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


Newtonspeed (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), appears to be be latest reincarnate of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/HeadleyDown. See arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans. Please keep an eye on this editor. We should probably start with a checkuser, see archive: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/HeadleyDown. --Comaze 05:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing enforceable at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming. HeadleyDown appears to be banned by the community, rather than ArbCom. A more appropriate venue would be one of the admin noticeboards or directly contact one of admins who has blocked his other accounts. Thatcher131 06:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
No need. I am HeadleyDown. Just turning up the heat on Comaze and his COI antics. Feel free to kill my account. Newtonspeed 06:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Well there's a surprise. 06:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Beckjord--propose extending to indef[edit]

Beckjord (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), better known as paranormal "investigator" Jon-Erik Beckjord, was banned for a year from Wikipedia in 2006 for inserting pseudoscientific garbage into articles relating to the paranormal (such as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster). He has since had his ban reset across two full calendar years for sockpuppetry.

On his Web site, Beckjord has information on how to revert the Bigfoot article back to his preferred version. And it's linked directly from his site's Bigfoot section. While he was here, he openly called for his supporters to help him insert his junk theories into the Bigfoot article--and is clearly still doing so.

It is evident that despite understanding our policies on verifiability and original research, the chances of him editing within policy are slightly better than finding a needle in a haystack. Furthermore, deliberately encouraging others to vandalize an article is a violation of the spirit of WP:MEAT. I therefore propose that Beckjord's ban be extended to indefinite.

I'd proposed this on WP:ANI, but was advised that this was a better venue. Blueboy96 19:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(For reference, the relevant case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord.) This all goes back to the issue of whether behavior on external sites can, or should, lead to onwiki blocks or bans. There have been only a very few cases where things posted on external sites have led to sanctions onwiki, and since he is already banned until February 6, 2008, I don't think extending it to indefinite would be worthwhile. Nor would it do much towards preventing any further bad edits, seeing provisions in the case make it easy for his account to be rebanned if he returns and misbehaves again. Any account that reverts to that version of the article can be indefinitely blocked immediately due to its similarity to him, per the "Edits by other accounts reasonably believed to be Beckjord shall be considered Beckjord for the purposes of this decision" text. Picaroon (Talk) 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Picaroon does have a good point--the fact he's doing this makes it very likely that he'll be gone for good once this ArbCom ban is lifted (the decision allows him to be banned with the agreement of any three admins). However, I still say it's grossly inappropriate to use your site to encourage others to vandalize Wikipedia. I therefore propose amending the decision to read, "If the Bigfoot article is reverted in any manner similar to Beckjord's editing style, Beckjord shall be banned indefinitely." Blueboy96 12:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not really the best place for this discussion. This noticeboard can not modify arbitration decisions; you would have to go to RFAR for that. If you want consensus for a community ban, you would be more likely to get sufficient input at one of the admins' noticeboards. Thatcher131 06:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


Infinity0 (talk · contribs) again broke his revert parole when he made two reverts to Anarchism. Diffs: 19:25, 29 June 2007 - first revert, 12:40, 30 June 2007 - second revert, old version to which he reverted to – same changes to anarcho-capitalism section are best visible in accompanying diff. -- Vision Thing -- 13:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Vision Thing is being dishonest here. First edit is not a revert. Last diff he provides is from months ago. Vision Thing is also gaming the wikipedia system, by using the fact that I am on revert parole, to undermine my efforts to edit the page to reflect a consensus reached by WP:3O editors, and others, on Talk:Anarchism which VT alone is ignoring. -- infinity0 14:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Decline. Edit warring is unacceptable. However, Infinity0 has recently commented on the talk page and other editors have complained about VT's reverts. Additionally, reading the discussion history, it indeed seems as though Infinity0 is trying to enforce consensus in good faith. (Both users blocked for 24 hours due to the edit warring with an encouragement to discuss, not continually revert and to be polite and constructive in their dealings with other editors. Infinity0. Vision Thing.) Vassyana 14:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: There is also a new arbitration case involving these editors currently pending at WP:RfAr. Newyorkbrad 23:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Nikola Smolenski[edit]

Articles related to Kosovo are currently on article probation per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. On 10 June, I rewrote and greatly expanded Gazimestan speech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article related to Kosovo. The new version was intended to reflect mainstream views from multiple scholarly sources and to take out previous material that was a combination of original research and heavy reliance on material from a non-reliable source, a personal website called ([1]). Commencing 18 June, Nikola Smolenski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) began repeatedly edit-warring on the article, initially reverting the new version without discussion ([2], [3]) and later seeking to re-insert personal commentary, partisan views and non-reliable sources ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). This conduct has continued up to today. The issue of the non-reliable source has been discussed on Talk:Gazimestan speech and Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO#Discussion 6; jpgordon (who was not an arbitrator at the time of the Kosovo RfAr), KillerChihuahua and I all concur that is not a reliable source, and the policy on reliable sources has repeatedly been explained to Nikola. However, Nikola does not accept this consensus and has repeatedly edit-warred here and on other articles to add links to the website, including links to copyright violations, for which he has previously been blocked.

This appears to be a clear violation of the article probation, specifically regarding POV editing, edit-warring and the arbitrary use of reverts without discussion. I've discussed the issue with jpgordon, who suggested bringing it here for broader review. -- ChrisO 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit warring is continuing ([9], [10]). Action really needs to be taken on this. -- ChrisO 19:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked 48 hours to give others time to repair the damage and get it stable again. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible violation of Minun's one year ban[edit]

Here on the Evidence page of the Minun Arbitration case, it said that (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) was a sockpuppet of Minun, which is all but confirmed by the IP's edits, and in this WP:ANI discussion.

Looking at the contributions of this IP, the IP edited James May] on May 24th, 2007, which would violate the terms of Minuns ban:

Should Minun, editing under any username or IP, violate any ban imposed by or under this decision he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 6 to 0 02:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we assume good faith here, and assume that the IP has been assigned to someone besides Minun, or treat it as a violation? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 05:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be highly improbable for this IP, which is British Telecom, to be assigned to the same person for more than a year. Plus, the article is not something Minun was ever interested in. Seems unrelated. Thatcher131 23:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for enforcement on User:Nrcprm2026[edit]

User:Nrcprm2026 has edited Depleted Uranium and related articles in vilation of his arbcom ban. This is not an islated incident, and I had hoped that he would defer from doing this again, but he persists. A recent RfCu has confirmed his recent violations, but the archive on the RfCu page shows a long history and dozens of edits using sockpuppets. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator response: Could you please be more specific about which accounts you believe violated the ban and on which article(s). Thanks, Newyorkbrad 03:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Recently, it was user:Rtt71 on Gulf War Syndrome; but has also been: user:GVWilson, user:-Alex- and user:Black Omega on depleted uranium, and too many ip's and other accounts to name (the RfCu link has all that). I have repeatedle and politely made him aware that his actions were noticed, but he refuses to listen. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for two weeks. [11] Thatcher131 01:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for enforcement of LaRouche pages rulings[edit]

Once again pro-LaRouche editors are attempting to fill Wikipedia pages with pro-LaRouche propaganda, and are deleting properly cited criticisms, especially concerning the issue of antisemitism. How many times does this process have to be repeated? What are the appropriate options and sanctions? Please visit the pages Lyndon LaRouche and United States v. LaRouche (among others). The same pattern of endless circular discussions, deletions, revert wars, and other nonsense is once again happening. There has to be a better solution than wasting scores of hours of serious editors. Please intervene and stop this ridiculous waste of time. I fully understand that we need to represent the views of LaRouche and his supporters, but when the pro-LaRouche editors seek to sanitize pages concerning his conviction and his history of antisemitism, it is a disgrace. Sometimes basic morality and an attention to facts needs to be a factor. Please take responsibility for this shameful situation.--Cberlet 02:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Three pro-LaRouchite editors, Marvin Diode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), MaplePorter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), NathanDW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). continuously seek to minimize criticism of LaRouche on the Lyndon LaRouche page, to the point of introducing factual errors into the entry. For example, the section to which the subsection on Alleged coded discourse keeps getting restored is titled: "Criticism of LaRouche, 1979-1985." However the cited criticisms from the Encyclopedia Judaica, Wall Street Journal, and New Internationalist, all refer to criticsms of LaRouche's antisemitism since the year 2000. The subtitle "Alleged coded discourse" should be "Alleged coded antisemitic discourse" otherwise the subtitle misrepresents the core topic of the subsection.

The outcome of the repeated deletions and reversions is to minimize ther seriousness of the criticism of antisemitism and to bury and hide the criticism of antisemitism. This raises issues of prejudice and bigotry that should concern Wikipedia as a whole, and that need to be addressed through NPOV and balanced editing of the text. This appears impossible so long as Marvin Diode, MaplePorter, and NathanDW are allowed to edit LaRouche related pages.--Cberlet 17:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note this Arbcom decision:

  • Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense.

See, for example: [12], [13], [14], [15]. --Cberlet 17:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I request that User: Don't lose that number [16] also be banned from editing LaRouche related pages on the same grounds as per Marvin Diode, MaplePorter and NathanDW.--Dking 20:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, I agree, as Don't lose that number (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), is now simply reverting without editing.--Cberlet 21:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional instances[edit]

Despite repeated requests and warnings, two editors (User:MaplePorter and User:NathanDW) continue to create fictitious cites to create the false impression that an entry in the Encyclopedia Judaica is really planted there by an anti-LaRouche author (in this case, me in my non-Wiki persona). These actions have repeatedly misrepresented the content and the authorship of the cited material. See: diff; diff; diff; diff. --Cberlet 13:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Cberlet 02:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Now another editor, User: Don't lose that number is totally misrepresenting an actual quote from Robert L. Bartley, writing in The Wall Street Journal. Bartley terms the LaRouchite "Children of Satan" title "overt anti-Semitism," yet according to User: Don't lose that number, "Most of this stuff is clearly 'coded' -- it's definately not the real thing." Then User: Don't lose that number moves the material under a subheading "Allegations of coded antisemitic discourse." Especially on a BLP page, attempts to minimize, dismiss, or hide published allegations of antisemitism or any form of bigotry raise serious issues for a serious encyclopedia. See: diff. --Cberlet 13:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by User:Don't lose that number[edit]

First of all, if the ArbCom accepts this case, I would be happy to participate, and I would suggest that User:Dking also be named as a participant. He has a POV, editing style, and pattern of violations of Wikipedia policy that is virtually indistiguishable from those of User:Cberlet.

Allow me to make the observation that the ArbCom case cited by Cberlet says the following: "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." (emphasis mine) As Cberlet notes in his statement, all the content disputes have taken place at "LaRouche-related pages." Consequently, this action is being taken in the wrong venue; Cberlet is not presenting any violations of the previous ArbCom decisions. It says above under "enforcement" that "Enforcement requests against users should be based on the principles and decisions in their arbitration case." Cberlet is alleging edit warring, and the proper venue would be a new ArbCom case.

I contend that two editors, Cberlet and Dking, are the chief cause of disruption and edit warring at the LaRouche articles, for the following reasons:

Violations of WP:COI
  • Political activist Chip Berlet edits as Cberlet, and political activist Dennis King edits as Dking. Both have campaigned agressively against LaRouche since the 1970s, and their editing at Wikipedia is aggressive to the point of belligerency. At least one impartial observer[17] voiced concern about Cberlet's editing of the article United States v. LaRouche.
  • On April 15, 2007, and on subsequent days, User:Athaenara of the COI team initiated a major cleanup of LinkSpam by Dking, mainly on the LaRouche articles.[18] Dking has continued to add links to his personal website to these pages, as recently as today, July 6.[19][20]
  • Beginning no later than 1981, Chip Berlet and Dennis King collaborated together in a campaign to allege that Lyndon LaRouche was involved in illegal activities, and agitated together for criminal prosecution, as in this article. As Cberlet and Dking, they have agressively launched content disputes to remove material that displeases them, particularly quotes from prominent individuals that suggest LaRouche's trial was politically motivated.
  • Cberlet initiated an edit war beginning on May 31[21] to remove a reference to Ramsey Clark from the lead of Lyndon LaRouche. Chip Berlet has published attacks on Clark for his involvement in the LaRouche legal case.[22]
  • No sooner had Cberlet given up on removing the Clark reference, but he initiated a new edit war regarding the insertion of material he had written on LaRouche for Encyclopedia Judaica[23]. He claims credit here for writing the section, but when he added it to the article, he avoided attributing it to himself. This was reverted by other editors, who objected to the length of the material inserted, as well as the self-citing. I added a compromise version here, which I felt was a fair summary of the claims made in Berlet's entry. Cberlet commenced edit war, insisting that the entire segment must be included. I should add that most allegations that LaRouche is anti-Semitic, both in Wikipedia articles and in the outside world, originate with King and Berlet. Other editors have been extremely tolerant of their self-citing on this issue, despite what I think are serious violations of WP:UNDUE.
  • Dking initiated an edit war[24] at United States v. LaRouche on June 12, by deleting a quote that compares the LaRouche case to the Dreyfus affair (see next section.)
Violations of WP:BLP
  • Dennis King and Chip Berlet have pursued a slander campaign against LaRouche for decades by alleging that many of his political utterances contain coded forms of anti-Semitism, despite LaRouche's open and unambiguous denunciations of anti-Semitism. Editors Dking and Cberlet have repeatedly self-cited these claims.
  • In this edit, Cberlet attempts to minimize the importance of a quote from LaRouche, opposing anti-Semitism, by placing it at the end of a long segment. The segment is primarily devoted to claims by Dennis King and Chip Berlet that LaRouche is an anti-Semite.
Edit warring and tendentious editing
  • At United States v. LaRouche, Dking has removed the quote with the Dreyfus analogy approximately 25 times 30 times within 3 weeks, against consensus. He has heaped abuse on the author of the quote, a Professor of Constitutional and International law at the University of Mainz in Germany who had served in the German military during WWII and subsequently was a Brigadier General in the West German Reserve. Dking accompanied his constant deletions with edit summaries such as "Removed senile Nazi baron's ignorant and bigoted statement once again" [25] and "deleted once against disgusting and offensive linking of anti-Semite LaRouche to Alfred Dreyfuss--a linkage concocted in senile brain of aging and ignorant Nazi baron" [26]. Cberlet followed suit with edit summaries such as "Revert: deleted fawning sycophancy from a non-notable Nazi collaborator." [27] This sort of behavior did little to help resolve content disputes. Cberlet and Dking were asked on the talk page to provide some evidence for their claim that Von der Heydte was either a Nazi or a Nazi collaborator, and they were unable to do so. The Wikipedia article Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte states that he "had become involved in several brawls with pro-Nazi students, and only evaded the Gestapo by rejoining his old cavalry regiment."

  • At Talk:United States v. LaRouche, Cberlet mocked one one my comments by creating a new poll, signing my name to an opinion which I did not share, and posting the edit summary, "Is this formulation of your views correct User:Don't lose that number?" [28]

(to be continued) --Don't lose that number 22:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by MaplePorter[edit]

If you visit the pages Lyndon LaRouche and United States v. LaRouche and check the edit histories, you will notice three things:

  1. These articles were quite stable until Cberlet initiated the edit war over Ramsey Clark in June
  2. The edits by Cberlet and Dking by far outnumber those of any other editors
  3. Their edit summaries are tendentious and insulting.

Visiting these two page histories might give you a quick snapshot of what the problem is here. Another issue which has come up and should be addressed is that under WP:BLP, the articles should avoid an "advocacy journalism" tone, and here we have two advocacy journalists who are editing Wikipedia with the apparent objective of controlling these articles in violation of WP:OWN, and dominating them with citations to their own political tracts.

I would also like to point out that the accusations of antisemitism are a serious matter. Basing such charges on a purported ability to "decode" various "hidden messages" in LaRouche publications, an ability which Berlet and King claim to possess and which is cited throughout the Wikipedia articles, is troubling from the standpoint of WP:BLP. It becomes especially egregious when Berlet or King present their claims in these articles as if they were undisputed fact (see this edit: [29].) --MaplePorter 13:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Marvin Diode[edit]

I object to being called a "pro-LaRouchite editor." I like to participate in discussions about political controversy, and try to be reasonable voice. I have played a part at Talk:House demolition,Talk:Barney Frank,Talk:The Intelligence Summit, and Talk:Abortion debate, in addition to various LaRouche page disputes. I came to most of these through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, and I have see some heated discussions, but I have not seen any other editors at Wikipedia that are as intransigent and uncivil as Dking and Cberlet. --Marvin Diode 23:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I object to being called a "pro-LaRouchite editor." Why do you do object to that? Please note that punctuation marks should be placed outside the quotation mark in proper english.--Astor Piazzolla 17:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Request by NathanDW[edit]

I propose that this be moved to WP:RfAR, because Cberlet is not alleging any violation of previous ArbCom rulings. This warrants a whole new ArbCom case. --NathanDW 01:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator comment[edit]

As one of the commenters noted above, the LaRouche arbitration decision cited does not provide for enforcement by admins, but only on application to the Arbitration Committee. Moreover, the proscriptions against adding gratuituous mentions of Lyndon LaRouche or unduly promoting him are difficult to apply in the context of the articles concerning Mr. LaRouche himself. The editing restrictions and scope of the remedies may warrant updating in light of the fact that the original arbitration ruling is more than 3 years old. I recommend that either a request for clarification or a new arbitration case be filed at WP:RfAr. Newyorkbrad 03:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Brad. The penalties for using LaRouche publications as sources only apply to articles about other people, not LaRouche himself. This looks like a content dispute, and can not be resolved by admin action without actually looking at the content of the dispute and deciding that someone is "right" and someone is "wrong" which admins are not supposed to do. (Although intentional misrepresentation of sources might be actionable under a generalized probation clause for disruption, but these editors are not named in the prior case.) I think mediation should be attempted, then a new Arbitration case, if necessary. Thatcher131 18:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for enforcement on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman[edit]

According to evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Diyako, I have concluded that User:D.Kurdistani is a sockpuppet of User:Diyako/User:Xebat. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman, Diyako/Xebat was banned for a period of 1 year starting on 7 May 2006. D.Kurdistani began editing on 17 August 2006, and thus violated Diyako/Xebat's ban. Since that ban has now expired, I'm unsure of what action should be taken now. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that D.Kurdistani also made "blatant, ethnically-motivated personal attacks" ([30], [31], [32]) continuing the disruption Diyako/Xebat was banned for. -- Cat chi? 20:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible[edit]

I edited the Neofascism article yesterday and today (hardly an article in good state), and pointed out on the talk page [33], that one section named Neo-fascism#Neo-fascist_international.3F is an original research synthesis of source material, and thus not allowed under WP:OR policy. This got me a rebuke [34] by User:Cberlet, who brought the above Arbcom case against me. My edits on the article were reverted [35] today by another user, User:Tazmaniacs, involved in my earlier Arbcom case. Part of revert edit summary talked about this material sourced, but this is not case, as the notions on Lega Nord, hardly a neo-fascist party, are still left unsourced in his reverts. I have now added POV tags to the particular sections [36], and explained the reasons therefore on the article's talk page [37]. But there seems to exist an unfair burden on my part to justify any edit I make. It's a catch 22 situation, if I make edits to an article, they get easily attacked as being "tendentious," if I go to the an article's talk page, and discuss things before making edits, I get attacked of having a particular POV, while the only thing I ask for are properly sourced edits. It is annoying to be accused of "sanatizing material"[38], while just a few days I started an article on Movement of Organized Nationalist Action, a group in Guatemala involved in killing César Montenegro Paniagua. Intangible2.0 17:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Archived as stale. Thatcher131 17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Request of enforcement - User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani[edit]

I have made this request at 3RR report page [39], but as no action was taken in 2 days, I am filing to ArbCom enforcement. By the ArbCom decision [40], User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani has been placed on 1RR per week parole. User:Hajji Piruz has violated his parole by POV/OR pushing, revert warring, gaming the system with partial reverts and spoiling the consensus achieved on the page for several months.

Safavid dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hajji Piruz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Atabek 16:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Atabek 11:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:Canvassing, you have already brought up your case on the 3rr page.
These were edits, not reverts. I never reverted to any previous version or removed anyones edits in favor of a previous version, I simply made edits.
The Safavids article has the clean up tag, and all I'm doing it is cleaning it up by making fixes and re-writing sentences for them to make more sense. This is not reverted, I havent reverted anything, I simply edited. For example, in the second diff shown, I never changed what the article said, I merely changed the sentence for it to make more sense (I did not change anything at all except to make the sentence sound better and make more sense, did not remove anything at all or revert to any previous version). Again, in the last diff Atabek has posted, I simply re-wrote a sentence for it to sound better, I did not change anything drastically, like he suggests.
The second diff Atabek posted, I changed " compounded by the ideological distortions which took place during their political reign, although they were probably of Kurdish or Iranian descent" to "is compounded by the ideological distortions which took place during their political reign, although they were probably Iranian, most likely Kurdish, descent" because the previous sentence did not make sense. Since you are not familiar with the subject, I will explain, Kurds are an Iranian people, so it doesnt make sense to say that they were probably of Kurdish or Iranian descent, because how can someone be of British and Indo-European descent, the British are a sub branch of Indo-Europeans, its the same with Kurds and Iranian. So I changed that sentence to say "probably Iranian, most likely Kurdish" which means that they were probably of Iranian origin, most likely of the Kurdish sub group.
Its the same situation for the third diff Atabek posted. None of these were reverts, these were fixes. None of these were reverts to any previous version and the second and third diff's had no removal of information at all, contrary to what Atabek claims. Examine the diff's closely.Hajji Piruz 13:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Archived as stale. Thatcher131 17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for enforcement on St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine[edit]

ThePackLeader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose account who appeared shortly after the page was downgraded to semi-protect from full protect, and is making disruptive edits to St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine and Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine who is restrained from doing so by the final ArbCom decision Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/St_Christopher#Single-purpose_accounts_restrained. These disruptive edits include: 1) archiving or just plain blanking the section discussing spa accounts on the talk page [41], and 2) revert warring on the main page against consensus: [42], [43]. I request that this editor be banned from making edits to these pages as specified in the final ArbCom decision. Leuko 11:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

ThePackLeader (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely per terms of that arbitration case. Picaroon (Talk) 18:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Buzybeez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is another single purpose account that has appeared, and is making similar disruptive edits against consensus to the blocked ThePackLeader. Most likely a meatpuppet. Leuko 18:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It does not look like a single purpose account to me; only about half of its contributions are to the pages in question. If you think the user is being disruptive in general, raising it at the incidents noticeboard is best. If you think it is a sockpuppet of thePackLeader, you can file a request for checkuser. But I'm uncomfortable blocking it as a single purpose account. Lets see if any other admins have a difference of opinion on the matter. Picaroon (Talk) 19:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, all of the users' initial edits were to the article's talk page, and as soon as the editor could edit the article (after the 4 days due to semi-protect status) he/she did so. After that, the editor did make a few minor edits to other articles, but I still think that this is an WP:SPA and probable sock. Leuko 19:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Iantresman and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience[edit]

There is a discussion on the conflict of interest noticeboard regarding this user. One participant bought up the possibility that said user has violated the terms of his arbcom probation. Please comment over there, as to keep the discussion in one place. MER-C 04:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No action. He has been banned by the community and may only appeal directly through Arbcom. There's nothing to be done here. Thatcher131 17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


As part of his parole, Ombudsman (talk · contribs) is banned from tendentious editing to any medical article. This is per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others.

For a little while now, Ombudsman has continued to violate the terms of his parole. When warned, e.g. by Midgley (talk · contribs), that this is the case, Ombudsman rudely removes talk page messages claiming that they are "vandalism".[44] This has made open and rational discussion of this user's editing behaviour practically impossibly.

I would have enforced the block if not for my own long history with this difficult editor. JFW | T@lk 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsman also has a habit of flagging edits that make significant additions/changes to content as minor ([45], [46], [[47], [48]); often accompanied by brusque (dare I say incivil?) edit summaries: rv: rm bias, rv: restore npov, rv: undo unexplained pov insertion. Many of these edits were part of an edit war that he was engaged in on Arthur Krigsman.

His response to a request to not mark substantial edits as minor ([49]) was met with an insistence that he is operating in a 'grey area' and the implication that any edit which introduces a non-neutral POV (that is, a POV different from Ombudsman's) can be treated as vandalism. From Talk:Eric Fombonne#Reliable sources, it appears that other editors have also requested – to no avail – that Ombudsman take more care on this issue.

As with Jfdwolff, I have a long history with this difficult editor, and feel that it would be best if a third party reviewed these concerns so as to avoid any possible appearance of a conflict of interest. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Osli73 violating parole again[edit]

Osli73 was put on one year edit parole requiring that he make only one revert per week and discuss edits on discussion page before making edits.

Osli73 is again making multiple reverts -- several per day -- at the Srebrenica Massacre article. See this page for number of recent edits and number of undo's by Osli73.

You can see on this page that he has made all of these July 21-22 edits with no discussion at all.

Osli73 appears to have no intention of abiding by his parole. He has used a sockpuppet to avoid parole, but mostly as soon as he has any freedom at all, he simply ignores his parole using user:Osli73. It usually takes a few weeks -- if not longer -- for administrators to sanction him. Hopefully that will not be the case this time. See at the link below that Osli73 has been blocked several times but as soon as his user name is allowed to edit again he goes right back to violating parole.


Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for 2 weeks for breaking the revert limit on Srebrenica massacre; also banned from editing Srebrenica massacre for 3 months. Thatcher131 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for two weeks for directly violating his probation and revert parole at Srebrenica massacre. --Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for one week for directly violating his probation and revert parole by using a sockpuppet to edit war at Srebrenica massacre. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Blocked KarlXII (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Osli73 (talk · contribs) proven by checkuser. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Recently he made a rather strange revert deleting the fact that Dutch peacekeepers were armed. In some cases in Bosnia, they were not armed, for example in the Bihac area. There is no question the Dutch troops in Srebrenica were armed. He knows this. He also knows that the sentence he deleted parts of is a sentence that editors have taken a lot of time and effort composing. I believe he has made this edit to test whether anyone is watching what he is doing. If no one holds him accountable, then, if he follows his earlier pattern, he will continue to revert the article more aggressively until there is a full blown edit war.

Please address this as soon as possible.

Thank you. Fairview360 17:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points:

  1. The critical issue here is that I haven't been banned from editing the Srebrenica article, or limited to one edit per week. The Kosovo ArbCom decision simply stated that I "may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits". Everyone else is editing the article without having to explain everything they do.
  2. The original remedy by the ArbCom was a bit weird - I was given one year's probation, by the Kosovo ArbCom which related to the Kosovo article for edit disputes on the Srebrenica massacre article. So, the remedy by the Kosovo ArbCom wasn't based on the the dispute on which it was set to arbitrate - the Kosovo article.
  3. I'd have no problem adding back that the Dutch peacekeepers were armed, if that's the only sticking point. However, the edits made were to render the text NPOV.

CheersOsli73 20:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Osli73 probation clearly states that he is "limited to one revert per article per week". He is willfully violating that restriction once again and as predicted he is now in the thick of an edit war on the Srebrenica article. Fairview360 18:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Blocked' for one month by WikiLeon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Thatcher131 12:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Hajji Piruz[edit]

Hajji Piruz (talk · contribs) (formerly 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.

Hajji Piruz 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 [50]

However, on the List of Azerbaijani films: 1898-1919 Hajji Piruz removed the link to the country of Azerbaijan 3 times within the last 2 days: [51], [52] [53], which is a clear violation of his parole.

Reported by: Atabek 06:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a parole violation. I only made one revert on that article: [54]. My edit after that was not a revert [55]. Infact, it is completely different.
This is not the first time such a false report has been made. Atabek, the revert parole says that I cannot revert more than once per article per week. Assume good faith please.
I did not break my parole.
In the mean time, Atabek, Grandmaster, and Dacy69 have been trading reverts on that article. Grandmaster makes a partial revert: [56], then Atabek made a partial revert back to Grandmaster [57] and then Dacy69 makes a complete revert to Atabek [58] (interestingly, Dacy69's first edit since the 26, after a 4-5 day break, was to come and revert that article [59]).Hajji Piruz 15:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, from what I can see the purpose of your edits listed here (all 3 of them) was to remove the link to the article about Azerbaijan. So it was violation of parole. Grandmaster 17:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
No, the purpose of my edits were to present the most accurate and factual information. Assume good faith. Wikipedia is not the place for POV or OR. The facts should always be presented.Hajji Piruz 00:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The clear intent of the edits was to remove the link to Azerbaijan as a country; two of the edits were clear reverts and the third edit had the effect of continuing the dispute by removing the link but replacing it with a different text. Blocked for 24 hours. Thatcher131 00:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Green108 behaving exactly like banned user[edit]

Regarding arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Brahma_Kumaris.

It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that Green108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is an incarnation of (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Perhaps his account is being shared or he is editing and posting as a proxy. Green108 appears to have edited logged-out as (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The usual behaviours such as taunting opponents, edit waring, posting off-topic trolls [60], ignoring policies, guidelines and consensus are now in full evidence. Admin Utcursch recently cleaned up the article [61] after it was tagged to reflect the problems identified here and Green108 didn't waste anytime trying to revert all the changes [62] [63]. This pattern is still continuing. I suggest that it is absolutely impossible to keep the article within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines while it is under this kind of sustained pressure.

Addition suspected sockpuppets are Faithinhumanity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Bkangel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). These are being used to astroturf on the talk page [64] [65] and support his edit revisions [66] [67].

Checkuser request filed Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Green108.

Regards Bksimonb 18:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that Green108 is a sockpuppet of He started contributing long before was banned. Andries 18:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
This leaves proxying as the only plausible possibility, but I have no idea how this can be proven beyond reasonable doubt or with even a degree of certainty. Andries 19:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Andries. Yes I agree with your assessment. It is interesting to note that the various suspected sockpuppets of 244 that hammered the article mysteriously stopped as soon as Green108 arrived back in March. Also if you compare Green108's editing style from last year to now it is markedly different from March onwards. It would be interesting to see if any of the initial March edits match the edits made by the various socks before that. Now he is baiting editors into revert waring by making tendentious edits in a daily cycle which is exactly what 244, and the various suspected incarnations between January and March, did. Regards Bksimonb 09:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I note that Checkuser came back with "Likely that Bkangel and Shortskirtlonglegs are Green108's sockpuppets." I found some more history at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ (2nd), which concludes with a note that the discussion was dealt with here back in March. That discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive4#User: GRBerry 16:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Bkangel and Shortskirtlonglegs have been blocked indefinitely by WikiLeon; Green108 was blocked for one week by the same admin. GRBerry 02:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Dacy69 gaming 1RR[edit]

  • Dacy69 is under ArbCom parole for 1 revert per week [68], and has been blocked three times since the ArbCom limited him on 1RR [69].

Dacy69 is gaming the system by meatpupeting for Grandmaster and Atabek by reverting for them when they exhaust their 1RR's. Please note that he never edited the following articles before or after the revert, neither did he participated in the talkpage before or after he reverted. His explanations in the talkpage for the reverts, were only a sentence long. He is clearly trying to circumvent his parole and continues his edit warring. The following are his reverts, edit summaries and the explanations in the discussion page.

Sahl ibn Sunbat reverts, edit summary: (rv - pls. engage in talkpage)

Talk "Agree that article should be fixed but not by using socks. I rv'ed new editor. Current version accomodate both version." He never edited the article before, neither did he participated in the talkpage.

House of Hasan Jalalyan reverts, edit summary: (rv - dont delete sourced info)

Talk "And put your arguments here so we will be able to discuss". Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.

List of Azerbaijani films 1898-1919 reverts, edit summary: (rv)

Talk "Discussion about the name of Azerbaijan does not belong here: Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.

Movses Kaghankatvatsi reverts, edit summary: "(rv - see discussion. we should use in article like that neutral source)"

Talk "MarshalBagramyan, your last edit has refrence to non-neutral source while you have reverted neutral source.". Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.

Khojaly Massacre revertes, edit summary: "(rv - see talkpage)"

Talk ":Statement is full POV we dont have personal interpretation here." Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.

This has already been discussed here: [70] --Grandmaster 06:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
yes, stop soapboxing Wiki. We have discussed this issue on admin Alex Bakharev page. You are alone involved in revert and edit warring and removal of sourced information on so many pages, so punishment you ask for me is indeed should be imposed on you. My contribution is much larger than those you indicated and I left short comments in articles where much points have been already discussed or edit was obvious.--Dacy69 20:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/WP:APARTHEID Centralized discussion[edit]

As part of this arbitration it was ruled discussion should happen in WP:APARTHEID (see here). To make navigation of the series easier, a navbox was created {{Allegations of apartheid}}. This navbox was subject to an AfD, which was no consensus[71] and further consensus after the AfD developed to edit the box to a version that includes a link to the centralized discussion. A number of anonymous editors have removed this link in the last few days, alleging it violates WP:ASR, and commented on the talk page [72]. However, one of the anon editors commented in an entirely different fashion, which leads one to believe that this is more a disruptive editor than a good faith attempt to defend WP:ASR[(see here). Furthermore, only anon editors have been involved, it is only rarely one sees anonymous editors defending policy, specially one as ignored and obscure as WP:ASR (I do agree with it, but facts are facts).

(The similarity of arguments leads one to believe this might be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet case, but I am raising this where appropriate.)

I just want clarification if linking to the "centralized discussion" (ruled by ArbCom) is in fact a violation of WP:ASR, and if it is, if it is reasonable to WP:IAR in order to publicize the centralized discussion as part of the dispute resolution process. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom merely ruled that WP:APARTHEID should be the central location for discussions; you make it sound as if they ruled that the template (which did not exist back then) had to somehow incorporate a link to it. I (yes, for the record, I use both of the IP addresses) did go thru and add a link to this centralized discussion page on the top of all the relevant talk pages (well, except the template talk page -- that only just occurred to me, I'll fix it done!). That's the proper way to handle this, not crossing namespaces, per WP:ASR. -- 04:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I am asking ArbCom to rule if strict adherence to WP:ASR is more important than giving publicity to a centralized discussion ruled by them. I clearly invoked WP:IAR. Please read what I wrote again. Thanks!--Cerejota 19:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects seems clear cut -- "our articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves" -- as is WP:ASR#In the Template and Category namespaces: "Limited use of self-references are sometimes found in the Template namespace and the Category namespace, such as with disambiguation and stub notices. Expanding this to other areas is not encouraged due to the need of third party users to either delete those templates or modify them to remove the Wikipedia references." I don't see a compelling rationale for ignoring the guideline. -- 20:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you misunderstand WP:IAR, because I argue we have a compelling reason to self-reference: the need for a wider community attention to the ArbCom ruled centralized discussion. You are putting the needs of a dispute resolution procedure beneath the needs of WP:FORK. The question is: What is more important? To resolve a conflict or to guarantee a smooth WP:FORK?

However, I must state this again WP:ASR doesn't forbid anything, it even allows for self-reference in certain circumstances: it discourages, which we all agree is not forbidding or requiring. I think your argument that WP:ASR applies is weak, and furthermore, that the needs of the community are to be considered before the needs of the WP:FORKing. ArbCom should clarify which perspective is correct. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The need for wider attention of WP:APARTHEID is already addressed by linking to it at the top of the various involved talk pages (1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 and 8) as well as including Template:Wider attention on the WP:APARTHEID page itself. You may suggest the WP:ASR guideline is merely window dressing for a bothersome existance of WP:FORKs just as easily as I can suggest it's a core underlying part of WP:ENC, a principle which in my perspective is undermined by cross-linking to wikipedia space from article space at a whim. But I would also appreciate ArbCom's clarification. -- 22:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I have resolved the WP:ASR allegation by including the "offending" text and links under {{selfref}} as WP:ASR. I find it ironic that the anonymous editor so keen on defending WP:ASR overlooked this solution. I'll admit I overlooke dit because I am sure there is no WP:ASR violation, however, that is moot. A self-reference included within {{selfref}} is allowed as the only reason to avoid self-references is to allow WP:FORK. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That does solve the problem on mirrors, which was my main concern. However, WP:FORK is only a secondary rationale behind WP:ASR: "The first is that self-references are often considered disruptive in an encyclopedia because they distract from the topic at hand." So I'm still not sure if it is in the spirit of WP:ASR, but I'll leave it until ArbCom makes a decision here. -- 22:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
In what way is pointing in the direction of an ArbCom-ruled centralized discussion disruptive? Thanks!--Cerejota 06:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
There may be something to be said for not going out of our way to draw ordinary reader's attention to all that ugly and endless bickering. Please ignore the man behind the curtain, to coin a phrase. A lot of the original ArbCom issues were resolved long ago by the consensus to merge all the different "type X apartheid" articles into Allegations of Apartheid, getting rid of Apartheid (disambiguation), making Apartheid redirect to the historical South African Apartheid with dab links up top, and moving Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid (though people have been complaining about that ever since, even people who supported the move in the first place). So for the most part, WP:APARTHEID has already accomplished what the original ArbCom intended it to accomplish. If they aren't going to take up another case and give that page new direction, it won't be anything more than a central place for people to vent. -- 19:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You think the controversy is over, and hence the centralized discussion has outlived its usefulness? If so, please raise an RfC in the centralized discussion itself, or present the question to ArbCom. But first saying you want something out for techno-bureaucratic reasons and then switching to a clear content dispute is suspiciously close to try to overcome consensus by bureaucratic means. Likewise, I offer by the level of activity this has recently seen, that your impression that the centralized discussion has "already accomplished what the original ArbCom intended it to accomplish" is wrong. The controversy (And even the cast of characters) remains essentially the same. However, this is the ArbCom board, so what better place to ask!
ArbCom: Is correct and the centralized discussion "already accomplished what the original ArbCom intended it to accomplish" or is it still a valid place for this discussion? Please provide guidance and clarification. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Admin response Just for reference, Arbitrators rarely if ever post here. This board is for requesting enforcement of enforceable remedies, like revert parole, probation etc. This does not seem to be an enforcement matter, although allegations of bad behavior surrounding the template could be added to the current arbitration case. Purely as a matter of opinion, a template used in main space should not link to a discussion in project space; putting a notice of the centralized discussion on the talk pages would be much more appropriate. You do not, for example, see advertisements for Wikiprojects on article pages but on talk pages. Thatcher131 14:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


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 is no longer productive. There is no consensus to act based on the prior arbitration case. Thatcher131 19:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Has resurfaced as User:SevenOfDiamonds...I have posted evidence that this banned editor is editing in violation of his ban at User:MONGO/Ban evasion. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults is the arbcom original case...Zer0faults started using the username NuclearUmpf after that arbcom case was settled.--MONGO 22:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There can be little doubt that this is the same individual.Proabivouac 22:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Because I use X as a delineator? and I also spell noone as no one, which is a pretty common misspelling. I am also not located in Park Slope, I live in Bayridge, while also in Brooklyn, it is about 3 miles away. Is there a point where this harassment will stop. I notice MONGO will not file a RFCU, because the last users he accuses me of being all failed. So far 3 RFCU's later. I also notice I do not share many articles in common with any of those editors, being my interest is in Latin American studies, which he links to Nuclear because he once in over 1000 edits readded a section on a government I do not edit articles on. Do you know why? If you look at the countries I edit, they have something in common, dictatorships or corrupt governments. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are some of MONGO's past attacks from him and his friends: accused of being Lovelight accused of being Rootology and Fairness And Accuracy For All accused of being Bmedley Sutler & Giovanni33. I ask these games to stop, this harassment to cease and MONGO to be called to pay for this harassment. Note he will not even goto Checkuser anymore because he knows it will fail. Your chart also shows Nuclear not having a drop in editing, which even if the data is legit I do not know, shows a drop in my editing. You actually cite them both as having a drop which is not true. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Zer0Faults, consider yourself officially caught. I've just started combing through all this evidence, and it's clear as day. You may as well make your grand statement now.Proabivouac 23:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
O the neutral person who has also cited I was Lovelight and who else? --SevenOfDiamonds 23:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I never said you were Lovelight. I don't even know you (or Lovelight) anyhow, but only reviewed the evidence.Proabivouac 23:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser would come back as ToastedWhiteBread.jpg Stale, since we don't keep track of user IP's that long. For that reason, no point in requesting checkuser here. Anyway, the evidence is very very convincing. We have a match. --Aude (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Please spare the cheerleading. You have been attacking me the whole time as well, everytime MONGO is told to stop attacking me you jump in the bandwagon. I see MONGO cannot explain why he will not do a RFCU, why there is a drop in my editing around 7, but not Nuclears, why Nuclear or zero do not edit Latin American orientated articles. Instead his proof is "he says Thank you", "has drops in editing at the same time most of NYC is on trains", "live in Parkslope," of which is wrong, I could not possibly afford to live in Park Slope. You do realize everyone that lives in NYC lives in one of 3 boroughs? with Brooklyn being the most populated after Manhattan? Such ignorance. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Five boroughs, actually... and Brooklyn has a larger population than Manhattan, in fact. *Dan T.* 16:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I left out primarily. I was thinking of Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan. I am actually surprised to know Brooklyn has the larger population. It is higher then I had cited, 2.4 million. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
And the other person claiming, was the person who filed a RFCU stating I was Rootology and Freedom and accuracy for all. Nice. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I only involved myself in the ANI thread after confirming your identity, to which all of my posts directly related. Other than that, and in the thread immediately below, I do not recall having interacted with you.Proabivouac 23:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
In looking through the contributions I noticed stylistic quirks in common that went beyond those MONGO had already listed. It's not quite an open-and-shut case, absent further digging, but it's very close to that. Raymond Arritt 00:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to add Nuclear does wikilink policy pages [73] [74] I guess when you pick the ones you want to pick, you can make comparisons in everything. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, he/you did do some wikilinking, but so infrequently it is a nonissue. The preponderance of evidence is that you are Nuclear. I wouldn't expect you to admit to it, but since you have changed usernames so easily in the past, maybe you should just save us the trouble and do it again now...I already know if you're blocked you'll just sockpuppet anyway.--MONGO 03:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
"Sure you do actually wikilink, but since that does not mesh with my accusation I will ignore it." There is a surprise to captivate a nation. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,I looked at the proofs, and a writing from Nuclear on another site when talking about when he left the RW group, and I don't feel they are the same person. Is it Okay to post that writing here to compare? It talks about some of the people arguing against SOD too. I think its still here in Wikipedia somewhere too. Where are the charges that I am someone else? Who made them? Why do people keep erasing this link? Link Administrator Harrison did it last! I am being discriminated! ΞBmedleySutlerΞ 04:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You can post your links here. --Tbeatty 04:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I think he wants to link to WR...all we need is what is done on this website..the diffs I have already are enough, however, notice further comments on the talkpage of my evidence page, and I also see another interesting issue that both Diamonds and Nuclear seem to like to double hyphen a lot. Preponderance of evidence is pretty was well known when he first showed up he was a sock, since he knew wiki markup so well and he was identified then by a number of folks as a sock.--MONGO 04:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You are rejecting any evidence that might vindicate SOD? Oh thats very fair. ViridaeTalk 05:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't you post to WR yourself? What I think Bmedley is talking about is a posting made there by banned editor FAAFA which was a posting made by NuclerUmpf here...all it was was copy and pasted from this website to that was one of Nuclear's last edits here...right around the same time he told everyone he was going to create two socks, one for good edits and one for harassment edits. I could be mistaken about what Bmedley is, well, trying to talk about. To track socks, we do so using editing history here...not sure we can prove someone using the same username on another website is the same person using that username here, can we.--MONGO 05:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Viridae, suppose I grant you, just for the sake of discussion, that MONGO is terminally uncivil. Suppose I grant you that SevenOfDiamonds is a class act who has been blindingly right on every point of disputed content. And I do grant you that's he's been incorrect accused of being several others. Guess what? SOD is still Zer0Faults/NuclearUmph. This fact is entirely independent of whatever else you're pursuing, which I encourage you to continue (if you insist) after this is acknowledged. Instead, we've picked up and resumed the argument as if there are no facts which can ever be discerned, as if didn't even matter what was being discussed. I've got nothing against this fellow, zero. I don't know enough about the ban to support it or oppose it. It just happens that the id is correct.Proabivouac 06:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I found it. (Does this sound like SOD? I say no. Not even a little. "I am gonig to horribly violate WP:AGF but in the hope of explaining to you what happened. I was part of a clique that included Morton, Tbeatty, Mongo, Tom etc. we used to communicate off wiki for deletions, using the noticeboard basically." Link What do you think of my new signature? Pretty cool, yes? ΞBmedleySutlerΞ 05:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

irrelevant comments removedProabivouac 06:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley, please quit using distraction fallacies. Thanks! Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

irrelevant comments removedProabivouac 06:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What is going on? Why are you censoring me? ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 06:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Because the removed comments had nothing to do with the topic of this thread.Proabivouac 07:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know the word 'fallacy'! I had to look it up. I thought he was talking about my distracting signature. (the old one) Please don't censor me. I have had about 5 posts removed unfairly today. None of them were NPA. They were all proofs of mis-steps by favorite editors here, so they got erased. Poof! This all is so unfair! Please stop. Thank you kindly. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 07:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is that I am not Nuclear, I enjoy creating articles here and it seems some persons vendetta will instead not allow me to continue. So far the large group of evidence has been that we both live in Brooklyn ... by that alone some things follow, we may have similar dialogue, we would most likely edit during the same times, and we both have an itnerest in 9/11 articles. I have not noticed any similarity other then the 9/11 articles however. The conspiracy of 9/11 is still alive in NYC, many people here do not believe it was a bunch of ingenious arab fundamentalists. MONGO however while making his graph ignores that most people editing on the EST will probably drop in editing when they goto work, on lunch, and when they go home. I did however notice that MONGO falsely attributes a drop in Nuclear's edits that mine do not have at around 7AM, if the chart is suppose to prove we are the same, why do I always have a drop, and he never did?

I have created 10 articles here or so and am in the midst of creating another and rewriting another. I find the fact that MONGO will not take this to RFCU quite damning proof, considering he already has accused me personally of being 2 other people in a RFCU and 1 other without taking it to RFCU, his friends have accused me collectively, including Aude here of being 3 other people, all through RFCU's linked above. Other interesting proof "Thank you," "mispells no one," "mispells separate," These are the types of trivial issues that prove I am some one else? I spell commonly misspelled words? The only real attempt to link me to Nuclear MONGO makes is that he once removed a section from an article that involved a Latin American country. All of my articles revolve around Latin American countries, corrupt government and dictatorships, this is the kind of by a string linking attempting to be done. MONGO also falsely asserts that I live in Park Slope, of which is 3 miles away from me, a neighborhood that is 20,000$ more then I make in a year.

For some backstory this began when MONGO lost an AfD, he began attacking me and following me around, leaving threats on my talk page, a page later vandalized. He most recently had a candidate fail at RfA, another instance of where I was vocal due to some comments they made off Wikipedia, he then of course brings his "evidence" involving lies. The first one being where I live, the second being that neither myself or Nuclear wikilink policy, of which I proved wrong, though I do not like tracking through someone else's edits to vindicate myself. MONGO also asserts that the two editors share an editing pattern yet does not account for the sharp drop around 7AM, which is when omething in common, dictatorships or corrupt governments. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are some of MONGO's past attacks from him and his friends: accused of being Lovelight accused of being Rootology and Fairness And Accuracy For All accused of being Bmedley Sutler & Giovanni33. I ask these games to stop, this harassment to cease and MONGO to be called to pay for this harassment. Note he will not even goto Checkuser anymore because he knows it will fail. Your chart also shows Nuclear not having a drop in editing, which even if the data is legit I do not know, shows a drop in my editing. You actually cite I typically leave for work, a drop Nuclear does not have. MONGO notes himself that Nuclear had setup a new account in February, yet my IP was not editing then, nor was this account created then.

I see MONGO has now removed the Park Slope issue, apparently he is just removing now all the issues he was caught on earlier. As for if I followed MONGO to some pages, I did. After MONGO began appearing on my talk page after losing the AfD, how could I not? I later noticed him wikistalking Giovanni to the Hiroshima bomb page so I followed him there to see what it was about. I actually found many pages only because of following MONGO, apparently him and Nuclear share more in common articles wise, then myself and Nuclear. So if Nuclear had an account in February like MONGO states, then I am obviously not him. I ask again for a RFCU, however I am sure MONGO does not want another failed one and will argue against it. I await the decision, I am not going to go back and forth with MONGO's friends advocating how damning the evidence is, and how a RFCU should be skipped due to it. I just want to also note Nuclear seemed to have a habit of writing long edit summaries, something I do not do either. Apparently another issue where MONGO was lying on his evidence page. He states both me and Nuclear have a history of removing Tom harissons comments from our talk pages, yet only shows me removing his comments, if you look at both comments you can see why. In both comments MONGO is threatening me or engaging in a personal attack with an accusation. I also would like to note MONGO has a link where Nuclear states he will continue to harass people, but I have not done so. If anything people have warned MONGO to stop harassing me. If I was here to be destructive and harass people, I would have blocks in my log, I have 1 for 3RR on SixOfDiamonds, and people would instead be telling me to stop, not telling MONGO to stop --SevenOfDiamonds 10:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summaries have been remarkably similar, actually. That's one of the things that hit me right away, and I invite anyone else who might doubt this to look at the last 1k contribs of both accounts.Proabivouac 11:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Again we drill down till we are only looking at what we want to see? I noticed in Nuclear's last 1000 he has a tendency to post long edit summaries, something I rarely do unless I am making someone aware that they in particular were responded to. --SevenOfDiamonds 11:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

MONGO's pursuit of SevenOfDiamonds looks like a witch-hunt to me. *Dan T.* 12:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Witch hunts are inherently foolish because, by most accounts, witches - at least those of the sort witch hunts were meant to check - don't and didn't exist.Proabivouac 12:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Admin response to enforcement request It does not look like it is possible to enforce anything here. NuclearUmpf was indef blocked by JzG, which equates to a community ban since no other admin has opposed it. Any uninvolved admin who accepted the identification of Seven as Nuclear could apply the same ban, but it looks like that would be opposed by admin Viridae. I think you'll need to run this through arbitration again. Thatcher131 12:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
They edit similar articles, though the newer account has moved into new areas. SevenOfDiamonds shares NuclearUmpf's obsession with me, Tbeatty, Morton Devonshire, and Mongo. The times line up; the style, spelling errors, and distinctive phrases like 'go play somewhere' are similar. I think SevenOfDiamonds is NuclearUmpf. Tom Harrison Talk 12:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've had no serious contact with either user, and have not looked at the contents of the edits at all. I would warn against putting too much weight onto the geographical proximity and the editing time pattern in this case. They are certainly not independent, and editors with similar day jobs in the same time zone are quite likely to have similar edit patterns. --Stephan Schulz 12:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I have used the phrase once, after referring to MONGO as a child. I have no obsession with you nor TBeatty. I do not believe me and Tbeatty edit any of the same articles. Other then the "allegations" article, I do not edit any articles with you either. Further I have only run into Morton in a brief comment he left on the "allegations" page. I am not seeing this "obsession" you talk about. I am kind of annoyed because I have actually come to your defense and appreciated your input on that article, highlighting you as the one editor who wanted the article deleted, that actually works to contribute content, yet you appear here stating I have a vendetta? Should I dig through your talk page and present the times I have said thank you to you, asked questions from you, or provided you with information that may have helped sections you were creating? I understand MONGO is your friend, but more lies do not help the situation. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
For added irony, Wikipedia highlites both words as commonly misspelled Noone Separate --SevenOfDiamonds 12:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This is for Tom since I am a bit hurt by his accusations:
  • [75] Asking Tom for assistance when MONGO vandalized my talk page.
  • [76] Complimenting Tom even though he refused to take action against MONGO for the vandalism.
  • [77] [78] Discussing a n edit Tom made and how to improve it.
  • [79] Discussing another edit Tom made and an alternate meaning to a passage he cited.
  • [80] Explaining to Tom how book reading works. I pointed him the correct location of a citation.
This is the "obsession" I have with Tom. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Other than dealing with TBeatty when she comes to the aid of MONGO, I have no other dealing with her. Actually very little even on the "allegations" page. I do not remember any interaction with Morton, other than posting on his talk page once, where another accusation was being made about me, I believe I was being called a sockpuppet of Giovanni. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am 99% convinced but want to clear a few points up. Maybe then we can get agreement among admins

  1. If two people live in the same city they ar likely to edit at similar times of the day aren't they?
  2. The spelling errors all look like common ones to me. I've seen lots of people spell no one as noone. Are they any spelling errors that are common to both accounts but are not common in the general population?
  3. the edit summary evidence is completely unconvincing.
  4. How common is using X,Y,Z or XYZ? I don't think it is common at all.
  5. The "go play somewhere" edit summary. looks convincing. How does SOD explain it?
  6. How does SOD explain knowledge or jargon?
  7. How does SOD explain obvious incidents of wikistalking?
  8. Is there any more evidence that hasn't been added yet? If so please add it ASAP. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Were you not the one who said I was Lovelight? Yes you were [81] you redacted right after however, I thank you for that. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
True. Can you answer my questions please? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
What is your question? I stated already that since MONGO appeared on my talk page I did follow his edits, however that is not wikistalking since nothing malicious was ever done. This can be further supported by my lack of a block log, if I was wikistalking, or being disruptive, it would show. As for the "go play somewhere" I would like to point to the irony of you having all said it to a user before [82] I was referring to MONGO being childish on my talk page. Are we the same account? --SevenOfDiamonds 13:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
"Go play somewhere else" is common. "Go play somewhere" is not. Tom Harrison Talk 13:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Is this serious, are you honestly stating that the lack of else makes something unique? A google search alone says 1/3 of "go play somewhere" remarks on the internet, do not end in "else." Now this is beginning to border on a witch hunt. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. SOD How do you explain early knowledge of wikipedia jargon? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This cannot be a serious question. Spending two minutes on Wikipedia and all you see are WP:(insert policy). I did not come here ignorant, I edited Wikipedia from an IP before I registered an account. The idea I edited a template is foolish since its based on that IP being the first IP I edited from. I have attempted to contribute to articles before, mainly spelling corrections etc. I eventually registered an account and continued to edit. I also did not always have the same ISP. I moved last year from Queens to Brooklyn with my daughter when my wife and I split up. We then switched from Verizon to RoadRunner. As for the mysterious wiki markup, anyone with experience in VBB or HTML would not see this cryptic language as very cryptic. Many tags used are actually taken from VBB such as "image" and many are noted below the editing pane. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not the wikimarkup that bothers me so much. It's the knowing what SPA means :-( Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You do realize it is wikilinked in the tagging right? The title is "Single Purpose Account" --SevenOfDiamonds 13:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
<Theresa smiles at her own idiocy> No I didn't! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I am not on a witch hunt. I actually have no problem with ban evaders resuming editing, so long as they don't resume the same tactics which led to their bans. I had the bulk of this assembled off wiki and saved on word a month ago and to be fair, tried to walk away from Diamonds and get an article I want to see become featured up to speed which is where I spent a lot of time until last week, so this stuff is a real distraction for me. Nuclear said he was going to be harassing, well, he was an ardent supporter and a signatory to an Rfc on me (which was deleted) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3 which was deleted: 11:41, July 6, 2007 Ro omething in common, dictatorships or corrupt governments. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)\

Here are some of MONGO's past attacks from him and his friends: accused of being Lovelight accused of being Rootology and Fairness And Accuracy For All accused of being Bmedley Sutler & Giovanni33. I ask these games to stop, this harassment to cease and MONGO to be called to pay for this harassment. Note he will not even goto Checkuser anymore because he knows it will fail. Your chart also shows Nuclear not having a drop in editing, which even if the data is legit I do not know, shows a drop in my editing. You actually cite gerd (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3" (speedy (CSD R1).) only two weeks after Nuclear showed up as SixOfDiamonds and after he had made zero effort to resolve any conflict with me. The evidence sections, individually, add up to nothing, but when combined together, it is pretty clear that indeed Diamonds is Nuclear.--MONGO 13:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Care to note it was after you vandalized my talk page. Accused me repeatedly of being a sockpuppet. Threatened me on my talk page. Deleted my comment off of yours after I invited you back to my talk page if you would discuss issues in a civil manner? I am sure you left those out by accident. Attempting to make it seem like I appeared out of thin air, is further proof, along with the lies noted above that you do not defend, that you have an axe to grind because of the failed AfD and the failed RfA. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Bishonen was reffering to you when she mentioned sockpuppet at the beginning of this thread...[83] which was in response to the Rfc you signed onto.--MONGO 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I just checked that rfc. He doesn't appear in the contributors list. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I edited originally from home via IP then signed my comments as myself. I however did not start it, showing another lie by MONGO and an incorrect statement by Bishonen if they were referring to me as MONGO claims. Can someone undelete the RfC so I may illustrate via a dif? --SevenOfDiamonds 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You did not address any of the points. Not really unexpected. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yeah... that infamous thread where you and your buddies behaved like schoolyard bullies, ridiculing anybody who dared to criticize you. *Dan T.* 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This is getting offtopic. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it was the Rfc 3 that was deleted later, but I know Bishonen was referring to Diamonds when she stated he was a sock...I'll see if I can dig up her comments. Besides, this isn't some delusion on my part...I have not once filed checkuser on Diamonds, yet three others have. I always knew the only way to track him was via editing style sinc ethe checkuser stats would be stale. I highly doubt an admin as respected as Aude would bother with requesting checkuser unless she was convinced this guy is a ban evader...Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SevenOfDiamonds--MONGO 14:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Is this throw everything and see what sticks. If you believe Aude, then you are effectively stating you are wrong. Odd that you do not note that Aude was acting on your accusation on the Giovanni page however which was posted earlier. Why do you ignore that? You make the accusation Then 24 hours later Aude makes the request, exactly as you stated it. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I think one of your edits messed up some of the above comments. [84] --SevenOfDiamonds 14:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is it that everyday SevenOfDiamonds is accused of being someone else's sock? El_C 14:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he is just... well, himself. I mean, it is possible. For ex., here we have a thread where *Dan T.* actually sides with "the cabal"! ;) El_C 14:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Which thread was that? (Not that it surprises me that there are some of those... I try to take positions based on what I think is logical, not on who I happen to be supporting or opposing; I don't make many friends that way, but it's the only way I think is honest. This means that I've probably sided both for and against a large number of active editors and admins at some time or other.) *Dan T.* 14:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It was a joke (based on my impression of you often taking a stand against administrators, as a collective), don't worry about it. El_C 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
So far I am: Lovelight, Rootology, Fairness And Accuracy For All, Bmedley Sutler & Giovanni33, now also zero and Nuclear. Note Aude accused me of being Rootology and Fairness and state the evidence was inconclusive and did not require a RFCU. TBeatty then accused me of being Lovelight, stating much the same. It was on the Giovanni page where MONGO accused me of being Rootology and Fairness and then Aude filed the RFCU the next day. Theresa while being neutral now, even stated the evidence I was Lovelight was enough. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
SoD was clearly not a match for Lovelight, thus it was quickly dismissed and closed. The RFCU wasn't necessary. But from the beginning, SixOfDiamonds coming to the AFD immediately and his editing behavior made it clear he was not a new user. Obvious sock. --Aude (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
That is because you are incorrectly assuming that was my first edit, however MONGO disagrees and shows an earlier edit, and I have already stated that I edited even before then, and read about Wikipedia, primarily in the news. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes but look at MONGO's evidence page. Even with SOD explaining some of it away, it still looks pretty damnning. Same location, similar interests, similar spelling errors (common errors but there are multiple words) Similar phrase in edit summary ("go play somewhere"is not common AFAIK), Similar use of X,Y,Z, and XYZ for variable. Again not that uncommon but not widespread eaither. Each piece of evidence alone is not proof, but taken as a whole they look pretty convincing. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Theresa. The comments here are beginning to split along partisan political dividing lines, but objectively all the little clues are adding up. (In the interest full disclosure, to the extent that my own political views can be characterized at all, they would be considered "eclectic.") Raymond Arritt 14:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, that certainly was... an eclectic comment. In a seemingly eclectic phishing expedtion. El_C 14:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to get to the bottom of this, but broadly waving the case away as a "phishing expedition" isn't helping. Would you care to address any of the specific items brought as evidence? Raymond Arritt 15:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I have linked above the 3 RFCU's, accusing me of being 5 other users. MONGO accusing me of being 2 other users, and now accusing me of being Nuclear and zero and apparently eluding to me being another user named rex, of which is not even an in use account apparently User:Rex, nor is it blocked. I am sure there will be more accusations until there are no fish in the sea. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You can google search and find 3 pages of people saying it, including yourself. After searching XYZ I have found it on another admin Jossi. Apparently I am them as well. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
As explained earlier the phrase commonly used is "£go play somewhere else" So this argument holds no water. Likewise using XYZ. Yes other people do it. But it's not that common. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to add other then 9/11 related articles, which I would think would be popular around New York users, myself and Nuclear share nothing in common. In fact if it was not for following MONGO, I would not have found the allegations page in the first place. The article however, if you look at where I edit, not where I argue, are Latin America related, which is not in common with Nuclear. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I am getting a bit tired of reviewing SoD sockpuppet allegations. How many times are we expected to go through with this? El_C 14:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
So, the evidence is not conclusive? I made it clear, I have no problem with ban evaders evading their bans if they don't resume their old tactics which led to their banning....Diamonds has not. I would have preferred to let it go, but Diamonds won't...he has been hounding me for somme time now, and the only way to escape it is to retreat away from articles he hangs around. I'm not going to be driven away from those areas by a ban dodger. I remember for a long time that RyanFriesling was convinced that Nuclear was ban evader Rex...that went on for a long time. Just as Diamonds is doing now, Nuclear repeatedly denied it, but I know Ryan and she is a smart cookie...I highly doubt she would be slinging mud at Nuclear if she didn't see him for being Rex. This guy isn't political...he is here to be quarrelsome.--MONGO 14:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure what the quarrel is. I do not even edit articles you edit, other then "allegations" one. I would not even consider that an article you edit, since you just revert it. I am not Nuclear, your constant hounding, accusations, fishing, RFCU, attacks on my personal page, threats, etc. are the only thing causing you stress. I do not edit articles you edit, we have common article, of which I have provided citations for after participating in the AfD, something I am sure MONGO does not like since it makes it harder for him to delete the article. You are the one, as noted even now on AN/I that is hounding and threatening me. I ask again for you to cease your harassment. I enjoy creating articles here, but this constant infatuation you have with me is becoming disturbing. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I tend to think a new arbitration case is required. Even after seeing MONGO's evidence, Theresa and Tom H. would seemingly support a ban but El_C and Viridae seemingly would not. Thatcher131 14:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes since we cannot agree it needs to go to the Arbcom. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm just not comfortable with all phishing, sorry. El_C 14:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Thatcher, with all due respect...didn't you defend Nuclear for some time even though he was ultimately banned? I'm not taking this to arbcom...what for? The proof is in the pudding and we already have a case on Nuclear, so this is just another sock.--MONGO 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
MONGO If admins can't agree then it needs to go to Arbitration. Simple as that. And we can't agree. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not expressing an opinion on Seven. I'm noting that since respected and experienced users and admins can not agree on whether Seven is Nuclear, that arbitration is required to determine whether Seven's behavior is a bannable offense. If it would help, I would block Seven right now for generally being disruptive and for maybe evading a ban as Nuclear, but then El_C or Viridae would unblock, so we'd be right back at square one. My interactions with Nuclear are all mostly in the archives of this page for you to see for yourself. Thatcher131 14:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I see now why this came here. MONGO felt he would not have to go through RFCU, or could get away with his harassment, if he cited me as a banned user that had an Arbitration hearing before. Which is why the other accusations went through RFCU and this one did not. He had already been proven wrong and proven of making false accusations before. This sheds light on the politics at play. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I never once filed checkuser on you. I knew the only way to track the fact that you are ban evader Nuclear was via editing style. I'm not taking this to arbcom...I've already wasted enough time on this guy, so I withdraw...let someone else deal with him.--MONGO 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I note that, in the tangled thread above, one of the things this user is accused of is knowing WP's arcane policies and acronyms too well, which "proves" he's a sockpuppet, and justifies a fishing expedition of repeatedly accusing him of being a sock of this, that, and the other banned user in the hopes that one of them eventually sticks... or that even if none of them is ever proven, the admins can eventually say "Well, he's got to be guilty of something... so we'd better ban him." There's a catch-22 there... whenever a newbie comes along who happens to disagree with some powerful editors, if he's ignorant of WP's weird internal language and strange rules, he's likely to get summarily blocked for running afoul of one or another of them (despite WP:BITE), and have a hard time trying to defend himself due to lack of knowledge of all this arcane stuff (his inept efforts to defend himself will probably be considered "incivility" and result in extended bans). On the other hand, if he has sufficient knowledge to hold his own in the ensuing policy enforcement actions, that is used against him too. You can't win. *Dan T.* 14:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Dan if what you say were true, and knowledge of advanced wikimarkup wee proof of being a sock then I would have blocked him immediately and so would other admins. The fact that we haven't prooves you are talking out of your arse in this repsect. Picking on one piece of evidence gets us nowhere. It is the accumilation of evidence taken as a whole that is important. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Is referring to somebody as "talking out of your arse" a case of incivility or personal attack? It probably would be if done by somebody you're trying to "get". *Dan T.* 15:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't intended as either. It's a bit colourful though. If I offended you I apologise for it. I've no idea what you mean by your second sentence. I'm not trying to get you. I don't even know you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It may have been lost above, but Nuclear was banned long enough ago that the IP records should not have been kept, so a RFCU is pointless. Can't we just block User:SevenOfDiamonds as a disruptive sock of the blocked User:SixOfDiamonds, and get on with editing? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Six wasn't blocked except for 3RR claimed he lost his password and changed to Seven.--MONGO 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
My mistake; I thought I hit preview. However, can't we just block SixOfDiamonds/SevenOfDiamonds for disruption (and add a pre-emptive block of Eight, Nine, and Ten), and get back to editing? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Translation: "We can't prove he did anything wrong, but some of our clique find him annoying, so can't we just ban him and be done with it?" *Dan T.* 15:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Heck, why don't'cha block all 52 cards in the deck, plus the jokers and the card with information on the company that manufactured the deck, while you're at it... :-) *Dan T.* 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
MONGO attacking me is not proof of me being disruptive. If I was disruptive, would I not have more then one 3RR block? The fact that Arthur would cite me as a sock of SixOfDiamonds, shows how little he has done to look at the situation. I am more then happy to see this go to arbitration. I think people taking a look at MONGO's accusations, name calling, insults, allegations, etc. would be the best route to go. Especially since all parties involved in Arbitration are looked at equally. I have done nothing but defend myself, have I pushed an envelope in some of my responses, sure, but only when attacked myself, or made a victim through accusations. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to send this one to arbcom. For my own part none of the individual pieces of evidence are convincing, but when two people follow the same schedules and edit overlapping political articles and edit overlapping non-political articles and have a certain stylistic quirk in common and have another stylistic quirk in common, etc etc... the probability of so many coincidences becomes vanishingly small. Raymond Arritt 15:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The only articles we edit in common are the "allegations" article, and I believe a 9/11 article. Which I do not edit, in the sense of frequent participation, just in the sense that I have touched the article before. As noted, editing in the morning and stopping at night, is a trait I am sure much of New York shares. If a user was from Africa, and they both happened to be South African, and edited during the same time of day, would you cite that as evidence? Obviously living in the same timezone would coincide my edits with much of the east coast. Would them both being of African decent be further proof? How about both being above a certain height? Stating issues that are most likely going to relate to a large pool, over 2 million people in my borough, is grasping at straws to make connections. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. Preponderance of evidence is what matters. I looked through, like 2,500 diffs and I was amazed at the striking similaritites...I can't imagine what more I need to do to document this.--MONGO 15:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Seven is a duplicate account of Six, rather than a sock. Sorry. I don't recall seeing evidence that Seven was created while Six was blocked. But they are the same person, and should be treated as such if any block is performed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(Outdenting) MONGO, you have good evidence, but no, I've been looking at stuff like tone, style, English, and I do retain a nagging doubt. I won't block. I'm not sure. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC).

The only way to be 100% sure is for him to admit it...which he won't do of course. The preponderance of evidence is convincing, and I knew he was a sock immediately...and checked him against more than 5 other editors making simliar edits to similar articles.--MONGO 18:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
So you admit other people filed those RFCU's for you. Yet above, you make it seem as you are isolated from them since "you" did not file them specifically. Once this one fails I see you prepared to calling me another user, one not even active or banned. Thank you for finally admitting to the fishing expedition. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bishonen. Whether SevenOfDiamonds is in fact a sock or not, I don't know. The evidence provided raises suspicion, but I don't see anything in the diffs that would support a block at this time. It seems many believe this needs to go through arbcom if any action is to be taken, and I have to agree. There simply isn't enough to act on at this point. - auburnpilot talk 18:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just want to make a statement about the RFCUs. I was the one who filed RFCU, regarding FAAFA and Rootology, based on suspicions MONGO and others had. Jumped the gun on that, and it was a mistake. Apologies to everyone.

  1. The requests were stale, so RFCU was pointless anyway.
  2. When I looked at the editing pattern, time of day, for FAAFA and Rootology, they were totally different. clearly not a match. Time of day isn't 100% proof that SevenOfDiamonds is a match for Nuclear, but it eliminates other possibilities. With that, one can then look at the editing behavior and style in detail and see many other characteristics that match and make a more convincing case here.
  3. Also, the way that SevenOfDiamonds has had an issue with me [85] [86], from the outset, is something that never happened with Rootology, FAAFA, (or Giovanni and Bmedley), since I'm not involved on the state terrorism page. But, Nuclear did, such as this exchange [87] on a page I had been watching for 1+ years and Nuclear just came on days prior, and asks me to "stop following his edits" and "Try not to poke and prod." Characteristics I've seen in Nuclear's edits match the tone and style I've seen with SevenOfDiamonds.

As for Lovelight, I knew immediately it was not a match. I think the RFCU requester should have known better. First of all, Lovelight's edits are stale by now. Also, the editing styles totally do not match, as well I know the geographic location and IPs used by Lovelight (not at all a match). That's why I asked for that request to quickly be closed.

It's taken a while to pour over the evidence, but this is by far strong evidence when it's all considered collectively. Any one individual bit of evidence wouldn't convince me, but all the pieces together. Unlikely coincidence that this is a new editor and someone other than Nuclear. This is not about politics or anything, but simply that he became quarrelsome and disruptive, as has SevenOfDiamonds. This mess has been a distraction for MONGO and others, to keep having sockpuppets come back and arbcom decisions and bans not enforced. If SevenOfDiamonds simply came back and edited more quietly, I'd have no problems with that. But, that's not the situation here, and the drama and disruption needs to stop. I suggest looking past the numbers RFCUs here (many were mistakes or naive), but look at the collective evidence. Regards. --Aude (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You ask we look past all the prior accusations because this one, not the others, were sincere? I see MONGO is already preparing his next accusation, Fairness was wrong, Rootology was wrong, Nuclear is wrong, and now he is starting to equate me with another user that is not even banned named rex. When does this game end? How many "opps" and "Ignore the past ones" do people get? I am sure once this goes to Arbitration and they look at the way MONGO has harassed me, he will then start on his next accusation, calling me rex and preparing another graph, one that actually shows, while being on the same coast as Nuclear, a big area where we are not editing at the same time. Looking at the graph I would assume Nuclear does not work, or works the night shift, since he is never "going to work" his editing climbs until lunch then climbs and falls. You claimed before the evidence Rootology and Fairness was so strong, I am not even sure if they are the same person, but I consider that two accusations, and now again your judgment is suppose to be the key? Perhaps you would look more neutral if you were not filing RFCU's against me on MONGO's behalf. You also did not state why I had a problem with you. MONGO posted that you had judged me and were taking his side, this is without you coming to be to even ask or inquire about anything [88] I posted that on your talk page to find out if it was true, and apologize if MONGO lied. If you did in fact judge me just off MONGO's statements, without asking for my side, my thoughts on the matter, then that is clearly bias. The follow up failed RFCU's are painting a picture of someone who just works off what MONGO says. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems MONGO has admitted here to having the RFCU's placed through other people. Here is MONGO stating he had me checkuser'd [89] --SevenOfDiamonds 19:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
He said he checked you not checkusered you. Don't put words into other people's mouths. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
If you want to look at coincidence, you can see his statement, then the reality of me being accused of being 5 users in RFCU's. Giovanni, Bmedley, Rootology, Fairness & Lovelight. It is amusing for this to be dismissed but for people to take seriously "he says thank you" as proof of me being someone else. Aude the RFCU they filed was due to MONGO's evidence, which they say now they doubted ... and TBeatty filing a RFCU when I had no interaction with them is beyond odd, however they do appear whenever MONGO is on AN/I. I will retract my statement as far as saying its not a fact, however it is an odd coincidence. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
So what...if you think I'm a sock of a banned editor...then report it to checkuser. Good luck. I guess all these people who reported you are suffering from the same mass delusion? I posted only three examples of you wikistalking me as I didn't see them as necessary to establish that you are a banned editor editing in evasion of their ban. If you want to pursue this further...I'll post plenty of other evidences then. But I concur with the findings of this board...there is insufficient evidence that you are NuclearUmpf...I deeply apologize for my delusional state of mind...what was I thinking? Odd, just above you sound exactly as NuclearUmpf did when he accused me of leading some behind the scenes effort to suppress 9/11 conspiracy theories...that accusation was one of his last edits...right about when he stated he was going to create an account to harass strange the coincidences are--MONGO 19:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
What are you ranting about? Who called you a sock? You are the only one here making accusations. I stated they placed RFCU's on your behalf. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:49, 17 August 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.

Bmedley Sutler/FAAFA[edit]

It appears that Bmedley Sutler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is editing on behalf of banned FAAFA, based upon this edit summary and this admission that they are in contact. This editing in proxy for a user banned by arbitration ruling is a violation of said ruling. - Crockspot 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a completely different case, actually...maybe place it above the NuclearUmpf one with a seperate heading?--MONGO 18:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Moved up. - Crockspot 18:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Ehh... couldn't "for fa" also mean that they were trying to get the article up to Featured Article status? Raymond Arritt 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The article was majorly edited by FAAFA, and is sparsely edited by anyone else (see edit history of Chacala), and Bmedley admits they are in contact. Their pattern of behavior and disruption is also very similar, and Bmedley passed along a message from FAAFA on my talk page this morning. It doesn't specify it is from FAAFA, but if you compare the message to most of FAAFA's edit summary taunts, it is a match. He further admits on his talk page that he is in contact with FAAFA, and an editor named fnord (FAAFA's "favorite word") on WR has also disclosed that he is in contact with Bmedley. This one is not hard to figure out. - Crockspot 19:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Result Blocked 24 hr for proxy editing and 24 hr for taunting. This will be his only warning. Thatcher131 19:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think further investigation is called for. I was just emailed a charted posts-by-time-of-day analysis with Bmedley overlayed over FAAFA's edit pattern. They are a perfect match, right down to every peak and valley. I do not have permission to upload this chart, but someone else should be able to run one themselves, and see that Bmedley Sutler is very likely the sockpuppet of FAAFA. - Crockspot 21:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If so, then this page is more dysfunctional than I thought. Eventually, we'll have more banned users defending one another's socks than legitimate editors identifying them. Posts like the following are no more than trolling.[90][91][92][93] The appearance of anarchy increases daily.Proabivouac 21:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. This guy too, huh? The %age of editing time prior to my indefinite wikibreak I spent arguing with banned users goes up yet again. Still waiting for something fundamental to change to remedy this situation. - Merzbow 03:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


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.

Looking at his contributions and behavior, I think User:ThAtSo is Alienus editing in violation of his ban. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus Tom Harrison Talk 21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

  • comment. Tom and him are in a content dispute. I don't think this user is Alienus. Their writing style, word choice, and grammar, are quite different--and its things like that which are more unique, and hard to hide.Giovanni33 00:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Having looked a little through the contribution histories of both usernames, I am fairly confident that this is the same individual. Whether there is disruption, I'm not certain. According to the ArbCom decision, User:Alienus was known for edit-warring, personal attacks and obstinacy. Thus, it makes loads of sense for User:ThAtSo to avoid edit-warring, personal attacks and, I suppose, also obstinacy, lest he appear even more like User:Alienus then he already does. Has any of this behavior recurred? If so, the Committee will be obliged to take action.Proabivouac 00:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, Giovanni33, per your comment, it strikes me as supremely unlikely that Tom Harrison would level such an accusation in order to gain an upper hand in a content dispute.Proabivouac 02:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the first step should be a checkuser request. That being said, looking through the contributions, the similarities in tone and content are uncanny. Nandesuka 01:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
CU is superfluous; it's the same individual whether there is a CU match or not.
It does look like there has been some edit-warring and obstinacy on Christianity lately. That's really unfortunate.Proabivouac 02:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
"CU is superfluous" is paramount to "I do not need proof, my say so is enough" If he is a sockpuppet the CU will say so and administrators will take action. I have been accused of being 3-4 other people since I have been here from 2 users and an admin that I was in a content dispute with, so I would not be surprised if it in fact was a common tactic. Users editing the same articles is not proof of a sockpuppet, its proof of like interests. If editing the same articles is enough let me know, I can prove Tom is actually MONGO, they not only revert the same users, but participate on the same articles, but that is silly, which is why we rely on CU for proof. --SevenOfDiamonds 04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser does not presume to say who is who, but where is where (a little more than that, but same idea.)Proabivouac 04:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems quite likely that it is the same user. Same edits, some subjects, same insistence on Objectivism and Satanism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong stylistic and other similarities lead me to concur. Raymond Arritt 04:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Interests are not only similar but uncannily exactly similar on point after point. Examples of stylistic similarity are everywhere; it would only be a matter of finding the labor to prove what is immediately obvious.
A shared argument: 17:32, 18 May 2006 04:28, 12 August 2007
A shared edit summary: 20:25, 12 August 2007 , 02:46, 29 June 2006 , etc., etc.
There are occasionally tough calls, but this one's a no-brainer.Proabivouac 04:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether thatso is a suck puppet or not but these guys are a christian well-lubricated wikilawyering bias producing machine! I'm sure I'll soon be accused of suck pupeteering too oh well atleast its a skill who ever is going to decide on this case should take a good look at the work done by the folk accusing this guy I've never seen such a group of wiki folk I just cant understand how this harrison guy has become an administrator he should be closely watched by some higher ups... good bye account its been fun ;) Esmehwp 08:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately disagreements on the Christianity talk page seem to fly to "sockpuppet" accusations on a regular basis - sometimes with absolutely no foundation (my husband in Sussex UK was accused of being Italian Giovani33's sockpuppet). It does seem to becoming the standard way of dealing with those who get so hacked off at the cozy status quo on that page that they start sticking to their point. Just read the article - it's an advert for Christianity that plays up their own persecution to the extent that you would never guess they have been in charge of most of the western world for the best part of the last 2000 years. The violence suppression and murder done in the name of this religion are glossed over - no mention of the crusades at all (better in the History of Christianity article - no mention needed here). I have had the same frustrations and rarely edit there now - if a "Christian" does bad things in the name of "Christ" he's just a bad man - not an example of the wrongs of Christianity. But if a bad man is persecuted for gross abuses (see The French Revolution) and happens to ba a Christian then it's persecution of Christians. According to the article there is Persection of Christians but only Historical persecution by Christians???? What no persecution by those currently in charge in most of the Western world??? You can see why frustration flares.
Alienus was banned for a year and that then turned into a perm ban with no discussion by an admin who's judgement I would question. Anyone who worked with Al for a few months knows he was banned because his pissed off the pro-circumcision crowd. He crossed swords with Jayjg who is a checkuser and has already shown that he keeps a quiet eye on open-proxies (the only way I guess he could edit at all without being immediately tracked to the Alienus account) with or without a CU request. I think it's safe to say that if he could have nailed an Alienus sock he would have done it by now. As for the evidence above - I've used similar arguments myself and see them often from others. Referring to wikipedia rules is common for a lot of editors. If you review the "evidence" against Al in the arbcom case it looks weak in the light of what has been swept under the carpet recently (diffs available on request). Sophia 08:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Sophia, please don't force me or anyone else to spend days compiling the evidence per User:Proabivouac/Oldwindybear&Stillstudying. It's the most obvious thing in the world, as you surely know. The ArbCom case is another matter upon which I can offer no opinion besides that it seems unduly harsh. The doubletalk in your post - ArbCom remedy against Alienus too harsh; perhaps this is not Alienus (in which case why would that matter) makes it clear that you suspect this identification to be correct. To state otherwise is not only to defend Alienus, but to unjustifiably question our competence. If you wish to defend Alienus, please do so directly - e.g., the ban should be lifted - rather than by telling others that we are hallucinating this very plain equation. One I find intriguing; the other insults my intelligence.Proabivouac 09:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Another…and this took me roughly five seconds to find:
20:17, 29 June 2006
07:52, 10 August 2007
And that's just from summaries of the most recent fifty edits. It's a turkey shoot, Sophia.Proabivouac 09:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
My last post explained the situation on the Christianity page at present and why it seems to produce such stroppy editors. I then separately dealt with my thoughts on whether this was Alienus with some background for those who missed this case of over a year ago. How you can interpret that as me meaning it's a done deal and I'm pleading on Al's behalf I do not know. My english must be much poorer than I thought.
Your "success" with one editor should not give you an overarching view of your own competence to judge these things. Looking at the latest examples I do dispute that it is Alienus - "stuff" is not an Al word he is usually much more precise as in the genuine Alienus example you give - "text". Anyway I can't see why he would bother with a username again after the raw deal he was given last time. I will resist all attempts to turn this personal despite provocation but I do not insult your intelligence - I question your judgment. Your eagerness to dispense with the bother of substantial evidence when you are calling for the perm ban of a user you are in dispute with is very questionable. Your failure to address any of the substantial points I made above - mass accusations of sockpuppetry from the Christianity article - the lack of action by Jayjg on possible open proxies - also concerns me. I do not think this is Al - if it was he would have hit the Circumcision related articles by now as this was where he really dug his heels in. If you counter that he is too smart to hit all his know territories with one account then I would also say his smart enough to use the open proxies with different accounts for different areas of interest so as to avoid any suspicion of this kind. Sophia 10:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
In fact, Alienus uses "stuff" quite often in edit summaries. Here are two examples in which "stuff" appears in conjunction with cite/citation, as in the above:04:48, 22 December 200504:21, 13 December 2005.Proabivouac 03:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I've just spent the last hour going through all of Al's 5000+ contributions and the examples given are the only uses of "stuff" in edit summaries that I found. Maybe I missed one or two as your eyes do blur after a while but in no way can the use of the word "stuff be considered a signature mark of an Al edit summary or used as evidence of a link. Please also note that the examples are nearly 2 years old, done in the first month of his editing and then never reoccur. What is scariest is that you are being taken seriously and your cherry picking and "ignoring of negative evidence" [94] is swaying others. Sophia 13:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
No, your eyes aren't blurry, it's just a pain to use the wiki interface. You're better off downloading the lists into a spreadsheet. I wouldn't call it any kind of signature, but Alienus used "stuff" in summaries on at least a dozen occasions. The only reason it came up is because you claimed, that doesn't sound like Alienus because Alienus wouldn't use that word…which isn't true. "Negative evidence" is not the same concept as exculpatory evidence. For example, if I say, a whale cannot be a mammal because it has no fur, that is a fallacious appeal to "negative evidence." Similarly, "Alienus never said 'stuff' (though he did)" and "ThAtSo has not visited Circumcision." That's not exculpatory.Proabivouac 18:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Sophia, I am hardly involved in any of these disputes of which you speak. If I can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that these are the same individual, will you recuse yourself from all further sockpuppet investigations? Because this incompetence - not misconduct, but incompetence - is a serious problem in the community. We need people evaluating these reports who can discern whether one user is the same as another.Proabivouac 11:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I do you a disservice but I read the above as saying I am incompetent to ask that a subjective assessment be properly investigated before a user is perm banned? Sophia 11:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I assert that anyone who views contributions of User:Alienus and User:ThAtSo and concludes the matter as indeterminate is ipso facto incompetent to judge any sockpuppet report, for this is among the most obvious I have ever seen.Proabivouac 12:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess that makes me incompetent as well, since I'm looking at the evidence and I do not jump to the conclusion that these two accounts must be the same person. Edit summaries are not only different, but the ideas being the same with some same words (common words) make sense given that edit summaries often describe the same idieas and issues (unexplained removal, etc); even I used such terms. Everyone does. In order to be convicncing you have to look at larger bodies of writing to find peticular vernacular that is unique to one but shared by the other. So far I've not seen it. I'm not sure its so good for you to be so convinced, so sure of yourself. Nor is it good to judge everyone else ipso facto incompetent simply because they don't see eye to eye with what you see. In anycase, I feel there is reasonable doubt so I'm opposed on principle taking any harsh actions without very good proof. I think that was one of Sophia's main points.Giovanni33 15:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That told me then didn't it. I apologise for thinking that perm banning a user required a proper case to be brought. Better tell the Arbcom they are out of a job. Sophia 12:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
So every sock must be brought before ArbCom afresh and anew? Indeed, why not abolish ArbCom, for there is no credible remedy at all, except against usernamesProabivouac 13:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Looking through the contributions that Probivouac highlights, I'm convinced. This is the same guy, and he's trying to avoid his arbcom remedy (which, ironically, was only put into place because he didn't respect the community enough to actually participate in the arbitration process). The remedy should be enforced. Nandesuka 13:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Endorse as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Take it to checkuser as appropriate. People spent more time arguing over each others judgment, then it would have taken to compile a RFCU. Sorry I do not believe in people guiding by their "judgment," especially when they are calling others not so competent for not seeing eye to eye with them. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You may be aware that CU data gets stale fairly quickly. If as you hold, CU is the only legitimate way to determine sockpuppetry, then as a practical matter, no block or ban can last longer than the shelf life of the data.Proabivouac 23:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
For the enumeration format, compare: 18:08, 29 May 2006
Proabivouac 23:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
See also: 17:22, 20 March 2006
Proabivouac 01:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a no brainer. A CU may not show the same IP address, but the evidence is substantial. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The preponderance of evidence makes it pretty clear that this is Alienus. One would hope that he could cover his tracks better, but well, the SOP for banned editors is to resume working in areas they used to prior to being banned, or go after those they believe did them some great injustice like the original ban.--MONGO 04:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Per this conversation, I have initiated a CU request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alienus. Also on the queue are User:Lancombz, User:FraisierB and User:FreddyTris, who are confirmed socks of one another; see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lancombz, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Buridan.Proabivouac 01:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked ThAtSo. Tom Harrison Talk 13:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I must have missed the proof. Was this uncovered and was consensus established for banning? Maybe I missed it, but I thought the user check was stale?Giovanni33 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The CU has not yet been performed. The consensus in this thread overwhelmingly supports the identity of these users.Proabivouac 21:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no consensus, nor proof. There is only strong suspision based on inconclusive evidence. I believe the consensus was to act if and when the CU check was done and yeilded results. I think Tom has jumped the gun here. He came here to request enforcement of this arbitration, and when there was no consensus and thus no other admins choose to take action, he took it himself? I think that is an abuse of admin powers and does a lot of harm since if this user is innocent we are in fact hurting two editors, given that Alineius was only banned for 1 year and is scheduled to come back soon. So this judgement affects not one but two editors. This should not be done without proof.Giovanni33 22:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Nandesuka, Raymond Arritt, Jossi, Tbeatty, MONGO and I concurred with Tom harrison; you, SOPHIA, SevenOfDiamonds dissented.Proabivouac 22:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You forgot to mention Esmehwp, who called into question the legitimacy of this request. I think that counts as a dissent, too--that means 4 vs 5, hence no consensus.Giovanni33 23:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Esmehwp is one of the accused socks, and has been blocked indefinitely on his own merits. And that's seven, not five. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Proabivouac (talkcontribs) 23:43, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
If you can find another admin to unblock ThAtSo, then Tom H's ban will be overturned. Or, ThAtSo may appeal directly to ArbCom by emailing an arbitrator using the email addresses listed at WP:AC. Thatcher131 22:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.


User:Dacy69, who is on a 1 revert per article per week parole, has violated his parole on Brenda Shaffer:

First revert (August 16, 2007): [95] which was a revert (he inserted teh two reviews) of this edit: [96]

Second revert (August 20, 2007): [97] once again he reinserted the same material in a partial revert which was a revert of this [98].

I just realized this as this is the first time I have logged into Wikipedia in days. This is a clear violation of the parole.Hajji Piruz 01:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

After few days of constructive editing in absense of User:Hajji Piruz, he is back to false reporting and Wikistalking. Most notably at Mirzaagha Aliyev, article which I just started couple of days ago, and no one besides me edited yet, User:Hajji Piruz appears today with another disruption removing the reference to Azerbaijan [99]. With all assumptions of good faith, I don't see how User:Hajji Piruz could be watching this completely new article about an Azerbaijani actor, unless he was clearly Wikistalking me. His another disruption along national lines, appears at another page [100] today, again removing the word Azerbaijan. Atabek 02:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Dacy69 has been blocked for 24 hours by Alex Bakharev. Sean William @ 02:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


As a result of the Midnight Syndicate arbitration, User:GuardianZ is barred from editing any articles related to Midnight Syndicate or Nox Arcana. ArbCom decided that GuardianZ edits were biased towards Joseph Vargo (an individual who was previously associated with Midnight Syndicate and is now a member of Nox Arcana). I believe that GuardianZ has created a new user name, User:Ebonyskye, to thwart ArbCom's decision.

  • GuardianZ largely stopped editing after the arbitration decision. Her last edits were on March 12, 2007.
  • Ebonyskye's account was created on March 2, 2007. She is clearly an experienced user (her 3rd edit was to Wikipedia:Cleanup), but she claims in this edit that "all this wiki stuff" is new to her.

Edits that point to Ebonyskye being GuardianZ's new identity:

  • Both use as a reference and defend a defamatory website (which clearly does not satisfy WP:Verifiability) created by Joseph Vargo and his girlfriend Christine Filipak solely to discredit Midnight Syndicate and its founder –
  • Both accuse Midnight Syndicate of copying Nox Arcana album concepts –
  • GuardianZ (as Oroboros 1) – [105]
  • GuardianZ – [106]
  • Ebonyskye – [107]
  • Both assert that Joseph Vargo initiated the contact with Wizards of the Coast that led to the Dungeons & Dragons album –
  • GuardianZ (as Oroboros 1) – [108]
  • Ebonyskye – [109]

Edits in violation of ArbCom decision (assuming I'm correct):

Please let me know if you need anything else or if I should have presented this differently. Thank you, Skinny McGee 04:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Confirmed. A topic ban will be enforced. Thatcher131 00:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Matthead and User:Poeticbent.[edit]

I submit the following diffs from the late controversy at Talk:Free City of Kraków. They are about equally from the two users at the head of this page; other users grew heated at the discussion, but largely through provocation by one of these two; and one of the others has recognized that he should not have, on my talkpage. This entire exchange would seem to be contrary to the requests for 'reasonable and calm behaviour" at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus; and I have not quoted everything. I intentionally list one German and one Pole; we should preserve the balance between the factions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson who requested Arbitration enforcement against me has been actively involved in content dispute regarding article mentioned above and in spite of my repeated pleas, continued to make derogatory comments about me all the way through till the end of his failed request to rename the article.[122]
I submit the following comments against me, made by User:Pmanderson for your consideration.
Also, please note that a number of examples cited above by User:Pmanderson are several months old, hardly acceptable in the face of the recent Eastern European amnesty decision by the ArbCom.
My comments on examples provided by PMAnderson
  • The first example from seven and a half months ago, refers to a heated debate regarding a different subject. To bring it here, after the amnesty declared by ArbCom, is a clear proof of defiance by Septentrionalis PMAnderson.
  • The next two examples originate with Matthead.
  • The following edit was made as of 19:19, 12 January 2007, again, seven and a half months ago, about a baiting comment made by Matthead that disregarded Polish historical drive for independence.
  • User:Pmanderson's next comment seemingly based in WP:NCGN was a clear misrepresentations of policy, and if it was to be taken literally, it would indicate that the place called Cracow doesn't exist anymore.
  • [123] User Septentrionalis PMAnderson repeated the same comment twice in a survey, above and below my vote, claiming that is was a "red herring". His aggressive repetition of the same statement sounded like a warning and had a threatening look to it. Meanwhile, his supporter, Charles, wrote next to him about my vote: "grievously misleading or misunderstood interpretations of the conventions." In fact, following the vote, User Charles only intensified his personal attack on me in support of abusive comments by Septentrionalis PMAnderson, making me feel swarmed by the two of them. Please read the list of fantastic accusations by User Charles right under my refutation. The user has no business commenting here, yet feels compelled to continue his harassment.
  • [124] Please read for yourself my comment at Talk:Free City of Kraków. User Septentrionalis PMAnderson is attempting (above) to make me sound wrong by interpreting my message contrary to its spirit. The User supports his claim with a statement by an unsuspecting editor who since asked Pmanderson to have his diff removed from the above.[125]
  • And one more baiting comment by Septentrionalis PMAnderson about me, quote: "contestant for the least constructive editor award", etc.[126]
Thank you for your consideration. --Poeticbent talk 06:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Admin response Obviously someone who is involved in a dispute can make a report here, it is the job of admins reading this page to attempt to decide if the complaint is legitimate or not. Unfortunately there are no enforceable remedies in that case, so even if one or more users have ignored the advice to play nice, there is nothing that can be done from this board. General blocks for incivility or just being a dick can be requested at WP:ANI. or you can ask ArbCom to review the case and apply new remedies. Thatcher131 02:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My comments
I know this is coming after the admin response, but I must say that I was driven to respond to PoeticBent's behaviour each and every time because I did find it to be grievously misleading, disruptive, uncivil and just plain rude. I don't feel that PoeticBent has observed WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:UE, WP:NCGN because he simply does not feel like it. Such behaviour obviously causes stress for all editors and makes it incredibly difficult for anyone to keep their cool. I truly feel that Pmanderson was not trying to make feel PoeticBent wrong because PoeticBent was wrong. The twisting and manipulation can be observed on the talk page and it is not Pmanderson doing it. The clear misrepresentations are all on the part of PoeticBent to obviously achieve a bias, which is disheartening for the quality of Wikipedia. I find most of PoeticBent's "dispute resolution" methods to be inflammatory and chiefly for the purpose of insulting the intelligence of others. Also, I found PoeticBent removing other individuals' comments to be entirely inappropriate. PoeticBent is not a censor and has no right to be.
Matthead, of course, is wrong, very wrong. The fact that he supported the move to the correct title using Cracow and then moved the Grand Duchy article to an entirely German form makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. I think that is all I need to say on the matter. Charles 07:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The above statement by User Charles is yet another example of his personal attacks on me following his failed attempt to rename the article. Please read my refutation to accusations by User Septentrionalis PMAnderson for particulars about corresponding harassment by Charles. --Poeticbent talk 15:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say, but PoeticBent can best be described as one who shifts blame. Charles 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop the swarming, you two. There must be a better way. Septentrionalis PMAnderson abuse was directed at me if one follows the thread. No denying it now. --Poeticbent talk 17:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, shifting blame, swarming, etc, etc. Own up to your transgressions some time? I wholly believe that PB's behaviour has been entirely discourteous, a little at first but extremely so later, from the point I first disagreed with him on the talk page, if not earlier. To me, the fact that PB had to significantly augment his posting here to include his thoughts on me speaks to the fact that he feels he can continually be discourteous with one hand and wrongfully try to discredit someone with the other. The fact that PB says that he feels cornered but owns up to none of his poor actions and the fact that PB insists that it's just other people insulting him is wholly ridiculous. PoeticBent, consider for a moment that I am not Pmanderson's supporter because I like him or whatever, I'm agreeing with him because he's right, you're wrong and you have spoken out contrary to so many conventions it's not funny. I would have said what I said regardless of whether Pmanderson had said anything or not. Anyone who can read the naming conventions without a bias to hide would do so. I have every amount of business to comment here. Like the articles you insist being named the way it suits you, read WP:OWN. I can disagree with people, but I also do not stand by when someone else thinks that I'm stupid and can be convinced that naming conventions don't say what the text spells out. I still cannot believe that you see it fit to call out shots, insult others, accuse them of swarming you, etc. All of these delusions. Unreal. People tend to address problems as they see them. Are we to stand by while you have your way with whatever you want? Charles 17:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I deplore Poeticbent's removal of my comments. I repeat them for the record; but unless some admin disagrees with Thatcher131, and feels that the ArbCom decision does encourage action short to returning to them, this is moot.

  • The quotation from Kipling was not addressed to him, as the diff will show, it was to Ulla, whose edit it is attached to; the "sloth and heathen folly" is self-deprecation on behalf of all anglophones.
  • I went out of my way not to indicate any editor as least constructive, and I still am not sure which was. Unless Poeticbent obviously has the worst record, this is not an attack on him. Is he claiming that he has?
  • And it would be civil of Poeticbent to comply with our customs, wouldn't it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Hajji Piruz[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I concur with GRBerry in this instance Thatcher131 01:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Hajji Piruz (formerly User:Azerbaijani) has been restricted by the 1RR/week parole per ArbCom decision. He has recently violated his parole at Azerbaijan.

Version reverted to: 11:14, 22 August 2007, note the controversial point: "The name Azerbaijan was chosen as the name for what later became the Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918 by the Musavats for political reasons", which Hajji Piruz was trying to reinsert in reverts below.

  • Second Partial Revert: 05:55, 27 August 2007 - removing another source, citation of the author, and partially resinserting the same quote again: "The name Azerbaijan was chosen as the name for what later became the Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918 by the Musavats"

Interestingly, the user has been inactive for few days, and his first edit after coming back is yet another revert. Atabek 07:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you not once make a report without it being completely incorrect? Also, please assume good faith. You not assuming good faith is a complete setback to the issues of the arbcom. Read the terms of the parole, reverting anonymous vandalism is an exception to the rule, and as the first revert clearly shows, the anonymous user simply came to remove sourced information which is vandalism.Hajji Piruz 22:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Weren't you removing the sourced text here [127]? Please, assume good faith. I don't see how reporting disruptive editing would be an assumption of bad faith. Atabek 03:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromising and gaining consensus often requires using part of text A and part of text B when two texts are proposed for a section. The "Second Partial Revert" is at least as well described as an attempt at compromise as it is as a "revert"; I choose to disregard it completely on that basis. Seek compromise and consensus always. GRBerry 18:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Hetoum I[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Result: blocked for 24 hours. Thatcher131 23:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the remedy #2 of the recent arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, the admins can place any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility on revert parole and other limitations, established by the arbcom. Please see [128]

Hetoum I (talk · contribs) was placed by the admin under the remedy #2, which includes revert parole, limiting him to 1 rv per week. [129] This was logged here: [130]

However, on the article House of Hasan-Jalalyan Hetoum I made 2 reverts within 1 week, deleting sourced info: [131] [132] This is clearly a violation of the revert parole Hetoum was placed on. Grandmaster 07:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hetoum I repeated the same violation on Karabakh khanate, making two rvs within 1 day: [133] [134] Grandmaster 07:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Another violation on Khurshidbanu Natavan: [135] [136] Grandmaster 07:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I will call this report as misleading for the lack of better words
Hetoum is being accused for violating 1RR on House of Hasan-Jalalyan whats misleading about this is that the first revert was on August 28 and Hetoum was warned on August 29, further misleading is that Hetoum was removing irrelevant information added by Grandmaster. Atabek and Grandmaster both reverted once and are now out of revertes for a week. Grandmaster apperantly decided to spam this page.
For Karabakh khanete there is no substantial proof that it was an Azerbaijani khanete and therefore the category was removed.
The other "violation" is on Khurshidbanu Natavan where Hetoum removed this picture and the text that accompanied. The picture was being considered as a source for a lengthy POV section to attack Armenians. Grandmaster reverted Hetoum saying (do not remove sourced info). How is that picture sourcing this info?? So you see Grandmater did nothing but mislead you. VartanM 16:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It is simply a fact that he made his second rv on House of Hasan-Jalalyan after being placed on a parole, therefore it is a violation. The same with other two instances reported here. Regardless of content issues (where Hetoum was making POV edits, btw), he made 2 rvs in less than 1 week. Therefore Hetoum is in violation of his parole. Grandmaster 16:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Notification appears to have been sufficient [137] so blocked for 24 hours. Thatcher131 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Atabek has been banned from the Armenia-Azerbaijani topic area for 4 days, enforceable by blocks. New reports should be made in a new section. Thatcher131 22:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The user is under civility parole under Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case. He repeatedly accused me of being immoral in Khojaly Massacre talkpage --VartanM 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, please, provide the diff, where I said "you're immoral". I said, I have a question about the moral stance of an individual trying to remove the picture of massacred Azeri children from Khojaly Massacre page, while insisting on recognition of Armenian Genocide. What kind of recognition or sympathy can there be to one cause, if it's only insisted upon national lines? Thanks. Atabek 10:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The difs are provided below. You repeatedly implied that I have no morals. Just for your information I never tried to remove the said picture, only the link to youtube videos. which were in violation of WP:Youtube. I return you attacked my personality by calling me immoral. --VartanM 16:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Ditto, this user has been ratcheting up the rhetoric left and right, trying to get a rise out of ethnic tensions by implying that some of the users are intolerant or racist in their editing and opening up a new front on nationalist grounds on Wikipedia.--Marshal Bagramyan 23:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
MarshallBagramyan, perhaps, since you claim your actions are not "intolerant or racist", why this image [138] should be removed, and another Azeri image is being removed by you while this image [139] uploaded by you currently appears on Nagorno-Karabakh War page? Don't you think the dichotomy here is rather driven by nationalist sentiments? Atabek 10:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Uh, HUH? Dare I ask where did you get the "nationalist" view from?... I personally think that all of you need to cool down and then come back to this. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 11:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think that insertion of victim images from one side of conflict, while persistent edit warring and writing lines of discussions, reports for the purpose of removal of victim images of the other side, is driven by nationalist sentiment? In fact, this sentiment now started attacking Georgian contributors as well - [140].I would love not to waste time on these discussions and provocations, and continue editing articles, but I am not the one who started this thread on AE. Atabek 12:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Pocopocopocopoco is not Armenian as far I know. Hes contributions are mostly on Georgian separatist states Osetia and Abkhazia and he happens to edit Nagorono-Karabakh articles once in a while. Atabeks accusations that User:Pocopocopocopoco is driven by nationalist sentiment are nothing more than WP:BITE. And it is true that he was wikistalked to Khojaly massacre by User:Iberieli whom never before edited any Nagorono-Karabakh related article. --VartanM 01:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

He's actually in violation of number of Principles

  • 1 Negotiation
  • 4 Consensus
  • 5 Wikipedia is not a battleground
  • 7 Courtesy
  • 8 Assume good faith
  • 10 Diplomacy
  • 14 Provocation
  • 17 Users national background and neutrality

He's also in violation of Remedies

1 fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in their interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise.

2 shall apply to any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility.

Its very hard for me to Assume good faith while the user keeps attacking me. VartanM 23:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In discussion at Talk:Khojaly Massacre, User:VartanM is being incivil [141], and wrongfully accusing me of "personal attack" [142]. I believe his attempts to remove externally linked videos, as well as continuous attempts by User:Pocopocopocopoco - [143] to remove the image of Azeri children victims of Khojaly Massacre from the page, and attempts by User:MarshallBagramyan to purge Wikipedia image of Azeri girl from Shusha in traditional dressing at Shusha are assumptions of bad faith and engagement in battle along national lines. Doing so while arguing otherwise on the verifiability of images claimed to be related to Armenian Genocide (which were never touched or questioned), are nothing more than violations of WP:AGF and WP:SOAP. While ArbCom decision has clearly stated the requirements for editing in good faith within the limits of civility, User:VartanM and User:MarshallBagramyan, joined by User:Pocopocopocopoco are engaged only in removing images they don't like from the relevant pages or disruptively attacking contributors.
I would also like to thank User:Thatcher131 for his conclusion [144] on the issue of the image of massacred Azeri children, which should address the questions User:VartanM may have. Thanks. Atabek 11:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about any arbitration but regretfully I have to agree with User:VartanM and User:MarshallBagramyan about user:Atabek's assumption of bad faith, lack of courtesy and diplomacy, as well as his engaging in WP:BITE. I made a good faith edit removing an image that had an extremely questionable source and which Administrator Francis Tyers had himself removed earlier and user:Atabek assumed bad faith and accused me of fueling conflict, insulting Azeris, and engaging in war along national lines [145]. I'm not sure which national lines Atabek is talking about though. - Pocopocopocopoco 03:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Atabek keeps accusing me of being incivil, what he's forgetting to mention is that, I only repeated what he said about himself that his not an expert. Also note the WP:Personal Attack (Implies that I have not moral) and the WP:SOAP(Armenian Genocide pictures). Here he again questions my morals and accuses me of being racist against Azeri. Also he questions the pictures of Armenian Genocide (in the above comment he says that it was never questioned) He further Soapboxes by denying the Armenian Genocide as a genocide. May I also remind you that Atabek went on a genocide denying spree and changed the term genocide to massacre from a dozen of articles [146]. He again calls me Immoral and accuses me of waring along national lines, while all I did was ask him to follow Wikipedia policies. Here he again calls the Armenian Genocide a massacre in early 20th century and claims that the Khojaly Massacre was no different then the Armenian Genocide. Anybody who has a basic knowledge about Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey would know that the two are in no way the same thing. I believe he was trying to provoke me. Keeps telling me to calm down, while I was perfectly calm and didn't answer his provocations to get me angry. In 8 months that I have been a wikipedian,I I am yet to have a conversation with Atabek without being attacked. would like to conclude by thanking Thatcher131 for explaining the WP:External Links to Atabek. VartanM 03:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The above users have tried to remove an image from the article about Khojaly massacre, but admin explained that the image shall remain: [147] I must also note that Pocopocopocopoco is being suspected by an admin to be a sock: [148] and he has made highly questionable edits to Khojaly massacre article, where he encountered Atabek. And I don't see any serious personal attacks on part of Atabek on anyone posting evidence here. Grandmaster 05:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I said what about the image? Better read it again. Thatcher131 06:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I meant that you said that the image could not be deleted from the article for copyright infringement, as certain users claimed. You recommended to take the issue elsewhere if they believe that copyright has been violated. --Grandmaster 06:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that attempts by User:Pocopocopocopoco, User:VartanM, now with support of User:MarshallBagramyan, to get rid of the image on Khojaly Massacre, which clearly exposes the savagery with which those children were massacred, are nothing other than attempts to start another war which leads straight to ArbCom. They know absolutely well that these actions may cause counter reactions on unverified images on a number of "Armenian Genocide"-related pages, hence starting another war along national lines. Users clearly try to engage in WP:BATTLE and push their WP:POV, other than contributing to the articles in a non-disruptive fashion. And I refuse to be engaged in their provocations. Atabek 10:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  • ALL of you need to take a step back and relax. Arbitrations ended just a few days ago and you guys are at it again. *sighs* - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 11:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Panwhale, I appreciate you trying to calm everybody down, but its very hard to be calm, when your morals are questioned and implied that you're immoral. It's further frustrating that the administrators are choosing to ignore rather then deal with this. Perhaps its time for Atabek to stop pointing fingers every time he does something wrong and face the consequences of his actions. --VartanM 16:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully Penwhale, I know nothing about any arbitration and I am relaxed. I will drop this matter in it's entirety if user:Atabek and user:Grandmaster stop biting, behave in a civil matter, keep an open mind about reliable sources and neutrality in Khojaly Massacre, and they stop trying to pile on in another case that they know very little about merely because they disagree with me about Khojaly Massacre. I only speak for myself on this issue. Pocopocopocopoco 02:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't miss the chance to WP:SOAP the Administrators Notice board with Armenian Genocide pictures. [149] VartanM 16:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, your edits and comments are provocative in nature and are the crux of why these problems keep rising. "which clearly exposes the savagery with which those children were massacred", VartanM, nor I, are the one here who are resorting to these demagogic and crass accusations. Every single edit that you disagree with is met with a revert and the banal repetitive accusation that we are trying to "cover up the truth."--Marshal Bagramyan 20:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've warned Atabek here that future uncivil comments (drop a note on my talk page) will result in a one week ban/block. The first comment was before the ArbCom remedy was finalized, so while technically inapplicable, the remedy was clearly coming and won't permit anyone slack in the future.--Chaser - T 19:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC) I forgot something I'd read in the thread after reading a bunch of other things. I have instituted a four-day ban, which I will enforce by block if necessary.--Chaser - T 20:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, thanks for taking the time and understanding the situation. I just want to add more evidence on Atabeks disruptions.
Here asks the arbitrators to place everyone involved in the AA2 case on 1RR limitation. Which is a WP:AGF violation, also principal #8 of the AA2.
Here He declares that Yelena Boner is Armenian and removes the information from the article based on that. Violation of principal #2 of the AA2
Here He threatens to wikiretaliate on Armenian Genocide pictures. The rest of his message is violation of the AA2 principals #1, #5, #7, #8, #10, #14, #17 --VartanM 02:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I see no violation with proposing general revert parole on all Armenia – Azerbaijan related articles. It is not a bad faith assumption, it is good faith attempt to resolve the problems with topic related articles. Me and other users were proposing the same during the first and second arbcom, as users not restricted by parole take advantage of the situation and revert legitimate edits of paroled users without any fear of punishment, which leads to further escalation of the situation. As for Bonner, she is indeed Armenian and cannot be used as a reliable source on NK related articles. This is a content dispute, and removal of this source was justified. As for "wikiretaliation", Atabek never did anything of the kind, he just pointed out that many pictures uploaded by those who tries to delete the image from Khojaly massacre article have similar copyright issues. Grandmaster 06:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster did you suddently became a arbitrator and we didn't know about it? because you answer as if you were one. It is up to the arbitrators to judge whether Atabek violated any of the rules. I'm not saying that you can't defend him, because I intend to defend Hetoum I in just a little bit. As for Yelena Bonner, she is not Armenian, her step-father was. If we are to consider her to be Armenian then Steve Jobs is also Armenian. And for her reliability you need to read the AA2 principals, its #2 on the list. As for wikiretaliation he never did so, but was threating to do it which in itself is a hostile behavior and is very disruptive. VartanM 15:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to get too involved here, but for the record, Atabek has, in the past, threatened Wiki-retaliation also:

  1. "Then we should prepare a collage picture of Adolf Hitler with Swastika and images of Holocaust and post it on all Iran related pages"[150]
  2. "I am working on Pan-Aryan collage meanwhile. Thanks."[151]

The instance VartanM points out is not the first time he has done such a thing. I just thought that this should be mentioned. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 16:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

By comparing Armenian Genocide with Khojaly massacre on his userpage is trying to start a war along national lines. I believe thats a violation of his 4 day block. [152] --VartanM 21:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to ask User:VartanM to provide an explanation proving that my user page incites a conflict? The edit is completely within the rules of WP:USER and does not violate ArbCom decision. Also, User:VartanM has been incivil here, and falsely accused me of "personal attack" here [153]. I expect a non-selective application of ArbCom decisions to all involved editors. Atabek 21:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:USER states, under the Inappropriate content section:

There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense. Wikipedia is not a soapbox is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but remember: don't be a dick about it. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor.

I'm sure that questioning of the Armenian Genocide counts as widespread offense.

Furthermore, Atabek has just come out of his block and has already started making bad faith assumptions regarding other users. Here is an example: [154].Hajji Piruz 21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone was offended on my page, neither do I see any questioning of any genocides in my edit. Can you please, detail your reasoning with reference to particular wording used on the page. Also, would be interesting to know how your response comes within 15 minutes of User:VartanM, while both of you are involved in reverting warring on (Azerbaijan-Iran-Turley-Armenia) topic-related articles, targetting the same user with assumptions of bad faith, and were both ArbCom participants restricted from doing so. Atabek 21:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The above comment is a clear violation of "assume good faith" by Atabek. I need not say anything more regarding this issue, I have said everything that I felt needed to be said and will not involve myself here anymore. Hope the administrators comment regarding the above posts soon. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 21:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Please, check the history of edits by User:Hajji Piruz - [155]. They include no other topics than those related to politics, ethnicity or conflicting issues related to Azerbaijan-Armenia-Iran. Also removals of sourced material: [156], [157], assumptions of bad faith [158], and coordinating with User:VartanM to attack another Wikipedia contributor [159]. Thanks. Atabek 22:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I edit Iran-Armenia-Azerbaijan historical, political, and ethnicity articles because those are the fields that I am interested in, doesnt that seem plausible? You continuously fail to assume good faith, and this is the single greatest set back to resolving the issues. You continually make up false and misleading accusations, and you continue with your aggressive editing. You have just recently come out of a block and the first things you do is make several reverts (and then revert your own reverts), make assumptions of bad faith, and attack other users.
What sourced information did I remove? I removed the Safavids from the List of Turkic states and empires because of an agreement reached on List of Iranian states and Empires. And the second diff, on Ethnic minorities in Azerbiaijan, I actually added more information. Contrary to what you may think, telling another user that he cannot put his or her assumption on sourced material is not in violation of WP:AGF in any way shape or form, its simply reminding them that we, as users, are not allowed to put our own interpretations on what scholars say.
What was the point of the arbcom we just had? It was meant to calm down the situation. Now your newest claim is that I am coordinating with VartanM simply because I agreed with him that Adil Baguirovs (User:AdilBaguirov is a blocked Wikipedia user) very own person website should not be used on Wikipedia? Ridiculous accusation and a huge violation of WP:AGF.Hajji Piruz 22:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It has recently come to the Arbitration Committee's attention that User:Timothy Usher, who was placed under probation in the His excellency case, ceased using that account at about that time and resurfaced as User:Proabivouac without informing the committee about this new identity. He has subsequently edited without being held to the conditions of his probation, and has engaged in behavior that may have been subject to sanction under those conditions. Because of this, the term of his probation is reset and begins again from this point. For the committee, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Hetoum I[edit]

According to the remedy #2 of the recent arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, the admins can place any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility on revert parole and other limitations, established by the arbcom. Please see [160]

Hetoum I (talk · contribs) was placed by the admin under the remedy #2, which includes revert parole, limiting him to 1 rv per week. [161] This was logged here: [162]

As soon as Hetoum I returned from his 24 hour block reported below, he violated his parole again, making 3 rvs in less than 1 week on Battle of Baku: [163] [164] [165] This is another violation of parole by this user. --Grandmaster 05:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Another violation on Khurshidbanu Natavan: [166] [167]. Grandmaster 05:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And yet another violation on Karabakh khanate: [168] [169] (removed the category) Grandmaster 05:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed an example of blatant nonsense, that is Orignal Research - there was no mention of the residence of natavan, despite claims by grandmaster information was sourced.Hetoum I 05:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Parishan violated parole, he reverted 3 times in less than a week [170]Hetoum I 05:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Parishan is not on parole. Grandmaster 05:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This edit [171], the first one after the block expiration, seems to be in violation of WP:CIVIL as well. Atabek 06:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User: Grandmaster[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No evidence that Parishan is a "meat puppet" for Grandmaster. No evidence that Parishan is behaving in a way that would cause him to be noticed in to the Arbitration case. Thatcher131

14:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

grandmaster is on parole violation on the same article, he is not talking or trying to reach consensus, and is using user:Parishan to meatpuppett. he is clearly i violation.Hetoum I 05:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Diffs of violation, please. --Grandmaster 05:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Parishan reverted, and you commented on the talk page :) it's quite clear.Hetoum I 06:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Church of Kish blind revert, no talking on the page .... so say what's wrong instead of blindly revertingHetoum I 06:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
You were advised by an admin to stop edit warring and making edits to the article without consensus with other editors. [174] Yet your largerly rewrote the article without any discussion on talk. I just would like you to discuss your proposed edits with other involved editors according to WP:CON. Grandmaster 09:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

User:VartanM violated WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Three administrators have now weighed in on this, including an arbitrator and an ArbCom clerk. I don't consider it frivolous, but neither do I consider it worthy of any more attention. Discussion over.--Chaser - T 01:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that as a (former) clerk, I have no special authority when it comes to enforcing Arbitration decisions, I am simply an admin who hangs out here. Also note that Fred asked VartanM to be much more courteous. The fact that we decline to take action on these particular comments should not be seen by VartanM or anyone else as a green light. Thatcher131 14:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ArbCom principle here, passed with 6-0 votes in favor, clearly says:

  • "Users are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those whom they had conflicts with in the past."

Despite this principle, User:VartanM, a participant to the above mentioned ArbCom case, again assumed bad faith by his comment [175]:

  • "AdilBaguirov and the team are banned from Wikipedia..."

Here User:VartanM goes further on assumption of bad faith, stating:

  • " I don't know if Atabek considers himself part of that "team" but both of them shared similar views when both were active. If indeed Atabek considers himself part of Adil Baguirov's team its just another reason to remove it."

This is a violation of WP:AGF. Since, I believe User:Chaser's comment was referring to lack of incivility conclusion, I would like to request another independent review of this report, considering that violation, as initially indicated, was that of WP:AGF not just that of WP:CIVIL. Atabek 18:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, according to WP:CIVIL, among the "Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment" lists also "Lies". Since User:VartanM cannot establish a fact that User:AdilBaguirov has a "team", and I am a member of that team, such statement cannot be interpreted other than a lie in assumption of bad faith. Hence his comment also violates WP:CIVIL and consequently the ArbCom remedy is applicable. Thanks. Atabek 18:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
As I've explained, a principle is unenforceable. But noting the problem with "team" thinking of this nature, I've left this note to VartanM. At Atabek's request, I'll leave this thread for an uninvolved editor to review.--Chaser - T 18:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Chaser, the rationale for application of remedy, similar to the one applied here [176] and [177] has been provided. Also, remedies usually come in response to violations of principles, not just by themselves. I am not reporting "remedy", no one can report a remedy I believe, I am reporting a violation of ArbCom principle. Thanks. Atabek 18:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, if you take a look at the Adil Baguirovs geocities site on the very bottom of the page its says:

Copyright (c) 1997-2004 by the Khojaly Massacre Commemoration Site. All Rights Reserved. Created by Adil Baguirov and the team, spin-off of Virtual Azerbaijan Republic (VAR)

When I was referring to the team I never meant to imply any teams here in the wikipedia. You simply misunderstood me and put yourself in that team. I apologize if I offended you. We better mind the WP:BAN and stop talking about AdilBaguirov. VartanM 20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You were assuming bad faith, a) claiming "Adil Baguirov and a team" are banned from Wikipedia, 2) assuming me as a member of that team, whether listed on website or here. You continue to assume bad faith by saying right above that "I put myself in that team", when I never made such statement - which is a violation of WP:AGF.
In addition regarding these [178], [179], , nowhere does WP:BAN indicate that links to scholarly, informative and cited websites are inappropriate just because their creator has been banned from Wikipedia. So your removal of those links and citing them as inappropriate or unacceptable is not based on any policy. Moreover, you're removing links from several websites, in coordinated fashion with User:Hajji Piruz - [180], whose claim also does not base on any particular Wikipedia policy. Besides, your removal of the links to Virtual Azerbaijan are inconsistent with your insertion [181] of highly partisan website references at Khojaly Massacre, by way of an edit war.
Finally, just now, you again violated WP:AGF, by saying [182] - "Atabek himself admitted...", when I never said such things. Again, false statement->lie->violation of WP:CIVIL.
So, while I appreciate your apology for offense, I would like to highlight that I did not misunderstand, but was rather reporting facts of disruption, for which I finally expect an independent and impartial review, just like other editors involved in ArbCom get for violating the principles of ArbCom. Thanks. Atabek 20:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, is Atabek joking here? Clearly "Adil and team" was being quoted from Adil's website. How could "Adil and team are banned" ever REMOTELY be interpreted as bad faith? Adil is banned, it's a pure statement of fact, and clearly that's what Vartan was refering to. And why would Atabek think that Vartan assumed Atabek was in the "team"--Vartan clearly says "I DON'T KNOW IF ATABEK *THINKS* he is in the team, but IF he is..."--there is nothing that definitively states that Atabek is in the team. Whoever is going to review this--this is obviously a frivolous claim by Atabek to "make things even." And no, I am not assuming bad faith either here--Atabek complained on Thatcher's page that he was banned, but Vartan wasn't. This kind of frivolous accusation creates bad atmosphere among editors and shouldn't be allowed.--TigranTheGreat 01:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I don't see anything particularly uncivil in the diffs presented either below or above my comment, so I'm closing this thread. If anyone is going to open further threads related to this conflict, I suggest you judiciously select the diffs you want administrators to consider and then let them consider it. Continuing the conflict by elongating a thread on this page is often a pointless exercise.--Chaser - T 16:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In violation of ArbCom remedy [183], assumes bad faith [184] by comment: "AdilBaguirov and the team are banned from Wikipedia...". He further expands on his assumption of bad faith [185] by saying:

  • " I don't know if Atabek considers himself part of that "team" but both of them shared similar views when both were active. If indeed Atabek considers himself part of Adil Baguirov's team its just another reason to remove it."

Please, take a note that he is also concurrently involved in an edit war at Khojaly Massacre. Thanks. Atabek 22:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hajji Piruz openly coordinates with User:VartanM, in removing sources and attacking another Wikipedia user [186], which also goes along ArbCom remedy violation. Atabek 22:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Personal web sites are sometimes acceptable as external links, but not if they are highly partisan in nature and involving extremely controversial material. (For example, the personal web site of Burt Rutan may be an acceptable external link for an article on Spaceship One, but Yassir Arafat's personal web site would not be an acceptable external link for an article on the history of Israel.) I don't see anything particularly uncivil there. Thatcher131 23:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Thatcher131 that there's nothing particularly uncivil here. I expect that editors will leave me talk page posts about alleged ban violations in this case (but let's not start an annoying tit-for-tat).--Chaser - T 07:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, what Thatcher131 was referring to was the principle whether a website can or cannot be included as external link. The issue I report is the assumption of bad faith by User:VartanM, that User:AdilBaguirov has a team, and I am its member. That's a clear-cut violation of WP:AGF, and I expect a response on that subject. Whether AdilBaguirov's website should or should not be included, that is a separate content subject, which was addressed by Thatcher131 above. Thanks. Atabek 07:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How about blatant bad faith assumption here: [187] I beleive admins might be interested in considering comments like: Ironically, had she been an ancient Armenian queen, our Azeri friends here would have insisted that she was non-Armenian. (And I am not saying you guys are doing it in bad faith--I am sure you fully believe you are improving the quality of Wikipedia while disrupting Armenian articles. I am merely making an observation on a well established pattern of edits). Accusations of disrupting "Armenian articles" are far from this principle, declared by the latest arbcom: [188] Grandmaster 07:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I must also note a bad faith assumption right here on this page by User:VartanM: [189] --Grandmaster 08:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Also pushing some WP:OR here [190] and further assumping bad faith and attempting to single me out here. Atabek 08:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Chaser, the violation of WP:AGF reported has not been addressed. So the discussion should not be archived until another admin independently reviews the issue. Atabek 17:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Occupations of Latvia[edit]

The article Occupations of Latvia has been placed on probation over a long pattern of various disruption. During the recent months, largely thanks to new, previously non-involved editors such as Termer, the article has been severely overhauled. Recently, it passed Wikipedia peer review with no major content problems found.

However, Irpen and Grafikm_fr have engaged in a campaign of developing artificial controversy over this article's compliability with Wikipedia standards. It's all the more insidious that both have refused -- not merely neglected -- to provide any specifics of the non-compliance issues proposed; see Talk:Occupations of Latvia#Suggestions for improvement for details. Despite refusal to actually cite compliance issues, both have reinstated the {{noncompliant}} tag ([191], [192]) after it was removed following the consensus developed on the article's talk page. Such behaviour is clearly disruptive, and there's currently a discussion on Talk:Vandalism going on over whether it can also be classified as vandalism.

According to the arbitration decision:

I'm requesting administrative intervention to enforce the arbitration decision in an appropriate manner. Digwuren 20:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed attention to this article is warranted. Objections to its condition remain not addressed despite their being described at talk multiple times and in detail. The editor above dares to revert war on the article on probation, repeatedly removing a well-epxlained tag. Feel free to join the discussion and enforce the ArbCom's decision. --Irpen 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Irpen refuses to explicitly articulate what those objections are and continues to claim the old discussions regarding the old article are still applicable. However the article was extensively revised and subject to peer review since then. This approach of tagging while being evasive about the reasons is disruptive to building a good article Martintg 21:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Response It appears that the one of the main concerns originally identified by the Arbitrators, namely whether the Soviet presence in Latvia was an occupation, and whether—regardless of the answer to the first question—the article's current title and scope are appropriately chosen has not been addressed by the recent re-write. The question of whether to identify the Soviet presence in Latvia as an "occupation" or something else is a problem that is not confined to this article, see obviously Occupation of Baltic states among others. I am not pursuaded by the alleged peer review, to whom the only contributor seems to have been javascript that analyzes grammatical and style issues. Therefore I am not convinced that Grafikm_fr and Irpen are creating an artificial controversy. I suggest that the editors engage Irpen and Grafikm_fr in a discussion to determine whether, as a matter of editorial judgement, it is acceptable to refer to the Soviet presence as an occupation, and whether, as a matter of editorial judgement, the three phases of occupation should be described in 3, 2 or one article. I also suggest that comments be solicited in a neutrally-worded way from the RFC process, the admins' noticeboard, and even the Village Pumps, to obtain a significant outside comments on these issues and a more meaningful peer review than a grammar bot. I ask Grafikm_fr and Irpen to provide meaningful feedback and suggestions on how the article might be split and especially on how to refer to the 1945-1991 period. If after one week significant progress is not being made on these issues please make a new report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher131 23:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
To be mild, this reporting is a WP:KETTLE thing. A discussion was evolving on the talk page (slowly it's true, but given the subject, better take it slow) with some advances made.
OTOH, User:Digwuren exhibited an extremely disruptive behaviour on this page (and not only on this page, I might add) that is currently under examination by the ArbCom.
As you noted, I'm not attempting to create a controversy but merely to get answers to questions I've been asking for months. Obviously I got only PAs...
A lot of suggestions were provided, but all were turned down by only a handful of editors who're crippling the whole thing. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is there has been a previous pattern of tagging with insufficient clarification on this article, ending up with tag warring (being one of the main reasons it was taken to Arbitration in the first place). In this instance the same scenario was beginning to unfold, particularly that significant revision of the article had occurred. Hence notification was necessary in my view, which had the beneficial effect of prompting Irpen to add more clarifcation of his issue, and the welcomed input of Thatcher131. However, it is apparent your only input is to snipe here, rather than engage in any meaningful discussion on the article talk page. For the record, User:Digwuren had only reverted once (your placement of the tag without providing your own reasons on the talk page) and engaged in dialogue on the talk page, unlike you. So your claim of "extremely disruptive behaviour" is totally untrue. Martintg 00:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I held a small attempt of dispute resolution and mudclearing on the talk page. During this I checked the issues raised by arbitration case and the article itself. I have to agree that there are more things to do, but the issues raised seem to be addressed.

  1. Although some editors seem to disagree with the articles concept "Occupations of Latvia" and claim it should be split into separate articles, it is notable topic in one article, because it was continous event of Latvia being under occupation. Latvia was republic - Latvia was under occupation - Latvia became republic again.
  2. The articles dealing with separate events are correctly winked with {{{main}}}.
  3. Marting provided list of books which treat the Occupations of latvia continuously.
  4. All issues of possible Original Research have been removed.
  5. All issues of possible NPOV violation have been removed.

Thus, I see that the noncompliant tag is anything but appropriate for the article.

During the latest discussion Irpen and Grafikm showed non-constructive editing. I asked for providing the points where and how the article is non-compliant, but nobody gave anything constructive. Instead Irpen claimed that this is waste of editors time. I think it is waste of editors time when you have to reread the whole arbitration discussion of problems which have been fixed long time ago.

Thus, I have removed the template from article. The article is definitely compatible with wikipedia quality standards. Ofcourse, it is not a GA candidate yet, but I do think it is possible to get it there.

My wish is that everyone who oppose my decision would take part of discussion and present their concerns in civil and constructive fashion. Tagwarring or saying: "This article sucks, try again" is not constructive. Suva 08:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Non-constructive editing" accusations sound like a joke. For the umpteenth time same editors force me to repeat my objections, stated multiple times at the article's talk page. And in response, they resort to more accusations and same of the old claims. After the page gets filled with a few screens of same old, I am asked to repeat what my objections are. This is just ridiculous. The article's problem that stem for the apriory non-neutral combination of its title with its scope remain unaddressed. The selective tendentious presentation of the topic remains unaddressed.
Any experienced editor with a sufficient time on his hands and an ax to grind may write a perfectly sourced but extremely POVed and tendentious article simply because sourcing is only one of many requirements of academic integrity. This article is a perfect example of this approach. I wholeheartedly invite anyone to comment and not only on the editor's behavior, but on the content dispute itself. This whole ArbCom brought about no meaningful decision because it was essentially a content dispute and remains such no matter how some try to dress it into a policy debate. --Irpen 09:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Articles scope is "Latvian history under the occupation". First by soviet, then shortly under German and then under Soviet again. As the Germans took Latvia from Soviets, not from Latvians, and Soviets retook it from Germans also not Latvians so, atleast for Latvia itself, it was continuous event of Latvia being occupied by foreign powers.
I fail to understand what your problems are. I guess you don't see the soviet occupation as occupation and think the article should be named to: "Free will joining with Soviet Union, Evil Occupation by Nazi Germany and free will rejoining with Soviet Union". Is that the case? Suva 10:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said anything about free will. I said that the country's history over the period of time should be called [[History of Country (Year1 - Year2)]] while articles about the events of occupation are legit as well as the article that explains why the entire period of Soviet control qualifies as occupation. You want a period article? Call it as such. You want an event article? Fine by me. But do not paste separate events together arbitrarily under a tendentious title to make a WP:POINT. I accept both extended history and single event articles. I object to the tendentious approach in POVish selection of both the title and the scope. --Irpen 10:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)