civility should not be used like a club, it should be a reminder that everyone needs to meet those standards. DreamGuy 23:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I find disconcerting about this response by DG is the presumption that anyone who disagrees with his edits must be working in concert against him (ie, the noting that we don't even 'support each other's edits'). It has already been shown that you have edited under these IPS addresses (and continue to do so with at least one of them). that you choose to evade admitting it as well as the information above pretty well indicates that you have ingored completely the strongly-worded RfC that specifically enjoined you from creating and editing under different accounts int he same article. Had you meant to use them as dopplegangers, you would have readily admitted to them. That you were uncivil in the same articleas anonymous user 71. that you normally edit in as DG, and you reverted the version of both, violating 3RR indicates a clear attempt to avoid the ArbCom restriction on uncivil language and behavior. Edit-warring, unless something has changed drastically, is considered uncivil, is it not?

While it has been explained on at least five different occasions that the revert was to stabilize the article from the edit-warring going on, wherein you were at risk for being blocked for 3TT and /or edit-warring. My edit summary said as much, and strongly urged you to discuss your edit differences. As it successfully ceased the behavior, i considered it then (as I do now) an intervention by a neutral party, and not some contribution to the feud between yourself, Colin and anyone else who apparently disagrees with you.

ArbCom isn't being used like a club, DG. Were you civil and polite and didn't edit-war, ArbCom couldn't be able to find fault with you. These violations aren't pulled from whole choth, they are examples that you have failed to learn from over a dozen experienced editors who have given you several chances to adapt your behavior to 'play and work well with others'. Unfortunately, you haven't learned that lesson, and that is specifically why the ArbCom restrictions on your behavior feel like a club. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no interest in replying at length here, but anyone who looks at my edits versus your claims will see that there's nothing to your complaint. There was no sockpuppeting, there absolutely were no 3RR violations, you can't rationalize your own edit warring via blind reverting out changes made by many different editors to restore it to an older version which never had any consensus as an attempt "to stabilize the article" because it most certainly did not, and so forth and so on. And I certainly never said ArbCom restrictions themselves were a club, just that certain people seem to be using it as if it were a weapon and not for the purpose they were intended. DreamGuy 17:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there was no edit-warring on my part. I edited to create a cease-fire fromthe edit-warring and to bring you and colin to the discussion page. It was successful in doing so. I certainly didn't involve myself in what amounted to a lame dispute over a consensus that clearly did not and does not exist. Consensus not a static thing. While Colin was incorrect to edit-war, your edit-warring in return makes you just as incorrect, and its notable that he wasn't under Arbcom restriction to refrain from such activity - you were.

So I am clear as to your contentions, you are stating unequivocally that you have not edited Jack the Ripper under accounts (including anon IPs) other than your DreamGuy_2 account? As well, as you also unequivocally stating that you have not acted uncivilly and have not edit-warred over versions under two different accounts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the silence from DG speaks volumes. Even now, when presented with proof of his use of alternate IDs to edit uncivilly (or to use another term, 'sock-puppeting'), he refuses to admit or apologize for their usage. - Arcaynet (^{cast a spell}) 19:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I do not believe 82.38.177.222 was a sockpuppet of DG. I'm not sure about the other IP though... There were definitely some red flags.

I think we can take this off the AN/AE noticeboard at this point. I don't think any admin feels we've presented evidence that is worthy of an enforcement, and I'm having second thoughts as well. I am starting to think what we really need is an RFC to get more eyes on the Jack the Ripper article. Right now, Arcayne and DG can both very correctly argue that the other does not have consensus behind them ;) --Jaysweet 19:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see long winded arguments to punish DreamGuy, but no conclusive diffs. If you see a negative activity that you can present concisely with diffs, feel free to report it here. If you suspect sockpuppetry, WP:SSP is thataway, and so is WP:RFCU. Otherwise, find some other sport besides trying to get DreamGuy banned or blocked. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You see only that, do, do you? Splendid. Thank you for the suggestion of SSP; I've since filed. I thought I had filed a Checkuser, but apparently not. I shall pursue that avenue as well to provide foundation for this complaint.

As for your rather unfair assertion that I consider this sport, perhaps you might 'agf' just a wee bit and realize that I would much rather be spending my time doing something else, instead of repeatedly pointing out that which both the RCFU and the SSA are going to clearly illuminate in short order. I guess I can wait until those results are in, at which time I will be able to point out specific uncivility on the part of the anonymous users that DG has chosen to use as socks, and that he used those accounts to commit vandalism and post uncivil comments and attack other users, sidestepping the ArbCom restrictions. Even though it appears (from a quick scan of DG's user talk page) you are clearly defending him and his edits, I certainly hope you are going to consider yourself neutral enough to render an honest opinion in the matter. However, I will do what you have chosen not to do for me; I will presume your good faith.

As soon as I hear back from RFCU and SSP, i will post the results here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy blocked, case review requested

I've blocked DreamGuy initially for one week for abusive sock puppetry, incivility, and edit warring. I am requesting a review of the sanctions because there are additional factors that ArbCom was unaware of. I recommend increasing the length of the block, and also a checkuser to confirm what appears to be an obvious case of sockpuppetry. See ANI thread and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2. - - Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you need to specify what you felt was abusive sock puppetry, incivility, and edit warring, with concise evidence. This modus operandi might be good enough if and/or when Durova becomes an arbitrator, but, for now, do feel yourself obliged to remain empirically-grounded. El_C 16:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI thread and SSP report contain the evidence. I didn't repeat everything here, but can if the committee asks. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the organization? The coherence? The intelligibility? Please reference your claims. El_C 17:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no statement to make about that, but it appears that if the IP was DG when logged out, he violated 3RR pretty badly. I would have expected a blocking admin to wait for RFCU to work out, given that it would almost certainly be conclusive in the case of what appears to be a static IP, but given DG's refusal to deny that the IP is him, it is at least understandable in that light. I expect that ArbCom will wait for the results of a RFCU before pronouncing on the block, if at all. Relata refero 19:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you submit no evidence "he violated 3RR pretty badly." At least Jehochman sends me elsewhere for non answers. El_C 20:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed evidence is the "elsewhere" that Jehochman sent you. I intended to submit no evidence, merely clarifying the accusation. Relata refero 21:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would only have meant you pasting four links, to prove your claim of a 3RR breach. But if you won't ,you won't. El_C 23:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the above sentence. I made no claim. attempted to clarify the accusation for your convenience, which last will henceforth be a matter of complete indifference to me. Relata refero 06:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Sorry, I was out to dinner; here are the 3RR difftimes El C has asked for:

1st revert: 16:19, October 21, 2007 as 71.203.223.65 (talk · contribs)
2nd revert: 13:50-13:59, October 22, 2007 as DreamGuy
3rd revert: 14:00, October 22, 2007as DreamGuy
4th revert: 14:12, October 22, 2007 as DreamGuy

I am aware that the reverts are a bit stale. Until we were aware of the connection of DreamGuy to the anonymous editor 71.203.223.65 (talk · contribs), it was assumed that DreamGuy had only made 3 reverts (which he was warned about at the time). It now appears that he was using the anonymous IP in an hostile manner and to violate 3RR. He has been repeatedly warned about this specific practice of using anon logins to "avoid scrutiny" in other administrative actions (diffs available upon request). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say that I am very disillusioned with the Wikipedia administrators over the response to this. This does not have to be so complicated. For one, I am absolutely baffled that the RFCU was denied. There are some very serious red flags regarding the edits made by 71.203.223.65, but without the checkuser it is not a slam dunk either way. And without knowing that, nobody here knows for sure whether or not DG has egregiously violated policy.

Jehochman comes into the discussion with what I perceived as a very negative and dismissive attitude, which struck me as particularly unnecessary coming right after I suggested nicely that maybe it should come off the noticeboard. Phrases like "making sport" of this are just going to rile things up.

Then of course, Jehochman becomes a convert and blocks. Now we have El C jumping in with, OMFG, another belligerent and dismissive attitude coming from an admin -- and one I know to be prolific, long-standing, and generally well-respected. Is there something about the noticeboard that turns admins into dicks?!

I'm just very disappointed. Until the admins showed up, this was a fairly level-headed discussion -- even DreamGuy's comments were within reason, and I do not think overly-defensive given that he is being accused here. I dunno, it is just really disappointing to me that the discussion didn't get out of hand until admins participated. I thought we expected better of admins around here. Seriously. --Jaysweet 15:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, El C and I have patched up our disagreements, and I think issues with Arcayne have been resolved as well. Is there something else we can do for you? My advice is to move forward in the spirit of reconciliation. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is good to hear, and I think that is good advice. Sorry for the rant, I just felt like AGF had been a little lacking. Well, really lacking. ;) If everybody is on the same page now, I think we can indeed move forward. I am going to message Arcayne and DG with a proposal regarding this. --Jaysweet 17:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda agree with Jaysweet on this. Sure, i didn't know how to put together the report proper-like, but usually I edit, i don't file admin paperwork. Usually, its the ediors who screw up and the admins have to be the voice of reason; the admins screwed the pooch on this but good. Turning down the ArbCom enforcement complaint because DG wasn't uncivil enough is one thing. Turning it down because its long-winded is stupid. Refusing to perform the RFCU because there is no evidence to proceed is reasonable; refusing to do it because it regards reverts and not uncivility (by dmcDevit) is an utter cock-up; since when do we stop checkusers on people who use it to edit-war? In a smarter world, Dmdevit would have simply waited until the checkuser came back. In a smarter world, I would have filed the report without waiting to hear back from someone who was stalling for time, and gotten help to file it the right way.

Since it isn't a perfect world, I guess there is nothing left to do but get back to business as usual. Of course, DreamGuy does is getting a mulligan on this, but that's okay. If he hasn't learned his lesson, he'll be back here again. If he has, then all the better. I'll cross my fingers ad go back to editing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aynabend[edit]

User:Aynabend, formerly known as user:Ulvi I., is a member of both Armenia-Azerbaijan I. [74] and its sequal [75] and is limited to a 1RR as he is involved in aggressive editing and reversions as observed by his contributions. According to the final decision to both Ar-Az arbitrations, everyone of such is placed on 1RR and is required to leave a comment on the talkpage once they revert an article, in order to encourage discussion. In light of my recent blocking [76] for such, this applies to user:Aynabend who reverted the Shushi article without discussion on the talk page [77]. Not the first time either [78], although he was not even blocked for this reversion. -- Fedayee (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fedayee, I'm sorry you were blocked for failing to discuss one revert. I would have just warned you, since your block log has been clean since April. In this case I'm only going to warn Aynabend, since this is the first reported violation after he was placed on notice. I am also going to warn him in regard to VartanM's noting that Aynabend has appeared after a month absence to revert to Atabek's version, something he did here as well. I will also log the warning in case this behavior continues. Thatcher131 23:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andranikpasha[edit]

In accordance with the ruling of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Andranikpasha (talk · contribs) was placed by an admin on a revert parole limiting him to 1 rv per page per week: [79] However, on Shusha article he made 2 rvs in less than 1 week, first by deleting a content from the article [80], which is considered a revert according to WP:3RR (see [81]), and then by reverting the page to a previous version here: [82] This is a clear violation of the revert parole by this user. Grandmaster 10:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a violation here. Grandmaster, you're misinterpreting the WP:3RR, deleting alone is not a revert, it is only in the context of removing what another editor has added. It is very unlikely that Andranik checked contributions of months back(February, 2007) and picked a contributor to revert by specifically reverting his changes without changing other edits made since. Part of what he removed was an unsourced claim and the fact tag was there since February 2007. So this makes one and not two reverts. If this was true, simple copy-editing edits would be considered reverts, since you are undoing someone elses work. VartanM (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, when discussing a revert to an old version, it would help to have a diff that spans the versions, like this, or two diffs that show the reversion, to save time looking for it. The first edit is not a revert; removing content can be a revert but in this case the removed content had been present at least since September, and normal editing it allowed by the probation. The second link is indeed a reversion, there appears to be at least some discussion on the talk page, so as long as Andranikpasha does not revert again before the 21st, there is no violation at this time. Thatcher131 23:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting MichaelCPrice for violation of ArbCom restriction[edit]

I reported a revert violation by MP today to AN/I along with diffs.

Michael Price has violated an editing restriction imposed by ArbCom for sustained edit-warring Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ebionites#MichaelCPrice_restricted. MP reverted content on the Tachyon article without discussing it on the talk page as required by ArbCom. [83] [84]

The change was not discussed on the talk page per the ArbCom directive. A note was placed on MPs talkpage by the responding admin, Sam Blacketer. I was informed this report should have been filed here instead. My apologies. Ovadyah 21:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus was previously established on the tachyon talk page, and not just with one editor. An anon editor (who to date has taken nothing to the talk page) complained in the edit summary about the lack of citations. This was remedied, and in addition the phrasing of the text was expanded. This has found consensual acceptance. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far, we are seeing a lot of confontation without a hint of contrition. [85] [86] There is also a refusal to acknowledge what is required: to discuss each revert on the talk page as it occurs, not say consensus was reached somewhere on the talk page sometime in the past. Ovadyah 23:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the content has been clarified and referenced it was not a mere revert. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the content was eventually clarified, well after the revert, and a reference was supplied by another editor. The admin that looked into it concluded you made a revert. Please acknowledge that you understand what is required of you. You are to discuss every revert on the talk page at the time you make it. Ovadyah 16:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, doubly wrong. I clarified the phrasing as part of the update and added a ref within one minute[87]. Later the anon editor became abusive and it was a clear case of vandalism. Another editor later supplied another reference, but did no further textual clarification. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see. I see you are still refusing to acknowledge the restrictions that have been placed upon you. Rather than a block, which would have no lasting effect, I propose to the Arbitration Committee that you be assigned a "parole officer" to mentor you and take punitive actions as necessary when you knowingly violate your restrictions. I believe Dbachmann would be an excellent choice, as he is already familiar with the circumstances of your case. Ovadyah 16:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator response: MichaelCPrice is expected to abide fully by the restrictions placed upon him in the arbitration decision. However, reverting an IP edit that was accompanied with the edit summary "you idiot" really is not the type of thing that I believe the arbitrators were concerned about. Under the circumstances, I believe that reminding MichaelCPrice to abide by the restrictions is sufficient, and this has been done. The "parole officer" suggestion is not necessary; in the unhappy event that future violations occur, they can be reported in a new section on this noticeboard. Newyorkbrad 17:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response. Would this include the edit-warring that is happening on Talk:Tachyon unabated, and questioning the mental stability of editors that disagree with his edits on MP's talk page, or is this a matter for AN/I? Ovadyah 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an actual edit-war going on on Talk:Tachyon, or just a discussion (albeit an overly heated discussion) about article content? With regard to "questioning the mental stability," the arbitration decision did not specifically address civility issues, but everyone is reminded to remain civil and avoid personal attacks. Newyorkbrad 17:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue in both cases appears to be a lack of civility and personal attacks in response to questions and objections raised by other editors. The context of the discussion seems to be that the revert was not discussed adequately. Strictly speaking, this is not an actual edit-war, but it does contribute to poisoning the editing environment. Ovadyah 17:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to reduce ArbCom time wasted by responding to Ovadyah's misleading accusations I suggest that my editing restriction be restricted to the Ebionite article only. In return I promise not to edit the Ebionite article at all for the restriction period. That way we can all concentrate on more constructive work. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Arbitration Committee itself can change the scope of the restrictions. The administrators who monitor this board, such as myself, do not have authority to do so. Newyorkbrad 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Where exactly should I make my proposal then? At Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee or somewhere else? --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly opposed to such a proposal, unless it is applied in addition to the current sanctions. I expect a number of other editors will be as well. Ovadyah 13:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, if their only concern is the state of the Ebionite article? Or is this a case of wikistalking and harassment, aside from the waste of admin/arbcom time?--Michael C. Price ^talk 15:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are again putting words in the Arbitration Committee's mouth as well as my own, just as you put words into the mouths of your secondary sources. It has recently been pointed out to me that this conflation / misleading content problem has infected several articles you have touched. By all means, appeal your sentence and let's see what happens. Personally, I became convinced awhile ago that this can only end one way. :0) Ovadyah 16:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool it, both of you. MichaelCPrice is limited to one revert per week per page, it applies to all pages, and only ArbCom can modify the remedy. Contact an Arbitrator by email or post your request in the Request for clarification section of WP:RFAR. Thatcher131 23:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting BKWSU Core IT PR Team for violation of ArbCom restriction[edit]

Following on from meatpuppet and WP:OWN findings at a recent Suspected Sockpuppet report; [88]

Suspected meatpuppets acting for the BKWSU Core IT PR Team on the BKWSU Wikipedia page again.

Bksimonb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Appledell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Evidence

Looking through the history of the topic on the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, there seems to be a distinct theme of ownership WP:OWN being exhibited by not just active members of the religious movement but even dedicated organizational IT PR Team members. Over the last few days prior to having the page locked, I attempted to add a number of citations, quotations to citation and make neutral typographic and tagging correction only for them to be identically reverted under the guise of "Vandalism". [89] by the BKWSU team members.

Although I am sure that these are separate individuals, I suggest that this is clear as possible an example of dedicated meatpuppetry. WP:SOCK stated that in such cases, such individuals should be treat the same as sockpuppets.

User:Bksimonb states that he is an official BKWSU IT PR team member [90]. In a previous Arbcom decision, [91] and user page, [92] it was disclosed that User:Riveros11 was also part of the team and confirmed puppeteer [93]. I suspected that single user account User:Appledell is also. Both exhibit a trend of following the leadership of User:Bksimonb. In the arbcom case, it was stated that there was "clear evidence of article ownership".[94]

reverts back to Bksimonb version [102]

Both User:Bksimonb [103], User:Riveros11 and User:IPSOS [104] have filed disproportionate report of vandalism, personal attacks, checkusers, sockpuppetry complaints regarding the BKWSU page, included some while logged out so they do not appear in the contribution history of the named account, apparently to intimdate any user contradiction the organization's position, even those well known not to be socks by other editors.

Even when I have placed extensive documentation and justification of change I see no where else, [105] it is dismissed by IPSOS by a oneliner say it is not "discussion" [106].

With all independent contributors intimidated off, the discuss and article remains virtual fallow, e.g. 3 edits in two months; [107]

(To avoid any counter-accusation, I recently required to change my user name due to a lost password but have reported this).

I have stated clearly that I know these individuals are separate but that I can substantiate in detail a collusion between the BKWSU IT PR Team (currently Bksimonb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Appledell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) over the control of this topic. This is meatpuppetry and it has gone on for too long. Unfortunately, I do not know of where else to report meatpuppets.

I consider that Reneeholle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been brought into this out of goodwill but is aping the main team. It would appear that IPSOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is very skilled in the use of Wikipedia accusation, e.g. aggressive sockpuppet accusations to other known, long term contributors and new editors [108], [109]. and attacks to manipulation. Perhaps he just enjoys provoking other editors to achieve control by way of WP:3RR. Tend to use uncivil language and insults such as "idiot" and "bullshit" by way of intimidating [110] or deliberate nicknames like Wacko for Wachowski [111], vandalism accusation in summaries after good edits [112] and wind up summaries [113].

My own recent edits to page consitently WP:3RR-ed

AWachowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

--AWachowski 01:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do the links provided above actually back up what AWachowski is saying? I have also raised a complaint on AP:ANI regarding the constant discrediting of editors based on affiliation by this user and his previous incarnations. Regards Bksimonb 15:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWachowski has a habit of accusing people of being socks or meatpuppets if they don't agree with his edits. As I told him on the talk page, if he discussed his edits first before making them and made them one at a time instead of whole-sale changing the article, then he would be (a) following Wiki procedures and (b) be likely to see his edits stay in.

Also, there appears to be a COI as AWachowski is an ex-BK (and a particularly vehement one at that) which colors his emotions strongly when he edits (and causes him to file reports like this when clearly he knows that IPSOS and myself have nothing to do with Bksimonb). COI does not prevent one from editing but he should first discuss changes and then gain consensus on the talk page before making edits. Renee 23:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin response Arbcom imposed a rather unusual form of article probation in this case, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Brahma_Kumaris#Article_probation_2. There is no authorization for direct enforcement such as banning certain editors from the article, as is typical of most articles on probation. Rather, editors must appeal directly to Arbcom to consider if further sanctions are required. I suggest you file a Request for Arbitration, or a Request for Clarification on that page, laying out (briefly, with diffs) your request for additional enforcement. Thatcher131 01:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thatcher131. Thanks for the response. I can draft something and post it here as a proposal. I'd appreciate you look over it before I post it for real since our last attempt to increase authorisation for enforcement was rejected. Also, you probably have a better idea than I do as to what you need arbcom to authorise. If we can establish some enforcement of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:CONSENSUS then that would quickly filter out all the disruptive editing the article has been subjected to and the abuse that editors have been subject to since violation of these polices seems to be their calling card. Would the request have to be based solely on the Principles section of the arbcom case or can it also address other behaviour patterns we have seen since the ruling?

Question: Would this take the form of a Request for Arbitration or a Request for Clarification? Thanks & regards Bksimonb 13:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would list it as a clarification. Stifle (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about user:DIREKTOR[edit]

I am confused: why you block Giovanni Giove but don't block flamer user:DIREKTOR who violating his restriction in editing???? Why DIREKTOR edits in Istrian exodus for revert warring???? Regards, LEO 17 nov 2007

I'm confused too. Why are you trying to get me blocked when I clearly didn't violate my restriction? Here's the Istrian exodus History page: [114]. I reverted on 22 October 2007, and then once more on 16 November 2007. (User:Giovanni Giove and myself are restricted to one revert per week, with discussion.)

I also tried to discuss my edit (here: [115]), but recieved no reply from the IP user reporting me, who strangely makes exacty the same grammar mistakes as the blocked User:Giovanni Giove. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators but why DIREKTOR invents sockpuppets? Because he is a flamer!!!! LEO

LoL! I have never used sockpuppets, nor do I intend to do so at any time. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint doesn't make any sense. "LEO", please present some clearer evidence of a parole violation on DIREKTOR's part. Picaroon (t) 19:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"LEO" is a troll who has been evading multiple blocks with a rotating IP. For all intents and purposes he should be considered banned and his edits reverted on sight. While others in this series of disputes are here to at least try to build an encyclopedia (though a POV one at that), LEO isn't here to do anything but stir the pot.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wath???? I never evading multiple blocks with a rotating IP!!!! Are you neutral administrators???? I think no!!!! Leo 24 nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.86.203 (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]