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

User:Zephram Stark[edit]

User:Bmedley Sutler, User:Fairness And Accuracy For All[edit]

Related to the FreeRepublic arbitration, Bmedley Sutler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) finally admits that not only has he been continuing to edit in proxy for Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), he has been allowing FAAFA to log into his account and edit. Bmed has already been blocked indef, but his block log implies that he may be unblocked under certain conditions. I would like to see him reblocked, with a more appropriate message. I would also ask that FAAFA's block be reset to expire one year from today, and his user page template date updated to reflect that. (His template says March, but he has already had one reset, so this date is incorrect anyway.) While WP:AGF is an important core policy, I hope that this situation illustrates how AGF can be taken a little too far, allowing abusive editors to game the system through WP:AAGF. (There is also an admission that this was all about sinking my RfA, which makes complete sense, since Bmedley signed up at Wikipedia after there was already some open discussion about me going for an RfA. So if the committee is inclined to recommend that a steward immediately sysop me as a remedy, I won't argue against it, though I do not expect that to be a likely outcome.) - Crockspot 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The committee doesn't read this page, enforcement action can be taken by any admin. So as far as your RFA is concerned, you'll have to contact the committee directly. The rest is done. Thatcher131 21:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! - Crockspot 21:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


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

Following the Arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus involved parties were cautioned to follow good editing practice, however user:Halibutt demonstrated neglect to Arbitrators suggestion and applicable policies with article Stanislovas Narutavičius (currently renamed). Halibutt neglected fact that Arbitrators named that contributions should be made by seeking consensus, however this was not done as particular contributor started one sided renaming article [1] [2] [3] , also neglecting the Arbitration case Courtesy accused other contributor of vandalism and generally neglected WP:Point in several accessions [4] [5], neglecting WP:AGF.

But that is most shameful that neglecting WP:NPA Halibutt started to attack certain nationality of editors, calling them as ultras and trolls, morons and a bunch of idiots. His "metaphors" in this "disucssion" are insulting, to say the least. Sadly but this is the same behavior of this contributor, which was discussed in the past and in the Arb case.

I ask immediate assistance from uninvolved parties, which could inform particular contributor Halibutt that his neglect to the policies and disruption is not acceptable.--Lokyz 07:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There are no remedies in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus that can be enforced by ordinary admins. You will have to request help from ArbCom itself, via e-mail or by posting to the Requests for clarification section of WP:RFAR. Thatcher131 14:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thank you, I will.--Lokyz 18:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Grandmaster 2[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.
Yes, Hajji Piruz was accidentally left off that list, which I compiled to try and make enforcement easier. Yes, Grandmaster probably should have mentioned it to me instead of fixing it himself, not because it was wrong, but because of the pre-existing conflicts. Is this a big deal? No. Thatcher131 14:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not helping in the improvement of the situation, Grandmaster takes it upon himself to add me to a list created by the administrators [6]. Whether I belong on that list or not is not the problem, and I have no problem being on that list, but I think that Grandmaster should not have taken it upon himself to do something and administrator should have as he was a party to the arbcom himself. THis does not help in the improvement of things.Hajji Piruz 04:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem there. Admin made a technical mistake by not including you in the list of people covered by the latest arbcom remedy. I fixed that, since you are also covered by that remedy and moreover, you are the only one mentioned personally: [7] If you believe that you should not be in that list, feel free to remove yourself, and the admins will review the situation. My edit was just a good faith attempt to fix a mistake, since the list is very important for the admins when reviewing the actions of people covered by that remedy. --Grandmaster 04:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I never said that I should not be on the list or if it was wrong that I should be on the list, re-read my above comment. You took it upon yourself to do something that an administrator should have done. Who else do you think the administrators "forgot"? Do you see how small that list is compared to the list of involved parties? Please assume good faith. You were a party to the arbcom and so you are in no position to decide for the administrators what should be done. If anything, you should have gone to the administrators themselves.
How is this actions supposed to be perceived? Did you honestly believe it would help the situation? Actions like this will help no one really, the purpose of the arbcom was for everyone to change for the better and fix all the problems, not to simply continue everything under more restrictions. After the second arbcom just ended, I dont see how such a bad faith action during such a sensitive time could be justified. I'm trying to change, and I can only hope that others are also making the same effort.Hajji Piruz 04:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If you yourself admit that you should be in the list, then what is the problem? If you know that anyone else should be there, add him to the list too. I found it strange that the admin omitted the user who is personally mentioned in the remedy #1. Of course, it was an honest mistake and I fixed it in good faith. It is a technical issue, not a real problem at all. Grandmaster 05:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats not the problem here, the problem is that it seems as if both arbcoms dont seem to mean anything to the users involved. When I say I have no problem being on the list I mean that I know that I am making the changes to better the community and have am not worried about anyone watching my contributions. How are we ever going to resolve these issues? Its simply amazing that you would defend such an undependable action. You are not an administrator, and you are a party to the arbcom, yet you took administrators duties into your own hands and made a bad faith assumption about another user.Hajji Piruz 05:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the bad faith assumption here? I made no assumptions at all, let alone bad faith assumptions. The remedy #1 says: Hajji Piruz and the other users placed on revert limitation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies are subject to supervised editing. [8] You being covered by that remedy is not my personal assumption, this is what that remedy actually says. The admin compiling the list of editors covered by this remedy made a small technical mistake, mentioning “other users”, but forgetting to mention Hajji Piruz. I only fixed that mistake in good faith. And I’m allowed to edit that page same as any other user. It says on top: Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. So I fixed an omission in the list of blocks, and everyone is allowed to edit it. Grandmaster 09:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You assume an admin made a mistake, so why did you not go to the admins? Simple question that deserves a simple explanation.Hajji Piruz 13:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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


Dacy again reverted Movses Kaghankatvatsi without appopriate justification, he justified it by claiming it is OR without sayin it is. He always get away with such reverts by writting a line of justification which could be used for almost any reverts. He is not reaching consensus, and in violation of the terms of parole.Hetoum I 04:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No violation as there was only one revert and there is discussion about the issue on the talk page. However, I am rapidly losing my patience with every other edit war being about whether some person is an ethnic this or an ethnic that. Protected for 3 days. Work out a compromise or else. Thatcher131 14:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Its not the first time Dacy69 gamed 1RR by reverting and leaving 1 sentence long comment [9]. I will kindly ask Dacy69 to explain the reason for his reverts in details, because one sentence long explanations are as good as none. VartanM 19:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
VartanM, [10], some of your comments don't exceed one sentence either. Dacy69 provided sufficient explanation, and the complexity is not usually measured by number of lines or sentences. Assume good faith. Atabek 21:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, please note that in my two sentence justification I actually say why it was OR, while Dacy merely said it was OR without saying how. Also note that I don't have to justify my reverts but I always do, out of respect to all other users who have to justify them. You can call it "self imposed revert parole" ;) VartanM 00:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Users Atabek, Dacy69, Parishan, and Grandmaster are clearly gaming the system by trading reverts. It appears as though Dacy69 is a meat puppet, reverting for them whenever they need a revert based on the following evidence:

Dacy69 came back after a 7 to 8 day absence and made 6 reverts out of a total of 15 edits. The other 9 edits were on the talk pages based on the arbcom parole requirement that users make comments for their reverts. His contributions: [11]

Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy
Dacy69 reverts to Atabek: [12]
Movses Kaghankatvatsi
Dacy69 reverts to Grandmaster: [13]
Khurshidbanu Natavan
Dacy69 reverts to Parishan: [14]

This is clearly not a very nice gesture of good will regarding improvement in the relations of the users of our wiki community and if anything is simply abusing the restrictions of the arbocm, which were meant to stop such things, not to allow them to happen on a slower pace.

Technically, there is no violation, but our editings, according to the new arbcom, are being monitored by the admins and, with that said, the admins should know about such editing. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 03:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz, there is a group of users (including socks) that reverted to your versions. Here are few examples:
I believe when people are involved in editing the same article, reverting may happen to version of others, it does not necessarily mean that the users coordinate, they just happen to work on the same topic. Especially, in light of your claim: "Technically, there is no violation" and given the extent of the reverts to you listed above, please, assume good faith. Also, in light of your comment: "according to the new arbcom, are being monitored by the admins and, with that said, the admins should know about such editing", I hope they do take a look at the references brought above as well. THanks. Atabek 05:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, can you then explain to me why Dacy reverted on a this article when he made 0 edits on it before? I can provide more difs if necessary. --VartanM 06:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this question should be addressed to Dacy69 on his talk page. I don't know why you ask me for that. Assume good faith. Atabek 06:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I addressed it to you because you're defending Dacy by saying that you believe that people are involved in editing the same article, reverting my happen to version of others. Dacy never edited that article, neither he edited this one, this onethis one, this one or this one, but it didn't stop him from reverting and leaving a sentence long justifications. As a regular editor of all but one of those articles I consider his behavior as disruptive and unacceptable. The 1RR was put into place to stop revert warring, but when a user reverts without giving proper justification another will revert him, creating revert war. I don't see why I would address this on Dacy's talkpage, were discussing his exact same behavior here. You don't have to address it if you don't want to, I'll be happy to hear Dacy's response --VartanM 06:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
As I said, you can address your question about Dacy69 to Dacy69. Also few notes here:
  • [22] - revert to you by anon IP.
  • [23] - your revert to User:Andranikpasha . This is just for furhter information. Assume good faith. Atabek 07:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The point is not whether reverts happen, the point is that Dacy reverts articles, eaves a line of justification that can justify anything, and leaves. If I revert an article I explain and engage myself in the talkpage. VartanM 07:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you attempting to justify Dacy69's actions by saying "because Azizbekov did it he can do it?" It seems as if the entire point of the arbcoms have been missed here. Both you and Grandmaster should make a greater effort here, this is not a one sided issue. You two are just as obligated to make an effort to better the community as I and others are. Lets make the effort.

Again, I think you have failed to see the point of the arbcom. You continue to make bad faith assumptions, now accusing two legitimate and established users as being meat puppets.

Interestingly, the diff you used for Alborz Fallah is from August 17th. Once again, you immediatly jump to assuming bad faith. I did not invite VartanM to remove anything, I agree with him that Adil Baguirovs (AdilBaguirov is a banned Wikipedia user) website should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia.

What if I had a website and it was being used on Wikipedia? VartanM had a website and it was being used on Wikipedia? Your position is not defendable.Hajji Piruz 05:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for suggestion, Hajji Piruz, except I am not sure why your friendly suggestion, if executed in good faith, appears at WP:AE instead of user talk pages. And before accusing another group of established users of meatpuppetry, please, review the list I brought above and assume good faith. I see no further need in continuation of this thread at WP:AE. Thanks. Atabek 05:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Atabek there are no groups is Wikipedia. VartanM 07:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet more assumptions of bad faith. Hopefully the administrators will review both Dacy69's actions as well as Atabeks actions.Hajji Piruz 05:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

List of your bad faith assumptions right above:
  • "Users Atabek, Dacy69, Parishan, and Grandmaster are clearly gaming the system by trading reverts"
  • "This is clearly not a very nice gesture of good will regarding improvement in the relations of the users..."
  • "I think you have failed to see the point of the arbcom..."
  • "Once again, you immediatly jump to assuming bad faith"
  • "(AdilBaguirov is a banned Wikipedia user) website should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia..." - yet again, no policy to support this assumption.
Assume good faith, and continue discussion on talk pages as necessary. Good night. Atabek 06:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You took all of those comments from right here...from my arbcom report, which is a completely different situation than on a talk page or simply making comments. And saying that Adil Baguirovs, a banned user, website should not be used in WIkipedia is not an assumption of bad faith, neither is saying that Grandmaster taking administrator actions into his own hands is not a nice gesture, or saying that you jump to conclusions of bad faith. You follow up your accusation that I assume bad faith with even more bad faith assumptions.Hajji Piruz 12:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


I would also like to request the admins to check editing of Dfitzgerald (talk · contribs). I'm not providing any diffs, just check his contribution log, it contains nothing but reverts on controversial articles. I believe this user should also be considered for application of the remedy #2 of the recent arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2: [24]. --Grandmaster 12:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Link to the warning, please. El_C 12:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Any admin may place any editor under probation, revert parole and civility parole if that editor "edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility." per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Applicability_to_all_disruptive_editors. A warning beforehand is nice but not required. This is a request to make such a finding about Dfitzgerald. I'm not sure what El_C's comment means. Any warning that the remedy is or may be applied should come from an admin after examining Dfitzgerald's behavior. Having warnings come from other parties is likely to be inflammatory. I'm not in a position right now to examine Dfitzgerald's contributions, but a far amount of his edits when I previously examined were reverting Artaxerex on the article about the Shah Reza Pahlavi. Note that at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex/Proposed decision Artaxerex is under a potential one year site banfor edit warring and disruptive behavior. Thatcher131 12:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I misread that. El_C 12:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Warning of what, the 3RR rule? He was warned here for other violation, but he technically does not violate the 3RR, he just reverts the articles to which he does not even contribute. This account serves to reverting purposes only, and as such might be covered by the arbcom remedy, which holds that 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. Grandmaster 12:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
At a glance, edit pattern seems more Iranian-centred than anything, unless you wish to specify. El_C 12:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This is what I'm talking about: [25] [26] [27] He never contributed to those articles, but turned up to rv in support of certain POV. Grandmaster 13:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
He moved Caucasian Albanians to Arranis? Does that make sense to anyone? El_C 13:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Arranis is the original title of the article created by User:Hajji Piruz on August 17, 2007 [28]. User:Grandmaster has not produced a consensus to move the article from Arranis to Caucasian Albanians. I was merely reverting the move User:Grandmaster made with out the agreement of the majority of editors involved in Arranis and without any scholarly consensus to legitimize such a move. So yes, it indeed does make sense. I suggest that the administrators keep a close watch on User:Grandmaster, given his long history of edit waring which is well documented in at least two ArbCom cases [29], [30]. Dfitzgerald 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. Arran was a Persian/Arab spelling of the name of Albania, however the scholarly accepted name is Caucasian Albania. Also, the edit to which he reverted contains claims such as The term Azerbaijani has supplanted Arrani in modern usage and Arranis are now referred to as Azerbaijanis, which are not supported by any sources. While I understand that this board does not deal with content disputes, I don't think such reverts are any helpful. --Grandmaster 13:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This bd. may deal with the more outlandish pov vandalism, though, likely to the average Anglo-American it's all the same. El_C 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No, that's ridiculous, I'm moving it back. If he wants it at that name, let him demonstrate scholarly consensus to that effect. El_C 13:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Dfitzgerald continues edit warring, he reverted your page move: [31] Grandmaster 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Grandmaster must stop misleading others regarding his actions. User:Grandmaster misled User:El C into thinking that I had originally moved a Caucasian Albanians article to Arranis when in fact it was User:Grandmaster who moved the originally titled Arranis article to Caucasian Albanians without any scholarly consensus [32]. I had the right to revert the illegitimate move of the Arranis article by User:Grandmaster and in the comment section I asked User:Grandmaster to seek consensus first before moving the article from its original name Arranis [33]. Now User:Grandmaster is attempting to mislead User:El C into reverting my revert so that he can accomplish his edit warring while circumventing the ArbCom sanctions placed on him as User:Grandmaster was placed on Supervised Editing [34] by the Arbitration Committee for his many previous violations. There is a good reason that User:Grandmaster has been sanctioned in at least two ArbCom cases [35], [36]. Dfitzgerald 18:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Am I the only one noticing how Grandmaster and Atabek report every user they are in disagreement with? How are we suppose to assume good faith when each and every of our actions are being reported. I can clearly understand why so many of Armenian users are not active anymore. Each and every article they edit is the same story circular discussion, never address points raised, just push the same argument over and over and over and over, no matter how many times you prove them wrong. Then when you finally loose it, they report you. I am yet to see Atabek compromise and work constructively. I am yet to see his apology for the personal attack. Unless you want to count the 3 reports filled against me as an apology, then its quite alright Atabek, you were probably upset and in the heat of the moment. I am yet to see Grandmaster not to bite the newcomers and show them the right way, instead of reporting them or accusing them of being a sockpuppet. Ask yourself, would you feel welcomed in a place where right off the bat you were accused and reported? Maybe this wasn't the right place for my rant but I had to take that out my chest. VartanM 19:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
And a cherry on top. A genuine newcomer is indef block as a single use account. Congratulation Grandmaster! Might as well block me for disruption. VartanM 19:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Vartan, I tried to help Andranikpasha. I tried to negotiate with him, we had lengthy discussions on many talk pages. I asked for a third party opinion with regard to the dispute we had on Arran, as he was reverting that page relentlessly ignoring the sources. But being a newcomer (if he actually was one) does not justify edit warring on numerous pages. I waited too long before reporting that user here. But it was not possible to further tolerate endless revert warring by this user. He was warned, he was paroled, and when that had no effect he was banned. He has no one else to blame but himself. And checkuser is not a big deal, it has been performed on every editor on Armenia – Azerbaijan related articles, including myself. I had a reason to suspect, because we had a massive sock invasion recently, and most of the accounts that I included in my request proved to be socks. Grandmaster 20:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Dfitzgerald, I know he moved it in April, that does not override my concerns and you revert warring with myself —the uninvolved admin reviewing this— is extremely ill-advised. At the event, both yourself and VartanM were given regarding the Arbitration remedies (this means you are a step of way of being added to the list). Now, if Arran as a title for the article is not, as Britannica appears to suggest, limited to Persian, while most of everyone else uses the Caucasian Albanians term, you will need to argue your case for that on the talk page. I urge my fellow admins: if the aforementioned AC remedies are to have any teeth, they should probably be applied liberally, so that the word gets out there. El_C 21:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


I would like to ask the admins to review the editing of Andranikpasha (talk · contribs), who simultaneously edit wars on a number of pages. Just a few examples of his reverts in the last few days:

Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia: [37] [38] [39] [40]

Anti-Turkism: [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]

Shushi Massacres: [46] [47] [48] [49] [50][51] [52]

March Days: [53] [[54]]

September Days: [55][56]

Varoujan Garabedian‎: [57] [58]

Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan): [59] [60] [61]

This list is not complete. 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 [62]. I believe that the aggressive editing and massive reverting of numerous pages warrants consideration of applying this remedy to this user. --Grandmaster 10:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Per the remedy, I have warned the user that any further revert warring will be met with a block. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. He just reverted two pages, one of which he never edited before: [63] [64] Grandmaster 10:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, pls show a fact when I edit an article "in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility on revert parole and other limitations, established by the arbcom."! You added me to sockpuppets check-list and when you didnt succeed, now you wrote things without facts (for example my second revert [65] I done as its an unexplained deletion of a big part of info!).Andranikpasha 10:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The above diffs show that you edit the articles in an aggressive manner, reverting many pages at the same time and not working towards a consensus. As for checkuser, there's nothing wrong with it, I was checkusered many times and have no problems with it. It helps to clear an innocent person from any suspicions. You never ever edited ADR article, why did you become interested in it immidiately after the dispute with Baku87? Grandmaster 10:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you were duly warned by the admin above but problematic editing ensued after the warning. El_C 13:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This user needs guidance not an indef block. He is a genuine newcomer and his block is in bad faith. VartanM 19:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
His block is being discussed on WP:AN/I at the submission of the blocking admin, which is entirely appropriate for potentially controversial blocks. You may wish to comment there. MastCell Talk 19:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I wish my input was sought. This may well be a premature block. El_C 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Because of User:Andranikpasha along with User:MarshallBagramyan and User:VartanM, I am unable to make any contribution to March Days, Varoujan Garabedian, ASALA, Anti-Turkism, Sahl ibn-Sunbat and few other articles. Note the second article was created by me, while for the first, March Days I made the most contributions of NPOV references in past. Under my 1RR parole, any edit I made was being reverted, with or without proper explanation. Respecting even the bad faith request from User:Fedayee - [66], I even took time to scan and upload an article from NY Times for talk page users, yet User:Andranikpasha still even questioned the scan [67] asking me for actual link to 1920 article, as if he is a sole judge of references I provide. So in presence of such attitude, unwillingness to negotiate anything on talk page but to go ahead with using 3RR limits, I believe the warning and subsequent block were justified. If they see disagreement the method to try is mediation rather than reverting. And I think the rule should apply to all new single-purpose warring accounts, regardless whether their edits favor Azeri or Armenian side. Thanks. Atabek 22:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha is currently blocked indefinitely, but the option of mentoring, combined with heavy editing restrictions, is being discussed. My preference is for the block, which I placed, to stay in place, but I would also support this second alternative, or at least consider it seriously. I am skeptical of this user's ability to edit productively, but there is a view to the contrary that deserves listening to. Moreschi Talk 22:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
One of the problems with unblocking (and note that I'm the one who proposed this) is the user grasp of English. He has to commit to really trying to communicate clearly because any further edits by him will need to involve a fair deal of communication. To be more blunt, Wikipedia is not the place to learn English as a second language (and I'm stating this as a non-native English speaker). So we'll need assurance of utmost care,precision, and concision on his part, to boot. Because what I've seen thus far is a cause for concern. El_C 22:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind supervised editing option, after a careful review to be done whether this user was new/inexperienced or not, and was editing in good faith. But I think for more constructive editing User:VartanM and User:MarshallBagramyan (parties to ArbCom and first one also reported for violation below), who are currently engaged in edit warring on several articles too, need to be placed under the same supervised editing and 1RR parole. It's really impossible for user with 1RR parole to contribute at all in presence of edit warriors with 3RR limits. Obviously, having such advantage the non-paroled disruptive users will have no interest in either listening or making an effort for consensus. Thanks. Atabek 23:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Could a member of the ArbCom committee please take a look at this discussion on the British Isles talk page. The issue relates to the term British Isles, which Sarah objects to. Sarah777 had previously made a POV fork using a "better name." Another user has done so again. Sarah is encouraging the user to continue doing so and is stirring it up in what is a known trouble area with talk of "political pov", "being persecuted by the Povians", "THEY are watching me!", accusing others of being "determined to impose a political POV term on these islands " etc. etc. This is a very long-standing issue, Sarah is well-aware of it and this kind of behaviour is part of the track record of Sarah's editing and contributions to talk pages. See: ArbCom decision. --sony-youthpléigh 14:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have posted this reply to Sony on his page, but feel I should add it here. I believe, sincerely that Sony is engaged in a spiteful personal vendetta against me.

Hi Sony. Your attempts at provocation and your continued campaign against me are regrettable. The relevent section of the Arbcom ruling in relation to me is:
"Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks."
I made no "anti-British" remarks on the article talk-page nor did I make any edits bar reverting the deletion, which I then stopped to avoid 3RR. Furthermore your allegation of POV-fork is your OPINION; it was not a ruling of any sort, if you recall the article was deleted without any discussion; as, indeed was the "Atlantic Isles" article. As for "encouraging" the user who created "Atlantic Isles"; once the article was (arbitrarily) deleted I was WARNING him of my experience and particularly to be careful on his own Talk Page in the light Wiki policy (which I advised him to check) and, not least the way you used selective out of context quotes from my page (and elsewhere) to build your campaign.
You appear to spend all your Wiki-energy "contributions" obsessing over a small number of political articles; your editing record is, basically, rubbish. And you obviously have far more time to devote to persuing your vendetta than those of us actually contributing to the project in a productive manner.
I am aware that the tactics of some on the "pro-British" side is to systematically goad and provoke in order to try and get your target to say something that will get them banned. I put you on notice now that your CONTINUED referrals of me; RfC, the Arbcom and now this latest "report" can only be regarded as harassment. Please stop. And DO NOT leave ANY further messages of any sort on my talk page. Thank you. (Sarah777 21:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC))

Response Sarah needs to be civil and not disruptive; that doesn't mean she has to agree with you. It looks like Sarah777 has a serious axe to grind regarding the naming issue of that article, but her behavior on the talk page does not seem to me to cross any boundaries requiring enforcement. Thatcher131 00:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Could we have guidelines as regards to "aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks", because if it's simply that she can't call British editors "Nazi imperialist scum" etc. or Irish editors that take her distaste "uncle Tom holocaust deniers" etc. then the enforcement will be quite ineffective as she is very able to game the system and bat her eyes innocently. --sony-youthpléigh 06:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I have made my point regarding the BI name; I would have thought that taken in context my remarks were pretty light-hearted and someone would really have to work at being offended enough to report me to Arbcom - yet again. Maybe Sony should be my mentor then he could take total control of what I say, do, how I say it, how I interact with other editors and so forth. If some facetious (if heartfelt) remarks I made about POV pushers now becomes an "anti-British remark" then....I don't know. My most serious axe to grind is with Sony. I would suggest that if he took a break from political articles himself, and took a break from his constant hounding of myself, and spent his time doing some real editing then this would be a happier place without the need for Sony thought-control.
As this is Arbcom, I must in my defence point out again that the number of edits I have made to Irish political articles and the BI article is tiny, both compared to my total and to the number Sony has made to these articles. (Sarah777 07:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC))
Important point - I have never referred to ANY editor, of any nationality, as a "Nazi scum"; I have made comments (in the past) about a political position and about a State. This is a clear example of "synthesis" is it were in an article. I may have made the other remark long before the RcF and Arbcom but patently such a remark can't have been addressed to any British editor. And it would have to be put in context of the avalanche of personal abuse I was taking at the time. Can Sony, post RcF and Arbcom keep dredging up his carefully selected "insults" over and over again? Till....when? Till he finally succeeds in getting me banned? (Sarah777 07:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC))
There is no particular bright-line standard, it's a matter of judgement, and other admins may have different views. It is also relevant that Sarah was making points in discussion but not edit warring over the article itself. Thatcher131 14:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The point in question here is whether or not Sarah777 has engaged in "aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks" in this discussion - my view as a British admin involved in the discussion is that she came close, but did not cross the line. It could be argued that Sarah engaged in edit warring (one revert short of breaking WP:3RR here) which could be described as "aggressive biased editing" - but my view at the time was use a bit of discretion and let it go this once. Nevertheless, I think Sarah should take this as an absolute final warning. Waggers 08:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry? "An absolute final warning" of WHAT and by WHO? There is NO anti-British comment on the talk page; not even close. (Sarah777 19:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

<reduce indent> Sarah777 is definitely pushing her luck. Hughsheehy 16:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and her veiled comments re. British and Nazis wasn't appreciated. I pointed that out at the time. However, I personally feel that it doesn't require remedy at this time (and it would appear that Thatcher131 concurs). However, I am concerned that Sony-youth just doesn't seem to want to be happy until Sarah is well and truly banned from Wikipedia, hence his rapid re-appearance here. That in itself, concerns me. I didn't like what Sarah said at the time and I called her on it pretty quick; however, it's interesting to note Sony-youth immediately ran back to ArbCom to tell tales - Alison 03:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
No "rapid re-appearance". I was genuinly worried that, if unchecked, it would spin off out-of-control. That didn't happen and other's don't see it as a violation. Hugh's comment about "pushing her luck" is more in line with what I was thinking than anything about not being happy "until Sarah is well and truly banned". --sony-youthpléigh 09:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Seeking enforcement against an user is best left to uninvolved editors instead of people in dispute with each other. In some ArbCom cases, we consider it disruption when editors constantly continue to point out the faults of editors that they disagree with about content. If an user is a problem, other editors/admins will see it. That is the reason that final case findings are noted on AN. We want uninvolved admin/editors to assist. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Behmod and User:AlexanderPar[edit]

Please see the results of this checkuser request: [68] Both users were parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, which passed remedies allowing the admins to take measures against disruptive editors on topic related articles. Behmod was previously caught using a sock account, see[69] but one of admins unblocked him and the sock account of User:Pam55, believing that they were students in the same university, despite objections of the blocking admin. This was discussed both in checkuser page and ANI board. [70] Now Behmod was proved to be using another sock account. As for AlexanderPar, checkuser shows that he uses an open proxy. --Grandmaster 04:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Just when I thought this couldn't get more complex... Anyway, I have indefinitely blocked Behmod (talk · contribs) and added ChateauLincoln (talk · contribs) to the list of users in the ArbCom case. I don't know enough about open proxies to know if AlexanderPar's use of one is due to malintent, so I'll leave that for someone else. -- tariqabjotu 06:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
So you blocked the puppetmaster and placed his sock on a parole? I tend to think that it should have been done the other way around. But it should also be taken in consideration that this is the second time checkuser proves that Behmod is using a sock account [71], and it seems that when he avoided the punishment the first time it encouraged him to continue sockery. Grandmaster 07:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


User:Grandmaster after some discussions related to historical articles on Armenia-Azerbaijan, started an edit war: for example, Shushi Massacres [72][73][74] and some other articles [75] while he is added here [76]. He didnt succeed as an Administrator asked its ok. Then without any explanation he added me to sockpuppets check-list and when he again didnt succeed [77], started to wikistalk me [78][79], now he wrote things without facts. Here he wrote I edited articles "in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility on revert parole and other limitations, established by the arbcom."! I need even one fact of "an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility on revert parole and other limitations, established by the arbcom", if its true! Andranikpasha 11:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Being limited by a parole to 1 rv per week, I’m unable to edit war and compete with unrestricted users, so accusation of edit warring is groundless. I see nothing wrong with asking for a checkuser of some new accounts, as there was a lot of sockpuppetry in the last few days and admins blocked at least 7 sock accounts editing Armenia – Azerbaijan articles. A good faith editor has nothing to be afraid of; the checkuser will help him to clear himself of suspicions. And the number of reverts by Andranikpasha that I listed in my report speaks for itself, such extensive reverting on a large number of pages is covered by the latest arbcom ruling. Grandmaster 11:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, out of 3 diffs that Andranikpasha listed as evidence of my edit warring only 1 is a revert. The other 2 are not reverts to any previously existing version. Grandmaster 11:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes you just asked for a quickly deletion of an article without discussing the reason...Andranikpasha 11:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Grandmaster. You'll need to show more than one revert (as he is, indeed, entitled to one per week) to demonstrate revert waring. El_C 11:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Pls see below. I asked for the edit (no revert) warring! Andranikpasha 11:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit warring is the same as revert warring. Grandmaster 12:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not entirely sure I understand that request. El_C 12:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, are you an Administrator? Andranikpasha 12:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Affirmative. El_C 12:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The request is to prove my editing by "an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility on revert parole and other limitations, established by the arbcom", or delete me from here [80] and Grandmaster's asking sorry for non-true accusations and wikistalking!Andranikpasha 12:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have the authority to overrule the Arbitration Committee (so as to remove you from that list); not sure I follow the rest. El_C 12:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Clarification: Any admin may place any editor under probation, revert parole and civility parole if that editor "edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility." per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Applicability_to_all_disruptive_editors. Ryan Postlethwaite has made such a finding with respect to User:Andranikpasha and placed him on the enforcement list. Since this is a matter of admin discretion (ArbCom did not itself list Andranikpasha) then presumably another admin can overturn it, although this is so rare that I can not recall it happening before. Andranikpasha is asking someone to overturn Ryan's decision and remove him from the list. I am not currently in a position to evaluate this. Thatcher131 12:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Right again. Thanks, Thatcher131. Now I'm up to speed. El_C 13:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's definitely one of ArbCom's more intricate decisions. Thatcher131 13:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks! The problem is Im sure there isnt any fact of "conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility." Also Id like to know if Grandmaster's linked activities are not under WP:WIKISTALK? Its very nervous every day to find a new unexplained "bad info" on yourself!! Thanks in advance!Andranikpasha 13:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the rule about wikistalking. It says: Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption. ... The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them. Have I ever harassed you? Grandmaster 13:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's intuitive that the admin who added you to the list would be most suited to review, and possibly reconsider, that decision. Why not ask him? El_C 13:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked to that Admin many-many times (for example see my or his talk lists). Andranikpasha 13:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Grandmaster, you harrased me by adding my name to the sockpuppets check list without any explanation [81] and then supporting the user who used it against me [82], and also you harrased me by calling "an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility on revert parole and other limitations, established by the arbcom" below without any fact.Andranikpasha 13:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You've asked on my talk page and I've answered you a number of times. You are disruptively edit warring on a number of Armenia-Azerbaijan pages so I have put your editing under supervision per the provisions of the arbitration case. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Here[83]: "Sorry, but why you didnt answer to my questions? I think its better to complete a work which you started and explain why you added me for supervision if I keep the rules of Wiki. Simple "edit warring" word is not enough. Pls see again!" , until now not answered. Here: [84] "So is there a fact or no? im always keep the rules and Im correct so I dont see a reason to call my activity an editwar.Andranikpasha 11:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC) ? And are there a rule asking if even I didnt make any aggressive revert without discussion and didnt pass 3RR anyways my activities can be call an edit war?Andranikpasha 12:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC) ", until now not answered!!Andranikpasha 13:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

PS- Is there a Wiki rule on "disruptively edit warring" and a description, which marked my case? Id prefer to see me quilty detailed, not by simple words "disruptively edit warring" (where, when? any links? do you mark under this everything I done or just some of my contributions?)Andranikpasha 13:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's your disruptive edit warring and the reasons you were placed under supervision;

Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia: [85] [86] [87] [88]

Anti-Turkism: [89] [90] [91] [92] [93]

Shushi Massacres: [94] [95] [96] [97] [98][99] [100]

March Days: [101] [[102]]

September Days: [103][104]

Varoujan Garabedian‎: [105] [106]

Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan): [107] [108] [109]

Ryan Postlethwaite 13:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Any links to the rules? anyways see for example the first link: a semivandal-ip reverted old version to this (he even didnt change the source):"The Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) was a Marxist-Leninist '''terrorist'''<REFER"Over the past decade, 36 Turkish diplomats have been assassinated abroad, including four in the US. The guerilla groups tend to be highly professional: upon its creation in 1975, the best-known of them, the Marxist Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA), was trained in the Beirut camps of the Palestine Liberation Organization". Remembring with Vengeance, by Pico Iyer // Time magazine, № 32, 8 aug., 1983REFEr> organization, that operated from 1975 to 1986." I reverted to the right form of quotation (see also words to avoid): "The Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) was a Marxist-Leninist '''guerilla'''<REFER"Over the past decade, 36 Turkish diplomats have been assassinated abroad, including four in the US. The guerilla groups tend to be highly professional: upon its creation in 1975, the best-known of them, the Marxist Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA), was trained in the Beirut camps of the Palestine Liberation Organization". Remembring with Vengeance, by Pico Iyer // Time magazine, № 32, 8 aug., 1983"Refer> organization, that operated from 1975 to 1986." Is this one a disruptive edit warring? if yes, then sorry, if no, pls mark that one which was an editwarring. Thank you! Andranikpasha 13:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

PS- I will be very grateful if you look up my contributions and reverts once again and check again if I really done something wrong and uncorrect!Andranikpasha 13:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's incomprehensible. What am I to make of that... disjointed collection of sentences?(!) El_C 13:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You can look up the diff [110]! The only word I reverted in the text was "terrorist" to "guerilla" (when the source asking the same thing).Andranikpasha 14:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's up to you to cite diffs, I'm not the one who should look for these. And you should'nt place that lengthy repetition here. That's unfair of you. We are all volunteers here and our efforts are needed elsewhere, too. You gotta be more precise & concise. Thx in advance. El_C 14:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so you were correct in reverting in the first diff (although for the life of me, I cannot fathom why you copied the actual sentences, with the bold text & everything), what about all the others? Remember concision & clarity, or I'm just gonna go do something else (like this → click me). El_C 14:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"so you were correct in reverting in the first diff ".- So someone was uncorrect while adding this diff to prove Im quilty! Do you need Ill continue to prove that any diff linked here are non-true (the same cases). Im affraid I need a lot of place to open every revert here! so its better just look up them if ther're even one true diff which really marks my editwarring. Andranikpasha 15:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, please follow standard indentation. Depends on how concise you can be (the more concise you are, the more you are motivating myself, the volunteer, to look into the matter); you may use your own talk page, too. El_C 21:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's clear that last arbcom didn't resolve all issues. How about we do ArmAzer 3? All in favor?--TigranTheGreat 12:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? It is been a couple a weeks since the end of the last one. I don't see any issues that require another arbcom case right now. Grandmaster 12:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


[111] - User:VartanM, after revert removing body of sourced material [112], addresses me:

  • I am getting tired of your abrasive answers...

I don't see a basis for such wording, especially given the fact that User:VartanM was warned earlier [113] to assume good faith and to be more corteous [114]. Atabek 04:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, keeps pushing his POV. He moved the article without discussion and getting a consensus He is misquoting scholars. He is yet to compromise and work constructively. He never assumes good faith. VartanM 04:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for such bad faith words by User:VartanM, when I did provide extensive rationale for my edit and the move [115]. Sources I cited are a prominent scholar Minorsky from University of London and Oxford scholar CJD Dowsett, both references are being removed by VartanM, and my answers are being called "abrasive", even here now. Thanks. Atabek 05:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Atabek has been harassing me since his 4 day block. He filed 2 baseless reports about me while he was blocked and now another one. Its tobvious his holding a grudge against me and is trying to get even. I request the arbitrators to check his contributions after the block and check his contributions in more details.
Armenian Legion He choose to edit and add that 200,000 Armenians served in Germany under the Nazis the same day his block expired. WP:AGF WP:POINT WP:Retaliation

I will file another arbitration request if this attacks and continuous provocations don't stop. VartanM 05:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed all partisan content from both your userpages. If you can't deal with the sight of it, then neither of you will have anything partisan on his userpage. As to the incivility, I've warned VartanM about the above comment. As to everything else, you're welcome to post diffs of specific things. I'm not going to go searching for evidence. The move reversion was explained in the edit summary and then immediately on the talk page. The lack of consensus isn't really relevant unless there was consensus against moving or active discussion on the talk page. As to the title itself, let's discuss that on the article's talk page, please.--Chaser - T 07:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC) I don't find the Armenian Legion diff above to be a policy violation; there's active disagreement on the talk page about that point, and Atabek did include the crucial "claimed" qualifier.--Chaser - T 07:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to have a warning for this "Atabek does answer in a very abrasive way". Atabek’s edit on his userpage was not to provoke Vartan, it was to provoke Fadix after knowing about the new sock which was the same day he made those edits, possibly expecting a reaction from the sock. He did the same thing soon after I had proposed that Fadix’s first sock creation might have actually been to answer Flavius, it was only then that Atabek started his multiple article disruption campaign by editing various mainspaces, removing the mention of the Armenian genocide (including from Fadix created articles) while the arbitration was still proceeding. Atabek’s battleground mentality and his repeated and consistent provocations have not ceased one bit. I am waiting for administrators reply on the possible course of event and if there is material to re-open a new arbitration case. Chaser, to a certain limit, Atabek could claim that he does not believe the genocide happened, we can't restrict people to put their opinions in userpages, the differences with Atabek’s modification in his userpage was that it was added specifically to provoke us, he did not merely say he does not believe the genocide happened, he compared the death of over a million, the successful destruction of the entire Armenian community in Western Armenia in its entirety, with a tragedy having happened in avillage.
Chaser, on the 200,000 figure, Atabek made this edit as a provocation; he could have known that he will be accused of source manipulation and distortion. Atabek’s first attributed the 200,000 figure to Y. Auron, and if you read Atabek, you will see that he was actually rejecting that the source was saying that represents Dro figures. [116]. He was rather claiming that they were the true numbers claimed by Auron. Vartan did his homework and read the pages in question, and it ended up that both Atabek and him were wrong, the figures were neither Auron's neither Dro, they were from Minna Rozen [117]. They were not cited for accuracy, it comes from a letter she wrote on the Armenian Genocide to her Mayor, most likely she miswrote it by adding one more 0, since it was a letter not an academic paper which was reviewed for correction from mistyping and fact checking. Auron who reproduced the letter say in the next page that he will be covering this Armenian legion, which he does and provides the official German archival figures of 18,000 and Walker figures of 20,000 (which probably Rozen misquoted by adding one more 0).
Atabek knew that Auron was not talking about Dro figures, he denied they were his himself, he knew that by re-adding something which he himself knew was not true, he would provoke Vartan. The same goes with Smbat, Atabek was caught misquoting Dowsett’s work by replacing the in text use of Smbat for Sunbat, he even admitted previously that he was doing it be claiming that he did nothing wrong and that he was merely using the Arabic version. But now, he again by knowing he is misusing sources, used Dowsett in the discussion to support Sunbat while Dowsett uses his Armenian name Smbat.
Also, if Atabek keeps reporting members’ each and every contributions, it is obvious that with time he will be able to have every members restricted. No member can remain civil when harassed and provoked this way. - Fedayee 18:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I have not harassed nor provoked User:VartanM either with my edit or with my comment [118]. Assume good faith, this policy and ArbCom remedy requires strict adherence. Thanks. Atabek 21:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Chaser, this is a second time User:VartanM attacks me and is being warned, while the ArbCom remedy clearly asks [119] for only one warning. I would like to ask again for the case to be reviewed by arbitrator, who participated in formulating the remedies. It's unclear how remedy applies one way to me, and another way to User:VartanM and User:Fedayee above, the latter was also a party to both ArbCom cases. Atabek 21:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Vartan did not attack you; he presented the situation as it is and in a civil fashion. You don't need to repeat AGF I know very well what it means. My opinion is that you should've not been in the current Arbcom remedy this is far too light in your situation because you could and still disrupt without having to be uncivil.
It is the third time you are reporting Vartan for things which are not clear cut incivility and this in a short length of time abusing the process, you returned to the Armenian Legion article making an edit knowing that your edit was not accurate. You could not have ignored that Vartan would accuse you of distorting because he knew you knew that your edit was inaccurate including your comment about Dowsett on the name Smbat. You are taking this whole reporting thing as a strategy game, it was never meant to be this. By scrutinizing members contributions that far and reporting them on each occasion, it is expected that you could successfully restrict any members under the arbitration remedy.
I just hope Thatcher comments on your contribution and his allegation that you were less disruptive than some other contributors was not made in similar form in private to other arbitrators. Because I am at odds on why administrators and arbitrators are reluctant to check your conduct.
Also from recent allegations from Persian members, it seems that Atabek has created havoc in a Persian website extending conflicts on Wikipedia. But I prefer not to discuss about something which I ignore. - Fedayee 23:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee, there is no proof to claim me as someone posting at Persian website. So again, be civil and assume good faith, and VartanM has been warned for incivility, for a second time now. Thanks. Atabek 00:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Then the incivility warning is open for debate, you are editing in a very abrasive way. Provoking members to have them blocked. Chaser removed your provocations from your userpage, and when I made my comment on the freedom of users to hold their opinion in their userpage, you did not waste any time to reinstate a provocative and abrasive template. This: This user recognizes and condemns the Armenian and Turkish massacres during World War I but opposes their political misinterpretation as "Armenian Genocide". is not a holding of an opinion unlike what it appears to be, it is a statement of fact disguised as a sympathy recognition for others to wonder why Armenian users are still offended for such a nice gesture of recognition.
Atabek has not changed a bit, after two arbitration cases and the arbitrators ignoring our plight to take dispositions to stop Atabek’s disruptions, Atabek is still continuing by provoking members and taking Wikipedia as a chess board or another strategy game. We have requested him to stop soapboxing about the Armenian genocide on every given occasion… he did it regardless while the first arbitration was proceeding, he also did it while the second arbitration was proceeding, trying to provoke a banned member to invade his ban even further. He knows how this issue is sensitive for the Armenians and he used it to provoke members into a fight and it doesn't appear that he has any interest into stopping it.
I already announced that I intended to request another arbitration case while the other was closing if nothing was done to stop Atabek’s multiple and simultaneous disruptions, but waited. I see no other option now, which is what I will be doing. - Fedayee 01:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Fedayee, you have been asked to assume good faith, your continuation along these lines will force me to report on AE. Regarding some of your comments, accusing and attacking me for information I put on my own user page, it strictly adheres to WP:USER, so if you see a violation of it, please, discuss that on my talk page instead of WP:SOAP on Arbitration enforcement page and/or threatening with another ArbCom. Also, remember that ignoring massacres of scores of Turks during World War I occurred at the hands of Armenian Dashnak bands and invading Russian troops is the same provocative insult as denial of Armenian massacres (which I actually did and do say I recognize and condemn!). According to your logic, your edits at Talk:Khojaly Massacre and Talk:March Days trying to question the number of Azerbaijani victims, undermine the fact of massacres committed against Azeris, etc. when I clearly provided references from the New York Times (1920), Michael Smith and Dr. Firuz Kazemzadeh of Yale, would also be considered engagement in battles along national lines and provocative editing. After all, I don't do the same on Armenia-related pages. So, yet again, assume good faith, and before attacking me again, please, adhere to Wikipedia policies. Thanks. Atabek 02:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"...denial of Armenian massacres (which I actually did and do say I recognize and condemn!)." Atabek

Ok, let's clarify something. Do you recognize the Armenian massacres as a Genocide? Yes or no? --TigranTheGreat 12:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


I would like to ask the admins to review the situation with the recent paroles and warnings. Me and User:Baku87 were placed on parole yesterday by the admins: [] [], while another 2 editors received only a warning for the same violation: [] [120] This is a second warning for VartanM, the first one is here: [121] It is strange that I was placed on parole without any warning, while VartanM receives 2 warnings from the admins. Why users are not treated the same? --Aynabend 06:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This was cross-posted to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:VartanM. I responded there.--Chaser - T 06:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


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 the unblock. The edit cited by Chaser [122] is Dacy69's only edit to that article, so it isn't even a reversion. ArbCom did not require that editors explain their edits, only their reverts. In the future, editors making such reports here will be expected to provide diffs of the reverts in question. Reports that contain blanket accusations without specifics will be ignored. Thatcher131 19:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This users contributions are mostly, if not all, reverts: [123] He is required by the arbcom restrictions to use the discussion page and make comments regarding his reverts. Not only does he not engage in discussions on the issues that he simply comes out of nowhere to revert on, but he only leaves one sentence comments after his reverts which are nothing more than him basically saying that he reverted: [124], [125], [126], etc... the list can go on and on.

This behavior is not helping the situation, it seems to be only adding fuel to the fire.Hajji Piruz 00:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I second Hajji Piruz, his one sentence justifications are not constructive and create more tension. --VartanM 02:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see that his conntribs are mostly reverts. He reverts no more or even less than people who report him. --Grandmaster 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, I believe playing an administrator, has already been discussed. He was reported to administrators. Checking Dacy's latest 50contribution list, I see that besides Cultural Genocide and Shirvanis the rest of his mainspace edits are reverts either to you or Ataabek. So I can clearly see that Hajji's observation and report are justified. Note September 4th, only reverts. VartanM 05:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, long threads of argument rarely help administrators make decisions on this or other pages that require admin attention.--Chaser - T 05:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you folks assume good faith? VartanM haven't you been revert warring at Khurshidbanu Natavan? - Here are the links for 5 days between 9/5 and 9/10: [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132]. Atabek 05:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL Atabek, this has already be discussed on other administrator notice board. I provided detailed breakdown of the history of the article. I only reverted twice. The rest are my failed attempts to remove a picture that is being used as a source. Its still there. I was reverted 6 times. Please stop the baseless accusations. VartanM 06:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Fifth block under this remedy.--Chaser - T 05:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, how about this one [133], just down below, which hasn't been addressed yet. Atabek 05:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Chaser, I asked for a source for outrageous claims that Piruz included in that article Shirvanis on 8 September [134]. No source has been provided so far. Is it a sufficient discussion on part of Hajji Piruz? Dacy reverted the article 2 days later, because it contained claims that had no reliable sources cited, and no sources were provided since then. I believe Dacy did the right thing, because the other party took no part in dicussion at all. I would like you to have a look at what's going on on that article and evaluate the behavior of both parties. Grandmaster 06:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I have. I don't find fault with you or Hajji Piruz's reversions since you were discussing a legitimate disagreement on the talk page (and yes, I see it as a legitimate disagreement). Dacy69's edits have recently consisted of simply reverting and adding notes to the talk page that indicate little more than that he reverted (this is but one example). It's true that there was discussion on the talk page justifying the reversion, but editing Wikipedia does not consist of merely reverting other people's edits in slow-brew edit wars in which everyone runs up their once-a-week limits. It's a legitimate expectation that editors who want to participate in reverting something will also engage in discussion about it. "[Dacy69] is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page." That didn't happen. As a general rule, editors should discuss controversial edits. In this case, revert parole requires it.--Chaser - T 08:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I have unblocked this user based on this user's {{unblock}} request. His "revert" was productive and it followed a reasonable interval to address the problem with the section. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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


This contributor was a party to both Armenia-Azerbaijan and Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ArbCom cases. According to second ArbCom remedy [135], User:Fedayee is subject to supervised editing and must "maintain a reasonable degree of civility" with other users. In last few days, he has assumed bad faith and personally attacked at several instances:

  • Attacking the ethnicity of User:Ehud Lesar [136]: **Why request a checkuser... sounds right now that his Ehud account still sticks, an alleged Jew who merely reverts to your and Grandmaster’s versions and is concentrated in Armenian-Azeri related articles and who only returns to Jewish contributions when other editors wonder about him
  • Attacking me [137]:
    • "you are editing in a very abrasive way"
  • Assuming bad faith against me [138]:
    • Atabek has not changed a bit, after two arbitration cases and the arbitrators ignoring our plight to take dispositions to stop Atabek’s disruptions
  • Wikilawyering [139]:
    • you should've not been in the current Arbcom remedy this is far too light in your situation because you could and still disrupt without having to be uncivil
  • Accusing me of irrelevant, unproven and unrelated things in Wikipedia [140]:
    • Also from recent allegations from Persian members, it seems that Atabek has created havoc in a Persian website extending conflicts on Wikipedia.
  • Assuming bad faith again [141]:
    • Given I have experienced your history of misrepresentation of sources and misquoting...
  • Assuming bad faith [142]:
    • Chaser, on the 200,000 figure, Atabek made this edit as a provocation; he could have known that he will be accused of source manipulation and distortion

I would like to ask for User:Fedayee yet again to assume good faith and be civil. Thanks. Atabek 03:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I never attacked Ehud Lesar's alleged ethnicity, I merely questioned it for points raised above. I never attacked you personally, I described your edits. The rest is not assumption of bad faith but a description of what I see and experience after trying to assume good faith edit after edit after edit by you. Thank you. - Fedayee 22:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The violation is that Ehud Lesar's ethnicity has nothing to do with editing in Wikipedia. Under which policy do you think you're justified to question established user's ethnic identity and/or call it alleged? Atabek 22:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The same way you or others question newly arrived people who hold an opposing view from yours into being Armenians or Armenian sockpuppets. Ehud Lesar is dubious considering Adil Baguirov's past attempts at passing as a Jew (some account called Weiszman or something similar) who edited the same way Mr. Ehud Lesar did. - Fedayee 03:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser showed that Ehud is not Adil and not a sock. Calling someone's ethnic identity "alleged" is not appropriate here. Grandmaster 04:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
His not questioning his ethnicity, his questioning his authenticity. The same way you questioned every new users authenticity and labeled them a sockpuppet of Artaxiad who disagreed with you. VartanM 06:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Mind WP:AGF. Whenever in doubt, I always filed a checkuser or asked the admins to check the suspicious accounts, but I never made any improper comments about other users like Fedayee does. Grandmaster 06:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

All the ArbCom remedies for Fedayee apply to articles, not requests for checkuser or arbitration enforcement. Arguments about such meta issues like whether an editor ought to be sanctioned under ArbComm remedies get quite heated, but I'm not going to micromanage those arguments on the basis of what's above. My general advice to all of you is to not post long threads of argument on this page. The most helpful thing is concise, specific reports with diffs. Long replies to reports here are counterproductive.--Chaser - T 06:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Skinny McGee[edit]

As a result of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate, Skinny_McGee is barred from editing any articles related to Midnight Syndicate or Nox Arcana.

  • Skinny McGee has broken his ban on 3 occasions and exhibits a strong (or at the very least suspicious) bias toward any editor who mentions the name of the former band member, Joseph Vargo, for whom Skinny McGee holds a strong aversion, as indicated in his past when calling the person a "dispicable human being." [143] It was this contempt for his former band member and efforts at self-promotion for his band Midnight Syndicate that resulted in an edit war, and resulted in the ban in the first place. This could be Wikistalking in its infancy steps.
  • Skinny McGee adding a promotional link [144] to Midnight Syndicate. Skinny McGee was suspected to be a member of that band, which was part of the reason the ban was placed.
  • Removal of content (twice) from the Nox Arcana's Darklore Manor album[145] and[146]. Skinny McGee was previously found to be biased against Joseph Vargo, who is the frontman for Nox Arcana, and former producer of Midnight Syndicate. Again, this is the reason for the ban above.
  • Lobbying to Prevent further investigation into references that relate to Midnight Syndicate album credentials [147]
  • Wrongful allegations by Skinny McGee against User:Ebonyskye about what was posted. Ebonyskye never posted what Skinny McGee accused (he accused Ebonyskye of saying that Midnight Syndicate "copied" someone). Ebonyskye only defined an album that "inspired" Midnight Syndicate.[148]. The part about the band's being "similar" was already in the article posted by another user.[149]
  • Skinny McGee also complains of an item referring to his band's former producer [150] however, the post is cited and validated. Skinny McGee also complained that this post qualified as reason to block Ebonyskye. The post was not biased in any way, it was also supported and even lengthened by another user later[151] and remains.
  • Due to the complaints inaccurately reported to admins by Skinny McGee as something they were not, Ebonyskye was indeed blocked for 48 hours. According to User:Thatcher131 who blocked Ebonyskye, "I am reasonably convinced that Skinny McGee is, or is associated with, Edward Douglas."[152] (Edward Douglas being a member of Midnight Syndicate).
  • Skinny McGee did NOT notify Ebonyskye of his displeasure of the edits that Ebonyskye made and did not report to Ebonyskye's page anything in regard to the request for block, giving Ebonyskye no opportunity to reply.
  • Thatcher131 has refused to block Skinny McGee and cites a VERY unstable reason for not unblocking Ebonyskye... that being that an IP is "similar" or in the "vicinity" of another older user. That in addition to Skinny McGee's slanted report against Ebonyskye, conspired to cause an uneccessary block of Ebonyskye.
  • Ebonyskye requested a review of the block, and it was summarily done (within 09 seconds of the request)[153] which means that no "review" was actually done at all. Thatcher131 exhibited some bias in his refusal to consider this mistake.

I request a punitive temporary block of User:Skinny McGee for 1) breaking his ban as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate and 2) causing undo strife and confusion in regard to making false reports. Thanks. Ebonyskye 04:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to interested admins: Be sure to read User_talk:Ebonyskye/Archive1. Thatcher131 04:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I edited the link given by Thatcher131 to point to my archived talk page, as it includes a contents directory to make finding my points easier. Ebonyskye 20:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I just found out about this, a past Check User report about many alias' of Skinny McGee. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Skinny_McGee. I'm not sure what it all means but it seems rather suspicious that he would try to lay blame on me for only one edit when he has all this other stuff going on. Ebonyskye 06:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That report appears to be from before the arbitration case started. Newyorkbrad 02:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter when that report was done. I just think is shows a pattern of suspicious behavior that has gone unpunished in the past, and it just seems to be allowed to continue while no one here has even made an attempt to look into the false claims that Skinny McGee made against me. He/she claims I wrote things that I did not write! He/she links to things that were previously posted that I only tweeked a little bit, to make something more concise or to add a date. That kind of thing. Then he/she gets me blocked because the admins looking at the "report" made by Skinny McGee do not bother to actually investigate the links any further back than my edit. I will not let this go. I really want my name cleared and the actual guilty party punished for editing on articles he was previously banned from, and it seems for good reason. Ebonyskye 00:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I had previously archived this. I'm restoring from archive because I think that I blew it, and it needs further review. GRBerry 00:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As Thatcher131 pointed out on my talkpage, Mr. McGee is probably covered by both remedy #2 and remedy #1. As to remedy #1, there is only one page from which he is banned. For remedy #2, there would be more. I'll take the requestor's bullets in order, as numbered items.

  1. The diff is from before the ArbComm case closed. Not subject to action here.
  2. So innocent (wikilinking an already present proper noun) that it can no way be viewed as editing in a disruptive manner, so not blockable.
  3. Diffs are incorrect, but the history does show two removals, one when unsourced, one when Skinny said the source wasn't working. I don't know if this rises to the level of disruptive editing.
  4. Not disruptive editing unless there are more related diffs. Notifying the original adder of a reference of concerns over reliablity is the least disruptive possible way of addressing an issue.
  5. Diffs are not to McGee's actions.
  6. Ditto.
  7. Not McGee's action, not actionable here. Use established dispute resolution procedures.
  8. No diff.
  9. Not McGee's action, use dispute resolution.
  10. Ditto.

The only thing that I think is worthy of any further consideration is the third bullet. Skinny McGee hasn't touched that article since 18 August, and the content was restored by EbonySkye on that date. I can't see this as worth acting on now; blocks are preventative, not punitive. Thatcher reminded Mr. McGee on 23 August that remedy #2 applies. The only relevant edits I see since then are to Talk:Dungeons & Dragons (album). Remedy #2 explicitly says "It is acceptable to make suggestions on the talk page;". I think that the reminder Thatcher issues has been effective, and no action should be taken. But since I blew it by closing this thread, someone else should make the final call. GRBerry 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this again. I still feel that my block was inappropriate and was only done as some sort of retaliation. I prepared a long list if diffs showing how it escalated from only ONE edit I made. But I will post it on my archived talk page rather than junk up this page. I really would like my name cleared and perhaps an apology from those who wrongly acused me but I guess that's never going to happen. Ebonyskye 11:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC). Link to archived page amended today. Ebonyskye 06:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hajji Piruz[edit]

User:Hajji Piruz is placed under parole under the first decision by ArbCom [154], and further placed under supervised editing per the second decision - [155],

In the last 2 days, User:Hajji Piruz, extending his edit wars to literature templates, deleted twice the content from the Template:Literature of Azerbaijan:

According to WP:3RR, revert is: A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page . [156]. Thanks. Atabek 16:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours and banned from the template for six months. Moreschi Talk 16:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


In accordance with the ruling of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Andranikpasha (talk · contribs) was placed by an admin on a revert parole limiting him to 1 rv per page per week, and was required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page: [157] However, Andranikpasha reverted the article about Caroline Cox without any justification on the talk page whatsoever. [158] This is not in line with the requirements of his parole. --Grandmaster 09:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I placed a warning on his talkpage. He didn't violate the 1RR and just forgot to add the justification. Please AGF and give him time to adjust. VartanM 16:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


TigranTheGreat (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#TigranTheGreat_placed_on_revert_parole.

TigranTheGreat was 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.

However, on Shushi Massacres TigranTheGreat made 2 rvs within just 1 day. First he reverted the text of the article: [159], and then he reverted the page move: [160]. This constitutes a clear violation of his parole.

Reported by: Grandmaster 04:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no violation here. Consecutive reverts are treated as one single revert. -- tariqabjotu 05:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I.e. if one makes 2 or more rvs one after another, it is considered just 1 rv? Grandmaster 05:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes; this is in WP:3RR. -- tariqabjotu 06:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Grandmaster 06:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason there were 2 reverts is a technical one. I assumed that by reverting to a version prior to Grandmaster's unilateral move of the page, the page would be automatically moved back. Since it wasn't, I had to move it manually. Please note that Grandmaster made major unilateral changes to the article without any consensus, essentially watering down an article about an important tragic event.--TigranTheGreat 21:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


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.
This board is used to report violations of remedies (topic bans, probation, etc.) imposed in prior Arbitration cases. I'm sorry, but this is not the right forum for your problem. Thatcher131 13:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a good faith WP:IAR post. I am not allowed to discuss these issues in my editor review or anywhere else so I have no place else to post this.

If you take a moment to review my block logs, Anynobody (talk · contribs · logs) and Anyeverybody (talk · contribs · logs), you'll see I make every effort to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So far I thought I was doing pretty good, until it was made clear I've made several violations of WP:HARASS without realizing it.

I'd like to prevent any more violations of WP:HARASS by finding out from somebody besides User:Bishonen. Mind you I'm not saying Bishonen's evidence can't be cited, it's just that I'd like to hear from someone who can elaborate a bit more than she is willing to.

Anynobody has since at least March 2007 complained to and of Justanother with great frequency and persistence, and sometimes without relevance to mainspace editing, on WP:ANI, a variety of user talkpages, WP:RFA, and other fora, some of them clearly not intended for such use.

Given my actual opinion, if it was inappropriate to discuss on an RFA, do I say I can't answer and why? It seems you filed an RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother (now deleted). What was this about?
Where else besides WP:ER can I go for outside feedback on my editing and evaluation of the rules? (this is the ...other fora... mentioned I presume).
Some of the WP:ANI posts I realize in retrospect should have gone to WP:WQA. Which ones were inappropriate?
Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target.
1. Wikistalking 2. Targeted personal attacks 3. Threats 4. User space harassment 5. Blockable disruption not defined above 6. Concentrating negative attention on one or a few other users 7. Off-wiki harassment
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Folks, I just want to know where/how I screwed up from someone I'm not in a contentious debate about policies and so forth with. Please assume good faith and help me understand what went wrong. Anynobody 05:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This post is part of a long term pattern of disruptive editing, and I would support any admin who issues a block. We've gone over these issues ad nauseum and the user just doesn't get it. We've recommended mentorship as a way to get questions answered. Instead, the user bounces from forum to forum asking the same questions over and over and over and over, which is disruption by pestering. Anynobody is mentioning Justanother again, which is a violation of the arbitration remedies published yesterday. - Jehochman Talk 12:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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


user:Nrcprm2026 was placed under parole on Depleted Uranium and all related articles,RfAr probation. He has violated this with sockpuppets many time, and was recently found to be the puppeteer behind User:BenB4 Checkuser on BenB4. I beleive it is time to ban him permanently. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • "I do not see the downside of using socks to try to point out what other editors have neither the time nor inclination to." - Ahem. User obviously does Not Get It. Endorse indefinite ban. ~ Riana 15:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Also endorsed. Two down, one to go. Moreschi Talk 15:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Three. – Steel 15:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • (ec) Endorse. Riana's diff seals the deal. IAR isn't an excuse to evade sanction or continue disruption, and that would actually be contrary to the spirit of the principle. Vassyana 15:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ban implemented by indef blocks of socks and main account, duly logged. Moreschi Talk 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that BenB4 was the other user (along with Bmedley Sutler) who dug up old off-wiki posts and posted them to my RfA, which then promptly failed. One of the arguments as to why I was not entitled to any type of courtesy remedy was that BenB4 was a user in good standing. That argument just went out with the bathwater. - Crockspot 22:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on this, it appears that there are two more sock accounts:

- Crockspot 23:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)




It is certainly a rant against Wikipedia, and I have removed the name of one editor she singled out for attention. However, I do not believe the content is "calculated to offend," especially compared to the content at issue in the Arbitration case. The same kind of rant has been made by other editors concerning articles they are passionate about, for example by recognized experts in certain fields who find themselves frustrated at a system that gives the same weight to a board certified specialist and to a high school kid who just took a health class (to paraphrase one such complaint I read once). The language in some places is less moderate than I would be, but I am not passionate about this issue and Deeceevoice is. I don't find that the rant crosses the line from immoderate to offensive and it is certainly not deliberately offensive. Nor are the links to humanitarian campaigns "offensive" in any sense of the word. I do concur with the removal of the email from a banned user. Thatcher131 17:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I will further comment that whether the humanitarian links contravene user page policy (for soapboxing, perhaps) is not a matter for Arbitration enforcement, but should be dealt with as all questions about user pages should, i.e. calm discussion with the user, followed by a possible MfD nomination if the parties can't agree. Thatcher131 17:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that in the recent MFD Raul654 and jpgordon (both current arbitrators) commented keep, quite strongly. Now, I haven't compared the page then to now to see if it's significantly different, but that does seem to be of some relevance. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Content that does not fall under the Arbitration remedy should be dealt with via the normal mechanisms. It seems like an MfD has already been attempted and withdrawn, so (excepting the email from a banned user and the personal naming of another editor, since removed) I think this is a closed issue. Thatcher131 17:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Removing anything originating with a banned user, even if posted by somebody else in the course of making their own point, makes me a bit uneasy, as it brings to mind Orwellian "unperson" or Scientologist "suppressive person" status... is a "salt the earth" attitude towards any ideas, viewpoints, or opinions associated with a banned user really appropriate or healthy? *Dan T.* 17:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
That seems to be the policy, and there are arguments for and against. This seems like an issue to be raised on Talk:Ban policy or the Village pump. Thatcher131 17:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a banner template I have seen (on some talk pages that seem to get a lot of edits from socks of banned users) saying that edits from banned users are not wanted, and making them on behalf of banned users is not permitted. I can't lay my hands on it now despite having seen it earlier today! it looks sort of like Template:BannedMeansBanned... but if this policy does get changed that banner certainly would need changing too. It might explain why many people are pretty certain that banned editor contributions are to be reverted on sight. ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added the userpage template to the top of the page. It's certainly soapboxing, but editors get some leeway in user space. The important thing is to make sure visitors don't mistake the thing for an article. DurovaCharge! 18:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Probation decision on Scientology articles[edit]

In light of the recent ArbCom decision, how may editors request placement of a Probation template on a Scientology-related article, and who may place the template on a given article? Thanks. HG | Talk 15:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The decision says it is placed on the talk page of the article. Seems rather mandatory, or not? Shutterbug 06:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • All articles related to Scientology are placed on probation. As long as there is no disagreement about whether an article is "related to Scientology" or not, any editor may place the {{Article probation}} template at the top of the talk page. If there is a disagreement, ask an admin to make a determination. Thatcher131 07:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both for your input. Pursuant to the comments above, I've placed the Article Probation tag on Talk:Psychiatric abuse. The Scientology connection is noted in the article (though the editing there has been volatile) and its Talk page. I also left a brief explanation about my placement of the tag. Thanks again. HG | Talk 14:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson (2)[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.
MaplePorter has been indefinitely blocked by Picaroon as discussed below. MaplePorter may appeal to ArbCom. Thatcher131 16:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (HK) was involved in three ArbCom cases. In the course of them he was discovered to be using sock puppets so expertly as to almost elude detection. One of the cases includes a ban enforcement provision that resultd in a one-year ban: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Ban enforcement. Since then the ban has been reset twice due to further sock activity. MaplePorter (talk · contribs) (MP) has edited with the same POV as HK. Recently, MP uploaded an image, claiming that it had been scanned by her boyfiend,[165] who she claimed had never edited Wikipedia before.[166] The photo, Image:DennisKing,ChipBerlet.jpg, is an identical copy, pixel-for-pixel, as a photo uploaded by HK three years ago, Image:King berlet.jpg. It is techically impossible for a scanned photo to exactly match another scan done on a different scanner years apart. The image is not readily available on the web, but MP does not claim she obtained it there anyway. The logical conclusion is that MP has lied about how she obtained the photo, and the likeliest reason is that MP is actually a sockpuppet of HK. I request that the MP account be banned as a sockpuppet and that the ban on HK be reset. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If MP and HK were the same person, why would MaplePorter be uploading that image again? I don't even understand why MP would lie about the source of the image... there's another one available so why does it matter? -- tariqabjotu 21:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The image uploaded by HK had been deleted long ago. I restored it for the purpose of this comparison. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I received this image as an attachment to an email from a friend of mine. I had the impression that this person had aquired the image by scanning. However, I have now spoken on the phone with this person, and he informed me that he was unable to get a satisfactory result by scanning, so he used an image that he found on the web at this location: I hope this solves one mystery. The other, unsolved mystery is why is this such a big deal to Will Beback? There are many real problems at Wikipedia that could use attention by an administrator. --MaplePorter 23:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I am also puzzled about how Will's "logical conclusion" that I was lying is consistant with WP:AGF. --MaplePorter 23:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The image first appeared in a LaRouchite publication which was copyrighted. All other sources are stolen from this copyrighted publication, unless the original LaRouchite photographer wants to come forward and release it into the public domain, which itself is dubious, because it probably was a work for hire. The only reason it was reposted was to continue a campaign of cyberstalking.--Cberlet 23:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, images used under Fair Use are typically copyrighted, but not considered "stolen." And featuring photographs of notable individuals on Wikipedia is not typically considered "cyberstalking." --MaplePorter 23:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears plausible that the image was scraped by before it was deleted. They have boatloads of scraped images at Thatcher131 00:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Considering that MaplePorter volunteered that it was scanned, responded when requested that it was scanned, and then specifically said it was scanned by her boyfriend, I find it remarkable that she suddenly changes her story when confronted. I did a long search on Google Images to see if I could find the image on the web, but to no avail. How ddid MaplePorter's friend find the image? What links to it? I am still dubious. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it is obvious that MaplePorter is either a sockpuppet for HK, or in violation of the intent of the arbcom ruling on editing LaRouche-related pages, or both. At what point is it not obvious that the primary role of MaplePorter is to delete material critical of LaRouche and add material favorable to LaRouche in the same manner as previous editors banned from editing? Just look at the contributions page.--Cberlet 02:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to cite the arbcom ruling that you think Maple is violating? My read is that it says references to LaRouche should not be added to articles where they are inappropriate. Are you talking about something different? Please specify. --Marvin Diode 14:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The accusation is that Maple is acting as a sockpuppet or proxy editor for Herschelkrustofsky, which would be grounds for blocking or banning. Thatcher131 14:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Well... Cberlet said that "it is obvious that MaplePorter is either a sockpuppet for HK, or in violation of the intent of the arbcom ruling on editing LaRouche-related pages, or both." My question concerns what is meant by "the intent of the arbcom ruling" in the event that it is not the same as "Maple acting as a sockpuppet or proxy editor." --Marvin Diode 23:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Will on this one. The series of events according to Maple are difficult to believe. Additionally, Maple's statement regarding "the other, unsolved mystery" and the small comment following that seem to me to be pleas to divert attention away from anything that may be uncovered upon further scrutiny of him. -- tariqabjotu 05:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it simply means that I have been involved in numerous content disputes with Will Beback (who has edited with the same POV as Cberlet) and I think that he is engaging in a bit of harassment to intimidate me. --MaplePorter 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you clarify the situation by giving us the link through which the biocrawler image was found? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The likely explanation is that MaplePorter is a puppet of Herschelkrustofsky. Tom Harrison Talk 21:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
So what's our conclusion here? I see MaplPorter hasn't asnwered questions about how this obscure image was found. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
She provided a web address that checks out. What policy is being violated here? --Marvin Diode 05:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The accusation is sock puppetry to avoid a ban. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
And how does the fact that she, or her boyfriend, was able to find an image on Biocrawler support this theory? --Marvin Diode 13:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
That's the current claim. In order to prove it I've asked MaplePorter repeatedly to clarify how the image was found. Apparently MaplePorter refuses to substantiate her story. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Have you checked to see whether the image at matches the one she uploaded? Either it does or it doesn't. If it does, her story is credible. The fact that you have been involved in numerous content disputes with Maple is troubling, and you might want to consider recusing yourself (the same goes for Tom Harrison.) --Marvin Diode 00:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we know where MaplePorter claims to have obtained the image. The question on the floor is how was that image found? MaplePorter has already given conflicting answers. Unless a more plausible explanation is given then I think it's likeliest that it was obtained from HK, and that MaplePorter is HK. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
There are substantial holes in your theory. Is there any evidence that HK is connected in some way to Biocrawler? Did he put the image there himself? If not, how would he have any particular insider knowledge of how to find it there? As far as Maple giving conflicting answers, she says that she got the image from her boyfriend, and that she thought it was scanned, but then learned that it came off the web. Assuming good faith, the initial report that it was scanned could be an honest mistake, as she says it was. I don't see any other inconsistencies in her story. And I still wonder whether you, who have quarrelled with her continually over article content, are entirely objective and impartial in this matter. --Marvin Diode 20:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I never claimed to be impartial. Nor have you. MP repeatedly assured me that the image had been scanned. When confronted with the impossbility of that assertion she came up with an incomplete second explanation. She refuses to make any further statement clarifying how she obtained this image that was originally uploaded by HK. Rather than you and I debating each other, I'd like to hear from MaplePorter and from uninvolved editors. HK has used sock puppets many times before and maintains a steady interest in Wikipedia. Flouting ArbCom bans disrupts Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Amazing as it may seem, I have real life concerns that keep me from editing continuously at Wikipedia, so I am just now seeing these recent comments. Will Beback's assertion that I am "refusing to make any further statement" is just one more indication of his bias. I will ask my friend what the search criteria were -- is that what is being requested? --MaplePorter 07:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
When the question is ignored while other edits are made to Wikipedia I assume that it is ignored intentionally. The question is how was the image obtained? Was there a link that led to it, and if so what's that link. Or was it a search function, or what? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
According to his best recollectin, he did a Google search (not image search) using search words "King Berlet jpg." That brought up Indopedia, which had a blank image called "king_berlet.jpg." Then he did a Google search for "King_berlet.jpg" and found Biocrawler. --MaplePorter 20:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If you got a file named "king_berlet.jpg" it seems odd that you'd rename it "DennisKing,ChipBerlet.jpg", and it seems odd that your boyfriend would have gone to all that troubel to search for the file, and then tell you he'd scanned it. Can you upload one of the scans he performed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Jeez. Why don't you just apologize to her and move on? --Marvin Diode 23:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the only one who has expressed incredulity about MaplePorter's various explanations for this image. Once we're all satisfied with the answers the matter will be settled, one way or the other. Until then, interjections like that don't help further the matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback or Cberlet, can you provide some examples in the forms of diffs showing Maple Porter and Herschelkrustofsky pushing the same point of view? The photograph story is suspicious, but is not evidence of sockpuppetry itself. I'd like to see more examples of similarities between the two. Picaroon (t) 23:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done a comparison of the edit summaries, grammar, and points of views of these two users, and have determined they are most likely the same user. Therefore, I have blocked MaplePorter indefinitely as a ban evading sock. Picaroon (t) 20:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
That sort of "evidence" seems flimsy and circumstantial if you are taking such a radical step as an indefinite block. MaplePorter has made valuable contributions to a number of articles.--Marvin Diode 21:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Not commenting on the merits of the ban, the evidence suggests sockpuppetry, and sockpuppets of banned users are blocked, indefinitely. You may petition the committee for an annulment of the ban so Herschelkrustofsky may contribute constructivly under his main account if you wish, but the fact that this account may have made valuable contributions does not nullify the fact that it is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Picaroon (t) 22:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
...except that there is no reliable evidence that MaplePorter has any connection whatsoever with Herschelkrustofsky. This whole affair reminds me of The Crucible. --Marvin Diode 14:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
While I maintain that I'm pretty good at comparing non-technical traits and drawing conclusions from them, I nevertheless consulted a checkuser on this issue. He said "Based on checkuser evidence, I think it's fairly likely that MaplePorter is a HK sock". Picaroon (t) 20:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like you are talking dynamic IP numbers, which means more circumstantial evidence. I find it depressing that at Wikipedia an unscrupulous editor who wants to get his way in a content dispute can get his or her opponent indef-blocked, just by making a half-plausible allegation of sockpuppetry. This sort of thing will ruin Wikipedia's credibility. --Marvin Diode 14:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Since the checkuser information was not divulged, we don't know if the MaplePorter account was using dynamic or fixed IPs. Please be careful about describing other editors as "unscrupulous" as that could be seen as a personal attack. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Marvin Diode, you are not privy to the relevant checkuser data, so you probably shouldn't be trying to draw conclusions regarding them. Now, let's recap the evidence. Two involved users, Will Beback and Chip Berlet, who are familiar with Herschelkrustofsky, think MaplePorter is the same editor. Three uninvolved admins (Tariqabjotu, Spartaz, and I) agree with them. The accounts uploaded the same image, and the latter account has spun an unconving excuse that has changed at least twice. The two accounts edit the same subjects, have the same point of view, and have similar style quirks. And to wrap it all up, they are editing from similar IPs; a checkuser says the connection is  Likely, based on technical evidence alone. Please explain how all this evidence is faulty, without resorting to calling it "circumstantial" again and again. I'm open to being convinced that I made the wrong determination, but you're not convincing me. Picaroon (t) 00:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
MaplePorter's story about the image changed only once by my count. But otherwise, I'm afraid we've arrived at a deadlock, because my objection does come down to the simple fact that the evidence is circumstantial. That, and the fact that I have noted no serious conduct problem with MaplePorter's editing, and a lot of constructive contributions. It disturbs me that the two "involved users" that you mentioned are users that have been engaged in protracted content disputes with MP. If a user who had no axe to grind were to come along and point to an editor who was disruptive and unproductive, and then present evidence that suggested sockpuppetry, I would say that a ban is in order. But in this case, it seems like a serious overreaction. I find the whole affair disturbing and disheartening. --Marvin Diode 06:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with two experienced editors raising concerns - especially concerning the possibility of a new sock from a serial sockpuppeter. If nothing else, the editors most likely to recognise a sock are those editing the article in question. Neither took admin action themselves and waited for uninvolved admins to review the edidence and make a decision. Fron your argument we would never be able to deal with serial socks because everyone who knew anything about them would be disbarred from raising concern. There is a more then reasonable case that MaplePorter is HK and providing an incorrect explanation for the origin of that image did not help their cause. HK is banned and any reincarnation even as a productive user is not allowed unless they can have the ban rescinded. As you say, we appear to be at an impasse, you don't agree with the block but the consensus is that this was the right thing to do. Spartaz Humbug! 07:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Saladdays violating article probation of Arbitration Committee[edit]

Saladdays (talk · contribs), is removing (16) references from this article Scientology and Werner Erhard, over and over again. It appears that this is in direct violation of probation from the Arbitration Committee, from a notice at Talk:Scientology and Werner Erhard.

Request a stern warning or a temporary block of this user to avoid (16) citations being removed from the article, it is disruptive and in direct violation of the probation from the Arbitration Committee. Thank you for your time. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

Actually, Saladdays has reverted to his preferred version 3 times in the last week or so while you have reverted to your preferred version 4 times, and neither one of you has made any attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page. Simply removing references by itself is not a problem. There are many true things that can be referenced that editors may decide as a matter of editorial judgement do not belong in an article. The two of you should discuss this issue or you could both end up being banned from the page for a while. Thatcher131 22:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


banned user editing using IP socks (talk · contribs) (talk · contribs). evident from the addresses, previous CU, articles edited and the edits themselves, most of which are reverts. Doldrums 11:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked both IPs, if they come back, do let me know. Moreschi Talk 11:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Shutterbug formerly User:COFS[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.
There's really no point in prolonging this discussion. If Shutterbug violates the 30 day article ban, make a new report. Other issues can be dealt with through the appropriate channels if needed. Thatcher131 23:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Shutterbug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) "...appears to be working towards a pro-Scientology point of view at the expense of NPOV." -Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS#Findings of fact.

Continuing the same behavior:
  • Removed reference with edit summary:lie removed. this well known to be out of a finance series for church organizations and about the fact that you go bankrupt if you don't have any income.
  • Removed several WP:RS used elsewhere in the article with edit summary: NPOVed. if you feel it is impossible for you just to state a simple fact without the need to slant it to something overly slanderous or overcritical, then please refrain from editing.
  • Removed {{fact}} requesting reference for assertion about critical acclaim, with edit summary:it's "literature" critics)
  • Removed citation and replaced with {{fact}}(Anynobody 07:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

The arbcom debated a 30 day block for previous behavior like this, which I still feel is a bit too harsh. However some kind of block, or very explicit warning, seems to be in order considering how recently the case was decided. Anynobody 05:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me as funny that the editor who added in outright falsehoods in the article is now screaming for punishment of the one who reverted his POV pushing, probably after realizing that he has no Wikipedia policy to back up his POV. But find out for ourself, however please follow the whole route through the article history and talk page discussion about the above, as well as the ArbCom discussion (which ended with putting the article under probation) on the subject. Anynobody as a part of the ArbCom decision ultimately was warned not to harass another Scientologist editor (Justanother) or be blocked. I feel he just turned the page and now runs after me. Shutterbug 06:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to turn this into a battleground by replying to every comment, but I will say that what Shutterbug has identified as POV pushing is simply what the references say. Anynobody 06:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not correct. On the money one your text is an interpretation of the ref - and an incorrect one at that. On the critics one you deleted a valid ref yourself which I put back in and on the NPOVed one you threw the lead section off balance by inserting repetitions of the same idea to push your viewpoint, i.e. violation of WP:UNDUE and I shortened this convolution of one-sided opinion to a true statement of facts, in alignment with WP:NPOV. Anyway, this does not lead anywhere, so can someone not involved in the Scientology discussion have a look and say something? Shutterbug 06:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional note: This is turning into a mass deletion of cited text. Stop it, Anynobody, just get your fingers under control. Shutterbug 07:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't reverted over cited text so many times, but it's forced me to also report violating WP:3RR. WP:AN3#User:Shutterbug reported by User:Anynobody (Result: ) Anynobody 07:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Shutterbug banned from editing scientology-related articles and their talkpages for 30 days[edit]

I agree that Shutterbug is behaving disruptively at L. Ron Hubbard, especially in the sense of creating and keeping alive quarrels through aggressive edit summaries which focus on editors rathers rather than edits. Here's a typical one, not quite as overt an attack as the examples Anynobody cites: "reverting back to NPOV titles instead of POV pushing wording put in by F451" [167] It's from September 26, just three days after the article was put on probation, and led to an angry debate on the talkpage. What is the need for routinely using edit summaries to provoke other editors? That's not what edit summaries are for, and there's no possible constructive purpose in such creation of bad blood. I'm not interested in who's right or wrong about the "POV" of the versions being reverted between; my point is that it doesn't matter, when reverting something, if it's (in Shutterbug's view) POV pushing or not. His/Her reason for reverting is presumably a quality of the text (=the quality of being POV), not an assumed intention of the editor who put it there (=the quality of being POV pushing). Therefore, write (if you must) "reverting back to NPOV titles instead of POV wording", lose the "pushing". Honestly, how hard is this principle, how many times has it been explained? Don't attack people, stick to editing the text, use edit summaries to explain why a change is made. I've only looked at the Hubbard article, but from his/her behaviour there alone, Shutterbug is being continually provocative. Anynobody has some even worse examples above.

Per the article probation that scientology-related articles is on, I'm hereby banning Shutterbug from editing those articles for 30 days. This includes talkpages. I hope the arbcom will let me know if including talkpages is inappropriate, but Shutterbug is a disruptive and quarrelsome presence on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard. (Today's header posted by S: "Vandalism by Anynobody.") I will assume good faith and not state that s/he is trying to provoke other editors into inappropriate behaviour, but s/he's certainly having that effect. (It's for instance easy enough to provoke Fahrenheit451.) Finally, I'm quite unimpressed by Shutterbug's attempt above to cadge a ride on the arbcom decision re Anynobody/Justanother. Bishonen | talk 09:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC).

I do not understand two things: a) you were part of the ArbCom procedure and involved yourself in the fight between Justanother and Anynobody/Anyeverybody etc. I don't know why you are involving yourself now. It might be possible by WP policy though. Not really important. b) Your judgment resulted in the addition of a couple of POV statements in the article. May be that I do not understand the job of an Admin, may be. I thought you would guard the application of Wikipedia policy to reach a correct/verifiable article. After all this is an encyclopedia not a social club or soccer game in need of a referee. Content control, correct application of NPOV etc. is what I thought would be key here. If that is not your product, what is it then? I do understand that I was too noisy and stupidly got myself provoked by continuous inclusion of falsehoods. The talk page ban however is not in alignment with the ArbCom decision at all so I do have a problem understanding your punishment decision. Shutterbug 17:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
(Added later as no answer was received: Bish, last but not least may I remind you of what the ArbCom decided: "The above arbitration case has recently concluded. COFS (now Shutterbug) is asked to refrain from recruiting editors whose editing interests are limited to Scientology-related topics. Anynobody is prohibited from harassing Justanother, and Justanother is urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions. All Scientology-related articles are placed on article probation. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)". Shutterbug 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC))
I'm not trying to provoke this behavior. The simple fact is that Shutterbug's strong feelings have clouded her ability to edit Scientology articles in a WP:NPOV way as defined by the policy.
With all due respect, focusing on her edit summaries entirely misses the problem, removing or altering cited text and trying to invoke mistaken perceptions of what NPOV is. Take the Time's use of Hubbard's quote about money, Shutterbug thought I had put it in the article out of context, when I actually used exactly the same context as the Time article. "Make sure that lots of bodies move through the shop," implored Hubbard in one of his bulletins to officials. "Make money. Make more money. Make others produce so as to make money . . . However you get them in or why, just do it." is the closing sentence of several paragraphs discussing Hubbard's financial motivations. Anynobody 01:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that it is a falsehood, you know it but put it in the article anyway. It's not a bulletin, it's not "to officials", it's not a correct quote, it's out of context, it's not part of doctrine and it is interpreted and embellished by you personally - not covered in the ref - with a 100% POV statement. In the absence of actual article probation control - CONTENT CONTROL for the sake of a correct Wikipedia article - I agree that my mistake is to be so noisy that I seem to attract the attention personally instead of getting the attention on POV pushing and the inclusion of outright false information in articles. Attacking me for provoking god-knows-who is an interesting approach, given your own consistent behavior. Shutterbug 16:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Anynobody, you need to re-read Bishonen's post. She topic banned Shutterbug, not you. Hello, she's siding with you, and you are complaining. That's odd to say the least. - Jehochman Talk 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman I guess you missed the fact that her meltdown started as a result of my edits to L. Ron Hubbard. Being that I'm also on probation it seemed appropriate to reassure the arbcom that this was unintentional on my part. (This is the arbcom enforcement board, right?)
Also, I'm sorry to confuse you but I wasn't "defending" myself from accusations Bishonen didn't make. If I had thought Bishonen was suggesting this was my doing, I'd of directly addressed her on that. Anynobody 23:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
In my experience when somebody pre-emptively defends themselves, that behavior correlates with guilt. When somebody makes unfounded accusations (e.g. Shutterbug's RFCU on ChrisO and Anynobody), it's a sign they may be doing exactly that thing. - Jehochman Talk 00:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Well in this case I've been found to be harassing Justanother without knowing how, just to be on the safe side and prevent that from happening again I thought I'd mention my participation/intentions. Anynobody 01:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

More Shutterbug disruption[edit]

Shutterbug has posted this frankly insane request for checkuser, in effect accusing Anynobody of being a sockpuppet of myself (or vice-versa). This strikes me as a blatant attempt to retaliate against Anynobody for this topic ban. It's certainly a general waste of time all round. Given that it occurred after Bishonen had banned Shutterbug for aggressive editing directed at other users, I believe it indicates a continued willingness to engage in disruptive conduct. I propose that the ban should be extended for another 15 days (for a total of 45 days) to reinforce the ArbCom's message that disruptive conduct and willful attacks on other editors are unacceptable - Shutterbug clearly hasn't got the message yet. -- ChrisO 18:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

More punishment drive! But you got the time wrong, the ban came later. There goes your retaliation accusation (but what exactly are YOU doing here right now?). And, for an Admin running an anti-Scientology hate site I would really recommend that you leave this up to neutral people. Thanks. Shutterbug 18:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Chris that the CheckUser request is quite frivolous. But my topic ban did come later, so I'd be inclined to let its 30 days cover that frivolity as well. If I'd known about the CU at the time of the ban, I reckon I would still have set the ban at 30 days (a hefty pageban)—not at 45. However, I should mention upfront that I'm concerned by Shutterbug's phrasing here about "meddling with anti-scientology editors," something s/he seems to think s/he's going to indulge in now that s/he's banned on scientology talkpages. Not sure what "meddling" means, but if it should refer to pestering or harassing editors, think again, Shutterbug. Nothing like that will be tolerated. As for "punishment", nothing could be less interesting to me than to "punish" you. My whole concern here is to keep the scientology articles editable and collaborative, which is the goal the remedies of the arbitration committee were directed at, especially the article probation. Bishonen | talk 22:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC).
I read that as an intention to harass editors s/he disagrees with. Shutterbug knows that neither Anynobody nor I are sockpuppets, so there was absolutely no justification for posting a bogus RCU. If this is an example of how Shutterbug intends to interact with other editors, I'm not impressed; we don't need editors who engage in such tactics. -- ChrisO 22:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Shutterbug, unless you believe that ChrisO and Anynobody/Anyeverybody are actually the same person, which is certainly unsupported by any evidence adduced thus far, then I suggest that you withdraw this checkuser request. Newyorkbrad 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the hint, Newyorkbrad. Suspicions about this strange twinship of Chris and Anobody are not new. They started eight or more months ago when both of them did exactly the same as now. That time the L. Ron Hubbard article had a military section and "both" feel to be specialists on LRH/WWII (they got their own article in the end). ChrisO has written a very opinionated, pulpy bio on Hubbard, allegedly with data from his ex-profession (which he will have to fill you in on) and strangely it reads very much like what Anynobody writes. Chris' reaction is just strange. Can any one here explain how a checkuser request can be so "outraging" that I am being called "insane" and "frivolous"? It's just a simple procedure with uncertain results. Shutterbug 00:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'd kinda support going through with it, when it comes back that we aren't, at least she'll know for sure. Anynobody 23:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
She already knows - it's a very obvious attempt at bureaucratic harassment. Checkuser time is limited and would be better used on genuine requests. -- ChrisO 23:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I know she knows, and the harassment attempt seems consistent with a noisy investigation strategy. However, using deductive reasoning based on what sources say about the church, they are likely to use a decline to investigate on our part as a point to make us look "biased". We know that Shutterbug, has edited from Church IPs under the name COFS, which I personally think makes it reasonable to consider the possibility her actions are part of an official attempt to control public perception here.
If I'm wrong then at least Shutterbug will not be able to make the accusations without somebody providing a link to the case in response. It's win/win, j/k I realize wasting checkuser time to reassure one editor is more of a win/win/lose. If I am right, then that's proof to anyone interested that we aren't biased. Anynobody 23:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to the terrible twins for letting me know what I supposedly know (which I don't know, which is why I ask for it, and will continue to do so, in spite of ChrisOs rather persistent WP:NPA violations. What a Man, what a Fighter, what an Admin!). Otherwise see above. Shutterbug 06:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you are truly confused by the rules here. ChrisO is not making personal attacks, clarifying a misunderstanding with another editor is not recruiting [168], and NPOV is mostly about the sources and how we use them.
Somebody not involved with this dispute needs to explain to Shutterbug both why she's under a temporary ban and her accusations are baseless. She expects ChrisO and myself to justify our actions, so to her we're only giving excuses, in other words she won't listen to us. Anynobody 07:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Anynoobody, you're hardly the paragon of impartiality in this matter. Please stop throwing fuel on the fire. Let the community handle Shutterbug. You worry about yourself. - Jehochman Talk 13:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I hope things have settled down here. Anyway, I think the results of the checkuser will verify that ChrisO and Anynobody are two different people living in two different countries. If anyone is interested, on 27 Sept 07 I received an email from Shutterbug that had nothing to do with Wikipedia and was Scientology-related. If any administrator is interested, I can forward this to you.--Fahrenheit451 23:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Hajji Piruz[edit]

User:Hajji Piruz, formerly User:Azerbaijani, was placed under parole under the remedy by the first ArbCom case [169], and further placed under supervised editing per remedy of the second ArbCom case - [170]. After a 10-day break, which included a 48-hour block due to edit warring at Template:Literature of Azerbaijan, User:Hajji Piruz, formerly User:Azerbaijani, is back to reverting and edit warring on other pages related to Azerbaijan without properly discussing. Below are his reverts in first day of editing after 10 days:

Please, check his history [178], during the day of September 27th, all of his article edits were reverts on Azerbaijan-related articles. Thanks. Atabek 15:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I also note that he is required to discuss any content reversions on the relevant talk pages. Moreschi Talk 16:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Where did I violate parole? I have been involved in discussions in all of these articles, and put comments for every single revert. I was gone for a period of a week and a half, of which certain users took advantage to insert POV, OR, and remove large amounts of sourced information.[[User:Hajji [Piruz|Hajji Piruz]] 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's true that you have not violated your parole directly (or not that I can see), and on every occasion you do seem to have used the talk page. This is commendable. What is not so commendable, however, is that you walk away for ten days and then come straight back with a pile of reverts in one day across multiple related articles. That is highly dubious conduct, to say the least. Consider this a stern warning for the future. I'm undecided as to whether any further action is necessary. Moreschi Talk 19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Shall I add, that one of his edits [179], is actually removing sourced text wording taken from CIA World Factbook 2007, and replacing it with sourceless POV. Actually, he never discussed this particular edit on the talk page [180], but repeated general non-edit-specific POV comments. I think the ArbCom remedy refers to leaving comments/discussing specific reasons for reverting particular content, not just any comment. Atabek 00:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Here’s Hajji Piruz’s latest comment, threatening with an edit war on FA article Azerbaijani people. [181] Hajji Piruz makes POV interpretations of sources that have no support from other editors, and not only those who are party to this arbcom case, but also such respected members of wikipedia community as User:Tombseye (who wrote that article up to the FA standard). [182] However Hajji Piruz keeps edit warring over inclusion of that particular edit in a number of Wikipedia articles despite lack of consensus. Grandmaster 04:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted an undiscussed page move by Hajji Piruz as well as a large rollback of some massive POV changes he made. Here. TBH there doesn't even appear to be the slightest attempt at consensus discussion with that edit. SWATJester Denny Crane. 16:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first instance of Hajji Piruz making such controversial moves with any consensus. See this: [183] And Swatjester's edits were reverted by Pejman47 (talk · contribs), [184] [185] who was a subject of discussion here: [186] Pejman47's contribution history consists almost exclusively of reverts on controversial articles. Grandmaster 05:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Not true at all! A) the page move was never contested, B) the opposition section contains information which is about a completely different people and subject.
This is really ridiculous. I suggest that the administrators do not take the word of one party of the dispute who has had a continuous history of disputes with another party. My absence is simply being taken advantage of to completely undo everything in order to push a certain POV.Hajji Piruz 21:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

He has been blocked for reverting and moving again at Iranian_theory_regarding_the_origin_of_the_Azerbaijanis for 1 month (given the history above). SWATJester Denny Crane. 21:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Per the ArbCom ruling on the block duration for the first five parole violations, I have reduced the length to 1 week. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


According, to the recent ArbCom decision [187], remedies in the case "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". In addition, the principle of the same ArbCom, states [188]: " Armenian, Azeri or other local sources are subject to the same requirements of reliability as any other scholarly or journalistic sources." Recently, I noticed that article Fizuli was using a POV Wiki, created by Raffi Kojian, as a source on the article related to occupied district of Azerbaijan. While editing the article with other, non-neutral sources [189], I indicated the fact that Raffi Kojian is not a scholar and not a neutral source, so his website is not a reliable or encyclopedic source for Wikipedia. In return User:RaffiKojian as attacked and insulted me on my user page [190], saying: "You apparently either do not know how to click on a link to see what the linked to page says, or you do not know English.... That is a fact, whether you accept it or not, and your insulting me will neither get you back Fizuli, Varanda, nor your self respect." I don't see what such harsh words and assumptions of bad faith have to do with content of Fizuli article. Atabek 02:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny you mention unreliable and unencylopedic sources for Wikipedia when you constantly use and spread them. [191]. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 02:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Those sources are not on Khojaly page, but they were YouTube videos, not an external non-neutral POV Wiki created by Wikipedia contributor. But most importantly, I didn't attack contributor by questioning his self-respect or saying he can't read English. Please assume good faith. Atabek 03:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Youtube videos are reliable and encyclopedic now? All I saw was a bad movie with what seemed to be rubber dolls. How can I assume good faith with someone who promotes such material on Wikipedia?-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thats really funny Atabek, I hope you did not forgot, how you were questioning my morals, and implying that I don't have any. I did not even got an apology for it. Not that I need for any. --VartanM 08:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Vartan, indeed, I was even blocked for it. Perhaps, the application of rules should be even handed, don't you think? Atabek 10:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I didn't want to bring up the past, the hope for the bright future is much more appealing to me. But I found your statement that you didn't attack contributor by questioning their self-respect very hypocritical. I don't think your case can be compared to Raffi's, after all you were the one who "threw the first punch". And by punch I mean an uncivil comment[192] about him. That was an assumption of bad faith and bait on your part. You did not expected a barnstar from him did you? You can't expect for people to be polite when you're insulting them. Have a good night. --VartanM 11:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
VartanM, yet again assume good faith. Stating the fact that source author is not a scholar and is not neutral source is not an insult. I believe this lengthy thread of discussion is needless because the AE case is opened for a specific clear violation by User:RaffiKojian. If you have disputes regarding my words, please, open a separate AE case, and I will be glad to see how calling a source POV is supposed to be an insult and how accusing someone of insult in retaliatory manner is indeed an assumption of bad faith. Atabek 12:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you're right Atabek, your behavior certainly calls for a report. --VartanM 12:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about Atabek, but I consider called POV an insult. In this case it was totally out of order and the one thing cited from my page, is that Fizuli is called Varanda now by the existing government of Karabakh, which excersizes control over the land. Everything else on the wikipedia Fizuli page was taken from another site, and referenced that site, but Atabek made a special point of saying that RAFFI KOJIAN IS NOT A SCHOLAR, and HIS SITE IS POV. If anyone needs arbitration it is him, because nobody could be expected to consider that "in good faith", thank you very much! --RaffiKojian 09:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Raffi, POV stands for point-of-view, is it insulting? If you think you're a scholar, you're welcome to dispute that with evidence at the relevant location, such as presenting a list of publications in referenced journals or conferences. Atabek 10:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I know what POV is as you know I do from our Askeran clash, so again, please don't insult my intelligence. And yes I consider being called POV an insult. I have not claimed to be a scholar, so why would you remove a link to Armeniapedia stating Raffi Kojian is not a scholar? You may not be a rocket scientist, but I do not remove your edits stating Atabek is not a rocket scientist. And in this case it was a simple fact that is at issue, not something open to interpretation. So again, you are instigating things here, and try as I might, I cannot assume good faith in your actions or words. --RaffiKojian 03:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, also your source asks nothing about "Fizuli is a raion of Azerbaijan, partially under the military control of Armenian forces". it only asks "Karabakh Armenian forces take Agdam, then push south toward the Iranian border, occupying the Qubatli, Jebrayli, and Fizuli districts" [193]. "Karabakh Armenian" not "Armenian", "Fizuli district" not "raion" (of Karabakh, of Azerbaijan?), nothing about "partially military control". is it an original research? Andranikpasha 10:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Andranik, please, present material to prove that Fizuli is not under Armenian control at the relevant page. This thread is to discuss the assumption of bad faith and personal attack by Raffi Kojian on my talk page. Atabek 10:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me point out first of all Atabek that YOU edited the article. I never touched the article, nor even once disputed your edit - something I would have done if I was POV. And yes, I KNOW what POV means, and yes, I consider it an insult that you consider me and my site POV. I may be ethnically Armenian, and happily so, but I do not let it blind me to the truth as best we know it. I am not one to sit and try to hide what other people of my ethnicity have done. What they've done, they've done, and I try to document it as cleanly as possible. So since I have not even edited an Armenian or Azerbaijan related article, and you have - and insulted me in the process, the only person it seems up for ArbCom is you. I've said my piece however, and I could care less about wasting other peoples time on this further. Just stop attacking me and my website, and preaching for Vartan and me to assume good faith, and instead actually practice what you're preaching. --RaffiKojian 16:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Raffi, I don't think calling me to have self-respect, for saying that your POV website isn't appropriate for referencing, is good faith editing. Just the opposite it's personal attack. And yes, you have edited Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles, here is just one [194] to refresh your memory, where you even used to edit war back in May. So please, assume good faith and stop attacking me, address your content POV on the relevant content page. Thanks. Atabek 20:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Atabek, I did not call on you to have self respect. What I wrote about self respect was clear so I will not rehash that. Now as I said, you have reported me for "editing an Armenian-Azeri related article". You reported me yesterday. I have not edited the article you are referring to (on Fizuli) except for a small, undisputed edit in January. For you to now mention an edit of mine in May to a third article, where I was cleaning up your POV edits as the real reason you are now reporting me is quite dishonest. I assume good faith with new users. If YOU want me to assume good faith about you, then play honest, stop baiting and insulting, and actually work in good faith. Otherwise your cry for us to all assume your good faith is getting tired and old. --RaffiKojian 03:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


After baiting and insulting User:RaffiKojian here, Atabek reported him to this noticeboard. His edit summary violated WP:BAIT, WP:NPA, WP:CIVILITY

He then reported User:MarshallBagramyan to User:Moreschi [195]. What was he reported for? a simply reverting an article. He was not revert warring (That was his first and only edit in the article for over a month), he was not uncivil nor did he violated any of the Wikipedia policies.

He then reported me, first to this board[196], then moved the report to ANI[197]. 3 different users reported in last 24 hours, just because they disagree with him, is an assumption of bad faith and poisons the atmosphere. I don't see how any of us could assume good faith with him. --VartanM 13:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

He violated the #14 principle of Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ArbCom case [198].

When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate.

User:RaffiKojian was having a dispute about inclusion of his site as an external link in the Armenian Genocide article. Atabek provoked him by his edit summary here[199]. which escalated into an argument between the two users and a subsequent report to Arbcom. --VartanM 13:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that Atabek was aware that Raffi was a registered user here. He only noted that Raffi was not a neutral and authoritative source, which none of us is. It was neither a personal attack nor provocation, just a comment about a source used as a reference. Raffi's comment was absolutely uncalled for, but I think there's no need to escalate this any further. But Raffi should adhere to WP:NPA even without any arbcom rulings in the future. Grandmaster 14:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, aside from the fact that I do not consider myself or my site to be POV, and have been welcoming both here of Turks to go and edit it themselves in a NPOV manner, and have on my site strictly demanded it of others, the simple fact is that his edit only removed a reference to my site which simply was used to refer to the fact that the name of Fizuli has been changed to Varanda by the Karabakh government which de-facto controls it. We're not talking about a genocide, not talking about shades of gray, we are talking about simply whether the de-facto government of Karabakh has changed the name of Fizuli to Varanda or not. The comment about me was a personal attack, it was over the top and unnecessary (as was raising this issue here, like an innocent victim), and all of this is now a great waste of time for us all. --RaffiKojian 16:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The comment was about the source (which was you and your website), and I don't think that mentioning the fact that you are not a professional scholar was a personal attack. If you want some info included, it is better to find a better source than a personal website. Regardless of actual merits of your work outside of Wikipedia, I think it is beyond any reasonable doubt that websites such as yours cannot be used as references here, see this: [200] So I suggest you try to back up the info you want to add with third party sources, in that case there will be no situations such as the one we are discussing now. Grandmaster 17:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Whether Raffi's website is reliable or not, is a different issue. The fact is that Atabek attacked his personality and has reported 3 different Armenian users within the last 24 hours. His battleground approach is very disruptive and unacceptable. --VartanM 18:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why User:VartanM is again grouping users into war along national lines right above. What's paradoxical is that my edit comment has nothing to do with User:VartanM, User:Andranikpasha or User:Eupator, it was their choice to respond to this thread further accusing me. It's interesting to note that I got attacked by User:RaffiKojian here [201] for absolutely no valid reason, and yet we have User:VartanM appearing at AE, assuming even more bad faith [202] and even accusing me under the same thread. Looks like User:VartanM has already been warned at least three times for his assumptions of bad faith [203], [204], [205]. Perhaps after three notices during and after ArbCom case, to which User:VartanM was a party, and his new round of accusations against me [206] his continuous assumptions of bad faith should be finally reviewed, just like for any other user. Otherwise, it looks like it's fine to attack me, call me to "gain self-respect" and then have User:VartanM, who used to call my edits [207] idiotic and accuse other editors of nazism [208] in past, appear here and accuse me of baiting. If he has some kind of privilege to violate Wikipedia rules left and right, and then continue in the same fashion without any restriction, then we should know about it. I think the fact that User:VartanM feels important to respond with bad faith to just about any thread I post on noticeboards, including the ones absolutely unrelated to him or his contributions, should speak for itself. He finally must be encouraged to assume good faith. Thanks. Atabek 19:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Atabek you did report 3 Armenian users all during the last 24hours did you not? You reported MarshalBagramian for simply reverting you. You reported RaffiKojian because he responded to your remark about him not being a scholar. Whether you were stating a fact or not is not relevant. The fact is that it was your remark which started this dispute. Addressing your query about why I felt the need to respond, I explained that already. As for responding to you in other thread, That was a report against me, the least I could've done was to respond to you.
About the diffs of my assumption of bad faith. They have been already addressed in the previous Arbcom cases. If we are going to dig deep into our histories, then perhaps I can bring your not so pleasant comments, but like I already said I would much rather look into the bright future then the gloomy past. Escalating this into another exhausting arbcom case is not what I'm looking for.
And since were talking, can you please explain [209] why I was told to assume good faith by you, when my previous edit was to welcome a new user to wikipedia. And you haven't been active on that talkpage over a month. If it is something I did or said please let me know so I can be aware of it. --VartanM 21:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Admin response

Saying "Raffi Kojian is neither a scholar nor a neutral news source" is not a personal attack. is not a reliable source, because it is a public wiki. I agree with Grandmaster that Atabek might not have even been aware Kojian was an editor here; was he? Next, who runs and writes Anna and Karen Vrtanesyan, as it says at the bottom? Who are they? Unless it turns out they're academics associated with mainstream universities or research institutes, their site might well be unreliable too. Raffi, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Picaroon (t) 18:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I had to register an account with Wikipedia, to address the false accusations regarding the Electronic Library. is indeed a library. Karen or Anna Vrtanesyan's academical credentials has nothing to do with the materials presented in the library. We provide books and articles by both Armenian and foreign authors. For example, there are books on the Genocide of Armenians in Turkey authored by Edwin Munsell Bliss (an American), Rendel Harris (a Britt), Helen Davenport Gibbons (American), Armin Wegner (German), etc. We provide those books as is: we do not add anything, we do not edit anything, if possible we preserve pagination, even typos! For those books we can provide the scanned originals. If someone thinks the source (the original book) is unreliable, that is the problem of the book/its author/accuser not the library which keeps it. I am shocked by the fact that a web site listed in the Library of Congress' guide can be so easily removed on a report from someone who in no way can be called neutral. (Groul (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC))
Picaroon Raffi and Atabek are both part of Wikiproject Azerbaijan and Raffi has been an editor since 2004. Your response only addressed the first report. I would like you or another administrator to address my concerns. --VartanM 19:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
On reporting you for assuming bad faith, I agree that was not helpful. I don't think assuming bad faith alone is something we sanction users for, and the conflict between you guys has gone way beyond the realms of a good-faith dispute anyways. As to reporting the revert to Moreschi, has Moreschi asked to be notified of such things, or was it just shopping for an admin? If the former, I see nothing wrong with it; if the latter, Atabek is hereby warned that admins find forum shopping very annoying. Atabek's report here was acceptable. Picaroon (t) 19:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Picaroon, thank you for looking into the issue and I am sorry for taking your time for this. I don't shop for admins, as I posted only to one admin, who was specifically familiar with this dispute. Please, review my response above because I am frankly tired of being attacked, reporting specific violations to ArbCom and yet having VartanM appear in cases, which don't even involve him trying to turn the report against me. Why aren't Kojian's insults against me, which are subject of this report, addressed at all? Why does VartanM feel free to accuse me of baiting while specifically told by ArbCom to assume good faith? Thanks. Atabek 19:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I wonder why you have missed the first part of the comment which was: removed non-encyclopaedic POV taken from and It fails human understanding and comprehension the way Atabek’s strategic picking of words is not understood by admins. Atabek is well aware that is meant to be an encyclopaedia, non-encyclopaedic POV was a comment calculated to bait Raffi and this soon after Raffi's website was removed from the Armenian Genocide page. Atabek was AGAIN!!! searching for trouble, is it a personal attack to say this? And for your information Picaroon, Raffi's website is not only a Wiki, it is the merging of the material he had on his prior site, which included at the time the largest collection of digitized materials on the web on and about Armenians. He moved the material to, and the use of on Wikipedia was mostly for the non-wiki information, which were digitized materials. No one had any problem previously when was included. As for, this site is without question reliable, it only contains digitized works from materials which copyright has been waved, even user:Dacy69 has used it previously.
If the few lines above are too long to be read, let’s just say that Atabek’s removal of those two links (which was soon after Raffi's site was removed from Armenian Genocide page) was calculated to bait a user. He didn't have any problem with it previously; he did it when it was debated on the Armenian Genocide talkpage NOT BEFORE! Also, funny, since the reason his site was used was for something which could be considered as general knowledge on the renaming of a place by a local government. Raffi already wrote a work on the region, that he is biased or not, doesn't change the fact that the information wasn't even a point of dispute. - Fedayee 02:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Fedayee for this excellent summary. I think this summary and that of VartanM show Atabek to be a clearly POV and bad faith editor. To report me for editing an article that I did not even edit is particularly rich, and something our admin did not even bother point out. That the admin also did not note that the info on my site that Atabek attacked was so simple and black and white, no POV could even enter it, and to simply cast aside a well monitored a site with hundreds of NPOV sources I think is an indication that the site has not even been given a cursory inspection. Oh well, at least we can stop wasting our time here. --RaffiKojian 03:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Like it or not, neither nor are good sources for use here. There are many similar Armenian and Azerbaijani sources, but those sources can be used only to reflect positions of both sides. In case with the above two, they are not even news agencies to be used for reflecting anyone's position, and they have no official status to represent any governmental views nor are scholarly publications. So I beleive the information that you want to have added should rely on better sources. That's what the problem is about, and there's no need to take it to the personal level. Grandmaster 04:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin response Mark 2[edit]

No, I don't mind being notified of the latest episodes of Armenia-Azeri wars. Helps me keep on top of things, I guess.

Ok, here's my take on things: 1 revert is not the end of the world, fighting over trivialities is a a right pain (so that's basically this whole thread), and calling into question the reliability of sources is not a personal attack. Please use always reliable sources at all times, and God help you if you don't; I will handing out the blocks and bans for violations of this.

Now, please all go away, and only come back to this noticeboard when you have something important to fight about. Cheerio! Moreschi Talk 12:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson again[edit]

User:Nikola Smolenski and Gazimestan speech[edit]

A dispute has arisen between Nikola Smolenski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and three other users, including myself, concerning a paragraph in the Gazimestan speech article that he has repeatedly sought to replace. The wording proposed by Nikola is regarded as a clear violation of NPOV by the other editors of the article, but repeated attempts to find a compromise have failed and the article has seen a slow-motion edit war between Nikola and the other editors (see history). This and other Kosovo-related articles are currently under article probation following an earlier arbitration.

I would appreciate it if uninvolved editors could drop in at Talk:Gazimestan speech#Request for comment to advise on the proper application of NPOV to this article. -- ChrisO 11:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)