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


Azerbaijani (talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Azerbaijani_placed_on_revert_parole.

Azerbaijani has been placed on revert parole and limited to one revert per page per week. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. [1]

However, he reverted Nakhichevan article: [2] (replaced South Caucasus with Arran), and made no use of talk page, which is a violation of his parole.

Reported by: --Grandmaster 04:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

 DoneAzerbaijani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 31 hours ~ Anthony 05:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Aivazovsky (talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Aivazovsky_placed_on_revert_parole. Aivazovsky has been placed on revert parole and limited to one revert per page per week. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. [3]

However, he reverted Greater Armenia (political concept) article more than once: [4], [5], and provided no explanation of his reasonings for content reverts on the article's talk page, which is a violation of his parole.

Reported by: Atabek 17:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done I see only one reversion there - the two diffs you cite are part of a string of consecutive edits by User:Aivazovsky ([6]). He does need to discuss even that one reversion on the talk page, and I've left him a note to do so. I don't see a block-worthy violation at this point. MastCell Talk 18:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has been placed on indefinite probation and is under an enforcement rule that he "may be blocked for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses, should he... excessively revert any page. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year." The final decision is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing. He has since been blocked between 5-7 times (depending on how you count), including a 1-year block approved by the ArbCom.

He has now engaged in disruptive reverting here (April 30 through May 13), here (May 10 through May 13), and here (May 10 through May 13). Makemi describes the events at WP:ANI#Infoboxes.

Reported by: Fireplace 02:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[7] excessive reversions?
Talk:Sheffield_Town_Hall#coordinates inflammatory remarks?
[8] further disruptive reverts at 13th-14th April, 15th Apr, 25th Apr and on the talk page (so much so, we needed a sub-page). L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 22:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Under his general probation, Pigsonthewing is hereby banned from making any info-box related edits for a period of one month. He may not add or remove infoboxes from articles and may not edit infobox templates. He may make suggestions on appropriate talk pages. This ban may be enforced by blocking (starting with 24 hours and escalating as appropriate). The other matter is stale, but would be appropriate for consideration here if it recurs. Thatcher131 04:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Atabek (talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee: [9]

He can only make one revert per week per article, and he has to explain his revert. It is suspected that he was using suckpuppets to edit war on the fallowing articles Monte Melkonian, Drastamat Kanayan, Nagorno-Karabakh and House of Hasan-Jalalyan. The following suck account were used

the following is his IP address, which he accidentally used couple of days ago. [10]

Compare edits made by Atabek[11] with edits made by User:Zipirtich[12], User:Earthdream[13], and User:Drastamat[14]. --VartanM 05:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser established that it was not Atabek: [15] So the accusation is groundless. Grandmaster 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Dmcdevit's checkuser finding (see Grandmaster's link), no apparent violation. Newyorkbrad 23:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


Aivazovsky (talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Aivazovsky_placed_on_revert_parole. He has to discuss every single revert that he makes on the talk page.

However, User:Aivazovsky blatantly continues to violate his revert parole, and keeps making reverts without any discussion. Here is his latest revert without any discussion whatsoever on the Demographics of Armenia article:

[16] (revert to the version [17]).

(the history of edits for the article is here:[18])

He made the revert just 23 minutes after he was warned on his talk page by an administrator about his continuous violations of his revert parole ([19]). Such behaviour shows complete disregard of his parole, of administrators, and of the Wiki community in general.

The user has been blocked repeatedly for violating his revert parole. The number of his blocks is astounding (at least 6 violations of his revert parole: [20]). Clearly, short-term blocks do not work to change this user's disruptive behavior. Therefore, I suggest that User:Aivazovsky be blocked indefinitely.--TigranTheGreat 21:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Dacy69 (talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee: [21]

He can only make one revert per week per article, and he has to explain his revert. He reverted the Safavids article, and in his edit summary he said that he was reverting vandalism, however, what he removed was not vandalism at all. Furthermore, he did not explain his revert on the talk page as required by the arbitration parole: [22]Azerbaijani 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC) (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been edit warring on that article for quite a while, disturbing the balance and making edits in violation of compromise achieved by the parties on talk after many months of discussions. The anon ignored the talk page and made no effort to get a consensus for his edits. He was reverted by many other users, including those representing the same side of the dispute. I don't think that the actions of anon can be classified anything else other than vandalism. Grandmaster 05:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
What he was adding was not vandalism. This anon was adding sourced information from a source everyone agrees is reliable and scholarly, including you. His edits were not vandalism. Ali made a comment on the talk page, Grandmaster made a comment on the talk page, and even this anon made a comment on the talk page, but Dacy did not, he simply reverted and called the edits vandalism.Azerbaijani 13:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The manner in which this anon user edited page - numerous edit reverts is obvious vandalism. Moreover, I suspect this anon user is sockpuppet. My parole allows to revert anon vandalism without explanation. I made report on all these anon users replacing one another and vandalising page [23]--Dacy69 14:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No matter how many times you say it, sourced edits from reliable sources is not considered vandalism.
I quote Wikipedia: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.
Dacy, the fact that you dont even bother to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and still insist that you are correct really doesnt help your case. You violated your parole.Azerbaijani 15:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Those anon Ips are replacing each other. They know what they are doing. It is obvious vandalism. if it were edit of one, as you said, misguided anon, then you are right. But the case is different. Moreover, I believe that these anons are your socks.--Dacy69 15:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Stop saying its vandalism, its not, no matter who is doing it, those edits are not considered vandalism, as they are legitimate edits which the anon thinks are improving Wikipedia's coverage of that subject. Familiarize yourself with the rules. Saying that the edits are vandalism is not going to make it so, and no matter how many times you say it, Wikipedia's policies arent going to change.
Let see, Atabek, Grandmaster, Pejman, and Ali all also reverted the Anon, NONE of them called the anon's edits vandalism, and all the ones on revert parole left a comment. You were the only one. You clearly violated your parole.Azerbaijani 15:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was waiting for the final admin decision in checkuser case, the fact that this IP should be considered a vandal was stated quite clearly now [24]. So Azerbaijani, please, assume a good faith with regards to Dacy69.Atabek 16:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only did this decision come a day after Dacy69 violated his parole (therefore it doesnt apply, as Dacy committed the violation prior to any decision), but the only reason this decision even happened was because Atabek misinformed an administrator about this users actions, and I have commented on the Admins talk page: [25]

Is it not peculiar that both Grandmaster and Atabek have run to Dacy69's defense so quickly? Also, note that once again Atabek made a false report against me (here you can also see the false accusations made against the anon): [26]

Interestingly, these users contend that the Safavids article is a sensitive issue and that the anon is messing up the consensus version of the article, but these users themselves have violated a consensus agreement which they themselves agreed to on the History of the name Azerbaijan article and have traded reverts so that they wouldnt break parole.Azerbaijani 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I fully trust to Arbcom members to judge on this case. Just fyi - On that page Mammed Said Ordubadi user:Azerbaijani insulted me and called me a liar - then and I came up with important document on page History of the name Azerbaijan to prove my case which was accepted and inserted in the article. You, Azerbaijani, should change attitude to other editors' opinion and not try to revenge, and moreover, use sockpuppets to evade restrictions. I made also checkuser request and wait for final desicion.--Dacy69 16:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

More lies, now you are clearly making false accusations. Show me the diffs where I called you a liar. I'm sick and tired of all of these lies and false reports against me. Here is every single diff of every comment I made on that talk page: [27] [28] [29] [30]

[31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

Where did I personally attack you? Nowhere! Infact, you reported me for those very comments before: [37] Seem familiar? Dacy, this is hilarious, you guys can try all you want, but the fact of the matter is I have the diff's to prove every single false comment you guys make against me. I'm sick of these personal attacks. Its getting tiring.
Also, I have explained undo-weight to you before, I can take action against that source as per Wikipedia's policies but I have chosen not to out of good faith, but so far, all you guys have done is break compromises, break Wikipedia's policies, trade reverts, and make false accusations.Azerbaijani 16:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
2 times you said I lied [38]. Speaking frankly I am done with that. Write and accuse me of anything you want.--Dacy69 16:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You said I called you a lier, which I never did. I said you lied, which is a comment on your post, but I never called you a lier. Its funny how you prove yourself wrong! I'm only accusing you of what you did (violating parole), not what I want. ;)
Again, it should be pointed out that Dacy broke is parole prior to any decision being made regarding the anon.Azerbaijani 17:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The anon IP belonged to Tajik, who used it to evade his parole. Tajik has been blocked indefinitely. [39] I think this closes the issue. Grandmaster 07:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Freedom skies[edit]

Freedom skies (talk · contribs) has been placed on standard revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Freedom_skies.

In particular he is required to discuss content reversion (excepting obvious vandalism) on talk pages of articles. This has been violated in two cases.

  • He performed a revert here: [40] which was against consensus among the other editors.
  • He undid a merge: [41] [42]. There was merge notice for more than two weeks and objections were invited on talk page.

In both cases, he failed to discuss it on talk pages, calling it reversion of vandalism.

Reported by: --Knverma 20:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The decision ruled that Freedom skies is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism.

"Knverma" asked for redirect on 07:48, 8 May 2007 and went ahead on 07:49, 8 May 2007. It took him less than two mins to blank a well sourced article. Arrow740 said that "We should delete and merge into Buddhism and Hinduism." Knverma blanked the excellently sourced article and did not merge it; I merged it today.

"Knverma" blanked Patriarch (Buddhism) and redirected it to Lineage (Buddhism), a completely different conept. He blanked content elsewhere.

Those actions amount to vandalism.

Freedom skies| talk  20:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

For further reference, here is the discussion regarding merging/deleting/redirecting: [43] and some discussion on Freedomskies' talk page: [44] --Knverma 21:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Sorry to have ignored this, but I was mostly off line over the weekend, and I seem to be one of the few admins who deals with issues on this page. I'm not going to hold Freedom Skies responsible for reverting the blanking of Yoga_and_Buddhism; it is not unreasonable to be surprised at that kind of large scale change that was apparently only proposed one minute before and endorsed after the fact by one other editor. Editors who make bold changes should not be surprised when others object and should be prepared to discuss the matter calmly (as I learned my first week here). I also note that the merge and redirect is now done, so Skies' objections were apparently dealt with without further disruption or edit warring. The reversion of the merge of Patriarch (Buddhism) and Lineage (Buddhism) was done without discussion, which is a technical violation, and it would certainly be a good idea for Freedom Skies to explain on the talk pages why the two concepts are different enough to deserve separate articles. It is also inappropriate to describe good faith edits as vandalism, and his continued insistence that it was vandalism shows a worrisome inflexibility. Consider this a final warning. Thatcher131 00:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually sir,

I have good reasons to assume that "Knverma" is vandalizing those articles.

Kindly take a look into the past actions of the user:-

That material was from peer reviewed journals. I'll provide numerous more examples such as these in which the user has shown the tendency to simply blank mateial in the past.

Knverma is an editor who would like to have every mention of Bodhidharma removed from this encyclopedia for his own reasons.

He removed the neutral narrative as mentioned below from here; he could have requested expansion and I, for one, would have responded. Removing an entire concept with such scope for expansion is improper.:-

A patriarch in Buddhism refers to high members of the sangha who were not only succesors to the historical Gautama Buddha, but were also leaders of their respectful sect. Bodhidharma, for example, was considered the first Zen (Ch'an) patriarch, and the twenty-eighth successor to the Buddha. In Jodo Shinshu it refers to seven Indian, Chinese and Japanese masters before its founder Shinran. In Theravada the term is used for the Sangharaja.

He completely blanked Yoga and Buddhism and did not merge it. I had to perform the merge myself.

  • At least don't present links which contradict your statements. The above two links show that I deleted Bodhidharma from the Patriarch article and added it to the Lineage article. (deleted, following update by Freedomskies.) Have a speedy recovery from your accident. --Knverma 11:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A patriarch is the one to whom the founding principles of a religious school are attributed to, in this case the Buddha (in India) and Bodhidharma (in China)[1] and Lineage refers to the concept of Dharma transmission which traces it's origin to the one patriarch.

I'm sorry for the delay in the reply; If you'll take a look here you'll see that I have not worked since 21:00, 12 May 2007. I was involved in a minor accident and may not be able to contribute in the near future as well.

The patriarch article should be expanded using Kūkai and Hōnen Shōnin. I'll try do it myself using only the best sources available. This merge was proposed only by Knverma and carried on only by Knverma.

You'll notice that only Knverma carried out the blanking of Bodhidharma from this discussion.

Any objections to the merge? --Knverma 08:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Merged. --Knverma 11:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


  1. ^ Bodhidharma (6th century CE), legendary Indian monk who is credited with the establishment of the Chan (Zen) school of Buddhism that flourished in East Asia. Considered the 28th Indian successor in a direct line from the Buddha Gotama, Bodhidharma is recognized by the Chinese Chan schools as their first patriarch. - Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions By Wendy Doniger, Merriam-Webster

Freedom skies| talk  09:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Closely related complaint Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Andries. Vassyana's complaint about me reg. my edit on 6 May was based on the unsourced information that Kkrystian added to the article Shirdi Sai Baba on 17 May. Andries 20:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

diff 17 May 2007 Adds unsourced positive information about Sathya Sai Baba in the article Shirdi Sai Baba which violates. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Kkrystian_reminded

The information about Sathya Sai Baba that Kkrystian added that is unsourced and on which Vassyana bases his complaint about me is as follows

"One of his devotees - Sharada Devi - says that before his death he told her secretly that in eight years he would reincarnate in Andhra Pradesh, under the name of Sathya (what means 'truth'), what is in accordance with the birth of Sathya Sai Baba in 1926, in Puttaparthi, Andhra Pradesh who claims to be the next reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba."

Notification of Kkrystian and more details [45]


Andries 20:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see that fragment - I have already supplied a citaion. Andries by adding this link in his complaint is spreading his anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba propaganda. This website contains unsourced info & orgiginal research Kkrystian 10:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The citation that you provided [46] is from a pro-Sathya Sai Baba website and it is not a copy of a reputable source. The Mumbai Mirror article is a reputable source that was copied to the website exbaba. I have seen the original. Why is Kkrystian allowed to continue making edits with his lack of understanding of reputable sources? He does not seem to understand WP:RS. Andries 10:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
But it's a speech of Sharada Devi what prooves that she said it. Kkrystian 11:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
You cannot know. A website of followers of Sathya Sai Baba is not a reputable source for Wikipedia, except may be for the articles Sathya Sai Baba, Sathya Sai Baba movement or in this case Sharada Devi. Andries 11:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This was something that was said by Sharada Devi. Kkrystian 12:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I will continue editing at Citizendium where users are, until now, better versed in recognizing reputable sources than in Wikipedia. And hopefully there, my edits based on the expensive mainstream reputable sources on the subject that I have at home will be more appreciated. Andries 14:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Closely related complaint Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Kkrystian. Andries 20:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Andries (talk · contribs) was topic banned by ArbCom from "editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages". Andries edited Sai Baba of Shirdi on 6 May 2007.[47] It can explicitly be seen that this is a related article. Additionally, Andries has been endorsing edit wars as a solution to content disputes on a guru article.[48][49] Thank you for your time. Vassyana 13:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:It appears that the Arbcom ban went into effect on 6 May 2007, only a short time before this edit. If Andries hasn't edited since and continues not to, I would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt on this one and assume Andries wasn't aware of the ban at the time. "Endorsing edit wars" is a separate matter. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the ban went into effect on 6 March, not 6 May.[50] Easy enough mistake to make a glance. :) Vassyana 20:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
No, the article is unrelated. Only because Sathya Sai Baba claims to be a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba does not make the article related. Sathya Sai Baba also claims to be a reincarnation of Jesus, Vishnu, Shiva, God, Dattatreya, etc. What is next? That I am banned from Einstein only because Sathya Sai Baba claims to be reincarnation of Einstein? Sathya Sai Baba lives in India and is a Hindu guru. Does that mean that I cannot edit the article India, Hinduism and guru because these article are also related to Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 18:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
And Vassyana misinteprets my comments about edits wars. [51]
Basic courtesy demands that Vassyana should have informed me about this complaint here which s/he did not do. I think Vassyana's behavior is shameless. I found this complaint here by coincidence. Andries
I will make a request for clarification, because I think that Vassyana is greatly mistaken in his complaint about me. I admit that the similarity in names may look suspicious to outsiders, but if Sathya Sai Baba now starts to claim that he is a reincarnation of Albert Einstein and starts to call himself Einstein then I think that there is still no relationship between Einstein and Sathya Sai Baba and that I am still free to edit the article Albert Einstein. Andries 19:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification_from_user:Andries_reg._Sathya_Sai_Baba Andries 19:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I will try to keep this brief to avoid further cluttering this request. I apologized to Andries, as my lapse was unintentional.[52] One of Shirdi Sai Baba's main disciples claimed Sathya Sai Baba was foretold by Shirdi Sai Baba, and accepted Sathya's claims of reincarnation. Andries comparisons to broad topics and Jesus, etc are inappropriate and misleading. Báb and Bahá'u'lláh would be more apt comparisons. Please note that Andries called this rebuttal "mere propaganda by the Sathya Sai Baba movement".[53] Vassyana 19:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can also mention some followers of Jesus who say that Sathya Sai Baba was prophesized in the Bible. This was my own view 10 years ago when I was still a follower of Sathya Sai Baba. Of course the claims of Sathya Sai Baba and his followers are not enough to establish a relationship. Why should I believe this propaganda from the Sathya Sai Baba movement? The Sathya Sai Baba movement may claim anything they like. Andries 19:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
In spite of Vassyana claim otherwise which he does not back up with reputable sources, I think the claim of Sathya Sai Baba to be a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba is generally not accepted by followers of the latter. Hence there is no relationship between the two gurus. Andries 19:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe this false propaganda unsourced story from Shirdi Sai Baba that was added by user:Kkrystian on 17 May 2007 diff 17 May 2007 Kkrystian adding the relationship between Shirdi Sai Baba and Sathya Sai Baba after I had edited the article for the last time on 6 May 2007 diff by Andries on 6 May 2007 his last edit on Shirdi Sai Baba
"One of his devotees - Sharada Devi - says that before his death he told her secretly that in eight years he would reincarnate in Andhra Pradesh, under the name of Sathya (what means 'truth'), what is in accordance with the birth of Sathya Sai Baba in 1926, in Puttaparthi, Andhra Pradesh who claims to be the next reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba. Later Sharada Devi became a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba believing that he was the next incarnation of Sai Baba of Shirdi."
Andries 20:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
See [54] Andries 20:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

See Andries 08:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Reddi (talk · contribs) is back after what I am told is a one year probation on editing science-related articles. His arbitration case can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2 with a final decision in arbitration case that was a finding of Disruptive editing, 3RR violations, Uncommunicative, Edit warring.

New examples are:

  • Uncommunicative editing and adding of non-sourced POV edits wile ignoring extensive talk on subject and ignoring requests to justify edits: [55] [56] [57]
  • It had been noted in the previous case that Reddi seemed to have an MO of supporting his "mission to give minority or fringe views in science" by changing "the main articles in the field" in a way "which may mislead our readers". Reddi showed a continuation of this MO when he went on an "jag" consisting of 89 individual edits in an 11 hr period that totally rewrote the basic article on Radio astronomy that took the article from this [67] to this [68]. The edits consist of a massive POV-push to re-define Radio astronomy (including re-writing the basic definition) so that purported observations by Nikola Tesla (re:Teslascope) could be couched as "Radio astronomy".
  • Many notifications in talk citing continual disruptive editing consisting of continually reformatting references to non-standard format: [69]

Halfblue 03:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you seem to have something against me ... several people don't.
The prior arbitration case is over. The previous terms have expired.
I am trying to be communicative (such as in this link Talk:Teslascope history) ... editing and adding sourced NPOV edits while engagining in extensive talk.
J. D. Redding 03:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Administrator response: There appears to be some recurrence of some of the problematic editing patterns noted in the case, but as you point out, the one-year probation and revert parole both expired a couple of months ago. The remedies in the decision also provide that "any three administrators, for good cause, may extend either Reddi's ban [sic] or probation in one year increments," but it is not clear to me that this can be done after the original one-year term has expired. If all the remedies have expired, you would have to bring this to ANI or to dispute resolution as a new matter rather than treat it as arbitration enforcement (which of course is not to say that the prior history would be ignored). Leaving here for additional admin input. Newyorkbrad 03:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting simple vandalism. However he reverted edits of other users to Sutton Coldfield four times in 10 minutes.

The admin who dealt with the AIV report did not class the edits as simple vandalism, as can be seen here. One Night In Hackney303 12:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, rather. "POV vandalism" is not a concept that really makes sense, especially not here, which is clearly a content dispute between differing points of view. I scarcely count as uninvolved with this editor, however, and am reluctant to take any action myself. Moreschi Talk 12:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The revert parole expired after one year, see here. However, this looks like it could be reported as a standard 3RR violation. In addition, I recently banned Andy from adding or removing infoboxes or editing infobox templates for a month [70]. I am extending this to a month from today and expanding it to ban editing of infoboxes and their contents as well. The ban may be enforced by blocking if necessary. Thatcher131 13:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
"I am extending this" - On what grounds? 3RR excludes fixing vandalism. I note that you still ignore requests to answer the point I put to you on my talk page. Andy Mabbett 13:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
However, if you look at this, he was also banned for a year. So, presumably, the one revert per week limit for one year started after the one-year ban ended, and is therefore stll ongoing. My thoughts have been posted on the article talk page. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 15:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Generally arbitration remedies are served concurrently unless specifically stated. See here for more. Thatcher131 15:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
So why bother rule separately? It would seem obvious to me that if he is banned for a year, in that time he will not be able to revert! L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
"Penis" and "fuck you" edits are vandalism. A dispute over the description of a town is not vandalism but a content dispute, and there is no such thing as "POV vandalism." (Hint, POV describes a content dispute. You may wish to note that an admin who had a habit of blocking people for "POV vandalism" gave up his adminship after overwhelming criticism for this tactic.) There are many forms of dispute resolution. You can file a checkuser request and ask to have the user blocked as a sockpuppet; you can file an RFC; you can report him to the admins' noticeboard; you can ask for mediation. If mediation and RFC fail you can file an arbitration request. (You might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors, in which an anonymous editor who held very strong views on certain topics and had a problem with incivility and original research was eventually banned, after an RFC failed to modify her behavior.) Edit warring and reverting is not a form of dispute resolution. As always, I invite review by any other admin. Thatcher131 13:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
None of which answer my question: "On what grounds?" Andy Mabbett 13:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You weren't fixing vandalism, you were involved in a content dispute. Thatcher131 13:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Disputed, but that still doesn't answer my question: How is that grounds for extending your infobox ban (itself disputed...)? Andy Mabbett 13:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we have a definate ruling on this please? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 23:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Administrator response Under this clarification, Pigsonthewing's revert parole remains in effect until 25 January 2008 (one year fromt the expiration of his one year ban). I am therefore rescinding the above topical bans, as the revert parole is a better way to deal with this problem. Action will not be taken for reverts made before this date, because he has not been warned. Future violation of the one revert per article per week limit may be reported here or at the 3RR noticeboard for blocking. Note that the appropriate response is generally brief blocking, escalaiting as necessary, and that banning is a last resort. When making reports, please include a link to the arbitration case. Thatcher131 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


Eupator (talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Eupator_placed_on_revert_parole. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. However he reverted legitimate edits of other users to Paytakaran twice in less than 7 days.

Reported by: Grandmaster 07:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved, see: [71] Grandmaster 10:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Administrator response: As noted by the reporting party, resolved at AN3. Newyorkbrad 12:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist 2[edit]

In addition to my statement below following our ArbCom case, I feel that User:ScienceApologist is now not constructively building consensus by cooperating with other editors.

  • 11 May, removes my disputed tag (and request for citations) without discussion, nor consensus being reached.[72]
  • 22 May, removes my dispiuted tag (and request for citations) after discussion, but no consensus on new text,[73]
  • 22 May, Tells me that "I will ignore any more lines of inquiry coming from you",[74]
  • 22 May, removes my disputed tag (and request for citations) for a third time,[75] even though I expressed dissatisfaction with the text, no citation was forthcoming, and my indicating to provide more details.[76]
  • 22 May, another editor disputes the text,[77], again.[78]
  • 23 May, removes disputed tag, (and request for citations) without discussion, nor consensus being reached, for the fifth time.[79]
  • 29 May, removes my verifiable statement,[80] for the fourth time,[81][82][83] without consensus, claiming that his version does not require citations.[84]
  • 29 May, removes statement from article,[85] for the second time,[86] while discussion continues,[87] and before consensus is reached.

While I appreciate that ScienceApologist wishes to improve the article, it is not for one editor to decided that text is no longer disputed, nor that consensus is not require, and that they solely decided the version of text for an article. --Iantresman 18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrator response: ScienceApologist is requested to respond to these allegations. Newyorkbrad 03:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Ian is a tendentious litigator and has demonstrated to the point of absurdity that he will hound me until he either gets his way or is himself blocked. His edit summaries are bogus and trumped up to the point of absurdity. I will show this to be the case and present evidence that Ian has been violating his probation consistently since his last ban if you wish, but I try my best to ignore this kind of bullshit unless I get an indication that some administrator actually cares enough to make a thorough investigation of this ongoing nonsense. --ScienceApologist 04:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
ScienceApologist, for the good of the encyclopedia, I ask you to refrain from unnecessarily strong language. People get banned for incivility around here. It seems to me that you've been given leeway because your expertise is valued (as it should be.) Push it too far, and the Committee may feel compelled to uphold the civility policy at the expense of content.Proabivouac 05:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Please understand, I'm willing to work with the administrators if they are willing to take the time to research the full extent of dispute. Ian was documented in the arbitration as being a tendetious litigator, so I would like for someone to actually express an interest in fully investigating. --ScienceApologist 05:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
As someone should. I would, but I am not an arbitrator, and I doubt I'd be accepted as an impartial observer. I am only trying to impress upon you the reality that if Iantresman can put forth a diff in which you've been uncivil, that is immediately comprehensible and requires no time to investigate. He is concentrating on this - as opposed to attempting to convince the Committee of the merits of plasma cosmology etc. - because it's an easy sell. So, don't hand him that advantage. Okay?Proabivouac 06:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty easy to trump up "uncivil" charges when the incivility of Ian is done by continual harassment and hounding of my edits. Do you realize he butts himself into completely unrelated disputes just to make such comments against me? It's really out-of-control and I try to ignore him as much as possible while making succinct responses which he then thinks proves that I'm uncivil. Not to mention that he's convinced I'm attacking his site off-line. The guy's paranoid and believes that I'm out to get him and continues to make edits to Wikipedia to prove his point. It's tiresome and ridiculous. --ScienceApologist 06:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no defense that "trumps" incivility.
  • Further to your "caution to avoid abusive language" below,[88] I consider your subsequent description of me as "paranoid",[89] above, as further incivility, to be added to my list of incivility complaints below.
  • As to whether "I think you're out to get me", your comment in Dec 2005 makes it clear who you are targetting.[90], and who thinks there are "hidden agendas",[91]
  • I note that you have not addressed my specific complaints, but instead have tried to justify them with other issues.
  • I will add to the statements above, your recent removal of my verifiable statement from Heliospheric current sheet, without consensus, claiming that your response does not require a citation.[92] WP:V and WP:RS are core Wiki policies. --Iantresman 09:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I wish to thanks Proabivouac, above, for acknowledging that ScienceApologist has "been given leeway", and that he is being allowed to "push it" somewhat, otherwise "the Committee may feel compelled to uphold the civility policy".[93]
  • I don't know of any Wiki policy which gives certain editors special treatment over others, nor allows Administrators to turn a blind eye.
  • In the 1970s, the police were given "leeway" to break the law in the pursuit of justice; was it because they were honest, competent and expert at their job? --Iantresman 01:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


Per ArbCom decision, User:Aivazovsky is under a revert parole and is required to leave comments on the talk page for the edits he makes. However, User:Aivazovsky has recently moved [94] the category Turkophobia to category Anti-Turkism without any discussion on the talk pages. I would like remind here that Turkophobia is an accepted scholarly term. Moreover, User:Aivazovsky has also recently edited [95] the article Varoujan Garabedian, removing the new Anti-Turkism (old Turkophobia) category from the page about a person convicted of terrorist attacks against civilians, again without any discussion on the talk page. He has done the same at ASALA, [96], again without any comments on talk page. And a 3rd one, at Askeran clash here [97], again no comments. That's 3 pages! Please, enforce the decisions of ArbCom with regards to User:Aivazovsky as the earlier leniency, such as here [98] did not help to solve the problem of editing or reverting without discussion. Atabek 04:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrator response: I regret having allowed this report to become stale. At this point I am hesitant to investigate and impose a block for edits more than a week old. Please advise if there have been any more recent or if there are any future violations. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 03:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


User:ScienceApologist has just called me "a complete dick"[99], again.[100], contrary to No personal attacks and WP:CIVIL.

  • A previous ArbCom case found that "ScienceApologist is uncivil" and "has strongly and repeated criticized Iantresman with ad hominem attacks"[101]

Despite the ArbCom caution,[102] ScienceApologist subsequently:

  • Call me a "bean-counter, not a researcher"[103], that I "lied",[104], and that I "lied" again,[105] (reported previously)[106]
  • Called me the "the Ian peacock"[107] which was noted by another Admin [108]

And just recently:

  • I am "a confirmed POV-pusher"[109]
  • Having "professed your devotion to this particular guru"[110] (not a tone of writing I'd use)

I was wondering how many personal attacks, incivility, cautions and warnings, need be reached before some positive action is taken? --Iantresman 17:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ever since announcing that he's leaving Wikipedia, Ian has been acting like a complete dick, inserting himself into conversations that have nothing to do with him explaining that he's doing it simply to enforce just desserts. Previous to this, Ian was acting in a very disruptive manner at Talk:Plasma cosmology, in violation of his probation, insisting on the insertion of an unreliable source. He had archived a deleted article in his user space in violation of the spirit and practice of WP:DRV and WP:USER. Now he has decided to escalate his abuse to the level of noticeboard. --ScienceApologist 13:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And in all this time, I've never been derogatory to you, reverted to calling you names, nor used your qualifications, education or affiliations, to question your editing. And while we may often disagree on content, that is hardly justification for being uncivil. --Iantresman 21:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This is simply not true. We can go through the evidence of your edits if you'd like. --ScienceApologist 05:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the place to report such claims. Please calm down. Sr13 04:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Unless they violate a previous ArbCom ruling? [111][112]

Administrator response: I regret that this report was not addressed earlier. ScienceApologist is strongly cautioned to avoid abusive language, irrespective of his opinion of other editors' conduct. Newyorkbrad 03:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, per my comments above.[113]Proabivouac 05:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone notice that Ian is violating his probation? --ScienceApologist 05:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Dacy69 has violated his parole:

Dacy69 is on Arbcom parole, stating that he has to accompany ever revert with a comment on the talk page: [114]

He violated it on Armenian-Tatar massacres. He reverted [115] yet left no response on the talk page: [116]Azerbaijani 23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I should not leave message if this is vandalism or edit by newcomer who destroyed the page And it is obvious that edit was done in violation of wiki stadard on page you mentioned--Dacy69 14:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not vandalism Dacy: [117] The user simply added a quote from a book, it was misplaced, but it certainly wasnt vandalism and could easily have been corrected, it didnt "destroy" the page, and it wasnt in violation of Wiki standards at all. The user is registered and has so far made three edits (including the one Dacy reverted) and so far he has committed no vandalism, and the information he/she has added has been sourced.Azerbaijani 15:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I can argue about this edit on relevant talkpage. But it definitely does not fit the proper form. Anyway, another his edits was reverted and not by me [118]. But it will be nice if you teach him some Wiki rules as you like doing that.--Dacy69 15:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
He hasnt broken any Wiki rules and he has not committed a single act of vandalism yet.Azerbaijani 16:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Selket issued a warning [119] but says he is unsure what response another admin may have.Azerbaijani 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This was resolved by the admin at 3RR board, Dacy69 was warned: [120] Grandmaster 05:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Administrator response: Resolved for now. All parties to the Armenia-Azerbaijan case are strongly urged to abide by their revert paroles, work together constructively, and avoid edit-warring. Newyorkbrad 03:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to continue here. Please see Church of Kish - both Grandmaster and Dacy69 reverted back twice already in past 2 days each on the article I think. I suspect it is violation of paroles.SincerelyHetoum I 04:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of my violation. I reverted the article only once, it is you who edit wars. Thanks. Grandmaster 05:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

diffs (I am not understanding this term) you reverted and then re-added same info after parishan. Funny that you as a parolee should accuse me of edit warringHetoum I 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I do not edit war and you do. You reverted that same page many times. If you believe that I violated my parole, you should provide the evidence in accordance with the rules. Grandmaster 07:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Just check kish history, ; )Hetoum I 04:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this is what the admins should do. Hetoum keeps on edit warring on that article, reverting it to his POV version. Urgent admin intervention is required. Grandmaster 09:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Stale. Sorry. Thatcher131 01:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Infinity0 (talk · contribs) started to make reverts without discussing them on talk pages. On May 24 he made three such reverts 1, 2 and 3. Two of them were on anarchism related pages. His arbitration case can be found here.

Also, he created an account called AnarchoKapitalismus just for mocking anarcho-capitalism. I'm not sure whether that can be put under "inappropriate insertion of anarchy related material", but I think it violates WP:NOT and constitutes disruptive behavior. -- Vision Thing -- 13:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for edit number one; I was too hasty. I have since changed it to hopefully a more NPOV version which includes material I deleted.
For edit number two, changes have been discussed on the talk page of a different article, Talk:Anarchism - the same issues apply. Also, Vision Thing reverted without discussion first, and he reverted not only me but another user - see the edit's history and talk page. I posted my reasons for my edits on the talk page and the edit summary, and there was no response by Vision Thing at all before he reverted. So, Vision Thing is requesting that I discuss changes on the talk page, when he is the one that made the first discussionless revert? Hypocritical and gaming the system - just because I happen to be on revert parole.
For edit number three, the Lysander Spooner article, I was reverting the sockpuppet of a banned user. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Billy Ego.
I would like to point out that the vast majority of cases I have been discussing reverts on talk pages.
Around 1 in 10* of Vision Thing's past 500 (and very likely even more, but i didn't bother to check) edits have been reversions of various articles to versions which supports his own point of view after editors have attempt to correct to NPOV - see [121]. All the above edits listed of mine were cancellations of Vision Thing's original unexplained and undiscussed reversions; in particular the edits to Anarchism have been agreed with by multiple editors, see Talk:Anarchism#Culling_the_source-spam.
My article at User:AnarchoKapitalismus is a direct response to Vision Thing's own User:Vision Thing/Anarcho-capitalism which he lifted from banned user User:Anarcho-capitalism.
I have followed all of my arbitration requests such as 1RR. My activity is only on appropriate pages which my arbitration allows. -- infinity0 21:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
*counting "rv" in edits; not including strings of "content edits" which are actually reverts, such as this
You have removed 26774 bytes (almost half of the article) of the sourced content from Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) without even a word of explanation on discussion page. You were put on parole just because of such edits. Your edits to Anarchism are also troubling but I haven't reported you for them. -- Vision Thing -- 15:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Those bytes were POV-pushing from banned sockpuppet User:Anarcho-capitalism, and must be removed because they severely unbalance the article. You seem to paint a picture of me being some sort of fanatical POV-pusher but it is you who has been watching numerous articles and reverting edits you do not like. My edits to anarchism have either been overwhelmingly supported by people from WP:3O whose input you ignored; or they have been minor edits to improve balance, but you delete even those anyway without any sort of reasonable explanation. -- infinity0 12:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That is simply not true. That content was in the article before User:Anarcho-capitalism started to edit it (easily established from this old version of the article and article's history). -- Vision Thing -- 13:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Half the content you are talking about is in that version; the other half was added by User:Anarcho-capitalism. The half that was in there was added by banned troll User:RJII. Besides, I have dealt with both users for over a year and am 99% certain they are the same person. -- infinity0 11:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Infinity0 has continued to revert (1, 2) content without discussion contrary to the terms of his revert parole which explicitly states that he must accompany every content revert with discussion on the relevant talk page. -- Vision Thing -- 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sysop response. Infinity0 has been blocked for 24 hours, with diffs and a link to the ArbCom case provided. Vision Thing has been encouraged to discuss significant reversions and large article changes. Vassyana 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction. Infinity0's block has been lifted. His revert parole recently expired. I have strongly cautioned him against disruptive editing. Vassyana 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for intervention in this and other case, but why do you say that Infinity0's one year revert parole recently expired? My understanding is that he is on probation until July 1 2007, since that decision was passed on July 1 2006 [122]. -- Vision Thing -- 14:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it was a long day and I thought I misread his parole and that it expired June 1. I won't put in a block, because it would be punitive rather than preventative since Infinity0 hasn't been editing the past few days. He has been warned and if he becomes disruptive again, he can be blocked to prevent the disruption. Vassyana 16:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Tajik (talk · contribs) has been banned indefinitely by the admin: [123] and the arbcom case is on a voting stage to formalize his permanent ban. [124] Despite that, Tajik is editing Safavid dynasty and other artcles under anonymous IPs and sock accounts. The checkuser request that I filed confirms that the suspicious accounts indeed belong to User:Tajik, please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik. --Grandmaster 05:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You'll probably get better response at ANI. Or better yet, ask the checkuser b'cat or admin clerk to ban or original banning admin. But since arbcom is not done, they may not get to it here (or worse, wait a few days and reject it). Clearing arbcom enforcement requests, quite surprisingly, seems slow and somewhat arbitrary. --Tbeatty 05:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I informed the banning admin, and I will probably post this at ANI as well. Is there any way I can make the arbitrators aware of this checkuser result? Grandmaster 05:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The evidence page. They also have a mailing list. Contact the clerk if all else fails. --Tbeatty 07:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I also posted this to ANI. Grandmaster 07:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist 2 (Redux)[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.

  • This case has just been archived here, but has not been resolved, where I noted that ScienceApologist had not been building consensus with other editors. It followed on from an incident mentioned here where ScienceApologist was "strongly cautioned to avoid abusive language", and yet continued to do so during this incident.
  • I would also appreciate being addressed, the observation that ScienceApologist has "been given leeway" over other editors --Iantresman 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

admin response[edit]

  • (Admins only below this line, please.) First, I note that this request is mistitled. It is not ScienceApologist 2, but ScienceApologist 7. (SA 5 is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive4.) Looking over the new complaint, I see nothing that warrants anything more than a caution, which SA has already received. In an earlier complaint (archived here), after spending about 20 hours looking over diffs of the involved parties, I expressed concerns that the repeated filings of User:Iantresman here were close to vexatious litigation. I also note that since then an appeal to ArbComm about that ruling was rejected and admin actions (including my own) were endorsed [125]. Moreover, I again here state my concern that vexatious filings such as this one are tendentious and disruptive and may in fact be a violation of Ian's probation. I welcome further admin comments, but otherwise regard this matter as closed. Bucketsofg 14:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ian's response[edit]

  • (Admins may respond above and below this line). Bucketsofg, your response is a disgrace. It reminds me of the 1970s, when women complained to the police that their partners were beating them up, the police charged the women with wasting police time.
  • To suggest that my complaints are "vexatious " is to assume that they have no foundation. When my original complaint went to Arbitration, [126], ScienceApologist was found to be uncivil towards me. When I recently complained again, [127], I note SEVERAL other incidences, and ScienceApologist was caution, as I mentioned above.
  • If I was uncivil to you, how many times would I get away with it, before you banned me? And yet ScienceApologist gets caution, after caution, after caution. How many cautions can an editor receive?
  • And the irony is that now you are prepared to beat me up over having the audacity to bring it to the attention of those who are supposed to be "policing" Wikipedia.
  • Bucketsofg, do I need to remind you that (a) civility, and (b) building consensus are key Wikipedia policies. You are surely not suggesting that reporting them is (a) justification for ignoring them, (b) an infraction of policy?
  • And you are surely not suggesting that a rejected ArbCom appeal has any specific relevance to this issue?
  • And when you say "close to vexatious litigation", do you mean like "close to being pregnant"?
  • Why was it observed that ScienceApologist was "being given leeway"?
  • Why does ScienceApologist not have to build consensus with other editors?
  • Why does ScienceApologist not have to observer the policy of civility? --Iantresman 06:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Admin response. Thank-you for sharing your concerns, which are now on record if there are any further problems. Unless some other admin has something to add, this matter is now closed. Bucketsofg 11:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • These are not merely "concerns" as you put. There is a "due process" required from adminstrators. Please give me the common courtesy of responding my "concerns".
  • Please confirm that (a) there is no defense or justification for incivility (b) after reporting my concerns of further incivility, "ScienceApologist is strongly cautioned to avoid abusive language"[128] (presumably incivility)
  • Under the circumstance, how does policy view ScienceApologist's subsequent description of me as "paranoid"[129], and his use of language ("bullsh.t")[130],?

Final admin response. This matter is now closed. Bucketsofg 18:35, 8 June 2007 (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.

User:Tobias Conradi[edit]

The user page of this user is probably in violation of an arbcom ruling which applies to them: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi#Laundry_lists_of_grievances which states that "Tobias Conradi is prohibited from maintaining laundry lists of grievances". This page contains a list of the users grievances with the Arbcom decision, in violation of their ruling. It is probably also in violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, since the user is using it as a page advocating his right to maintain lists of accusations against admins. (ShivaIdol 21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

Administrator response: maybe so, but this is being handled at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias Conradi (2nd nomination), where current consensus looks to be veering towards keeping. We should let the MfD play out, no reason to cut it short. Picaroon (Talk) 00:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


This user is a almost surely a sockpuppet of banned multiple puppet and puppet master User:BryanFromPalatinepermabanned during the Free Republic case. His first edit was to Free Republic and within minutes he was editing Democratic Underground. Both these articles are on probation. He already 'knows'WP, all the issues and long-time editors. Just like socks Bryan and Dino Hinnen, he claims he's been 'lurking' and studying up on WP. Highly doubtful Please investigate. 21:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Bryan to me. He is obviously somebody's sockpuppet, based on how well he knows his way around (take a look at that very first edit summary), and Bryan is the most likely possibility. I'll block it soon unless anybody pops up with a counter-argument as to why this is surely not him. By the way, which is your main account? Picaroon (Talk) 21:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Blocked by Ryulong. And who knows who the above anon really is, I doubt it's FaAfA. --MichaelLinnear 04:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin Zero0000[edit]

1. Admin Zero0000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was advised by ArbCom and committed "not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq, including but not limited to enforcement actions under their prior arbitration case, and admonished that so long as an editor, including one on probation, is not restricted in their editing of a page or area they are entitled to be accorded good faith and be treated with respect and courtesy when they edit in those areas. " [131].

Despite the ruling and his commitment to ArbCom (as well as previously on AN/I board) he overruled another admin action[132], [133] without discussing it with the admin involved and deleted - without review, without proper tag and without justification - an article I created. The deletion is an admin only action - he was not supose to take such action based on ArbCom rulling.

It also seems to be a violation of WP:AGF and violation of WP:NPA in edit summary[134].

2. Zero0000 (talk · contribs) has done that after I found that he misrepresented a source - please see bottom part of Talk:East_Jerusalem

All requests to address any of those issues did not got any response from user Zero000. Zeq 20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this guy is not 24h a day on wikipedia.
Would you mind waiting for a few hours ?
Thank you
Alithien 22:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
About East Jerusalem, I think you don't have this source, do you ?
If not I think you don't respect several wikipeadia principles. Alithien 22:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
NB: SlimVirgin reverted my comments that I think are important to understand the case. Alithien 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Alithien: I have a source which quote the source and Zero had pleanty of time to respond but he did not - which is by itself an admission. We are dealing here only with Zero0000 admin action the source isssue was just for clarification of the background. You want to discuss the source - please do so on the article talk page. Zeq 04:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Zeq,
You talked about the problem of East Jerusalem and so I answered.
And it is not because you focus on this that I don't have the right to claim my point of view that is Zero cannot be full time on wikipedia and you would just have had to wait for a little time.
As any gentleman would have done.
I think you make a mountain of nothing. Alithien 07:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Zero0000 seems to have gone against the text "Zero0000 is advised not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq" with regards to that deletion. So, I hereby endorse it, albeit not the deletion summary. Zeq, if you would like to claim that it was a neutral article that was written in the best of faith, I would like to claim you aren't telling the truth. Picaroon (Talk) 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Note that this isn't an "administrator response;" I'm just commenting as a random passerby.)
  • Picaroon9288: Your reponse is moot now. We are not dealing with the article. We are dealing here only with Zero0000 admin action. (PS: of course my edit, like all my edits is good faith and I will be glad to take the edit issue to a deletion review elsewhere but noy here) Zeq 04:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Is the ArbCom ruling supposed to cripple Zero's ability to administrate in this manner, though? if an article is judged to be offensively racist, should it be left to sit untouched until someone can get around to it? How about a hypothetical...Zeq posts some egregious WP:BLP violation, Zero comes across it, what to do? Supposedly such things are to be obliterated immediately, but here's this imposed gag rule based upon who did the editing. The ArbCom ruling is being treated as if it were a "keep 1000 ft away" restraining order, which doesn't seem right. Tarc 02:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
He is in no way crippled: there are a thousand other administrators and a whole encyclopedia. "until someone can get around to it" is fine, slap a speedy tag, or even alert WP:ANI, and if it is so clearly worthy of speedy deletion, someone else with an unbiased eye will do it in a matter of minutes. What was the emergency here, anyway? Dmcdevit·t 02:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
speedy tag was indeed the way to go but Zero decided to take action himself instead of follow the most speedy process wikipedia has. Zeq 04:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If that was so urgent from your point of view, why didn't you ask another admin to recreate that article ?
I think you use this as a bad reason to harm Zero0000 rather than with the idea of working constructively for wikipedia.
Could you please remind us what was the article in question ? apes and pigs or something like that ?
Mr Zeq, who are you making fun of ? Read WP:POINT Alithien 07:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Ali: My actions are not at all the issue here. There is no urgency nither in creating, deleting or recreating the article. The only issue here is Zero's admin action. If you want to discuss the article itself we can start a deletion review and let the comunity voice it's view. Your accusation of me that I created the article as " bad reason to harm Zero0000" is worth only one reaction: Please appologize for a blant violation of WP:AGF. Clearly I did not invaited Zero to delete the article and even did not knew (initially) that he dleted it. Zero took all those descisions on his own. Zeq 08:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Zeq's actions should be an issue here as well. How is it that Zero is expected to take a 100% hands-off policy, but Zeq is allowed to post antagonistic queries in talk pages such as Talk:East_Jerusalem#Is_the_source_misrepresented_by_Zero_.3F, that were in he end found to be unjustified? There is a serious double-standard going along here, where we have two historically conflicting parties receiving unequal treatment. Tarc 12:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Zero has had to withstand Zeq's harassment againts him for 1 year now. And it seems it will never stop. Everybody is aware of that but nobody does anything. I honnestly wonder how contributors with the quality of Zero stay with us and don't leave to Citizendium. Alithien 14:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Islam_and_antisemitism describes this trope--nearly nearly 1400 years old--in a three paragraph section, and devotes a second section to the interpretation by scholars. Expanding the subject into an article of its own is feasible and legitimate. The most prominent Islamic website discusses the subject in seven pages, the use of this epitheton by contemporary Islam prompting 53000+ google hits. Properly dealt with, there's nothing wrong with that lemma. Its not up to Zero to define and enforce the loaded term Islamophobia, as he did in the deletion summary. A speedy would have been the proper process. --tickle me 08:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • in few other forms it is well over 100,000: [135] Zeq 08:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't view the deleted article, but I'm at a loss to determine why Zero would have taken this decision upon himself despite the very clear and tightly-defined (Zeq only) ruling of the CommitteeProabivouac 08:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he is fed up ? Alithien 14:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Even so, there are many other admins who would have been willing to deal with this article. Thatcher131 14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Even so ?
Proabivouac didn't understand the reaction of Zero. I think it is easy to understand.
The fact he was wrong to react that way, -what you say-, everybody is aware, even Zero.
Hopefully, that was an advice, ...
But are all protagonists of this conflict aware that they don't react properly ?
And even more, due to the fact we all left it go without reaction during 1 year, we are all responsible.
Even if there are wikipedia rules, there is also a human being who has limits he can withstand... Alithien 14:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No one is denying his humanity. The question is whether he will be responsible with the tools.Proabivouac 00:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
So, no can deny it is normal he was fed up...
At the question to know if he is responsible or not, I would say no less than all those who still don't dare to fix Zeq's case who is the root of the matter.
Alithien 06:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Answers to admin notes[edit]

  • "Zero0000 is advised not to take (...)"

All is written. It is an advice and for a "good" or a "bad" reason, he decided not to follow this. Given Zeq is sincerely interested by this article and is eager to fill in with good sources, all can be solved in "re-establishing" that article and reminding Zero not to take care any more about Zeq. Alithien 07:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Zeq's comments[edit]

I will also be on a wikipbrake for few days Zeq 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • "Zeq violates his probation."

I did not violated my probation. You may dispute the article content but that is not the issue here. Read the probation terms and find out for your self. In any case the issue here is Zero admin actions. The article was already reviwed by one admin who decided not to speedy delete it. Zero over-rulled that admin decision and took the action himself. There are process for what he did and should just have followed them - instead he took an admin action himself. Zeq 04:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No. I did not violate anything. My actions are not the issue here. Zero'a admin action are the issue. discusion of the validity of the article does not belong here and we should conduct an AFD if you think the article should be deleted. Zeq 08:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "additionnal comment by Zeq"

It was not and I am not going to deabte the content of the article here. If you think the article is not appropriate -please conduct an orderly deletion review. The only issue here is Zero Admin behaviour and it seems that yet again you are going to reward his behaviour. I created an article in good faith. Don't pick on me just because I am in probation. there is nothing wrong in the article itself and the best thing is to create it and put it to AFD if you think it should be deleted. I will accept an AFD after everyone has an opportunity to see the article (no one can since it was speedy delete without due process)
Also note that since ArbCom had the opportunity ro review my edit, my probation etc...and decided on the action you should not now issue any bans that are not even in my probation. You are way over reaching your authority here. Zeq 14:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Zero clearly violated the trust this comunity is giving to admins. He broke a promise he himself gave to arbCom just few days earler. Zeq 14:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That would be for ArbCom to decide, as they did not give admins any enforcement measures. Even if they did, all Admins can do is block or delete, and it would be inappropriate to block Zero's editing when it is his use of admin tools that is under consideration, and only ArbCom can remove them. You are invited to post a request for clarification on WP:RFAR or to contact the members of ArbCom by e-mail. Thatcher131 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Zero's response[edit]

Copied from [136]

Hello, Thank you for asking for my side of the story. I am going overseas and there's a good chance I won't be able to discuss this for about 10 days. I don't even have time left right now to read everything that has been said so far. I would much appreciate it if you could copy the following statement to the necessary place or places.

I found an article called something like "pigs and monkeys" which consisted of rabid anti-islamic filth. No attempt at context, no attempt at identifying the content as refering to an extreme fringe, no mention of the background of the groups that bring us this "information", no redeeming features at all but just pure islamophobic pornography. I reacted with the "delete" button in a fit of anger, just as I would if a Nazi came along and wrote a similar article about "some Jews". When I cooled down, I remembered the ArbCom ruling; reading it again now I can see that I broke it. So I have to plead guilty.

Thanks! --Zerotalk 09:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


  • I think it is clear that Zero has not responded as an admin should have. AS for his anger on the article. I am wiling to discuss it elsewhere about is the content anti-Islamic or filth or what ever he claim it to be. Proper response was to conduct a dletion review (especially after one admin alreday review the material and decided not to delete it.
  • Anyone who discuss the article just based on Zero's description or the name of the article is not doing the subject justice. The article should be reviwed nad looked upon in relation to other Wikipedia articles that have been pointed out to me since the original article was created. Zeq 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Zero admitted to have taken the wrong decision as he feels, among Nazi allegations, that Zeq should have attempted "at identifying the content as referring to an extreme fringe," which is clearly his OR on the topic. A speedy was warranted at best, to have others evaluate what is an edit conflict. Discussing action against Zeq without even knowing the content of his article except by Zero'S hate spewing summary is unjustified. Violating Godwin's law when defending oneself for having broken an arbcom decision--being an admin-- is appalling, that other admins don't mind is a sign of pc going way over the top. --tickle me 16:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe admins want to take distance with this matter because they are disappointed that such a good contributor as Zero has been naievely "trapped", removing islamophobic prose without discussing ?
Alithien 16:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It is outragous to hint that I "trapped" him. How could I know what he will do ? I just created an article with Good faith. An article that as it now turns out have similar (more or less) content to another article (I did not know about at the time) - so are you saying that those who created and editted that other article also "trapped" Zero ? Zeq 17:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Zeq... Where did you read "you trapped him" ? It is written "he was trapped", isn't it ?
When studying Halakah these are nuances we are learned to take care about, aren't we ?
Zero was trapped because being an honnest and valuable contributor he deleted islamophobic prose never thinking he had to discuss his action...
I think indeed what has happend for one year on wikipedia is outrageous and the silence and passivity of witnesses, administrators and the Arbitration comittee is also outrageous.
yes, you are right : all this is outrageous. Alithien 18:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see why the community keeps being so patient and forgiving with Zero0000. This is clearly a person who time and again abuses his adminstrator power, bites new users, treats fellow wikipedians with condescending behaviour, abuses pop-up tools, uses his own WP:OR and feel every sourced material is one that has to go through his own approval, has no care at all for mediation techniques, ridicules Arbcom, does whatever he wants whenever he wants, and yet, is allowed to remained active in wikipedia. Strange. Amoruso 16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Why strange ?
Is there a complot ? An organisation working around him ?
Each time something happens, does he always come with the same 4-5 guys to attack lonely people ?
Is that so... or is this the contrary ?
Alithien 18:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I just responded here to this false accusation - why is my reponse removed ??? Zeq 15:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Nothing was removed administratively. Maybe it was an edit conflict. Thatcher131 15:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
In any case it is outragous to make claims such as "intentionally tendentious" when one does not even see the content. And as it turned out such content is already in wkipedia in another article. Buck: Please restore the article and put it to AFD - I will vote to re-direct and merge it to the bigger article on the same subject. Zeq 17:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Zeq, why don't you ask to an admin to do so and why do you ask this here ?
This is hard to follow you because 20 200 lines above (your write much) you asked "only" the matter of Zero be discussed here.
I think you should not be offered compromise any more.
Just do it by yourself. point. Alithien 18:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As an admin I am able to see and did see the article in question and I will not recreate it. If you disagree with the deletion, you might try WP:DRV. In the meantime, I remind you very strongly about your probation and encourage you to seriously think about posting anything as controversial as this in the future because it can be interpreted as a breach of your probation. Bucketsofg 18:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • There is nothing that prevent me from posting on "controvesial" subjects. Doing so can not and is not be a violation of my probation. But I want to thank you for writing this: It is now clear that you have went way beyond the terms of the probation. What I ask that you now do is recreate the article and put it under an AFD or speedy delete. I as non-admin can not even see the article (and I don't have a copy) . Please let's follow procedure instead of allowing zero's wrong action to hold. Thank You. Zeq 18:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • If you create a controversy, which by its nature is disruptive, and do so by tendentious editing you are in violation of your probation. That requires sanction. Zero's actions may require their own sanction (which may come from ArbComm), but that doesn't remove from the admins here the responsibility to consider whether you have violated your probation. Bucketsofg 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        • "create a controversy" - since when has this become a violation of probation ? Please my last arbcom base. see what arbitors have said about controversial issues. It is not my job to interspret them I am sutre they can do it better than I can. In any case the issue is Good Faith and you should always WP:AGF. Any edit I make (or any edit any other editor makes) can create a controvesry. the issue is GF or not GF ? and if my edit was not good enough one can corect it or tag it for speedy or AFD. Zero did not do either of those. Instead he used his admin tools. Zeq 19:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Disruption through tendentious editing is a violation. That's what your edits look like to me. Bucketsofg 20:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I can not argue with you any more about this: there was no tendatious editing . In fact what you are doing now is "tendatious editing". Go and read the arbCom case[137]. see what they say about conroverrsial subjects. I can not convince you if you are just stuck on this opinion that my probation give you some rights to ban me while only a week ago ArbCom reviwed all my edits over a year anddecided not too. Zeq 20:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom didn't review all your edits.
In reality, given Zero0000 and others want to contribute -only-, they let you polemicate, polemicate and polemicate on this ArbCom page (as you do here).
You hide behind rules and systetically play on nuances as if you were defending a point of view that would only be "borderline".
Alithien 06:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Procedure is to list the article at deletion review. You may do this yourself. Thatcher131 18:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
can I see the article first - can you e-mail it or post it to talk page ? sand box ? Zeq 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to see the contents of Apes and pigs. It's almost certainly an article that should be immediately deleted without any need to examine the subject or consider the author. It seems extraordinary to take aim at an admin who deletes it and not the editor who created it. If the article needs creating, then it should be carefully considered in talk first. Otherwise, we're opening the floodgates for 100s of really abusive phrases to appear. We have an entry for nigger - I would question whether that is necessary. The project certainly doesn't need large numbers of other highly offensive phrases added, which would quickly absorb an enormous amount of administrator time and effort for no good purpose. PalestineRemembered 18:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I am always willing to discuss. Let's set-up a page specifically for this issue.
I would like to under stand what the difference is between:
1. a re-direct from Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid to:
2. a redirect from Pigs and Apes to [138]]
Both terminlogies makes an analogy about Israel(the first set of articles) and the Jews(the 2nd set).
Both are used to delitimize the right of the jewish people to have a home land in Israel.
Each is used based on the target audience:
When the target audience is Westren academic the nalagoy used is one that is more geared toward wetren ears.
When the target audience is in the Arab world the analaogy used is that rooted in Quranic versas.
Both of those are slurs directed at Jews/ Israelis and have a legitimate need to be identified as such in an enclopedic article.
The sources that were used in the deleted article are all quotes from Arab media. I still do not understand why Zero have deleted the article claiming islamophobia. Since when quotes of what is said about Jews in Arab media is "islmophobia" ? in any case ehre is another article to be considered along the same lines: House demolition Zeq 07:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
If, as you appear to claim, there are people deliberately linking the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" to "the Jews" (and presumably trying to have "the Jews" blamed for these real or imaginary policies of Israel), then the project has serious problems, and there is incitement to religious hatred going on.
However, that doesn't excuse us plunging in and doing the same thing to Muslims and the Koran, which I think an entry for Pigs and apes is liable to do (you are welcome to dispute this point if you think I have it wrong).
And there are two distinct reasons why we mustn't do it - the "moral" one I've attempted above .... but perhaps even more significantly, the "good of the project". Articles will be poisoned by this kind of linkage, and vast amounts of time will be spent pointlessly discussing this matter. There are topics and articles which belong in a box marked "Not needed on the voyage", and this is one of them.
I'm not sure I'm arguing "to existing policy" here (so it might be better to do it on another page), but if (as I presume we agree) we're not to credence to anti-semitic material then we must extend Islam the same protection. If there are any remaining cases where we simply cannot avoid publishing this kind of damaging material, then we should give it to Muslims or their apologists to write up as sympathetically as they can manage. I think that's what we see happening to attacks on other religions.
Re House demolition, there is no mention of "Jew" in the article and only one posting in the discussion does so (quotes an Israeli organisation). I'm not saying it's a good article (or balanced, I fail to understand why nobody has added the Nigerian cases), but it's clearly not written to "incite religious hatred" and has no reference whatsoever to scriptures/religious material.
(I've taken it you want there to be a genuine discussion of this, to which end I've tidied up the formatting of your post which was otherwise almost incomprehensible). PalestineRemembered 16:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not at all what I am saying. Please re-read my reply. The deligitimazation of the Jewish people right to have a home land is a form of antisemitism. Wether it is done by making analogies to Paes or to Apartheid regimne is just an issue of the target audiance. The target of both analogies is similar: to deny the homeland of Jewish people the right to exist as an independent country in the place it is today (i.e. Israel)
  • The fact that the word "jew" is not mentioned in House demolition still does not absolve the article from being a simple attack article. On the other hand the word "Jew" is clearly mentioned by all those who use the term "Apes and Pigs" so you are saying that only attacks in which the word Jew is not mentioned are encyclopedic ? Zeq 18:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin notes[edit]

Admin only below this line, please. Bucketsofg 01:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Locus of dispute:
Apes and Pigs is an article that about Islamic interpretations of the Quran that allegedly claim that the Jewish people are descendents of apes and pigs. Its only contributer was User:Zeq. Bucketsofg 02:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • relevant ArbComm rulings
With regards to the remedy, "Zero0000 is advised not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq", it seems that Zero0000 has not heeded this advice. The decision, however, gives no instructions for enforcement, and "advised" is the weakest of injunctions. Further action against Zero0000 should come from ArbComm itself. Bucketsofg 02:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Zeq has probably violated his probation. According to the decision, "he may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing." Bucketsofg 02:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It may also be worth noting this thread on the proposed decision talkpage in the recent case. Newyorkbrad 02:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad. My first instinct is that this should be taken back to ArbComm. Bucketsofg 02:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
First step should be to ask Zero0000 for a response, which I will do. Newyorkbrad 02:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to shut it down for tonight and leave this in the hands of other admins. Bucketsofg 02:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I concur that no action should be taken against Zero. He violated the "advisement" but said advisement is not enforceable. Against Zeq, I would strongly consider implementing a topical ban of some kind under his previous probation. Apes and pigs is about as appropriate as Coons and darkies would be, and we don't need to wait for a massive edit war when a user is on probation for previous disruptive behavior. Thatcher131 11:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have a suggestion as to what form a topical ban should take? Bucketsofg 11:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)]
It seems to me that Zeq's creation of this article was, given the editor's past tendencies, intentionally tendentious, provocative, and disruptive. Would banning him from creating articles be in order? Bucketsofg 12:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thatcher131, we do indeed have an article Nigger, while Coon disambigs to Ethnic slur. Though I seriously question whether any articles about terms ought exist at all, I cannot see that the title Apes and Pigs surpasses Nigger in inherent offensiveness. In both cases, the aim is not to endorse the term, but to describe its use by third parties. Together with Zero's decription of the article as "Islamophobic," your analogy above may give viewers of this thread the very false impression that Zeq meant to label Muslims as "apes and pigs."
Having just seen the cached version of the article, I see nothing obviously offensive about it; one may as well say that Nigger anti-white. It's an unfortunate epithet which has been in use for over a millenium and is still in use today. How widespread this usage is might be debated on the talk page. Whether it's significant enough to warrant its own article might be debated at AfD. Judging only from the cached version I've seen, I can't see why it was speedied.Proabivouac 06:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Again. my response to this wrong comment was deleted from Here. Zeq 18:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact that so far, no one had the common curtsey to place the article in a sand box or other place where it can be reviwed, modified and voted on as part of an AFD is a serious concern to me. Zero clearly acted wrong in deleting it but his action remains while tons of false accusations about me flourish. Zeq 14:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Contested deletions are listed at WP:DRV for community review. Dmcdevit·t 10:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin responses[edit]

  • Admin response in regards to User:Zero0000. Admin Zero has clearly not heeded the advisement that he received inWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000 and admits as much. Given that this was an advisement only and that no enforcement mechanism exists, it is not the place of administrators here to punish him for his action. That he has ignored this ArbComm remedy so soon after it has been issued may be a matter that ArbComm itself will be interested in. (I welcome other admins' endorsement and/or reponse.) Bucketsofg 12:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Questions for other arbitrators. Do you think that Zeq has violated his probation in this matter? Bucketsofg 19:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Zero0000's abuse of administrative tools, as noted in this AE report, was discussed on the ArbCom mailing list and a new motion is up for vote by ArbCom in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000 case. [139] FloNight 16:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I support this motion in general, but I'm afraid the ArbCOm is immensely lenient with Zero. He has abused his admin tools on mutiple occasions; this being only the most recent one. People usually see themselves desysoped after a much shorter record of abuse. Beit Or 12:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Beit Or, it does not matter now. He will not be able to abuse them any longer. It is as if he was desysoped, just they saved him the embarssment involved. Keep in mind that this is a person that "for various professional reasons is using a pseudonym" Zeq 13:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
My god, can it be any more crystal clear that Zeq is purposefully baiting people with tendentious, antagonistic editing? The above response amounts to tacit admission of such. Tarc 01:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Yet another baseless acuusation. what ever you have against my views there is a clear record that I edit in good faith. You may disagree with the content of my edit but don't violate WP:AGF. To think that I created article is part of some consipracy theory against Zero is ridiculus. How can anyone know who will observe which new article and what would be his/hers reaction to it. New articles are not on anyone watch list. Please appologize for your accusation against me: I have not purposly baited anyone. Zeq 04:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Instantnood has recent sock puppets[edit]

User:Iianq and User:Qaka are both Instantnood sockpuppets. I don't have time to spell it out well. Here is what is obvious Qaka was designed for stalking Huaiwei, and Iiang was designed for stalking me. Both are exhibiting classic Instantnood behaviors of changing the spelling of Macau to Macao, revert warring, and stalking.

Qaka edits that mirror previous Instantnood edits: [140], [141], stalking Huaiwei: [142]. Then screws up and uses the Qaka account to revert me, gaining my attention: [143]

Iianq came to my attention after I made a minor spelling change in Lists of Casinos by changing the structure in one of Instantnood's favorite ways [144], then revert warring to keep it [145] [146] [147]. Though in this instance the Macau/Macao spelling change is correct, since he noticed I made the change once, he went whole hog on it, as Qaka did before, [148]. Looking deeper in the history the ID as 'nood became more apparent with edits like these: [149], [150], [151], and more stalking [152].

I sat on pointing these out as socks before they directly engaged me because the edits were so suspicious. A few days ago I pointed it out to Huaiwei, and he had independently come to the same conclusion. Then the socks went into revert warring activity this weekend. I can't just "be suspicious" anymore. SchmuckyTheCat 18:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


User:Atabek broke his 1rr parole on | Azeri cartoon controversy, by moving the page 2 times in 1 day. He is a revert parol from the Aremnia-Azerbaijan case. He's reverted/moved "Azeri Cartoon Controversy in "Iran" Newspaper " 2 times today, both times unilatreally. Here is his edits: [[153] [154] --behmod talk 15:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way here is Atabek's parole: [[155]]

. I am kindly requesting admins to check this case. User Grandmaster and User:Atabek are trying to change the subject. This is an obvious case of breaking the 1rr parole.--behmod talk 14:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Hajji Piruz (formerly known as User:Azerbaijani), who is on arbcom parole [156] moved the same page 3 times within 24 hours: [157] [158] [159] In addtion to that, he made a partial revert [160] of this edit [161] Grandmaster 05:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Two of those moves Grandmaster is talking about ([162] and [163]) where at a time when I, creator of that article and the only editor at that time, could not decide on a particular title, at which point I changed the title once, but then decided the other one was better and reverted back to the previous version, which was also mine (a self revert if you will, see Wikipedia rule posted below). I was simply editing a new article which I had created. I had just started the article and was the only contributer at that point and couldnt decide on a certain title. That can hardly be considered reverting other users edits.
A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page.[164]
The rules also say:
Since reverting in this context means undoing the actions of another editor or editors, reverting your own actions ("self-reverting") will not violate the rule.[165]
Also, simply moving a page 3 times isnt what counts as undoing edits. As you can see, technically I undid only one other persons page move and that was only once. Previously, I had undid my own page move back to the original title with which I had created the article. That only makes two page moves which undid any editing. So again, Grandmaster, your "report" is mistaken.
Atabek, however, did violate his parole as per Behmod. Grandmaster, I find it interesting how you guys always attempt to divert these reports to completely unrelated topics.Hajji Piruz 05:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I did not move the article to the same title, but to two different titles [166] and [167]. The first title was to reflect exactly the one suggested by User:Alex Bakharev here [168]. Later this title was changed at the efforts of User:Houshyar and User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani along the lines of POV. My second attempt was intended to make the article to reflect the reality and suggestion of User:Alex Bakharev.Also, User:Hajji Piruz (formerly User:Azerbaijani) is on the revert parole per the same ArbCom decision [169]. It's interesting how now he does not disclose his identity [170] charged for edit warring. And it's rather interesting how he also moved the page himself three times [171] , [172], and [173]. I would also like to note the behavior of User:Houshyar, who acts as a proxy of User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani and performing some reverts for him [174].User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani is further extensively edit warring in the article, inserting and making collage images from two unrelated sources without any copyright permission such as here [175]. This kind of behavior completely violated WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Also, here is the evidence that User:Hajji Piruz(a.k.a. User:Azerbaijani) is engaged in warring along national lines [176] and targeting myself and other users on this basis. Atabek 06:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here is Atabek's parole: [177]. Why are you guys attempting to divert this parole violation report to someone else (me), when that other person did not even break the parole. Read my statement, I did not break parole in any way, shape, or form.

Atabek, stop making false claims. I am not edit warring in that article at all, and look at the bottom, does it say that that collage is linked to any articles? No, because I personally removed the image myself replacing it with the original. I will not help these two users in their attempt of diverting the attention of the administrators with their false accusations not based on any evidence.

I will have the administrators note that Atabek has been very disruptive lately, and I have tried every other means of avoiding an arbcom with him, including making a peace proposal to him (which he did not accept), but it looks like this user wont change his attitude, adn the only solution may be an arbcom. He has not only insulted me (as well as other users) personally and made false accusations (administrators User:Thatcher131 and User:Tariqabjotu both know about this and this users behavior), but has also made Wiki retaliation threats, saying that he will assault Iran related articles. Notice how these users are trying to divert attention from Atabek's parole violation by bringing up completely unrelated and false accusations against me, based on no evidence. I have made my points very clear, have proved my innocence without a doubt and will not feed into the diversion these two users are attempting. Good night.Hajji Piruz 05:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If you two can do nothing more than continue this same incessant fighting for months, and engage in the same battleground tactics, while staying technically in the limits of your parole still, than it's time to just ban you. I'm sick of the constant accusations, assumptions of bad faith, aggressive editing when you know someone will disagree, and reporting on each other just to try to get your ideological foe blocked. Dmcdevit·t 06:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your general perception of the issue, and I can understand how annoying this is. However, the battle was started against me personally here [178]. Despite my attempts to invite User:Hajji Piruz to AGF [179], user outright rejected it [180]. I still don't know what User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani wants from me, other than pursuing all my edits even on pages where he has never been before and trying to get me blocked. Unfortunately, I end up defending myself from these actions somehow through reporting mechanisms, which wastes a lot of my time from normal Wikipediting, or else I have to simply give up editing. Atabek 06:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I would also urge the admins to check the contribs of User:Houshyar, who is edit warring on the same article and just reverted it again to include statements like "terrorist", "pan-Turk", etc in violation of WP:NPOV: [181] Grandmaster 06:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Dmcdevit; the previous RfArb, unfortunately, did not do enough to stop this stuff. -- tariqabjotu 15:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf

Koavf is already in violation of his revert parole. On June 5, the day he was unblocked, he made a revert at Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Sahara that was not marked as one: [182] (note the arbitration ruling, "Each revert must be explicitly marked as such") and did not give a talk page rationale (for clarity's sake, he was reverting this edit: [183]). Further, he reverted back to that version less than 24 hours later: [184]. This is stale, but he violated parole again multiple times today, continuing the same edit war, reverting to the same version, again with no rationale or stating that it was a revert in the edit summary, and then reverted a second time just hours later: [185]. He also reverted twice in under 30 minutes at List of unrecognized countries, 1, 2 (with a further revert yesterday as well: [186]). Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, along with a warning to cease and desist. Sean William @ 04:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Seabhcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) violating NPA parole[edit]

Here he calls an editor dishonest and purposely misconstrues his name. This is exactly what he was admonished for in the ArbCom ruling. Logs of the enforcement should be logged here. He is on parole for a reason and he seems to be spiraling more and more out of control. This and this were two almost identical attacks cited by ArbCom. --Tbeatty 17:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Admin comment. I have left a message on Sebhcan's talk page asking him to comment. Bucketsofg 18:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Seabhcan comment. Morton is dishonest - he rubbishes a book he hasn't read. (And the Morty/Monty thing is a simple silly typing mistake. Tbeatty is disingenuous making such a fuss over it). ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 08:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Admin decision. Given that User:Seabhcan has chosen this very venue to violate his probation by calling another user dishonest, I block him for 24 hours. (I will file this at the appropriate place in the arbcomm decision.) Bucketsofg 13:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, the Morty/Monty "it was just a typo" excuse was also used in the arbitration case. Thatcher131 17:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes. It was one of the examples I pointed to above. The new edits are almost identical edits to the ones cited by Arbcom as egregious. These were the comments cited in the arbcom decision. [187] [188] --Tbeatty 17:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to warn Seabhcan to refrain from violating his personal attack parole. Watch the typos, use the preview button. If this matter comes up again, we will be looking at blocks. —— Eagle101Need help? 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

user:Pigsonthewing (mk II)[edit]

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has previously been banned for one year and also limited to one edit per article per week for a further year and remains under perminant probation (see WP:PROB). Under this clarification, it has been confirmed that his revert parole runs until 25th January 2008 (see the admin's response here), where it was also stated that as he was not warned and the revert parole was not clear, he would not be blocked on that occasion (regardless of the fact that the edits cited breached WP:3RR), but that he may be blocked in future.

He has now made two reverts to article Birmingham in a week. One of these was a "sneaky revert" to my mind, in that he waited on the second occasion for further changes to take place, and disguised it by also changing the clarification of the disambig header. These are:

L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 21:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone care about this user breaking revert parole or not? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 20:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Also here[191], pushing his revert parole in a way frowned upon at WP:3RR - Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisskinner (talkcontribs)

Stale. Sorry, this looks to have gone stale. Blocking would not be called for for a 5 day old offense at this point. Future reports of 1RR parole violations can be made on the 3RR noticeboard; just remember to mention the parole and include a link to the case. Thatcher131 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
OK,fine. I now know where to report in future should it be necessary. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 01:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I just want to be clear that this is one of the appropriate places to make such a complaint, but the 3RR noticeboard usually gets much more prompt attention. Thatcher131 01:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Prof. Hewitt[edit]

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt. As I've questioned some of his edits rather than summarily reverting and blocking per remedy #1, I'll submit the issue here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


I have blocked 1garden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for editing as a proxy of Richardmalter, but it seems to me that he has violated his restriction by trying to edit by proxy [192], and by pitching into disputes on BDORT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [193]

I tis clear that his influence is both present and disruptive despite the restriction. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


Tajik (talk · contribs) has been banned indefinitely by the admin: [194] and the arbcom case is on a voting stage to formalize his permanent ban. [195] Despite that and numerous blocked sock accounts and IPs, some of which are recorded here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik, Tajik is editing Safavid dynasty and other articles by using anonymous IP (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Urgent attention of the administrators is required. Grandmaster 07:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin response: The aforementioned IP address has been blocked for edit warring by Kukini (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and another one of Tajik's addresses, (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), was blocked by me as a sock. Both blocks are 24 hours, please list them here again if he uses them after the expiry of the block. Picaroon (Talk) 21:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
We have checkuser results, which also confirm that this could be Tajik. [196] In addition, he acknowledged on the talk page that it was him. Thanks for your intervention. Grandmaster 04:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)