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

Colonies Chris is still delinking dates in violation of the injunction[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

See, e.g., these 11 edits of his: Cartagena, Colombia, Faith Lutheran College, Redlands, P-38 Lightning, Wynn Harmon, Enoch Powell, Bottom (TV series), Johnny Cymbal, George E. Staples, Cray, Liz Callaway, and Buick Skylark. He was previously blocked for 24 hours on March 6, 2009, for violating the injunction. Tennis expert (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Colonies Chris has been notified about this post. Tennis expert (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You were told numerous times that the injunction does not forbid occasional delinking in the course of normal editing. The links above contain multiple manual wiki-gnomish changes and corrections and are thus legitimate. You know that. This is a frivolous complaint. Cut it out, now, or you will be blocked. Fut.Perf. 10:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Even under your interpretation of the injunction, Colonies Chris's edits of the Cray article linked above were not "occasional delinking in the course of normal editing" because 4 of his 10 edits involved date delinking. Nor was his edit of Association of Polish Artists and Designers, the sole purpose of which was to delink years. By the way, why are you so hostile and eager to assume bad faith? I honestly don't understand it. Tennis expert (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I am hostile to the continued bickering. Simple as that. The permanent stream of complaints and counter-complaints harms the project far, far more than any actual edits could. Fut.Perf. 12:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The injunction stipulates that editors should refrain from engaging "in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates", as opposed to occasional delinking in the course of normal editing, so I don't consider that any action is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's your opinion, FPS, as expressed earlier this month when you insisted on the immediate cessation of blocking editors for violating the injunction and claimed that the whole discussion was ridiculous. But others believe that repeatedly violating the injunction is inherently far more harmful to Wikipedia and the arbitration process than any kind of "bickering" on the arbitration enforcement discussion page ever could be. The disagreements continue because: (1) the arbitration injunction is considered to be ambiguous by many; (2) the many discussions about the injunction since it was issued are hopelessly conflicting; (3) the arbitration committee itself has chosen not to clarify its own injunction, despite repeated requests to do so; and (4) administrators can't seem to agree among themselves about what the injunction means. So, when all the circumstances are considered, the one certainty is the fact that editors, including Colonies Chris, have been blocked for virtually the same kinds of edits that Colonies Chris has made since his last block. If administrators do not want to sanction Colonies Chris for his latest edits, then the community needs to know it so that date linking and delinking can continue (or resume) without hostility, threats, attempted mind reading, or assumptions of bad faith from administrators. That's only fair (or in the interests of natural justice or due process or whatever one wants to call it). Tennis expert (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • All the more reason to draw a line in the sand, and close off this complaint. Only then will these – I've lost count now – vexatious pieces of Wikilaywering stop. As pointed out by Colonies Chris below, there is a potentially much more serious complaint worthy of investigation. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Please note that my second edit to Association of Polish Artists and Designers was solely in order to revert the bare year linking that had been performed by User:KokkaShinto, which seems to be an account created only a few days ago for the single purpose of linking years. I suggest that account should be investigated for injunction violation and possible sockpuppetry. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Greek nationalist disruption on Republic of Macedonia[edit]

Request for sanctions declined. Requesting moves in opposition to clear consensus can be disruptive (but see WP:CCC), and reverting an admin close of a discussion most often is. I am not persuaded, however, by the evidence presented here that the request was made in an intent to disrupt Wikipedia and that it (as well as the revert) justifies WP:ARBMAC sanctions. This does not rule out ordinary sanctions by uninvolved admins (warning, brief blocks etc.), but the issue seems moot now because the move request has been (and remains) closed. The tone of this request is, I think, unbecoming a longtime administrator, and I am simply disgusted at the unproductive mud-slinging that the rest of the thread has mostly turned into, so I'm closing it. (Note for those whom it may concern: This closure is not to be construed as endorsing anyone's actions or position in this matter.)  Sandstein  22:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (Kekrops), a party in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia in 2007, is a long-term Greek nationalist POV-pusher with an obsession about the name of the Republic of Macedonia (note his original arbitration statement). Greek nationalists object to the naming of the state and insist on calling it FYROM ("Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia") instead. They have repeatedly unilaterally attempted to rename the Republic of Macedonia article - which is why it's on indefinite move protection - and the issue has been discussed dozens of times by Kekrops and others, to such an extent that the naming issue has its own talk subpage. The current name was decided as far back as 2002, is supported by policy and has been stable for a long time. Kekrops has a history of Macedonia-related disruption; he has previously been blocked and placed on revert parole for repeatedly reverting templates and articles that do not use his favoured wording.

After another editor began discussion about the use of the term "FYROM" on the Greece article (see Talk:Greece#FYROM), Kekrops decided to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by proposing, in bad faith, a move of Republic of Macedonia to a name favoured by Greek nationalists, "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". [1][2]. I closed it yesterday as an obvious bad-faith disruption; he has this morning reopened it to continue the disruption [3]. It will doubtless end with no consensus or a majority against the move, but in the meantime a great deal of time will be wasted and further disruption will be caused with the usual sockpuppetry, off-wiki canvassing and nationalist ranting from both Greeks and Macedonians. Kekrops is well aware that the proposal is futile; the aim is to prove his case that Wikipedia is biased against the Greek nationalist POV.

This is not only an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point but is also a clear attempt to game the system. Both actions have been specifically prohibited by the Arbitration Committee in relation to Macedonia-related articles (see WP:ARBMAC#Decorum). I therefore propose a topic ban for Kekrops on Macedonia-related articles, for a period of not less than three months. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I must express my strong objection to the personal attacks above. They are no doubt a progression of some of User:ChrisO's previous ethnic attacks on Greek editors. I fail to see how my proposal constitutes "Greek nationalist disruption". I have elaborated by position exclusively on the basis of Wikipedia policy, and posed a legitimate question regarding the rigour with which it is applied. I reiterated the proposal only after it was brought to my attention that requests for page moves should follow the procedure outlined at WP:RM, and certainly not to cause "further disruption" or anything of the sort. Finally, I disagree that it is an exercise in futility. Wikipedia policy is clear: common English usage takes precedence over self-identification, and it is my contention that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is the most common term in the English language after plain "Macedonia", which according to WP:NC is ambiguous and therefore unsatisfactory. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree with Kekrops' proposal, not because I do not understand his reasoning but because I see no consensus in order to move to the direction he desires. I have serious concerns however about ChrisO's actions. Let me elaborate a bit:
  • ChrisO believes that "Greek nationalists object to the naming of the state and insist on calling it FYROM". It is not the first time that ChrisO labels the 99% of my people (this is the percentage of Greeks who believe that this state should not be called RoM) as nationalists (for corroboration see here how emphatically he insists on this arbitrary characterization, and generalization, as well as my reaction). The promotion of such stereotypes, these arbitrary generalizations and the way he attacks Greek users like Kekrops who do not agree with him (it is characteristic that some months ago I was also attacked by him and arbitrarily threatened with a topic-ban [!!!] on an issue it was proved that I was right) make me doubt about his NPOV concerning RoM-related topics. To me ChrisO looks more like an involved user, and less like an impartial administrator.
  • Despite the fact that ChrisO has lost the trust of the Greek users, he decided to rush, and close himself the move proposal by Kekrops. By acting like that, he caused the immediate reaction by various users, who critisized his decision. It was only after this wave of criticism that Kekrops re-opened the move proposal. If ChrisO had let a more impartial, more trustworthy and calm adminstrator to handle the situation, we would have probably avoided all this "drama".
I don't deny the fact that Kekrops has committed mistakes in the past, but I just say that, in this particular case, we should take into consideration all these details, includind ChrisO's unwise handling of the situation.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Just to note that ChrisO has been notified at least twice([4] and [5]) for not exercising his administrative powers on the issue since he is evidently heavily involved. He chose to disregard the notifications completely and to proceed in reapplying the same administrative actions to the second case, although he became even more involved in the issue. NikoSilver 10:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • There has been no use of admin powers. The purpose of this arbitration enforcement request is to request that some other uninvolved administrator use his or her admin rights to correct Kekrops' behaviour. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's udoubtable that the request has been made to prove a point about policy (proof). However, I would please ask admins to let the renaming request run its natural course as any other uncontroversial request, and to close it normally. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What sparked it is irrelevant to its merit or to whether it abides policy. A wp:point applies only when the action is against policy, which is definitely not the case. NikoSilver 10:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that an outcome of this discussion should be that ChrisO is expected not to exercise his adm powers in RoM-related topics, unless such an intervention is regarded as completely uncontroversial and consensual.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Gràcies, Enric. That's all I ask, for my proposal to receive a fair hearing on its merits, as opposed to the usual allegations of "nationalism" which are invariably invoked to stifle debate. I have pointed out a discrepancy in the practical application of Wikipedia policy, and I believe I have the right to request that it be reviewed. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This is pathetic. ChrisO, as a heavily involved administrator, blatantly abuses his admin powers and closes a legitimate move request by Kekrops. His abuse is condemned by a lot of editors and his instinctive and childish response is to file an Arbitration Enforcement request against Kekrops. I'm appalled. As a side note, referring to the move request itself, the Former Yugoslav Republic in Macedonia, as ugly as it might be, is and always has been the ONLY name that has been accepted by both parties of the Macedonia naming dispute as a name for this country, currently used officially by the UN, EU and myriads other organisations. The absurdity of ChrisO's arguments is evident since he categorises these organisations as "Greek nationalists".--Avg (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. There has been no use, let alone abuse, of admin powers here. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. Let's concentrate on that then. Why do you continuously claim in you intro paragraphs to third parties that supporting the "former Yugoslav..." naming is nationalistic? You're basing your whole case in false arguments. In fact this has been one of the main issues I have with both you and Future Perfect all along. When a third party is misinformed by you that "former Yugoslav..." is something totally arbitrary and unofficial that Greek nationalists have come up with, then of course he will bias himself against Greeks. But of course this has never been the case, it's an official appelation used by UN and EU and RoM itself and you very well know that Greek nationalists fervently oppose this name because it contains the term "Macedonia" in it. You're painting a completely different picture from reality, giving Greek editors a bad name, insulting us all and causing damage to Wikipedia by misinforming its readers and distancing good editors from the project.--Avg (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Request endorsed. If WP:ARBMAC were enforced more often, we could finally have discussions on this subject peacefully, civilly and dramalessly. It is clear that whenever one wishes to even slightly discuss something related to the name of the Republic of Macedonia on Wikipedia, this will prompt immediate bashing and disruption from a group of Greek editors. I've started a discussion on the matter recently and it quickly spiraled into accusations of censorship, double standards and racism. The article on the Republic of Macedonia was also targeted in a clearly vindictive, disruptive and WP:POINTy move proposal. Húsönd 19:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

ARBMAC is an utter failure, and this is a fact proved each day on the ground. More of what you call "enforcement" would entail more havoc. Note what I say now, and we will be here let's say one year from now to see if I am wrong or right. All these stupid topic-bans were enforced one after the other, with what result? Zero! Another one, not because of edit-warring, not because of vandalism, not because of PA or incivility, but because Kekrops went through the official channels and submitted a move proposal, will be at least unhelpful. The proposal will be discussed, probably declined and this will be the end of the story. How would a vindictive topic-ban offer us anything more? Husond, you feel badly for being accused of censorship etc., and I totally understand that. But I also feel badly when the user who initiated this thread consistently accuses me of nationalism, threatening me on the past with a topic-ban using as a bugbear ARBMAC! As you can understand, I cannot endorse the request, and I regard the possible forming of a consensual majority adopting it as a huge mistake.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a good reason why Republic of Macedonia and every conceivable redirect has had to be indefinitely move-protected, and it's not because of the actions of Macedonian editors. Let's face it - the only people who are campaigning here to change the name are a small group of Greek editors. Kekrops, who kicked this off, has a track record of disruption and blocks due to his actions on the naming issue. Everybody knows this is about nationalist POV-pushing, so let's stop pretending, shall we? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
That's true. This is not about a racial vendetta against Greeks, just a simple conclusion of a fact easily observed- Greek editors take this naming issue of the Republic of Macedonia very personally, and will do whatever they can to disrupt and complicate any discussions. Nobody's on a witch hunt, we simply need to create an environment where discussions can occur peacefully. If that means topic-banning a few users, so be it. But the bashing against users who dare touching this sensitive matter simply cannot continue indefinitely. And like Yannismarou said, the move proposal will be declined. So why starting it in the first place? How can it not be disruptive and vindictive? Fact finding... Húsönd 20:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Why starting it in the first place? In the vain hope that policy might one day be applied fully and rigorously to Macedonia-related articles, if you must know. Evidently, that will never happen so long as changes are summarily dismissed solely for being proposed by a Greek or perceived to be favourable to the Greek side in any way. And the only "bashing" going on is that levelled against those who disagree with your position, as demonstrated by this very section and by your repeated personal and ethnic attacks. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 21:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's stop pretending that this is about anything other than your personal disdain for Greek editors, shall we? The fact that you refuse to regard us as individuals is telling. But let's set aside your colourful rhetoric for the moment. Firstly, I am a Macedonian editor. Secondly, are you really accusing me of engaging or intending to engage in unilateral page moves? If you are, I challenge you to produce a single shred of evidence to support such a preposterous claim. Thirdly, I have only one Macedonia-related block, and that was largely the result of your entirely arbitrary behaviour regarding templates over at WP:MOSMAC. I have certainly never been blocked for disrupting any Macedonia-related article. If you are going to level such serious allegations against a fellow editor, at least have the decency to be accurate. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 21:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, it's not a coincidence that every single Greek editor including the most moderate ones feels terribly offended and mistreated by your abuse of administrative powers. I urge you, once more, to stop being an involved party and an involved administrator at the same time. Your repeated attacks at both an ethnic and an individual level to every single Greek editor are telling. NikoSilver 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your problem is, whenever an uninvolved admin dwells into the matter, he/she gets promptly accused of bias against Greeks, racism, double standards, censorship, etc, and then finally, becomes "involved". Húsönd 21:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
ChrisO and who else? NikoSilver 21:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Where are the uninvolved administrators? It's always been the same small group of faces, for years now. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 21:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me put this very simply for you, Niko, since you appear to have difficulty understanding what's been written above. No admin powers have been used. You have no excuse for repeating this falsehood when it's already been addressed. Now I suggest that you move on and find something more productive to do. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
You closed the first move proposal, which is an administrative action.[6] You did this after you had voted in it. And it is you who moved the page originally to the present title 6 years ago, so you are the most involved editor. And you're threatening everybody with the arbmac bogyman on top. Then you claim you didn't exercise any admin powers and you repeatedly accuse all Greeks of nationalism and crackpot-ism (according toy your POV, of course), plus you are assuming bad faith while accusing policy abiding actions as "pointy". NikoSilver 21:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's clear, Chris, that the closing of the first move proposal is an adm action. No reason to deny what is obvious. Live with it and go on. We all make mistakes, me more than once; the important thing is not to repeat them. Now, as far as I am concerned, I have nothing more to add to this "making circles" page. All the arguments are presented, and I think that we now get tiring for those reading. Therefore, I am out from here and going straight to FAC to do what this project is supposed to be about: create great articles! Do you remember that! So, come and kick my ass there! It's more creative.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Disruptive edits to the Mehmet Talat article[edit]

Ibrahim4048 (talk · contribs) has been making repeated reverts to the Mehmet Talat article to insert the word "alleged" in front of the phrase "Armenian Genocide".

On the 22nd March he did it on five occasions.

On the 21st March he did it twice

On the 18th March he did it twice

This use of the word "alleged" contradicts the majority academic viewpoint as well as all the other Armenian Genocide-related articles on Wikipedia (including the main article, the Armenian Genocide entry). The proper route would be for him to present his arguments on the talk page of the Armenian Genocide article, and if they were accepted there, any changes would flow down to other articles containing Armenian Genocide-related content, including the Talat one. However, Ibrahim4048 seems intent on using only the Talat article as a platform for his marginal opinion. Under Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 Amended Remedies and Enforcement can this editor be given restrictions that will stop him from editing the Mehmet Talat article (i.e. just the Mehmet Talat article)? Meowy 21:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, I am aware that you have been involved extensively in Armenia-Azerbaijan disputes. It is my habit not to take sides in ethnic conflicts on Wikipedia. I think it may be better if you use one of the lesser noticeboards, such as wikiquette alerts or third opinion, to troubleshoot this editing problem. You will hopefully find that bringing in an uninvolved editor will get a positive response from the other party. If that fails, an uninvolved editor or administrator can bring the matter here, and I will be happy to enforce the arbitration decision. We should use the least possible amount of pressure to resolve problems. As a practical difficulty, we do not have many editors participating here. I'd like more input from uninvolved editors before making a decision. Jehochman Talk 09:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
There is prima facie evidence of POV pushing by the Ibrahim4048 account. Could you please notify them of this thread. I'd like to hear what they have to say. It seems that the Armenian Genocide has been established as fact by scholars, and that denial is a minority view. This article provides an interesting insight into the conflict. Whether Ibrahim4048 is willing to engage in other forms of dispute resolution will color my decision here. Jehochman Talk 09:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd certainly support at least a revert limitation in this case. Fut.Perf. 10:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's wait for the editor to respond. Jehochman Talk 13:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I placed a note on his talk page. Meowy 20:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I would have supported a restriction before, but I think we should give Ibrahim a second chance, as he has calmed down during the mediation process. Let's not bite the newbies. Tealwisp (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Five reverts in one day is what you call "calmed down"?Meowy 03:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We are already in a mediation process [7] which meowy has tried to sabotage by warning users not to take part in the mediation [8] because it would give me a platform and legitimize my arguments. He is basically denying me to represent myself in this dispute. He has also been very uncivil towards me and the mediator. Tealwisp, the mediator, has reported [9] him to the adminstrators. Some of meowy's arguments in the mediation process are valid though. Tealwisp tried (after various other compromises) to avoid the dispute by rephrasing the part so that only undisputed facts were included and the disputed part left out. By doing this information was left out that was relevant to the article. Tealwisp did it in good faith though, not because he took a certain side. I agreed to the compromise at first but changed my mind after vartanM reverted [10] and seeing his reasons. The best solution is to come to a decision whether in this case alleged or another construction must be made to show that the genocide is disputed or that wikipedia takes a stand and accepts the genocide as an established fact and representing it as such in its articles. I would like you to read through the mediation process carefully because this dispute is not so simple as it seems. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Without reviewing the mediation, I would comment that Wikipedia does not have a remit to take a stand over a matter; it follows what reputable sources report, and within that context give due weight to conflicting references. The ArbCom has previously decided, in this matter, that some editors are not editing with regard to due weight and it needs to be shown that this is again happening. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me where this arbcom decision was taken? I already asked meowy several times whether wikipedia had made a decision to recognize the genocide. I am new to wikipedia and don't know my way around here and also don't know many of the terms that are used. Does arbcom mean arbitrary commission? Can you provide a link to the decision that was made? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The two cases are Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. I would comment that the Arbitration Committee (or ArbCom for short) did not say that the fact of the massacre was recognised, but that appropriate weight should be given according to the references provided that did, or did not, note the massacre. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Breach of sanctions[edit]

Blocked for a week.  Sandstein  08:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom case: The Troubles. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The editor has twice reverted back to their own disputed version in less than 24 hours, revert 1 and revert 2. They were informed of the sanctions here prior to making their second revert. O Fenian (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User is also lobbying editors on one side of the various Irish conflicts and appears to be a newly created IP for this topic only, with knowledge of who has been involved in prior debates. Original edit by User: who from the style is the same editor --Snowded (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Ayn Rand[edit]

The following discussion 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.

Could someone please have a kind word with Stevewunder (talk · contribs) about his topic ban (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand#Stevewunder topic banned and warned? He is a relatively new editor, and I believe he may not understand our conventions about topic bans. He could use a little guidance, rather than a stern warning. Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, could an uninvolved administrator please look over Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), particularly in the context of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand#Editors not named and the following remedy? Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to second the latter request; a couple of new editors have shown up and the climate around the article has changed to be confrontational with editor's POVs on clear display and veiled insults in every other comment. Watchlisting and intervention by experienced admins very welcome. Skomorokh 18:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Peter Damian's insults seem quite open, such as "Whoever removed this is a complete WP:DICK." and "This is easily one of the stupidest things you have said. Which is something in itself.". He provides a link to Wikipedia Review where he indicates that Arbcom ought to have included him in the earlier action. "Interesting that I wasn't topic-banned at all, despite having a 24-hour block from Connelly for edit-warring (and calling one of the objectivist editors a 'wakner'). Could there possibly be a political bias here? Arbcom knowing well that I have given the Rand issue a high profile as I could within the profession.". Colonel Warden (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
You were provocative you know Colonel Warden. However whoever looks at this should note that we have a set of new editors exclusively on one side of the debate (there seem to be a supply of editors ready to move into pages associated with Rand/Objectivism etc.). Skomorokh while sympathetic is doing his/her best to keep the temperature down and stay neutral. However the root cause of the behaviour issues, namely questions of evidence (which are common to other articles with cult like followings) were not addressed and are now back. In this case managing behaviour is managing symptoms not causes. --Snowded (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
If you are suggesting that I am a cult member, you are mistaken. I observed some coverage of Ayn Rand in the Economist a few weeks back and so I cited this while making some other minor changes which seemed appropriate. In the discussions today, I found another good source which seems to assist us but my thanks for this is vituperation and innuendo. It is disgraceful. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I said that questions of evidence were common to pages that attract cult like followings. The only comment I made about you directly (or by inference) was that you had been provocative (which was a good faith assumption given your comment that Peter references below). --Snowded (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I was commenting on your remark that ""As academic philosophers take little interest in our topic, it follows that, in general, they are not a good source for it. " Does anyone deny that was a monumentally stupid thing to say? In general, you are trying your best to remove any sense of academic neutrality from this article, and I am opposing it, because academic neutrality is what I stand for in Wikipedia. Peter Damian (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
On my remark about being a WP:DICK this was directed against the idea that the Oxford Companion to Philosophy was not a reliable source. Peter Damian (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I've warned the editor. Vassyana, if you or other editors feel that anybody else is violating the rulings, please name them and cite specific diffs. The best way to get enforcement action is through a concise report naming the case, the sanction, the editors and the diffs. Requests to "look this over" are not particularly helpful on this short-staffed board. ;-) Jehochman Talk 09:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Here are the specifics requested. A template for this might be useful - is there one? Colonel Warden (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. The case is Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand.
  2. The sanction is "Editors not specifically named or sanctioned in this case are not excused or exonerated for any inappropriate conduct. Administrators and the community may choose to enact additional topic bans, blocks, site bans, or other sanctions, as necessary to prevent disruption and ensure a productive editing environment."
  3. The editor is User:Peter Damian.
  4. The diffs are:
    1. Block for previous edit warring at this article (to demonstrate history of bad behaviour)
    2. Whoever removed this is a complete WP:DICK.
    3. ... cults and cranks and crackpots infesting this project
    4. This is easily one of the stupidest things you have said. Which is something in itself.
    5. ...that was clearly a stupid thing to say ... I don't subscribe to this civility thing
    6. that was a monumentally stupid thing to say —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talkcontribs) 10:54, 23 March 2009

Stevewunder: (this heading added March 26 by Slp1) Incivility building on past incivility despite support for a reduction in his proposed sanction. --Snowded (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Plain talk is allowed. Peter has not attacked anybody's person. He has called out stupid comments and dickish actions. While his manner of communication is not ideal, we do not sanction people for making blunt comments that are intended to advance the project. Jehochman Talk 20:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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.

Violation of topic ban[edit]

User:Stevewunder, despite understanding that he is topic-banned from editing the talkpage of the Ayn Rand article under this remedy (warning, acknowledgment), persists in commenting there. The comments have been affable rather than disruptive for the most part, but in order to retain some respect for the Committee's rulings, perhaps a short holiday from editing might be appropriate. Skomorokh 03:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Had User:Skomorokh not said anything above, I most certainly would have. Stevewunder's comments are now a combination of disruption to make a point (whatever that point may be) and downright disrespect for the ArbCom process. A short holiday from editing would not be inappropriate at this stage. Indeed, enough suggestions, indirect comments and (now) explicit warnings have been issued from multiple editors and admins that we can safely say WP:BITE was followed to the letter before requesting this Administrators' enforcement action. Too bad, really. I was originally sympathetic to his predicament, but not any longer. J Readings (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks CIreland, I appreciate it. Skomorokh 06:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Breech of sanctions[edit]

The following discussion 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 moot because I have applied an ordinary edit-warring block of one month's duration for the conduct at issue.  Sandstein  07:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom case: The Troubles.

"All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related."

Mooretwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Mooretwin has twice reverted back to his preferred version in less than 24 hours, first revert. second revert and third revert. He is well aware of the 1RR sanction [11][12][13] after being blocked for breeching it several times. --Domer48'fenian' 22:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide all information required per "Using this page", above, or this request will be closed.  Sandstein  07:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
What more information do you need, the report looks complete to me? Note that Mooretwin has now made his third revert in less than 24 hours. O Fenian (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Mooretwin has been behaving this way on various Irish related articles for some time and seems indifferent to multiple bans. It must surely be time to consider a longer term deterrent. --Snowded (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree O Fenian, but however. I've added additional information, if User:Sandstein wants me to add all the warnings, final warnings and blocks, they need only ask. --Domer48'fenian' 13:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed all of User:Sandstein requests. --Domer48'fenian' 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
No, you haven't. The instructions request you to provide "a brief summary of how this behavior is linked to the principles, findings of fact, remedies, and/or enforcement mechanism of the arbitration case." I see no such information here. How did the user, by making the edits that you link to, violate arbitration remedies or sanctions, and which?  Sandstein  21:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
He did right at the top. The article falls under 1RR, 1 revert per 24 hours, Mooretwin has made 3 reverts in less than 24 hours. And I provided less information for a breach of the same sanction from the same case in the section below, and that was dealt with. O Fenian (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
... Yes, I see. This request is inartfully composed in that it does not make clear that the block of text starting with "All articles related to The Troubles,..." is the operative arbitration remedy of that case. What I expect to see in a request for arbitration enforcement is a statement like:
"User:X made the following edits [diffs] which violate remedy no. X in arbitration case Y [link], according to which [text of remedy], because [brief and coherent explanation how exactly the remedy is violated through these edits]."
The request below I forgot; apparently, the operative remedy was linked to in the first diff provided, allowing me to deal with the case.
This may sound bureaucratic, but I do not know all these cases by heart, and I do not wish to comb through them a second more than absolutely necessary. It's incumbent upon those requesting enforcement to do this. This allows us to filter out the many frivolous requests we get here as fast as possible.
In this particular case, I would still expect to be provided with the explanation the rules request. As a non-knowledgeable admin, I'd need an explanation for such things as how does this Easter Rising, which happened in 1916, relate to The Troubles, which according to its article happened from the 1960s onwards.
Meanwhile, I have blocked Mooretwin (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for a month for simple editwarring on that article, taking into account his repeated blocks for similar conduct.  Sandstein  23:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah I see. Well the final remedies define "The Troubles" as "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland", which does include the Easter Rising. I agree this could have been made more clear though. O Fenian (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Domer48, I have removed ([14]) your duplicate request above ([15]). Please do not disrupt this noticeboard by adding redundant requests.  Sandstein  23:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I added the request before you had addressed this one. In addition, it was a completely different Breech on a different article. Admins are supposed to log sanction breeches here which result in blocks, I hope that helps. --Domer48'fenian' 23:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, OK, that was not apparent from the request as it appeared on-screen, because it did not include the name of the article at issue. For the next time you want to request enforcement, please review my advice on how to compose proper AE requests above. The block I just made needs no logging because it was not made in enforcement of an arbitration remedy, but rather in enforcement of general policy against editwarring.  Sandstein  23:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

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.

Definition of 'recently edited in relation to Abtract and Alastair Haines[edit]

The following discussion 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.

OK, as I am a friend of Alastair I am involved, but thought I would point out this series of edits by Abtract which would appear to be in violation of this ruling, although Alastair last edited on the page a month previous. Anyway, I will leave it for someone impartial to decide. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, how about Alastair's edit followed by Abtract's revert four days later. Abtract was blocked two weeks in January by Shell Kinney. It seems that the ruling is being gamed. Alastair came to the article before Abtract, as far as I can tell, reviewing the history back one year. The block will be a month, the maximum allowed by the ruling. Jehochman Talk 10:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like this is an edit war from prior to the arbitration ruling:
  • 22:23, 22 February 2009 Abtract (remove text that has been disputed for several months) [16]
  • 04:04, 18 February 2009 Alastair Haines (restore undisputed text) [17]
  • 19:06, 24 January 2009 Abtract (remove disputed ideas with no citation) [18]
  • 20:20, 20 December 2008 Casliber (leave a fact tag then - text can be analysed better if present rather than absent - some of it I have read before IIRC) [19]
  • 08:23, 19 December 2008 Abtract (remove OR and POV) [20]
  • 23:10, 18 December 2008 Alastair Haines (restore description of notability) [21]
  • 08:35, 25 November 2008 Abtract (rv renewed attempt to introduce pov which isn't that relevant even were it to be properly cited) [22]
  • 02:41, 25 November 2008 Alastair Haines (Undid revision 253440542 by Abtract (talk) please provide sources for alternative views you are aware of ... and add them! :)) [23]
  • 19:07, 22 November 2008 Abtract (remove para laced with pov) [24]
  • 06:56, 2 May 2008 Alastair Haines (multi-ref) [25]
  • 00:20, 2 May 2008 Alastair Haines (+chastity) [26]
A look at the discussion page does appear to indicate that the chastity paragraph was disputed in November and December, and undiscussed since then. So "restore undisputed text" does not seem to be an accurate edit summary. Alastair Haines' edits appear to be contrary to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Alastair Haines restricted (discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page) and the final sentence of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Motion re Abtract (avoid any unnecessary interaction with Abtract). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Looking deeper, I saw that Abtract came to the article only after Alastair was already involved. It seems like Abtract showed up in November, mainly to annoy Alastair. In December, a motion was passed to precisely address that sort of behavior. I would think that Abtract should have taken the point and not continued the harassment of Alastair that was in progress. You say the content was disputed. To me, what Alastair added was a clear definition of terminology, the kind of content that helps provide context and makes an article more readable. Did anybody besides Abtract object to that content? Jehochman Talk 15:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I was not arguing against the sanction of Abtract; I've had to block him in the past too. But the arbitration outcome for Alastair Haines' does not mention that content reversions need not be discusses if he's reverting Abtract, or that he is to avoid unnecessary interaction with Abtract unless no other editor is on Abtract's side. And finally, I did see that BananaFiend also objected to the content on 10:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC) (and again later) on the Talk page, which is why I observed that the content was disputed. Alastair Haines should have taken the point and not restarted the edit war (18 December) without discussion right after the motion re Abtract was finished (17 December). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it does take two editors to make an edit war. Would you warn Alastair about this behavior (since you noticed it), or place whatever sanction you see fit. Jehochman Talk 15:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Blocked 1 week. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
A fairly thorough investigation of the overlapping edits prior to the motion being passed was done by myself and Ncmvocalist during the request for clarification, but last time I went looking for it on the talk page (where it should be archived, I think), it appeared to be missing. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Clerk must have missed it, added at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Alastair_Haines#Motion_re_Abtract. MBisanz talk 06:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment (first contrib evidence links): according to this page contrib tool Alastair Haines first edited on 2007-10-25 and Abtract first edited about a year later on 2008-11-22 [27]. Same goes for the talk page [28]. R. Baley (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Erm, this block is five weeks after the edit in question - and refers to an editor (Abtract) who has been before arbcom for harassing other editors as well as Alastair - furthermore, the evidence against 'undisputed', namely the editor Bananafiend, made one comment in this section which came across as thoughtful and doubtful rather than opposed (and this is in November 2008), and he has never edited the article. This impresses as very tenuous grounds for a one week block (which I personally feel is unwarranted), but I acknowledge I am not impartial. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Both blocks are roughly the same time-distance from the latest contributions to the edit war, and both contributors are violating the terms of the arbitration. BananaFiend's participation in the discussion IMO has no bearing on either Abtract's or Alastair Haines' part of the slow edit war. Alastair Haines was to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page and avoid any unnecessary interaction with Abtract. Since they've already been through arbitration, and Alastair Haines' last two blocks from that arbitration were both 48hrs, I though 1w was a viable duration for this one. But I'm hardly active in this space (and only discovered it because I watch Abtract's Talk page, from back when I had my own disputes with him), so I'd be happy to get some mentoring from other admins about it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
We certainly need more hands here at AE, especially at some of the more complicated cases. I have state my opinion on the block, but I am unable to be unbiased here, so will ask someone uninvolved (who I thought would have turned up by now). Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, my block was for an edit on March 21 that continued a prior pattern. The diffs I cited from February were an earlier part of that pattern. I think it would be a good idea to offer to unblock Alastair if they agree not to edit war. I offered to unblock Abtract on certain conditions as well. Jehochman Talk 20:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I made the analogous offer. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we're going to need to have a serious look at Alastair's situation. He has been blocked a number of times since the ruling because he disputes it and continues to do so. Have a look at Alastair's exchange with myself and JHunterJ. What are the ways forward here?--Cailil talk 18:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I didn't know this discussion was happening; I stumbled upon it when someone made a link to AE from AN - if I knew, I'd have definitely tried to look into this one when it was opened. As an update, Abtract continues to remain blocked for a week, while Alastair Haines original 1 week block has been extended to indef by Fram for 'making legal threats'. As I'm uninvolved but still know the merits of both disputes, I can review this in about 48 hours - I'll understand if that's too long to wait for the original 1 week blocks, but that's all I can offer at this point (sorry). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Good blocks all around.
    • Abtract should've backed off and not continued editing where Alastair Haines was editing. His response here suggests that he will continue to engage in conduct that may be deemed as harassment - one of the reasons Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian was opened (he has attempted to game the non-voluntary restriction that was imposed on him). The block was needed.
    • Alastair Haines on the other hand continued to violate his own sanctions. I previously left an "additional comment" (see here) for John (and Casliber) noting that if (1) Alastair did not understand what the problems are, and (2) did not have the willingness/ability to deal with those problems, he would find himself prevented from editing. It seems that it has come to the point where my words have come into effect (again); Alastair failed to give enough regard to the remedy that was imposed wrt Abtract (for Alastair's own benefit), but Alastair also apparently still has issues he needs to deal with when it comes to legal threats - one of the original reasons Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alastair_Haines was opened. The block, and block extension, were needed.
    • As such, I fail to see any reason that warrants lifting these blocks, and consider that this can be marked resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

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.


The following discussion 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.

Vacio (talk · contribs) is involved in edit warring and POV pushing on a number of articles related to Armenia - Azerbaijan topics. For instance, in the article about Nagorno-Karabakh he has been trying to suppress the info about the Treaty of Kurekchay for quite some time. Originally he removed the mention of the treaty and the link to the article about it on 13 March: [29], and a week later he nominated the article about the treaty for deletion: [30] Vacio claimed that no sources about the treaty were available, despite the fact that the text of the treaty in Russian from a scholarly publication, secondary sources mentioning the treaty and even the scans of the original document were provided. The result of the nomination was to keep the article. Despite that, Vacio started an edit war in Nagorno-Karabakh article, removing the information about the treaty. He did that 3 times within the last 4 days: [31] [32] [33] In addition, he is attaching baseless tags claiming that the article about the treaty is an original research: [34] [35] [36] This is an obvious attempt to suppress the information about this document, as there could be no reasonable doubt about the existence of the document, after so many sources being provided. Another article where Vacio wages an edit war is that about Ibrahim Khalil Khan, where he removes statements from the scholarly sources, which say that the person was Azeri, or adds a statement that he was either Azeri or Turkic, as if Azeri cannot be Turkic. [37] [38] [39] [40] It is well known, that Azerbaijani people are one of the Turkic peoples, so it is the same as saying that a Russian person is either Russian or Slavic. As one could see, this user has been engaged in a pointless edit warring on a number of pages, disrupting normal editing. It is worth to mention that Vacio has been twice placed on editing restrictions, but both times the sanctions were lifted, first time because the arbitration enforcing admin was given incorrect information that Vacio had no prior warning, [41] [42] [43], while in fact Vacio was officially warned: [44], and second time after Vacio promised not to edit war. [45] [46]

I think the recent activity of Vacio in arbitration covered area warrants placing him on editing restriction again. According to the ruling of the arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. So please consider placing this user on editing restriction, because his behavior has not improved after he was given second chances. Grandmaster 06:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Reviewed this user's contributions. Edit-warring to Ibrahim Khalil Khan while telling other users not to edit war, reverting an opponent on his own talk page [47] after opponent is blocked, etc, etc; tendentiousness. Seems relatively clear that he too should be on the restriction, so I'm imposing it. I noticed too that Elsanturk violated his 1rr restriction, though this was three days ago so it's a bit stale at this point. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Altough Deacon of Pndapetzim already placed me under AA restriction, I hope admins will pay attention to my plea. --Vacio (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • First of all about the Treaty of Kurekchay. This information is controversial, and yes, as an user recently noted, it is not based on reliable secondary sources, but rather personal interpretation of a source and thus Original Research per WP rules. I can not understand how Grandmaster in one case permits himself to remove OR (cf. [48]) while he is not happy when I do the same, although I had weeks ago requested for a source, which was not provided. Removing this information from the Nagorno-Karabakh article, was not because I thought we should not add information about it there, but because I thought we should firstly try to find reliable secondary sources, also to discuss it and try to achieve consensus how to represent information about that treaty. I then based myself on WP:BRD and tought that I was not edit warring. An evidence that I was not in mood for edit warring can be the fact that it was me who started a discussion about the issue (see Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Kurekchay Treaty) and the fact that I have many times noted that I am not against adding info about the Treaty of Kurekchay in the article, but the information must come from reliable secondary sources ([49][50][51][52][53]). However no such sources were provided, except of a footnote from a translation of a historiography, which was not directly related to the Treaty of Kurekchay as WP:NOR requires, but it even does not mention it specifically. Thus, yes I placed the OR tag in the article Treaty of Kurekchay and even at one point nominated that article for deletion. Bacuase according to WP:VERIFABILITY: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. and Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed.
  • As for the Ibrahim Khalil Khan. There were indeed differences about his origin, but in this case again I engaged in discussion trying to avoid edit warring. The fact is (see the provided source) that from medieval times present-day Azerbaijan was inhabited by various Turkic tribesmen who in modern history were absorbed by the Azerbaijani people. Ibrahim Khalil Khan was such a chieftain of the Javanshir clan, itself from the Afshar tribe, in turn a branch of Oghuz Turks. Thus most of the sources call Ibrahim Khalil Khan a Turkish chieftain, while in 2 other sources he is called an Azeri. Grandmaster tried to synthesize those sources as if they all say he was an Azeri, thus I decided to represent both group of sources apart until we will discuss the matter. No one in the talkpage agreed that in this case a Turkish or Turkoman chieftain is exactly the same as Azeri and a third-party user noted that Ibrahim Khalil Khan , was before of establishing the new concept of the term "Azeri " ( Turkic ) ethnicity , and his ethnicity to be old Iranian ( of Azerbaijan region ) or Turkoman ( of central Asia ) is unknown[54]. And while we were still discussing, user:Elsanaturk, who never added a single remark in the talkpage, again and again added that he was Azeri and removed the mention that he was Turkish according to other sources ([55][56][57]). This behavior considerably hampered us to continue discussion and reach consensus. I have twice separated "Turkish" form "Azeri" (quoting sources apart) and only one time I removed both (please look carefully the other diffs, at first sight it seems that I am deleting "Azeri", but I am only writing that Ibrahim Khalil khan Javanshir (1730-1806) was the Turkic [1][2][3][4][5], according to some other sources Azeri[6][7] khan of Karabakh etc.).
  • Finally. Yes in September 2008 I was warned and then placed under AA restrictions, while Grandmaster was warned. However I was not released just because I promised not to edit war, but because user Parishan and Grandmaster continuously refused what was discussed and afterwards accused me for edit-warring against which I reported to User:Rlevse and the he lifted the restrictions. Rlevse noted on my talkpage: you seem to be making a good faith effort, so I'll lift the restrictions, but Granmaster again and again recalled that I was once placed under parole and I need to be placed under it again. Now he comes again with such demand, while he himself recently made reverts which I think were edit-warring and did not reflect what was or had been discussed in the relevant talkpage ([58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67]).
  • As for this revert, I thought that users are not allowed to delete reports by admins and I believed that it was some kind of vandalism. I apologize if I was not allowed to do so. For my other edits, I request for understanding for the fact that I really was not in mood for edit warring or something, though I understand that I made too much reverts, while I could be more patient. --Vacio (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The above is another attempt to mislead the admins. This user has previously been officially warned, [68], ignored the warning, placed on editing restriction [69], given another chance, placed on restriction again [70], and given yet another chance. I never heard of another person who was given so many second chances. This is the third time Vacio is placed on editing restriction, which is something unheard of. Normally this happens only once. With regard to Sardur, whom Vacio refers to, he tried to resume the edit war started by Vacio on Nagorno-Karabakh, but was reverted by uninvolved user: [71], who told him to settle the differences at talk. So Sardur can hardly be a reference in this dispute, as he joined Vacio on a number of occasions in POV editing. As I said before, all the required sources about the Kurekchay treaty have been provided, but Vacio claims that they were not, refusing to accept the fact, even after his AfD failed, started removing the info about the treaty and links to it from the article. This hardly can be considered a constructive editing. Same with other articles, where he tried to replace Azeri with Turkic, as if one contradicts the other. --Grandmaster 15:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The results of an AFD bare no impact on the validity of the article's content or its usage elsewhere. The AFD you are referring to merely determined that "something" existed. As for your next character assasination point, Turkic does not contradict Azeri but Azeri contradicts Turkic but this not a forum.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

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.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Some relevant links

The editing environment at Ayn Rand has begun to rapidly degenerate yet again. Personal attacks, insults and accusations of bad faith are flying, and large series of edits are being made to the article without consultation on the talk page. I would like to urgently request administrator intervention to help enforce the recent ArbCom ruling. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of any misconduct as well as links to the relevant page(s).  Sandstein  10:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note here that a set of editors on the article appear to be engaging in editwarring technics of frustration and personal attack. They are also attacking peer reviewed sources because those sources specialize in the subject and are therefore by these editors standards are "biased". I joined the article on March 19 alittle over 10 days ago and have been in protracted and unproductive arguments and been called insane on Jimbo's personal talkpage by one of the warring editors. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's User:Peter Damian Insults and threats and general disruptive behavior.

  • 1.Here Peter Damian goes to JIMBO's talkpage and claims that I am insane.[72][73]
  • 3.Here Peter Damian clears up who the message on JIMBO's talkpage was for with a clear and disrespectful attitude..[75]
  • 4."As academic philosophers take little interest in our topic, it follows that, in general, they are not a good source for it. " This is easily one of the stupidest things you have said. Which is something in itself." [76] This one after Peter Damian accused an editor of being a WP:Dick.
  • 5."As I said, I refuse to contribute to this train wreck, I am just going to hack it to pieces from the sidelines until someone decides to write something clear, sensible and well-sourced."[77] This comment (not directed at me) is what prompts me to state that this editor and his cohorts are not at all about improving the article. This clearly states their editing agenda and their behavior validates the comment.

Examples of his refusial to remove the insults and threats of reporting to Arbcomm. He refused the request to remove the comments from administrator User:DGG.

Here's User:Snowded disruptive, disrespectful, hyer critical and obstructionistic tactics.

Using Wikipedia Policy to frustrate and edit war. In general argumentive and unapologetic about behavior even after being banned.

  • 1.Scared aware and love it![81]
  • 2.Accusing me of violating WP:3RR and letting me know that he will make sure to not be so lax in the future.[82]
  • 3

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please format your comment coherently (signature at the end only, all lines at the same level of indentation) and notify Peter Damian of this thread.  Sandstein  13:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have notified both Peter Damian[83] and Snowded [84] and their respective talkpages. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope you have more success that the rest of us in getting LoveMonkey to use indents properly Sandstein. As for the rest we have an editor who edit warred against consensus on Existentialism here, here, here and here advocating a particular unsupported and insupportable position failing to address any of the arguments and attempts to help advanced on the talk page as can be seen here. S/he has now arrived at the Ayn Rand page with similar propositions. The recent unsupported insertion of material on the Prisoner here where his position again fails to address any of the reasoned arguments but simply rambles around a partially understood subject. Most editors have tried their best to be polite, but I can understand Peter's response. Politely pointing out that no evidence has been presented that in any way says the Prisoner writers or cast were influenced by Rand, produced an attack on editors here with no attempt to address the content. There are several other examples. He has now issued a general and unsupported accusation above " disruptive, disrespectful, hyer critical and obstructionistic". In respect of his/her specific references, on point 1 I made the point that scaring away people who rejected consensus was not something I would feel guilty about, and in respect of the second I made no threats, but simply pointed out that had other editors not attempted to comply with WP:BITE he would have been reported for 3RR on Existentialism.
In addition we have BushCherry who was sanctioned to diversify his/her interests and engage on the talk page with the subject not the editors. In practice all bar one edit (check his contributions page) have been on the Ayn Rand talk page, and they are all commentaries on the editors not the content. --Snowded (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is Arbitration enforcement. Please don't come here unless you have a particular arbitration remedy to enforce. This has not been listed, so I don't see much to do here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Accusations of anti-Semitism[edit]

The following discussion 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.

On the Workshop page for the WP:RfArb regarding West Bank - Judea and Samaria, Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs) made the following comment:

The garden variety antisemite does not wish that he/she could have been in charge of the gas chamber at Auschwitz. They are just people who do not like Jews, who may occasionally make snide remarks, and show a general pervasive attitude of dismissiveness and disrespect. My personal view is that probably 90-100% of the users who initiated this arbcom case, and who support it, are in that category. Fighting back that level of antisemitism, which is so common, would be like fighting back the tide; and although Jews might complain about it, they virtually never try to make any kind of case -- with formal charges -- about it. Its just one of life's crummy annoyances. Getting rid of the average antisemite, would be like trying to get rid of the average dick: unfortunately hopeless. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC) [85]

I'm the user who initiated the ArbCom case, and I support it. I do not appreciate being called a 90-100% "garden variety" anti-Semite. This baseless accusation is a direct violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. When asked to back-up or strike his comments, Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs) replied with

Tznkai, I would like to keep the thread because there are some important points concerning this case in it. I do not have time now to reply to the criticisms of what I wrote, but will reply tomorrow as early as possible....but please remember that I do have real life obligations on my time, so be patient. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[86]

I live and work in a country that takes accusations of Anti-Semitism quite seriously, and since other editors have had few qualms about using my real name here, this kind of comment can have direct, real-life consequences. This is not the type of accusation that one can post and then "not have time now to reply to": any editor that has the time to make such serious and defamatory accusations, should also have the time to back them up.

Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs) has not been officially notified of WP:ARBPIA, but his participating in the RfArb and other discussions on the topic should have made him aware of the restrictions and discretionary sanctions specified therein. Even without having been warned, this type of behaviour merits a serious response.

Cheers and many thanks, pedrito - talk - 02.04.2009 08:10

I agree that the comment at issue is in violation of NPA, but am unsure as to the proper procedural way to deal with it. A few questions: (a) Why do you think Malcolm Schosha is aware of Wikipedia:ARBPIA? He is not mentioned on the arbitration page. (b) Why should this comment be sanctioned through AE? Is it even strictly in the area of conflict ("the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles")? (c) Wouldn't it be better sanctioned through the ongoing arbitration case itself in the context of which it was made?  Sandstein  09:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
a) this is Malcolm on this very board going after User:Cerejota for personal insults on "the talk page of on article under Arbitration enforcement". I'm assuming he meant special sanctions. While he admits to not knowing the language, he definitely knows the spirit.
b) I assume comments made on a RfArb regarding the area of conflict are subject to the same restrictions. The restrictions were the result of editors in the area not being able to play nice. This is Malcolm not playing nice.
c) The ongoing case is a very broad issue involving a number of editors. It will probably take forever until anything is decided, if ever. This is a very specific issue that, in my opinion, can be dealt with using existing policies.
Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 02.04.2009 09:20
Thank you. I concur and have blocked Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for violating WP:NPA.  Sandstein  09:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick action, but could you couple the block duration to him taking back or striking his accusations? Otherwise, 24 hours is a small price to pay for defaming another editor... Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 02.04.2009 09:38
No, our sanctions are all preventative in nature, and a coerced withdrawal is not worth much anyway. But should Malcolm Schosha continue to make attacks of this sorts, he may be made subject to additional and more severe sanctions.  Sandstein  09:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I just had a look at this gentleman's record... He's already been blocked several times for edit-warring and once for "personal attacks or harassment" just a few months ago (read here, notably User:DGG's comments). I'm guessing that perhaps the first block was not long enough and that maybe it's time he took a longer break? This would fit your criteria above... Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 02.04.2009 09:44
Other admins might have applied longer blocks. But I see no need to amend my block now. Should the present block prove insufficient, much longer blocks are easily applied.  Sandstein  11:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

AA2 breach[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Rather amusing that Brandspoyt below selectively chose who was at fault in the edit wars. For all that, let's not forget that Elsanaturk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is essentially a revert warrior who pops in and out of articles, without really adding any material. As a party to AA as well as AA2 and despite numerous warnings, he reverted no less than three times on the same article below [87], [88], [89], without contributing anything to the article's talk page. According to decisions made in AA2, "any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." A similar pattern of war-reverts seems to exist among other articles as well.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide us with diffs for the "numerous warnings", as well as for any recent disruptive conduct, other than that edit war, that would warrant AA2 sanctions? Also, please notify Elsanaturk of this thread.  Sandstein  19:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Ignoring Meowy's pleas, the "numerous" warnings refer to his knowledge of the 3RR rule and the guidelines in place of AA see here. Blind reverts have taken place here and here as well recently (the latter edit doesn't even distinguish that the fact that seven cited sources support the exact opposite of his reverts).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Not actionable. You provide no diffs of warnings given to Elsanaturk, only one revert by him and one other edit (which is not in fact a revert) that it seems you object to because you disagree with it. In other words, you provide no evidence of continued disruption that would warrant a sanction. Please do not misuse this noticeboard for frivolous requests, or you may yourself be made subject to sanctions.  Sandstein  21:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

AA2 breach[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

On Oct 18, 2007 Meowy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was placed termlessly under AA2 restrictions and is listed among people placed under the editing restrictions. He was limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, but recently made three reverts in two days at the same page: [90], [91], [92]. Despite Meowy's appeals for sticking to talk it was him who resorted to edit-warring. Previously he removed other user’s comment at AfD discussion, allegedly because he did not like it. According to AA2 decision, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. brandспойт 13:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

☑Y Blocked for 48 hours for the revert restriction violation.  Sandstein  14:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Ohconfucius yet again[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Date delinking script has been disabled for duration of the injunction. PhilKnight (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has started delinking dates in violation of the date delinking injunction yet again today ([93][94][95][96]). Take a look at his block log if you're not aware of the previous history with this user. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

These are obviously not through a bot or script as there are other changes beyond one or two dates being delinked from each, and doesn't seem to be a program of "mass delinking" as cautioned against in the restriction. I see nothing wrong with his actions here compared to his earlier actions that were clearly against this. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be normal page cleanup, with minor de-linking. The injunction states,
"Until this case is decided or otherwise directed by the Arbitration Committee, all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise."
This is a trivial matter. As a courtesy, I've notified Ohconfucius of the post. seicer | talk | contribs 14:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I felt it best to mention this earlier rather than later, given this user's history of violating this injunction. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I am so touched by your consideration, Hex. I would suggest my talk page being the most direct way of attracting my attention. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Depends what you mean if you think its trivial. As far as I can see he runs the script at User:Ohconfucius/monobook.js on each article he edits. This removes all date links, amongst other things. For me its right on the edge because its clearly script-based editing, but he's not doing it to many articles. On the other hand the intention is clearly to flout the injunction, since he is not doing the edits manually. If he spent more time editing articles it would clearly be a problem. As it is, I don't know. I admit that I find his manner abrasive, and I think he is probably getting pleasure out of deliberately skirting the edges of the injunction, so count me as ticked-off by an editor who is uncooperative. You can decide for yourselves whether that's a problem. AKAF (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand, and I have blocked him in the past (see [97]), but this is nothing in comparison to what has been done in the past. seicer | talk | contribs 14:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The injunction says: "including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise". Use of the script is not the problem, as all means of mass-delinking are at issue here. Removing a small number of date instances from four articles is not "mass delinking", thank you very much. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we should block the account until such time as all date linking or delinking scripts are disabled. Jehochman Talk 16:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I totally rewrote three of those articles, spending a good half hour on each, and I probably delinked a couple of date links in each article while I was at it. However, I would pologise if my actions come arcoss as provocative. I undertake not to edit any more articles outside my current watchlist, so as to avoid any further accusations of deliberately delinking dates until the injunction is lifted. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, my clear recollection is that you are INVOLVED, and should leave the matter to another admin. Now, Ohconfucius, given sensitivities and that he is a party to the ArbCom hearing, has been unwise; however, this hardly falls within the definition of "mass program" (as specified by the injunction). Indeed, he appears to have done a lot of other work on the articles concerned at the same time. I believe that in view of his written undertaking to avoid unlinking until the lifting of the temporary injunction against mass unlinking, he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

I remind you that User:Kendrick7 was discovered to be fly-by relinking dates to many, many articles, over a period of more than two weeks—yet he somehow escaped blocking for the blatant breach of the injunction. I'm not saying that the injunction should not be enforced; however, Ohconfucius's article improvements at issue here seem relatively trivial. Tony (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Although Jehochman has made comments in the past regarding the case, that does not make him involved, per se. Given that he hasn't blocked Ohconfucius, to tell him to hold off on commentary is not a wise move. seicer | talk | contribs 17:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Instead of blocking Ohconfucius until he complies, I think it would be preferable to remove the script from the monobook, and protect the page. PhilKnight (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd support that. Or just remove it, and treat the reinsertion as a deliberate attempt to defy the injunction.DGG (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The script can be used for other purposes besides delinking dates. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If on the User:Ohconfucius/monobook.js page, the section immediately below '//month+day piped' and '//4 digit years piped' were blanked, would that allow the other functions to work normally? PhilKnight (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You will see from the edits is that there that I have been trying to customise it. I'm hoping it will do strictly inter-conversion of date formats. So far, my comprehension of js is still limited, but I am still trying. AFAICT, the sections you mentioned relate only to removing links for piped date links such as [[March 31|31]] and [[2008 in foo|2008]]. I have no interest in disturbing those links. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I've edited your monobook page, and disabled all the date delinking functions. PhilKnight (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
That seems like a good solution. There's no excuse for anybody to be running automated linking or delinking scripts. Jehochman Talk 21:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Repeated AA2 Breach[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Meowy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was placed on AA2 editing restrictions on October 18, 2007, limiting him to a 1 revert per week. After a fresh report just few days ago (still be seen just below) [98], Meowy again violated this restriction by trying to reinsert a disputed map by a blogger on Azerbaijan Democratic Republic page:

Besides the violation of 1RR, his reverts are contrary to discussion going on the talk page, with understanding that no disputed POV maps should appear on the page until there is consensus achieved. Atabəy (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It is not "a disputed map by a blogger", but a map from Wikicommons authorized by Andrew Andersen and George Partskhaladze. Both are reliable experts on topic see for example the reviews [99][100]. It looks it is not a discussion over a known publication "Atlas of Conflicts" and a map from there, but simple removal of reliable material that Meowy just returned back. Andranikpasha (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I am familiar with Meowy's restriction, being the admin who blocked him for his latest violation of it. The edit he reverted is not except from the restriction as "obvious vandalism", since the reliability of the map he reinserted appears to be in dispute (although I am not expressing an opinion as to whether it is reliable or not). For his repeated violation of AA2 restrictions, I am blocking him for a week.  Sandstein  13:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Topic ban needed[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

See this diff. The editor was previously warned and has received extensive counseling here. They refuse to understand that Wikipedia is not for publishing original research and promoting conspiracy theories. Jehochman Talk 21:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to a 1-year ban? PhilKnight (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, well, this is obviously fringe theory soapboxing, but do you think a topic ban is warranted unless she edits the actual articles in the same vein?  Sandstein  13:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd give her credit for using the talk page instead of editing the article. Claiming that she is using Wikipedia for promoting conspiracy theories is avoiding the fact that two of the five points in that diff are valid and could/should be addressed. If they actually have valid points these editors should be dealt with civily instead of requesting a ban just because they believe in conspiracies. Wayne (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
"I DIDNT HEAR THAT" on talk pages can be just as disruptive, i.e. wasteful of editors's time, as edits to articles. This editor should perhaps receive one more very explicit warning, but then imho a ban would be appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Turning a talk page into a conspiracy theory chatroom is very disruptive. It wastes time of other contributors and disrupts the formation of consensus. Warnings and extensive counseling have been given. Unless the user provides a reason why things might be different, a ban is needed. I'll ask her to comment here.Jehochman Talk 19:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy, Dana was full banned 1 year for disruptive POV pushing in the talk pages, idem in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe science topic bannig Pcarbonn. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is biased and doesn't represent facts because U say the facts come from unreliable sorces. (Archetects & Engineers for 911 Truth) is not mentioned at all. We have a profesor at our university who is an archetect of heavy construction (bridges and more), who holds meetings a few times a year to discuss how the structure of the Twin Towers and WTC7 could never have fallen like that. If more archetects saw these videos (IMO, "Zeitgist" is propaganda) and read David Ray Griffin's books, they would join too. Popular Mechanics & Skeptic magazine aren't really reliable peer-reviewed journals (I've subscribed to Skeptic since the beginning and met/spoke to Michael Shermer several times, telling him he's not skeptical enough, etc. . . I inspired him to do the Holocaust issue but he ignored the forensics and logistics of the alleged murder weapon.) Griffin did a through debunking of the Popular Mechanics article/book. Popular Mechanics is like the Reader's Digest for mechanics. Do U consider Reader's Digest a reliable source or a place to pitch propaganda to the masses? I have nothing more to say on the article unless I find some more bias in it. I'd like to change the header to the topic I started to add, "Biased article" to see if other's agree. The article reads like a handout from the CIA or something that would appear in Reader's Digest. U wanna ban me 'cause U don't wanna have to deal with the elephant in the room, which is the pulverized dust several inches deep throughout Manhattan, the tiny debris pile, big, heavy beams hurled 600 yards, destruction of evidence at the crime scene, reliable witnesses/victims of explosions and molten metal in the basement. Could also be that if an Archetect/Engineer comes out agains't the Government's conspiracy theory, they would not get a government job. Like I said, I have nothing more to say there. If I do start another topic it will be after I look through the archives to see how many other people think the article is biased. I do promise to be very careful if I do post anything more there. I also want to watch the page to see how U handle other dissentors of the Official Conspiracy Theory. If Ur just gonna delete what they write on talk-pages like U did to me. It's only a matter of time before some prominant, retired archetect or a better, more informed dissentor comes along to challenge this article. There's no doubt in my mind thermobaric bombs brought down the WTCs. The two videos at the bottom of my webpage should be mentioned too. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I rest my case. Jehochman Talk 21:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
If she doesn't give us clear evidence that her behaviour will change, I'll support the ban. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Note she is still adding her website to articles [101]. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Those edits to "Mammon" have been removed and I'm discussing it on the talk page. I made a mistake, the pic-link is not necessary. It's like a catch 22: U can't discuss improving an article about conspiracy theory at WTC without details about what the actual conspiracy theory is because none of the conspiracy theories (except the Government's) come from reliable sources? David Ray Griffin is reliable. Everything he writes is sourced. U guys have knee-jerk reactions to "conspiracy theory"? Are U not open-minded that U could be wrong? I'll change, I'm learning, some editors are more tolorant that U guys. I made some legitimate points in the talk-page at controlled demolition. The article is biased it doesn't tell the whole theory plus there are lotsa weasel words like saying "all mainstream engineers" agree with the government. I'm sure U've made mistakes here too when U first started out. I only recently got interested in editing Wikipedia . . . just so happens most of my interests are controversial, radical, revolutionary, anti-status quo. Some people, including my two brother-in-laws are really smart (and so am I) but when I mention a conspiracy theory, they immediately scoff. As if governments don't lie!? I won't refer to my website in any articles I edit. I did so here cause it is easier than citing the two videos directly. I know the URL to my website without looking whereas if I cited the two videos directly I'd hafta click through a bunch of stuff, open a bunch of windows, copy and paste. I promise to be very careful discussing conspiracy theory on controled demolition. Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I was involved in the original AN/I report on this editor, and Georgewilliamherbert and I, together with other editors, tried to explain WP policies on reliable sources, POV-pushing, WP:SOAP, verifiability (including Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth and so on. Following some comments about "being a new editor" and "learning", with other comments verging on the uncivil about "faceless and nameless editors" censoring "the truth" on Wikipedia Raquel withdrew for a short period, citing ill-health and commenting "let's resolve this". She returned very shortly afterwards and commenced the same POV-pushing on talkpages rather than on articles. She seems unable or unwilling to accept WP policies either primarily in terms of verifiability and reliability of sources or secondarily in terms of collegial editing. She appears unable to accept that WP is not there as a platform for her to air her views irrespective of policy. I support a topic ban as proposed. Tonywalton Talk 23:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm done commenting on the controlled demolition page. I learned my lesson interfering there but it is a biased article. Tony we just have a different idea of what the page should be about. I thought readers could try to improve articles. That's what I sincerely wanted to do but can't 'cause U say David Ray Griffen,,, or this video about explosives (with plenty of credible references) are not reliable sources or worth mention. The video has had over 10,000,000 viewes on YouTube. It's a question of who is telling the truth. We know governments lie, especially U$A, we've assassinated heads of state all over the world, including a coup d'etat in Dallas, 11/22/63. I'll look through all the archives for a thread about bias in the article. If I find anything significant showing readers think the article is bias, then maybe I'll raise the issue for a consenses, major re-write? If U'r going to say, "That won't happen," (even if consensus says the article is biased), please explain why? Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Forget topic ban, propose complete ban. It takes absolutely no virtue of the imagination to work out once 9/11 related articles are off limits to Raquel, she will put her attention elsewhere - most probably on Holocaust and Holocaust denial related discussions, and with regards to this page, it cannot be argued that such anticipation is without basis. WilliamH (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Support. Unless and until Raquel accepts that NPOV does not mean "take a neutral article and add unreliable, biassed sources to taste" a ban seems appropriate to avoid further disruption. Keeping the soapboxing to talkpages is no more than gaming the system. Tonywalton Talk 10:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose the article isn't neutral, it's biased, the editors there are intolorant, they accept NO dissent or contrary views and they're ganging up on me. I'll impose a ban on myself. I'll cool-it. I learned my lesson! I really, honestly thought I was offering evidence to improve the article or at least show what the conspiracy theorists believe. What I wrote on the talk-page should NOT be erased as my previous comments there were (maybe I wrote it badly but I re-wrote it). Peace & Love guys but more and more mainstream people are comming out against the government's conspiracy theory. 9/11 is the JFK conspiracy of our day. In this past month or two that I began monitoring articles here I've really learned a lot and made some nice friends. We just have a disagreement on what "Reliable Sources" are. I don't believe many of the sources in the Controled Demolition article are reliable. They rely on ONE person as an expert and ignore others, they consider "Popular Mechanics" & "Skeptic" Magazine as, "mainstream, peer-reviewed" journals. I subscribed to Skeptic since the beginning, met Michael Shermer twice, had letters published there and inspired Shermer to write the Holocaust issue (but he didn't evaluate the hard, forensic evidence). I learned my lesson, no ban is necessary, I'll impose it myself!!!! Peace & Love! :) Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • User said, Moslems are demographically taking over the Middle East and are infiltrating Europe. [102] I think we have, despite possibly good intentions, a user who's goals conflict too much with Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 13:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I have many good friends in Europe who are saying that (on my flickr site) and I tell them their attitude is the same as Hitler's toward Jews. Bill Clinton recently said that demographics is Israel's #1 problem. I'm just repeating facts. People in Europe are opposed to this infiltration as people in the U$A are opposed to infiltration by illegal immigrants. Ur making me look like a bigot! I'm the most open-minded tolorant person U can imagine . . . I have dated people of all nationalities, religions. Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support a topic ban, and possibly something more if the problematic behaviour doesn't stop. This is clear soapboxing and the user doesn't seem interested in abiding by policy. Hut 8.5 13:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked[edit]

Okay, the comments by Raquel Baranow (talk · contribs) on this page have convinced me that her approach to editing Wikipedia is fundamentally incompatible with our goals and principles, and I have blocked her indefinitely. I do not object to an unblock by any administrator who disagrees, although I strongly recommend that, if unblocked, she is made subject to a 9/11 topic ban for which we have clear consensus here.  Sandstein  14:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Endorse this block. However, if another administrator unblocks her, I propose that the subject ban is extended to Holocaust and Holocaust denial related articles. Enough time has already been spent patiently articulating to Raquel why her propositions are inappropriate, and I don't see why any more volunteer time should be wasted. WilliamH (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Definitely no objection to keeping her blocked until a topic ban is formulated. It doesn't look likely that this editor will ever do much that isn't counter-productive if allowed to edit these articles freely. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No problem with the block, especially as the editor posted a (declined) unblock request that essentially repeats various 9/11 allegations and accuses other editors of covering things up.--Hut 8.5 17:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Entirely reasonable block. MastCell Talk 18:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

NootherIDAvailable (case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy)[edit]

NootherIDAvailable (talk · contribs) Single-purpose Homeopathy account. Despite being relatively new, has managed to cause massive disruption, including:


This is a copyvio of, and this inserts text from


For instance, here he repeatedly tries to add an RFC discussion to the article page, and gets upset and edit wars when people remove the vandalism:

[103] (reverted: [104]) [105] (Rev:[106]) [107] (Rev:[108])


Among other places, [109].


Furthermore, he doesn't actually understand basic facts about homeopathy:

Here and elsewhere he claims that succussion does not just mean shaking, but shaking with dilution. This is completely wrong: The procedure is referred to as dilution and succussion, with unsurprisingly, dilution referring to the duilution, and succussion to the shaking.

He doesn't know what he's talking about, he's inserted copyvio, he's edit-warred, recruited, and he's a single-purpose account. Homeopathy is under an article probation per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. I think a lengthy topic ban (taken widely to include all alternative medicine) is the best solution: It will give him a chance to learn more about Wikipedia, without allowing the disruption to continue. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been very patient with this user (not hard with everybody else being very strict), but after reviewing their first 7 edits I am afraid I agree this is not the kind of user we want around. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Citizendium is under the same copyright as wiki. Therefore anything can be cut and paste from them and this would not be a copyright violation. One is allowed to be a single purpose account and this only delutes the other arguments.
The use of the BHA quote above is however a blatant copyright violation. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
At least at present, Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL; Citizendium content is licensed under Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0. They're similar, but not identical. Neither license permits a user to lift parts of the work and insert it into another work, passing it off as his own, with no indication of the actual authorship. - Nunh-huh 02:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious to me that this person has come here only to defend his POV, and he is not going to drop his efforts, never mind how gentle we are or how many explanations we give him. See, among others, his repeated justifications that the POV tag was removed because there weren't homeopaths back then to defend it, that homeopaths have to be happy with the article, his plead to insert the POV tag in homeopathy and, at the same time, to remove it from osteopathy, naturopathy and chiropractic [110], see also "you skeptics"[111]. His only contribution is distracting people who are working to improve the article. Please topic ban him. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. He doesn't understand NPOV, sourcing (used Citizendium as a source!), or how to edit collaboratively. He's chosen the confrontational path and that should lead to a topic ban at the very least. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I haven't indulged in Edit warring nor disruptive edits. I have followed the 3 revert rule. I hope I'm given another chance if I've done something wrong (and tell me what it is). I feel the articles on chiropractic and osteopathy are NPOV and the article on Homeopathy can also be like that and that's why I asked for a POV tag on that article because like User Lykantrop and others have said almost every statement by the homeopaths has been criticised throughout the article. Please observe my behavior when I edit other articles, before banning me. Thanks in advance for the help.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's be clear: There is no proposal to ban you from Wikipedia. At worst, you'll need to go work in some less-controversial fields for a time to better learn wthat Wikipedia is about. A topic ban forbids you from editing certain articles, but the rest of Wikipedia is open to you. Homeopathy is not a very good article to start with on Wikipedia, its controversial, and, well, you have strong views on the issue. If you spend some time in the more relaxed articles throughout the rest of Wikipedia, you'll find it much easier to get used to Wikipedia: your dislike of the Homeopathy article and, as far as I can tell, its regular editors makes it very hard for the regulars to explain Wikipedia policy to you, as there's too much instant conflict if one of them tries to explain a problem, because you seem to see us as the enemy. In the calmer pools of the rest of Wikipedia, you'll be able to pick things up much more easily, and then can come back afterwards. But you really need to spend some time learning Wikipedia's culture and rules before coming back to a controversial article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
This editor showed obvious signs of frustration yesterday, and since they have not edited outside of this topic since July 2008 an enforced break might help. During this time they could go back to editing other articles, cool down, and prepare a few specific examples of what they want changing - saying it should be like other articles isn't helpful, and neither is asking for the removal of sourced and notable information (be them criticism or whatever). Constructive suggestions and team work are what is needed here, and I hope that per Hans I have tried to be help this user and remained patient. Verbal chat 09:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
In fact, there have only been three non homeopathy related edits by this account, what other article edits are we supposed to consider? I also find this edit worrying, in addition to the copyvio. Verbal chat 09:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Topic ban from homeopathy should be enough for now. It's up to him to decide if he wants to learn how to edit in a POV way, or if he wants to go to Chiropracty to repeat the same behaviour and get himself topic banned from all alternative medicine articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of editors who come here just to defend their POV. After a few months, they hopefully learn that this is frowned upon by the community (yet some still persist). This editor is essentially a newbie and hasn't been afforded the time to learn about the intricacies of WP:NPOV and WP:COPYVIO. I am sure that all of us had committed such "sins" early on in our Wiki careers The editor has stated that he/she will stay away from Homeopathy for the time being, and since blocks/bans are supposed to be preventative and not punative, I don't see any need for such a topic ban at this time. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I think "massive disruption" is an overstatement in describing this user's editing practice to date. Perhaps we are all being a little oversensitive here given the volatile nature of the topic (homeopathy) at Wikipedia. This editor is not responsible for the past homeopathic grievances, so let's not treat this new editor as if he/she were. Let's assume some good faith and realize that even diamonds have rocky beginnings. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the support Levine. As a professionally qualified, licensed homeopathic doctor, it was irritating for me when my patients quoted from wikipedia - and when I read the article, I realised that every statement was criticised, unlike osteopathy, chiropractic etc. I'll avoid the homeopathy article for now, but do warn me if I'm doing something wrong, before I get banned. Thanks again.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If you were concerned about the prominence of criticism in the article, why was your first edit to the talk page a suggestion that the criticism be made even more prominent? Brunton (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked this user indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:Dr.Jhingaadey. I've asked a checkuser to confirm this ID, but any arbitrator could also run a check. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed by checkuser diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Original Wildbear[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The Original Wildbear blocked for a month. PhilKnight (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The user's page states, Promoting accuracy in information. They have been disrupting Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center with tendentious, repetitious arguments. It is highly disruptive to repeat the same rejected proposals over and over again. We've seen this pattern many times before. I request that this account be banned from all 9/11 pages under WP:ARB9/11's discretionary sanctions. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 08:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Each single-purpose account that shows up beating the drum for the conspiracy theories should be warned once, and then banned from the 9/11 pages. There's no reason to keep going through this again and again. Tom Harrison Talk 01:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
See for example User:DawnisuponUS. Tom Harrison Talk 02:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Who apparently had experience of editing Wikipedia before that account was created. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, some of the accounts appearing at this venue appear to be similar in personality to prior accounts that were banned. Jehochman Talk 19:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you or another administrator please give the user an official warning. That way they cannot claim lack of warning next time. There is in fact a warning about WP:NOR and 9/11 on their talk page at this very moment,[112] but it does not specificly mention the arbitration case. Jehochman Talk 18:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Done,[113][114] Tom Harrison Talk 12:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there proof that The Original Wildbear is User:DawnisuponUS? A cursory inspection indicates although there is a small overlap they edit at different times of day. Is "similar in personality" to a banned user a criteria for banning another user? Is it good faith to request a user be warned without any proof he has done anything to warrant a warning "just in case"? As you say "some of the accounts appearing at this venue" in the plural I assume you mean me as I'm the only one outside of your own supporters posting. Justify or retract the accusation. Wayne (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
No accusation was made. Stop disrupting this board with battleground tactics, please. Jehochman Talk 15:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The user is still pushing Truther propaganda. [115] Could we get a topic ban please? Jehochman Talk 21:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Extended content

Comment by User:WLRoss[edit]

This request appears to be a misuse of WP:ARB9/11. What The Original Wildbears user page states is irrelevant as it is not specific to the subject of the page in dispute and his beliefs should have no bearing on his licence to edit 911 pages without proof of POV pushing.

Wildbear has made a total of two requests in Talk for edits to the article page with another 9 edits explaining his reasoning. The first was a request on March 2 for a "brief explanation of the physics and mathematics" of the tilt of the upper floors before collapse be included in the page if worthwhile and the second was a request on March 17 to modify a section name.

The typical response to his first request (March 2) was that "as no reputable third party has covered it.. likely means it doesn't bear mentioning" and "the alleged tilt" along with accusations of WP:SOAPBOX for making the request. This totally ignores the fact that both Bazant and NIST, the RS used for much of the article, have both covered it. Wildbear made no more posts in this section after March 4 (almost 3 weeks ago). I see no problem with this section not being good faith on Wildbears part.

Wildbears second request (March 17) is problematic ONLY because he quoted a Steven E. Jones website but otherwise was also a good faith edit requesting a grammar fix. Replies dismissing Wildbear in this section ranged all the way from lies to misquoting sources with the only reply addressing the grammar being "It is not a matter of proper grammar" with the comment "Learn what grammar actually is" which is hardly constructive. Wildbear made no more edits in this section after March 18 (6 days ago).

The limited participation of Wildbear in the page, 9 edits over a period of 2 weeks with the last a week ago, contradicts accusations of tendentious and repetitious arguments on his part. If editors had replied to him without accusations and sidetracking in the first place there would have been no issue. Wayne (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What is repetitious is that a new, single-purpose account appears revisiting all the same arguments as prior tendentious accounts that have been banned. We are not going through the same long process to the same endpoint each time a new account appears. Editors should be warned at most once or twice, and if they persist, they should be banned from 9/11 editing. There are millions of other articles they can edit. This should hardly be a problem. Furthermore, what an editor says on their userpage is directly relevant. We can take their self-declared agenda at face value. Jehochman Talk 16:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I would recommend having a list of issues that will not be discussed on the grounds that it would repeat old arguments. That list could then, perhaps, be added to the special sanctions of the 9/11 ArbCom ruling. As an example, the question of whether or not controlled demolition is a "conspiracy theory" could be defined as out of bounds. Or, if I understand Jehochman correctly, it could be considered out of bounds at least for SPAs or new users (just as only registered users can edit some articles at some times). I don't, of course, agree with such a policy, but I think it captures the principle on which I, for example, was topic-banned. As alternative you could identify a few places in the archives of the talk pages that new users could be directed to with a polite "We've talked about this before and decided [such and such]." This may not work, however, because most of these users will find some "new" angle that "needs" to be discussed. My preferred option is simply to tolerate the standing discussions as part of the behind-the-scenes activity that maintains the article. Part of the work/fun of editing these articles could be to explain the received view to holders of the increasingly familiar fringe view.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
On the Barack Obama talk page, they have an expandable FAQ towards the top of the page for this purpose. Of course, people still ask the same questions/raise the same objections over and over again, but it might help reduce them a bit. [116]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I used the same solution in Talk:Alexander_the_Great and in Talk:Ejaculation, a "recurrent topics" list with links to the archives. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly we need to clear up a few things that Jehochman had alleged.

  • Neither of the two requests The Original Wildbear made as far as I'm aware have been brought up before.
  • Wildbear is not a new user having had the account for two years.
  • Wildbear is not a single purpose account as he has made only 5 edits to 911 related articles.
  • I hardly think Wildbears user page agenda of accuracy and good faith in editing is a negative that should get him banned.
  • Not only has he not been warned but has not behaved in a manner that requires a warning.

If there has been "tendentious and repetitious" editing it has been by the editors replying to Wildbear. For some odd reason his behaviour is being held to a much higher, if not impossible, standard than those editors who continually make personal attacks and misquote in support of their own claims to deny his edit requests. WP:ARB9/11 applies to both the editors who believe the official theory and the conspiracy theories equally yet seems to be "applied" ONLY to the later and arbitrarily at that for even good faith edits. This is leading to "ownership" of the article by a clique and discouraging legitimate editors from participating. I would take your lead and suggest that "There are millions of other articles they can edit" but I do not believe in preventing those I disagree with from editing. Wayne (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions they're nearly all focused on 9/11, so I think a block, possibly of a month, could be more appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Per WP:ARBPIA, User:Drsmoo in Gilad Atzmon[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Drsmoo informed of ARBPIA restrictions by PhilKnight, who has decided nothing more should be done regarding this incident. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Drsmoo was blocked March 24th for 3RR and accusations of antisemitism against other editors. Here is my report to 3RR about his behavior in the article about musician/writer Gilad Atzmon.

DrSmoo did engage in 3rr again today as of this edit to get his way with his edits.

More importantly, instead of dealing with other editor’s WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:editwarring concerns with his edits (as expressed in these sections: here, here and here), he has continued to engage in attacks. Here and here he makes all sorts of barely relevant or inaccurate charges related to the antisemitism issue, including twice from doing research on an editor’s off-wikipedia activities which is against WP:harassment. Obviously, he is producing a very difficult editing environment!

Enforcement action: Whatever seems appropriate to stop him from disrupting this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As a correction, I was blocked only for 3rr and nothing else. Nor have I ever made any accusations regarding any editor. Anyone clicking Carol's links will see that any part of those edits which could be construed as a personal attack were removed by me and do not exist on the talk page. I made no personal attacks, secondly, contrary to her own statements, the article does not belong to Carol Moore, and it is not her article that has been written for a year, she was only one of many editors working on the article. This current controversy began when I included at the time recent statements by Atzmon such as "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop." At which point there was a mad dash to get those quotes removed by any means necessary, including saying they were quotefarming etc. Other than accidentally reverting more than allowed on a single day I haven't broken any wikipedia rules whatsoever. In addition, according to the Wikipedia rules on 3rr, I was not in violation in my edits in any way today, despite being accused today of 3rr violation.Drsmoo (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Here is my report to 3RR which included complains about edit warring behavior; so I assume that was part of the reason for the block. Your Block reads: "Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war."
  • I should have included in the first 3rr report these "attack" diffs [117], [118], [119] - all attacks because you consider any editors' attempt to present subject's views in WP:RS context or to allow the subject to defend themselves against allegations to be somehow bigoted and feel you must express that fact.
  • I quoted diffs above of two attacks accusing editors of being supporters who share all Atzmon's views; the diffs reflect the earlier view and newer side of the diffs, which still represent attacks. Also searching the internet to present people's allegedly POV views (usually out of context) is not cooperative editing.
  • This is not the place for debate on content issues; my complaint is about attacks instead of debate responsive to issues raised in sections mentioned above.
  • As for 3RR I noticed in middle of complaint, that was an error where I had a temporary confusion and thought 3 was over the limit. My apologies on that one! not sure if I should give those diffs here or at WP:3rr and have a question in on that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC) warring over a section devoted to a musicians political beliefs, and particularly over the responses by other parties to the individuals stances, appears to be an argument over application of WP:UNDUE (not that it is mentioned). As the editors are in dispute over an area that is covered by WP:ARBPIA, I think that the editors should be warned specifically that these edits are covered by those restrictions. While I believe the revert warring between Drsmoo and Malcolm Soscha (sp?) violates the spirit of WP:3RR, the larger concern is that regarding WP:UNDUE. I suggest that when that is established then we can look into the application of AE restrictions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:ARBPIA has been linked to a couple times, mostly in long name form. Plus I recently added this section warning about more possible sanctions to two editors already sanctioned that I just noticed was deleted. Actually WP:UNDUE - which seems to be a content issue - has been one of the issues, as discussed in in this archive section and elsewhere. However, you can't discuss it in a constructive manner if the editor is calling you an antisemite if you disagree with his edits. This is a repeated behavioral issue of edit warring and uncivility. CarolMoore Failed to sign 5 AprilCarolMooreDC (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that anyone viewing the discussion page can see that I never once called Carol Moore anything, let alone calling her an antisemite. Drsmoo (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Per the above I am referring to specific comments you have made about more than one editor as well as ones about myself. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It appears that CarolMooreDC is accusing me of calling her an antisemite. In fact she has made a long series of this, and other accusations against me (some on this noticeboard, and more on the article talk well as other noticeboards) but has never produced a single diff. I would like her to either produce some evidence of her many charges against me, or stop making them because this is disruptive. (I have said that I think Gilad Atzmon is antisemitic, and there are plenty of reliable sources in the article to support that view.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I note that CarolMooreDC has not notified Drsmoo of the accusation against him/her on this noticeboard. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
This clearly is not about Malcolm Schosha. I just corrected "you" to "one" and added User:Drsmoo so there is no misunderstanding. Anything about you would be addressed with relevant diffs to the administrator who sanctioned you in this arbitration enforcement last week here, as another editor already reminded you on the Atzmon article today. And I didn't see anything about notification of Drsmoo above, but have no problem with doing so. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Carol Moore should refrain from talking bad about fellow editors on her talk page while "teaming up" with those who hold similar positions to her. Drsmoo (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
If you mean here I was looking for advice on whether to go to WP:COIN about an editor on this article and eventually I did and the editor was warned about it here. I don't like bringing complaints, but this article has been the worst I've seen and made it necessary. Seeing the Drsmoo tag team complaint below, and looking more closely at my talk page, I see some other minor grousing about other editors on the article; if that's illegal, please spell it out somewhere. It's not in the tag team Essay.CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I was not "warned", I was "advised". A very different matter. Warning implies that I had committed an offence, and was reprimanded and told not to do so again; advice is another editor's opinion, and implies no impropriety on my part. RolandR (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. Having avoided these kinds of actions in the past, I do get confused about various terms and their implications. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've notified Drsmoo of the WP:ARBPIA editing restrictions, and given him some editing advice. In my humble opinion, further action isn't required at this stage. PhilKnight (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Per Tag-Teaming, WP:Cabals, User:Carolmooredc[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: Not an actionable enforcement request.  Sandstein  17:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Carolmooredc has been engaging in WP:Tag Team and WP:Cabals both on her own talk page as well as on other talk pages in violation of wikipedia guidelines against doing so. Examples are [[120]], [[121]] [[122]], [[123]] where she actively is working with similar minded editors as her to control the article as well as one other user pages [[124]]

She should be encouraged not to work behind the backs of the majority of the editors in an article, and make discussions regarding the article in the appropriate discussion page. Drsmoo (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

zOMG - never thought anybody would actually be using and refering to Elonka Policy :-( Shot info (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This request will be closed very soon if the information required for an enforcement request is not provided.  Sandstein  11:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Dr. Dan[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning Dr. Dan[edit]

User requesting enforcement
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Dr. Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren or Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes
Sanction or remedy that has been violated
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes#Editors_reminded
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
Primary. Supporting: [125], [126]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
Those comments are more then unhelpful and violating WP:AGF, they create a battleground atmosphere and encourage editors to flame and snipe. The remedy above specifically warns editors involved in EE topics to avoid creating battlegrounds, and Dr. Dan has been familiar to it, and was put on the warning list soon after the arbitration ([127]).
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
As specified in the cited remedy, although a topic ban from discussions of EE topics may be considered instead.
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. User_talk:Dr._Dan#Courtesy_notice

Discussion concerning Dr. Dan[edit]

I dunno if it's just lack of self-awareness, but there's nothing in these diffs, and certainly less than Piotrus' comment yesterday "remember that no amount of logic and evidence will change the opinion of a nationalist true believer. For some, Vilnius was forever 100% pure Lithuanian Vilnius, likely created that way when the universe begun.", directed towards his opponents on Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655). He was engaged in similar forum-shopping against myself yesterday, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Bad_faith_towards_me. Best thing to do is to direct Piotrus to make more dialogue with those who disagree with him rather than constantly trying to get them into trouble on frivolous pretexts. Dr Dan it should be said is a highly educated, and intelligent user with good historical knowledge, who constantly has to deal with tendentious multi-blocked nationalists trolling and reverting him; at worst he could maybe cut down on sarcasm sometimes, but he is not by any means half as problematic a user as, for instance, User:Radeksz whom Piotrus has gone to a lot of trouble to protect. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Um, Deacon care to in anyway substantiate the (libelous) claim that I am a "problematic" user? Is this just because I have disagreed with you and participated in discussion where I took a different view than you did? Is it because I've taken issue with tendentious, disruptive editing on the part of Dr. Dan (and a couple of others) who've tried to insert text based on extremist nationalist sources into Lithuania/Poland related articles? Or is it just my general existence and participation in the Wiki project which is "problematic" for you? I hate to be touchy about this but since this is part of the pattern, I'm gonna request an apology from you here.radek (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
And this isn't even addressing the second claim that somehow Piotrus "protects me" which is just ridiculous (particularly since if I'm not "problematic" I don't need protection). I'm guessing you're referring to that one instance where M.K. tried to get me unsuccessfully blocked for edit warring - in a discussion he personally was not involved at all, just you know, he made the report out of a sense of duty - which was a heated disagreement but not a violation of Wiki guidelines. In that instance Piotrus, in his capacity as an admin, issued a warning to myself and to the other editor involved, which put an end to the problem and which action was rightly considered as the correct one by other administrators (though I'm sure it left M.K. and maybe some others disappointed).radek (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As for Dr. Dan's actions, all I know is that shortly after the discussion on Battle of Vilnius commenced he showed up on an article I just created, Białystok pogrom, and made several provocative edits, without apparently looking at the sources first, in what looked like an attempt to create another battlefield. These changes are listed by Piotrus above. In general I find discussion about controversies with Dr. Dan quite difficult since, in addition to the sarcasm which even Deacon noted (and the problem with sarcasm in a written medium is that aside from its implicit lack of AGF, its use can make it quite difficult to understand what another editor is saying particularly when the sarcasm is not employed with sufficient skill) in almost every instance he tries to change the subject to anything but what is actually being discussed. Examples of this can be found both on the talk page of Battle of Vilnius as well as other talk pages of Lithuania/Poland related articles (for example [128]).radek (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please understand it's genuinely not my wish to give you a hard time here, Radeksz, as this wouldn't be the place for it anyway. It's my wish to make the context clear to other admins reviewing Piotrus' request, and there is no chance of disciplinary action coming down against you. The evidence posted by Piotrus involves you, so unfortunately you have to be discussed.
I don't recall any active disagreement with you, and I wouldn't count us voting on different sides of a recent poll notable disagreement. It's based on your editing pattern and your disciplinary record, which can be verified by viewing your user contributions, your block log, user talk history, and by searching the archives of WP:AN/3. In regard to this, and since you have requested, to Piotrus' protection, I will repost evidence composed by User:Sciurinæ from a recent Arbitration clarification request, which will illustrate the situation; readers can compare Piotrus' treatment of you with Piotrus' treatment of Dr Dan:
This is Radeksz's three 3RR violations and all of Piotrus' reactions to them:
  • First 3RR violation: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 (the violation wasn't reported). Piotrus couldn't contact him off-wiki to warn him and the case about his tag teaming was still on. Piotrus actually took the trouble of going to to ask Radeksz for his mail.[129] Piotrus also took part in the edit warring at the article before Radeksz, which resulted in page protection later after the second violation.[130]
  • Second 3RR violation: Same page one day later.[131] Piotrus then secretly warned him in Polish about getting blocked for 3RR and to have a look at his message in[132] This constitutes usage of another language to conceal improper conduct (see remedy). Piotrus also supported unblocking of Radeksz ([133]), and ignored his formula (it goes: when A has 4 reverts and B has 3, only A should receive a consequence. The formula was only designed after Piotrus often had 3 reverts and Boodlesthecat 4 anyway).
  • Third 3RR violation: Piotrus closes the issue himself to avoid a block.[134]
--- Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok. There's one (semi) legit block there (it wasn't a 3RR vio but the admin decided to crack down on the edit wars that were going on - in a very one sided way I might add), due to a report by a real "problematic" user who got himself banned for a whole year due to his propensity for edit wars and incivility. The other two are just spurious attempts by Deacon to smear me - note I already discussed the 3rd one above, reported by M.K. (and the reason 1st one wasn't reported was because these were completely diff edits as was the 3rd). And of course that record is no worse than this [135] (so does Deacon consider himself a "problematic" user as well? [136]) Now. Yeah, Piotrus asked me for my email when he noticed that there was another Polish editor editing Poland related pages. Yeah, he warned me not to violate the 3RR rule (in Polish probably in order to see if I actually spoke it). And yeah, as I already said above in one case he issued warnings. So what? This is the mentality that looks for conspiracies where none exist and which thinks that somehow if two different Polish editors have the nerve to edit the same Poland related article then they must be scheming. This has already been discussed to death in several different RfA's and other forums (quite honestly I can't find it atm), with the explicit finding that there is no cabal or conspiracy here, that these chargers are frivolous and that ordinary communication between two editors who happen to be of the same nationality should not be automatically viewed with suspicion, as Deacon is trying to do here. Further. It takes a certain amount of chutzpah to call me "problematic" - even though Dr. Dan's the one that has an official restriction on him for his previous actions, and Deacon has been officially "admonished" to avoid edit warring (not to mention the "it's not my intent to give you a hard time" - just call you "problematic"). Still want that apology Deacon.radek (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
In regard to that 3rd supposed 3RR violation, here is an uninvolved editor noting that it wasn't a 3RR violation [137], and here is another uninvolved editor stating that Piotrus' action in this case were appropriate and telling Deacon to quit wasting everyone's time with frivolous complaints (as he is doing here) [138], and yet another admonishment for Deacon not to waste people's time by an uninvolved editor [139], and again (after Deacon tried to drag it out) [140], but Deacon and MK insisted on going so they got another one [141], and then this one as a combination of another acknowledgment of the appropriateness of Piotrus' action and criticisms of Deacon's [142]. Ok, enough. The point is that this particular matter was opened and closed and there's no point in bringing it up again and this is just Deacon's attempts to re-fight old battles.radek (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(Wow, I felt a little bit of pride reading the thread and out of the blue seeing my summary for a request for clarification cited. But here comes the denial already. For what little it's worth, since it's off-topic, I understand that the third 3RR vio was complicated to understand. The second and first, by contrast, couldn't be any more obvious: in the second one you've restored the exact same parenthesis with OR four times in a row about, yet you still deny it was a 3RR vio. In the first 3RR vio, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, you've re-added exactly the same comment of yours about Pawlikowski into the article four times as well, yet you claim the diffs are completely different. I'm not sure why you don't want to accept it because there's no consequences possible for the vios after so much time has passed but for those who actually check the claims for correctness, this will only leave you looking as unreliable.) Sciurinæ (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's not forget that the evidence against Radeksz (completely irrelevant to Dr. Dan) was brought by Deacon to ArbCom and thrown out with a comment (from arbitrator Coren): "It is impossible, in this context, to see this request as little more than forum shopping; and an attempt to misuse the committee into a bludgeon in a vendetta.". EOT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Procedural note: This enforcement request is concerned solely with the edits of Dr. Dan. Issues relating to any other user should be discussed in their proper place per WP:DR; such comments may be removed without notice from this thread.  Sandstein  06:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I tried to refactor this discussion to separate discussion of Radeksz, but Deacon reverted me. See [here].--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This "refactoring"[143] also played down the link about your involvement as "Off-topic discussion concerning Radeksz", even though it shows that you did exactly the same as Dr. Dan. Granted, Deacon needn't and shouldn't have brought up Radeksz at all. But it is poor style to file away a relevant complaint about your role like that. Sciurinæ (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Why, given the guideline states The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise, was it processed? It was not normal? Novickas (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus left that part blank and refrained from informing him. I left Dr Dan a courtesy notice. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a little example of Dr Dan's usual practice of turning Wikipedia into a battleground and a laughing stock. Here [144]. Tymek (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Tymek, please understand that an AE thread is not for open season on article edits you disagree with. It's to request and discuss the enforcement of arbitration case remedies. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Sad. Not encyclopædic, by any reasonable measure. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
A good example of WP:POINT disruption, although I will add that it is an exception to the rule: majority of controversial edits by Dr. Dan are not in article space, but on talk, where they display much bad faith, and start or contribute to various flames. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Deacon of Pndapetzim and I do not consider the edits by Dr. Dan that have so far been provided as liable to trigger an EE sanction for "repeatedly or seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Speaking for myself only, I will in any case not contemplate any enforcement action as long as the request section contains no notification diff.  Sandstein  05:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Three editors involved in discussion with him have given examples of how he turns the discussions into battlegrounds. Here's another diff: quoting hate speech. His edits are not intended to create a helpful, friendly collaborative editing atmosphere, but to antagonize people and derail any useful discussion with off-topic remarks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus, that comment from Dr. Dan Feb 2008 is addressing an argument you made earlier in that thread. Opinion may vary I suppose as to its relevance, but that "hate speech" is a quote from a former Prime Minister of Israel, offered as an argumentative parallel. This post, like the others you've linked, is well within normal talk page culture on wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It's another example of Dr. Dan trying to 1) change the topic from what is being discussed (Holocaust in Lithuania) to something else (Poles and anti-semitism) and 2) doing so in a purposefully provocative manner intended to antagonize other editors (yes, I realize intent is unobservable but a pattern of behavior, as documented here, constitutes indirect evidence for it)radek (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure you aren't confusing Dr. Dan with Deacon of Pndapetzim? Dr. Dan seems much quieter here than the latter. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Nope, I'm commenting on Deacon's comment on Dr. Dan's comment. So it's about Dr. Dan.radek (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is very disconcerting, and I don’t know if Digwuren Discretionary sanctions constitute a better reference point than, let’s say, the Eastern European disputes Remedies to deal with this chronic illness of good will. I think Dr. Dan’s behavior warrants some sort of preventive action, like in the case of Lokyz blocked by PhilKnight for 48 hours,[145] because battlefield creation destroys the spirit of camaraderie among us. --Poeticbent talk 19:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren and Poeticbent, AE is not a battlefield. I suggest both of you keep your grudges away and that neither of you post anything more here unless you are adding evidence related to Piotrus' report. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by addressing me along with Digwuren? Where did it come from? Your grudge against Piotrus is legendary[146] and requires no new evidence here, however, evidence against Dan presented by Piotrus is a lot stronger than that against Lokyz in the case mentioned above and could easily warrant a 48 hour block. --Poeticbent talk 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, if this: [147] (note - after this AE started) isn't an attempt to create a battleground and violate WP:Battle then I don't know what is and that policy clearly is meaningless. So Dr. Dan starts a section on talk page called "WP:Plagiarism" and asks "some...editors" to review their edits. When asked to be more specific he starts talking about something else. When the question is repeated he... eh, just see for yourself. The end result is that there's an accusation of plagiarism made, but no specifics, just a general aspersion cast on involved editors. And it continues...radek (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

These diffs are getting absurd. Can someone please close this frivolous battle-fest of tendentiousness? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deacon, how is objecting to a user making very serious and apparently spurious allegations of plagiarism "absurd" or tendentious? Do you think it is ok to make such accusations and then evade making your accusations specific when asked?radek (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I want to restate my question for Deacon: what exactly is "absurd" or "tendentious" to objecting to frivolous, unsubstantiated and spurious charges of Plagiarism (for which, in real world, students get failed, people get fired, people get sued, reputations are ruined, etc. - all the good reason why Wiki takes copyvio and plagiarism very seriously)?radek (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
There was, um, close paraphrasing at the article - see the talk page [148]. Novickas (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps because "Dr. Dan is opposing Piotrus, hence everything he does is justified"? I would like to stress to any reviewing admin that Deacon is far from neutral, random commentator here: he was the party that started last year's arbcom against me, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes (formerly, RfA:Piotrus 2), and for the past year, if not more, he has appeared in (as far as I can recall) every single AE thread started by me and defended the user that I was complaining about. See also this recent Wikiquette alert. I would also like to note that so far, four editors have expressed the concern that Dr. Dan is creating battlegrounds: me, Radeksz, Poeticbent and Tymek. And Dr. Dan was not put on the Digwuren list of users under sanction by accident... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
So you claim that Deacon pretends to be neutral towards you? Actually in the very first comment Deacon did note that you are also involved against him and pointed out the Wikiquette thread himself and didn't decide the result section despite the fact that he's quite involved in general AE handling. Unsurprisingly, you still found your "neutral, random commentator"s instead - in your known friends. But let's analyse the remaining claim in the above comment that hasn't been refuted yet: "for the past year, if not more, he [Deacon] has appeared in (as far as I can recall) every single AE thread started by me and defended the user that I was complaining about". Here are your AE threads for the past year. [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154]. In how many of them was he involved? In one - he only provided a relevant link to the RfAr (the other 'argument' you used).
Speaking about assumption of good faith:
  • "His edits are not intended to create a helpful, friendly collaborative editing atmosphere, but to antagonize people and derail any useful discussion with off-topic remarks.".[155]
  • "remember that no amount of logic and evidence will change the opinion of a nationalist true believer. For some, Vilnius was forever 100% pure Lithuanian Vilnius, likely created that way when the universe begun."[156]
  • "Not quite. You agree with me, hence you are suspicous. If you were to disagree with me, you would be beyond doubt. Also, see this, rules #4, #8 and #9 should give you all the information you need :)" (link to "Poles are evil", insinuating a prejudice towards Poles).[157]
  • "Delete, in the name of Ministry of Truth = Keep, of course".[158]
  • "Perhaps because "Dr. Dan is opposing Piotrus, hence everything he does is justified"?".[159]
  • Or from another editor: "chronic illness of good will" ([160]) and linking to a post from himself saying "attempts to harass Polish editors - including me - based on anti-Polish sentiment and bad science). I already spoke about these malevolent campaigns during Eastern European disputes case" ([161]) Sciurinæ (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Sciurinæ, would you mind telling us what brought you to this AE thread? Last time I checked, we interacted at the arbcom case... And you agree above that Deacon shouldn't have discussed Radeksz, so how do you justify you trying to discuss me and others? I will just end by saying that what we see here is a common pattern: editor A violates our polices, editor B complains about editor A, and is targeted by editors claiming that editor A is violating the policies by daring to discuss editor B, who try to defend editor A by turning the discussion into a discussion of editor B. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, let me address two pieces of misinformation. One, I've left most of your many AE threads alone, including recently the Lokyz thread (but frankly as probably the most knowledgable admin for this area of regional conflict, other than yourself, I probably should turn up more!). Two, the four users are all your normal tag-team partners I'd expect to turn up here, and if you get more to turn up here that won't make your wonky evidence against Dr Dan more credible. It's no secret that I am one of many many users who have had a problem with much of your behaviour Piotrus, which as you said led to me launching an ArbCom case (your third I think) that led to three remedies against you. However, I'm not against you. I really just wish you'd devote more of your time focusing your efforts on your excellent article building sklls and forming good relationships with people other than those you think will help you win battles. But that's of little relevance here. The long old ad hominems you've been in the habit of launching against me and any one else whenever they try to ensure a fair hearing for one of your ideological "opponents" won't make your "evidence" against this one, Dr Dan, any stronger. Though AE admins can obviously sometimes be fooled, they aren't so naive as this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Accusations of tag teaming (smearing not only my name but of several other users), misrepresentation of the ArbCom case (reviewing admins are welcome to look what remedies were made about me and what remedies were made about Deacon...), accusations of personal attacks... yes, I do hope that AE admins will carefully review the posts here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom didn't pass three remedies against you? I will happily admit btw that I got one minor admonition for performing 7 reverts in a 2 week period to a medieval history article you were edit-warring in with poorly-sourced nationalistic nonsense against consensus, but no-one's gonna care, as most of the AE admins have done much worse. But seriously, self-awareness! A user who spends much of his wiki-time IMing with notorious nationalist edit-warriors (like Alden Jones ([162]), Tymek ([163][164]), Poeticbent ([165]), Molobo ([166], [167]), Greg park avenue ([168]), Logologist/Nihil novi ([169])) and who is still collecting emails from others,[170] shouldn't be casting aspersions against [non-eastern European] users in good repute like Sciurinae [171] and myself [172] about collusion. That the editors who've joined you here are your normal tag-teamers is verifiable from a casual browse of their histories, and isn't a personal attack; if you didn't want them mentioned you shouldn't have claimed above, on the AE board where you are pursuing a claim, that they were outside users. The "personal attack" claim is just ridiculous, and is clearly aimed at scaring me and others away from pointing out reality. This is like your earlier claim that I've turned up at every other AE claim you've made in the last year (1 of 6), you're hoping it will get believed without being investigated. You are aware, right, that all this is just noise anyway? Likely no-one will read much beyond your diffs about Dr Dan, and Sandstein has already said your diffs weren't actionable. But battle on if you must ... your tactics speak louder than your claims. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Dr. Dan[edit]

No action. As far as I can tell, no uninvolved administrator (or uninvolved user, for that matter) has expressed the opinion that the reported edits warrant any sanctions, and the discussion is becoming entirely unproductive. As an aside, a WP:DIFF of the user's notification has still not been provided.  Sandstein  20:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Ksnow[edit]

User requesting enforcement
Dragons flight (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Ksnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking
Sanction or remedy that has been violated
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date_delinking#Temporary_injunction
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
See Abuse Log
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
Ksnow has been engaged in a systematic program of editing that includes removing date links. On March 27 I mentioned the injunction to him. [173]. Three days later he blanked the section [174] without response. Since then he has removed date links from a further 150 pages. His edits are following a systematic (and alphabetical) pattern through French town stubs. He isn't only removing date links since he is also editing references and minor portions of other text, but it is clear he is following a systematic program of editing that covers a large number of pages and includes removing date links.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
I'll let someone else decide what is appropriate. I'd be happy to let this end without any sanction, if the user would stop the problematic edits rather than blanking the warning from their talk page and continuing to remove date links from hundreds of pages.
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Ksnow[edit]

I agree that Ksnow's edits violate the injunction despite a clear warning. I am blocking him and advising him to make an unblock request stating clearly that he will not continue his programme of date delinking. I suggest this discussion be closed a day or so from now unless there are any further developments in this case.  Sandstein  21:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ksnow has indicated a willingness to discontinue. I request an unblock. --Michael Snow (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
See the discussion at my and Ksnow's talk; essentially, I am ready to unblock as soon as Ksnow clearly states that he will discontinue delinking.  Sandstein  20:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Look, it's easy to get carried away with interpretation of this injunction, which has been inconsistent at best. The warning was non-specific and did not cite examples of his alleged "mass de-linking". It is clear that this is yet another gnoming editor who has unwittingly fallen foul of the injunction. The user has been making small edits at a rate of roughly one per minute, which are of a diverse nature but which include template changes and statistical updates. The user frequently makes successive edits to an article. It does not appear the editor has been actively delinking dates, as there are few examples of this. What's more, the editor has stated xhe does not use a bot, and has said will stop delinking (even though it is yet to be proven there has been any violation). A quick look of the user sub-pages is sufficient to learn that no scripts are being used - there is no monobook page. I see no legitimate reason to maintain the block on this user. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Copied from User talk:Ksnow

Result concerning Ksnow[edit]

Unblocked per discussion on the talkpage. De-linking of years (not dates which seemed to have caused a communication problem with the editor) was done as part of a wider systematic working the articles in question. Ksnow has said he will no longer delink and no script is used. In is not a good idea to let a very productive content editor stop dead in his tracks over a policy dispute he has expressed no active interest. Agathoclea (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.