Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive4

.

Mattjs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has begun editing Sex tourism argumentatively [1], targeting the same sections as User:KyndFellow, and has taken up KyndFellow's campaign to remove or bury references to Child prostitution.

Relevent remedy: KyndFellow banned

Relevant enforcement: Enforcement by block, Puppet.

Mattjs (talk · contribs) has also begun editing Talk:Sex tourism verbosely and aggressively [2] [3], [4], fighting similar battles, disputing the definition of sex tourism[5]. Like KyndFellow, he argues his own expertise trumps cited information [6]. (In that same diff, he also insinuates that I'm a Christian and therefore biased, as KyndFellow did a while ago, tho I don't have a diff handy). While he hasn't begun linking The Sly Traveler, he gratuitiously (and repeatedly [7] [8]) promotes Pattaya as a sex tourism destination.

Relevent remedy: KyndFellow banned

Relevant enforcement: Enforcement by block, Puppet.

User:Mattjs seems to be editing from an IP address in different country than KyndFellow[9]. Unless his early edits[10], concurrent with User:KyndFellow (who seems to have stopped editing), are from the same IP block, I cannot demonstrate that these edits come from the same computer. KyndFellow self-identifies as a traveller, however, and has a history of using puppets.

Summation

It seems unlikely that one week after KyndFellow is banned and then spotted recruiting meatpuppets, a user behaving in so similar a fashion would arise.

I was a participant in the dispute.

I'd wait longer to gather evidence, but he's also really unpleasant (scroll to the bold-lettered "lay bare" on that one) to work with. And the aggressive, repetitive Talk page argument just pours out of him.

Reported by: edgarde 22:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. Maybe not. I was expecting Mattjs to do something he hasn't yet done, so he's probably not who I thought he was. How do I withdraw this request? Whatever problems I have with him will be dealt with some other way. / edgarde 15:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't hurt to let people know that the article has been the subject of an arbitration case; at the very least, a bit more caution is a good idea. This report will get archived in a couple of days and if you think there is a new or ongoing problem you can report it then.

Thatcher131 01:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: here.

James Salsman, aka Nrcprm2026, has been repeatedly warned against editing articles relating to depleted uranium, but continues to do so in violation of his Arbcom ban. He has done so with a number of sockpuppet as well [11].

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• Uranium, [[12]]
• Uranium trioxide, [13]
• Gulf War syndrome, [14]

Summation

James has been given quite a bit of slack on this, and I think he has run out of rope.

Reported by: Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours. He can appeal his case if he wants, but that doesn't give him the right to edit in the mean time. If he makes reasonable suggestions on the talk pages, please consider incorporating them into the articles. Come back here with further violations, if any.

Thatcher131 05:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs) is banned from editing articles on Canadian politics in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella and banned for a month in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella, a ban that has been reset numerous times
• 209.217.79.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a previously blocked sock of Ellis.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• Talk:Rachel Marsden, [15]

This edit made by 209.217.79.235, is a clear violation of his ban, but also is a legal threat, personal attack (calling an editor an "asshole"), and a violation of privacy (he should not be reprinting what he claims is someone's private email or any part of it)

• Warren Kinsella, [16]

Here he edits an article that he is banned from while under a one-month ban.

Summation

I was a non-involved contributer to the Warren Kinsella arb-comm and a party in the Rachel Marsden Arb. Comm.

Bucketsofg 14:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you suggest? The second edit looks like a minor factual correction, but the apparent contempt for the ban is an issue which needs to be addressed. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At

Thatcher131 15:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Much of the trouble-making can be settled by a semi-protect, as you suggest, and yes, the clock should be reset for each block. There may be at some-point that we may bring the question of a community-ban before ANI. Will any of this make him stop? Maybe not. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. Bucketsofg 18:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

another affected article

• It seems that semi-protecting a number of the affected articles, together with a thorough checkuser, has solved the Ellis problem for a while, if only temporarily. Another article that he's had an interest in the past was Pierre Bourque (journalist), and he seems to be using a National Library computer to make trouble there. A semi-protect might be in order here. Bucketsofg 18:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two edits does not make a problem, but three might. I've watchlisted it.

Thatcher131 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

That's sensible. The 142.78.xxx.xxx IPs resolve to the National Library in Ottawa, which Ellis apparently uses. Bucketsofg 19:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people use the library but not many of them are likely to point out to the one anti-Kinsella editor who is not himself that his latest edits were reverted.

Thatcher131 19:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

About Ian Tresman's ban from plasma cosmology

User:Iantresman was recently banned from Plasma cosmology and its talkpage. After the ban, Ian responded to comment in Talk:Plasma cosmology on User:Ionized's talkpage. User:Ionized then proceeded to post, in its entirety, Iantresman's post to the Talk:Plasma cosmology page [17] in seeming circumvention of the ban. My impulse is to simply delete the comment from the talkpage, but as I am heavily involved in the dispute, I've decided against this and instead am reporting it here. --ScienceApologist 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, had no clue this was against your policies, as Ian's response was not derogatory or what have you, I found it entirely appropriate to add his response to the discussion. Had his response been derogatory or inappropriate, I certainly would not have added it to the talk page on that basis alone. Also, I understood that Ian was banned from editing the ARTICLE, I did not see and did not understand why he was banned from editing the talk page, or for that matter, why he was really banned at all. The reasons made for the ban where very unspecific and his recent ban appears to have been triggered more from frustration of listening to our unresolved complaints against SA than anything else. It will be interesting to see the action taken against me for this, as I had no clue I was breaking any of your rules. -Ionized 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC) p.s. Ah, I am reading above now and see- "and their talk pages." Didn't notice that before, oops. Why don't you simply just go in and erase the response I pasted there, rather than make this into a bigger ordeal than it needs to be? Fact is I figured it was a mistake that he was banned from the talkpage, as I understood bans to be on articles not talkpages, just as is the case for one Mr. Eric Lerner. The only thing I thought I was circumventing was an apparent mistake, and assumed it would be corrected. -Ionized 01:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a mistake,

good faith. --ScienceApologist 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, I will make appropriate changes to the talk page, as I agree with what Ian just posted on my talk page- "I may be banned from commenting, but the information is not. You are welcome to use the information, as you see fit." Hence I will put what he contributed into my own words for inclusion in the talk page. -Ionized 02:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is wholly unacceptable in my book. Instead of removing the commentary, you simply edit a few words? Ian is banned from the talkpage. Your actions continue to look like you are trying to circumvent this. --ScienceApologist 02:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you would disagree with Ian's implication that the information itself is not banned from the talk page? So we are banning information and not necessarily a single user? -Ionized 02:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument of semantics and seems to me to be a violation of the letter and spirit of the ban. I don't think the point of banning somebody from a page is that his posts can be offered by another user who aribtrarily deems the text to be "information". --ScienceApologist 02:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to call to the attention of interested admins this difference which seems to indicate that Ian is actively supporting the actions of Ionized circumventing his ban from posting on Talk: Plasma cosmology. --ScienceApologist 02:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After considering what Ian said in the dif you posted, I honestly agree that I have every right to use the information he provided. The only problem you seem to have is that you know Ian is the one that provided the information. -Ionized 02:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it "information" and how is this any different from you posting for Ian as you did initially? The majority of the post is exactly the same. --02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it 'not' information? I checked into into what was provided and it was substantial, hence worthy of inclusion. -Ionized 02:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all silly. Whether it is "information" or not doesn't matter because the ban does not make an exception for "information". The boilerplate does not say "User:Iantresman is banned from this page unless his friend User:Ionized thinks that some of the things he wants to post are "information"." --ScienceApologist 02:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I stand by my principles in this matter, the information provided was valid and substantial, relevant to the ongoing discussion on the page, was not derogatory or demeaning in nature, hence I find it appropriate to include, regardless of the ban against the user that provided me with the information. I will now let my comments rest, and await decision by administration on the matter. If indeed it is decided that the content is inappropriate, surely they will see fit to delete it. -Ionized 02:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take this last comment as an admission by

]

Meat puppet? You enjoy this don't you? I act on my own grounds, I happen to agree with Ian's statement that the information itself is not banned. How does this make me a Meat Puppet? Regardless, as stated above, I stand by my decision, with no malice intended. Think of it what you will, I am not acting as a meat puppet, as this is a single incident, and reasoning was stated for my actions. -Ionized 02:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC) p.s., after reading about 'meat puppets', I don't see how you are able to claim I am one. I am my individual self, I am not Ian posing as someone else. I am exactly who my user page says I am. If the admins check my IP and compare to Ian's, you will find that we live in entirely different countries, as I am in the usa and I believe Ian is somewhere in Europe. -Ionized 02:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC) p.s. perhaps that meant sock puppet. By meat puppet, looks like you mean that you think Ian got me to join Wiki in order to help circumvent his ban. This is clearly false, as I found Wiki sometime in early 2003, and created an account near the end of 2003 I believe. It looks like I was here before Ian. -Ionized 03:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Admission "to act as a
  Assume Good Faith
  ".
• In no way do I condone Ionized, or anyone else circumventing my ban. I presume I am banned for the manner of my interaction on the Talk page.
• But I am not banned for discussing matters with other users.
• The ban makes a distinction between "information" and me. I am banned, verifiable information is not. --Iantresman 02:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Posting information on behalf of a banned user is a blockable offense, see

. Although this policy deals with permanently banned users, I think it is reasonable to extend the policy to bans under probation. Where a user has been banned from a page because his contributions have been deemed disruptive, it makes sense to broadly interpret the ban to prohibit the user from continuing to contribute through a proxy or third party. The appropriate response would not be to block the third party, but to apply the same page bans to the proxy as to the original account (and then to block if the third party ignore the page ban). Reposting verbatim comments of a banned user is clearly prohibited. Taking a person's "suggestions" or "information" and making the edits yourself could certainly be interpreted as acting as a proxy for a banned user. It would be a judgement call on the part of the admin reviewing the situation. I decline to consider that judgement at this time, since I'm giving you a free pass on this first incident for not being aware of the rules. The best way to avoid being caught in a ban not of your own making would be to ignore Ian's "information" until his ban expires and he is free to edit in his own name. If you decide to edit the article as he suggested, you leave yourself open to an undesirable outcome.

Ian, you were banned from the article and talk page for disruption. You say you do not condone anyone circumventing your ban, but it looks to me like you are clearly trying to influence or even direct the editing of the article during your ban, which in your case is a blockable offense. Again, it's a judgement call. If you don't want to leave yourself open to the possibility of a block, keep your information to yourself until your ban expires. Go edit somewhere else. If you persist in trying to influence the article while you are banned from it, you may be blocked per your probation. Cheers.

]

I made a response on my talk page. I would like to state here that I doubt Ian was really trying to influence me, but his reasoning did make sense to me so I acted according to my own judgment of the matter. To further punish Ian for an apparent mistake that I made, seems inappropriate, especially considering that ScienceApologist is now in agreement with us over what we where debating in the first place (keeping the title of the article as Plasma_cosmology). This is an 'after the fact' attack, apparent malice intended against myself and Ian. However I am willing to let this go if the other parties are as well, it seems more reasonable to move on to improving the article now that some consensus was reached by SA concerning the article title. My principles disallow me from removing what I added to the talk page, especially considering the entire situation as having been already resolved and moved past. Again, thanks for your more unbiased and cool headed response Thatcher. -Ionized 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second response After further thought (and see the KyndFellow case above) I'm not sure the issue is as obvious. Certainly if Ian's ban for disruption arose from a particular argument, and another editor jumped in an continued the same argument, I would want to apply the same article ban for the same reason. But if Ian wants to provide information on another topic, and another editor can add it without being disruptive, maybe it should be allowed. The third party editor would obviously take responsibility for anything he posted. If the edits were disruptive and confrontational, the third party editor would get blocked or banned. If the edits were reasonable, other editors would have to deal with their content in the normal way without regard to their source (no automatic reversion). I think both views are logically supportable, I don't know what the arbitrators have in mind. I have asked for clarification at WP:RFAR.

]

• It would help (and indeed, I think it should be a requirement), that not only are the reasons given for my ban for each article, but diffs are provided demonstrating where a contravened (a) policy (b) my ArbCom case. I have asked this of Bucketsofg, but he has not, or won't provide the information. See my Arbitration Enforcement Comments
• I genuinely have no idea where I went wrong contributing to any of the articles, especially compared to other editors --Iantresman 12:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've had some involvement here. Ian is definitely being disruptive, but SA is also capitalising on his ArbCom restrictions. I don't believe SA has stepped over the line yet in terms of content, but I will drop him a note. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And no-one will provide any examples of diffs. --Iantresman 18:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For what? Your disruption? Look at the thread in Talk:Wolf effect - how many times did I invite you to come up with compromise wording? The closest you got was to say that SA would not accept a compromise. How do you know? You never offered one. I spent quite a lot of time trying to get some kind of agreement there, on the basis that you assured me that you were not trying to push a fringe theory, but since the only form of words you would accept is the one the proponents of that frnige theory explicitly rely on, and which is therefore the core of the problem, I could see why SA was unhappy about it. SA has no particular reason to want to fix the fact that your edit was not made. I don't care either way. You're the one who wants the change, but after many rounds of verbal ping-pong your final answer appears to be a refusal to compromise. Which is pretty much the canonical definition of disruption. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect, not offering a compromise of some text, is not disrupting. I gave good reasons of my actions throughout.
• I disagree with your assessment about "pushing fringe theories" (again, this is not disruption). The description of the Wolf effect as a redshift (or blueshift) is NOT fringe. It is verifiable in peer reviewed papers, by the experts and in textbooks. That is how it is described, and Wikipedia should reflect that. However, you would be correct that this new redshift mechanism has been suggested as a redshift in astronomy by a smaller number of people. Again, this is verifiable and attributable (as I had it in the article originally). SA's view that the Wolf effect is criticised in astronomy is not supported by ANY references whatsoever; we have only SA's word for it.
• Refusal to compromise is not disruption; it may be non-constructive (which is not the opposite of disruptive). SA has also "refused to compromise", and yet he's not even criticized, let alone asked. --Iantresman 21:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is if you sit there insisting on having your way, on an article where you've been told by ArbCom that insisting on your way is disruptive. Why do you have such a problem with suggesting a compromise form of words? I've said before, SA has no reason to want to think of one, he's happy with the article as-is, you want it changed, you've been told that what you want is not acceptable (for credible reasosns, whether you like them or not) and in the end it's you who needs to come up with an idea, since you are the one who cares. It's really not so very much to ask, is it? Guy (Help!) 22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia describes verifiable views from reliable sources? Yes or no? --Iantresman 23:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, the article arleady does precisely that. Frequency shift, we observe as red due to relative position, accounts for some discordant redshifts. Yup, fine. The only thing we don't do is help with the plasma crowd's quote-mining. So, what, precisely, do you want to say, bearing in mind that baldly calling it a "new redshift mechanism" is rejected due to the misuse of this text by quote-mining POV pushers? Guy (Help!) 23:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• One step at a time. Forget about discordant redshifts (for now). I agree, that's "fringe". Forget about (for now) the Wolf effect and astronomy, that's another issue. We're discussing the general description of the Wolf effect.
• I think you agree that most of the sources describe the Wolf effect as a frequency shift? --Iantresman 23:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As indeed do we, yes. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So we described the Wolf effect as a frequency shift because most sources say so. We reflect what we read (and its verifiable)?
• Likewise if most sources described the Wolf effect as a redshift, we should report that too?
• And if sources question that the Wolf effect is a redshift, or are critical, or suggest it is a confusing term, we report that too? --Iantresman 00:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that barrow getting heavy? Guy (Help!) 23:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Feel free to move this discussion to another page, it's probably not appropriate here) --Iantresman 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the ArbCom remedies which requested that ScienceApologist is "cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines"[18], and in addition to the issues mentioned earlier, I would like to raise the following issues:

• The article on
  WP:BOLD
  reminding us that ".. updating pages" does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories", I believe ScienceApologist has done just that under the IP address 216.125.49.252.
• While this is probably not a major problem in itself, it still ignores the guidelines, and more importantly includes several statement which clearly contravene NPOV "
  WP:V (described here
  )
• Rather than discuss these issues, ScienceApologist accuses me of:

• "Velikovskian POV-pushing" (unfounded)
• "conflict of interest" on the grounds that I publish a CD-Rom on catastrophism (that would be like me suggesting that someone had a conflict of interest because they had an interest in the subject)
• I am "a leader in the catastrophist movement"[19] (unfounded and not relevant)

• The last two are ad hominems (they address the person, not the edits).
• One of the other editors also considers ScienceApologist's approach to be "rather bad behaviour"[20]
• To restored statements for which no reliable source is provided, and to boldly state them as his opinion, is not the way to create a reliable article.

If I took the same approach to the Big Bang article, I'd be cautioned very quickly, or worse. --Iantresman 01:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

]

Ok, just by looking at the header, I can see that there are problems, this is the fifth such complaint. All are very recent. This issue does not seem to be resolving itself, therefore I recommend that this be taken to ARBCOM for a reconsideration of the issues at stake here. The absolute most I can do is Caution

Need help?) 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Unfortunately, there is nothing enforceable against ScienceApologist in either arbitration case. I can't tell if this is wikilawyering and abuse of process by Ian or if there is some merit; determining that would require a thorough look into SA's contribs, which can't have a payoff since there is no enforceable remedy. If you really want to apply coercion (blocks and threats of blocks or article bans) to ScienceApologist, you will have to try and reopen the case. Be aware that if you do so they will also consider your behavior.

Thatcher131 04:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Further discussion moved to the talk page. I remind users and admins that the purpose of this page is to deal with enforcement requests. Extended discussion of perceived slights should probably be avoided completely, or (if someone absolutely must get something off their chest) the talk page is available. Bucketsofg 13:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs) is banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing Warren Kinsella and is limited to a single acount. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Arthur_Ellis.

He is breaking both of these with an obvious sock-puppet FredFinch (talk · contribs)

• Warren Kinsella, diff here

The account is five days old (to get around the semi-protection that this article is now under), knows the details of my history with Ellis[21], and seems interested primarily in Warren Kinsella.

Summation

Clearly a sock. No need for a check-user in this case, I think. I'd block him but am in a conflict-of-interest.

Reported by: Bucketsofg 20:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. [22] *plonk*

Thatcher131 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

User:rootology

Currently banned indef -> Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Has returned as BobDjurdjevick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), soley to harass. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BobD has been blocked by N. H. Nick.

Thatcher131 17:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs) who is under an ArbComm sanction banning him from one month (reset several times), seems to be sockpuppeting at Rachel Marsdendiff and Sid Abel diff as User:LotusLander2006. If this is confirmed then a community ban should be considered for persistently evading previous editing bans. Lanthrop 16:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. User:LotusLander2006 may or may not be Ellis, but User:Buffalo Bob Rae and User:209.217.96.177 need to be looked at, too. A checkuser is probably needed here, which I've now filed. Bucketsofg 16:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed per

Thatcher131 17:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Lightbringer

The banned user Lightbringer seems to have used another address, 24.68.229.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), to evade the block. - Mike Rosoft 11:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also acount Gifts of knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). - Mike Rosoft 12:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• And Jaques Lafraische (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Martin.ebon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). - Mike Rosoft 12:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. ArbComm case is here:
  Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer. Bucketsofg 17:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

see also

Thatcher131 12:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Huaiwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under Probation and general probation per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_3#Remedies.

Huaiwei has been edit-warring over certain articles recently, the most recent being

, without any attempt at discussion whatsoever. In my opinion, this is highly disruptive.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• Singapore Changi Airport, [23], [24]

"5) Huaiwei (talk • contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation indefinitely. Any administrator, in the exercise of judgement for reasonable cause may ban them from any article or talk page which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." Edit-warring is disruption by inappropriate editing.

Summation

I think an article ban is needed on Huaiwei at

]

Comment: I believe this needs a relook. No party has volunteered to make comments in the discussion page with regards to the existance of a certain destination, but there are comments in the edit history by all parties. I have since brought this up in the relevant talkpage (even as you yourself reverted the article without commenting in the talkpage either). As for the mediation case, I am quite obviously not the only one who is disputing the way the mediation process was conducted. Is the voicing out of such objections a probation violation? Meanwhile, I would greatly appreciate if a notification be placed in my talkpage concerning such notifications, as clearly required above.--Huaiwei 15:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin comment. User:Huaiwei has now apologized here. I will investigate a little further and report back soon. Bucketsofg 23:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I have cautioned User:Huaiwei. Bucketsofg 00:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

67.177.149.119‎ (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction which retrains him/her from editing pages related to St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. The final decision in their case is here: [25]

IP address is a

which has made personal attacks on the talk page of article which he/she is banned from editing.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• [26]

Personal attacks of this nature can be characterized as a "disruptive" edit, and thus is bannable.

Summation

Personal attack by an editor restrained from editing the page by the ArbCom as an SPA, most likely a sock of the permanently banned User:ParalelUni, who was banned for grotesque personal attacks. Seems to be a rather static IP, since it has made disruptive edits relating to archiving inappropriately and blanking vandalism back in December.

Reported by: Leuko 01:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a review of all of his or her contributions to the page, 67.177.149.119 is found to have edited disruptively on Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine within the meaning of the Arbitration Committee decision. Pursuant to the ArbCom remedy, 67.177.149.119 is warned that any further personal attacks on any editor having any relation to St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine will result in a block coupled with a long-term ban on editing the talkpage for that article or any related page. Newyorkbrad 02:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Newyorkbrad handling this since he has demonstrated bias towards my user in recent conversations. I ask that a neutral administrator review this decision. 67.177.149.119 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to another administrator reviewing this situation. Such other administrator should consider the matter independently and should feel free to take whatever action, whether less or more severe than indicated above, he or she feels appropriate. For the record, I do not believe I demonstrated any bias against 67.177.149.119 in the discussion on AIV that is being referred to, but simply indicated that the user's personal attacks are unacceptable. I did make a negative remark about banned User:ParalelUni, a subject of the referenced arbitration case, and would like to ask 67.177.149.119 if you are the same person as ParalelUni. Newyorkbrad 02:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved administrator, I wholeheartedly agree with Newyorkbrad's decision. Any further disruption will lead to a ban from these pages, and a block. Ral315 (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TDC (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction for parole violation. The final decision in their case is here.

TDC is not allowed more than one content revert in a 24-hour period, however he deleted reports of legitimate accuracy disputes from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Accuracy disputes twice today, just a little more than an hour apart.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• 12:14, January 26, 2007
• 13:22, January 26, 2007

Summation

TDC is also required to discuss his reverts, which he did not do even after I invited him to do so on the talk page. This must be at least his seventh such offense, against me alone.

Reported by: James S. 01:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin notes.
• The revert parole is also at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium#TDC_placed_on_revert_parole Bucketsofg 05:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Depleted_Uranium and associated articles, placed on probation (may be banned for tendentious editing), and placed on general probation. Bucketsofg 05:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The edit summaries in the diffs supplied above [27] [28] suggest that there is some dispute as to whether James' probation allowed him to include links to an article that he is banned from. Bucketsofg 05:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems to me that a warning is in order for both
  Depleted Uranium and associated articles, and by making a link to that article, it could be argued that he was creating an association between the page that he was editing and the depleted uranium page, thereby accidentally violating his own parole. Bucketsofg 06:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

James S. is not prohibited from editing the talk pages of DU-related articles. I would say that listing the articles as "accuracy disputes" is within the range of permitted activities, since it would allow him to call attention to his complaints on the talk page. I think TDC was wrong to revert James at all, much less twice, but it is an understandable difference in interpretation of the ruling.

Thatcher131 16:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Thanks for your clarification, Thatcher. I have cautioned both users. Bucketsofg 17:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to my interpretation of the opinion of Thatcher131 and SSS108 as voiced on talk:Robert Priddy user:Skollur has according to Thatcher131 and SS108, violated the ruling of the first arbitration case regarding Sathya Sai Baba by linking to the webpage of the Indian Skeptic. I do not agree with Thathcher131 and SS108 about this matter, but I would like to have a principle formulated that is applied consistently and fairly without contradicting generally accepted Wikipedia practices on some articles. 9 Jan. 2006 edit by Skollur adding link to Indian Skeptic with criticism of Sathya Sai Baba Andries 11:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the edit was relevant to Sathya Sai Baba (which, because the article does not even mention Sathya Sai Baba, it wasn't), then I fail to see how an edit made on 9 January 2006 could be worthy of any action in relation to an arbitration finding made on 5 September 2006. Sam Blacketer 18:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you are correct about the date. My mistake. Andries 18:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a strong suspicion this banned editor is making a comeback to the

. Certainly there is now a regular, sustained pattern of disruptive editing taking place to the article by single-edit IPs.

The article and user suspected of this activity is currently banned and the article under probation [30].

A request for semi-protection of the page has been recently rejected [31] however the IP attacks are more frequent now.

Regards Bksimonb 09:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 222.5.192.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Dion, JP
• Some people (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 220.147.161.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Fujitsu, JP
• 58.70.65.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Opticom, JP
• 221.188.248.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) NTT, JP
• 219.111.123.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IIJ, JP

I'll investigate later. List other accounts here using the {{userlinks|name or number}} template, please.

]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

The IPs look like him, I'm not sure about the user. If it is a continued problem, you may need to ask for a checkuser first. The 195 editor was in England and these IPs are all Japan, so it could be open proxies or he has recruited someone; either way, the edits are banned. Since I can't block every Japanese ISP from Wikipedia, I've semi-protected the article.

Thatcher131 08:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

User Some people (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back in full force now the 24 hour block has expired. Bksimonb 11:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reblocked indefinitely after further editing convinced me he was either a sock or meat puppet of the 195 editor.

Thatcher131 07:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

User:SqueakBox

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas

.

This editor has begun a campaign against editors attempting to improve the article

Brown people

. In numerous places on the article talk page, the editor mischaracterizes the article and contributions of other editors (including an administrator) as "racist", "OR", "POV", "trolling", etc. with no evidence provided and no discussion of improvement other than to destroy the article.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• Talk:Brown people, [32]

Claims User:Uncle G and I are persuing OR with no evidence.

• Talk:Brown people, [33]

Tells User:Uncle G: "what you think we'll take your word on that"

• Talk:Brown people, [34]

Claims that American editors are attempting to force racist views upon the world through Wikipedia

• Brown people, [35]

Edit summary says (rm blanking of ref without expalantion merely to fit your rascists conceptiosns)

Summation

This is only a sample of the general incivility and veiled personal insults towards other editors of the article by this user. This also includes bad faith assumptions on the article's recent AfD page where I was called a troll, ignorant, and arrogant. I have been a participant in the AfD, article, and talk page, but have decided not to improve this article for now in light of the abuse I have been taking there.

Addendum:

I notified the user of my report on his talk page and it was deleted with an edit summary of "rm troll". ju66l3r 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reported by: ju66l3r 22:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this is doing here as my arbcom is related to Zapatero, nor why this user has chosen to harrass me. What he fails to point out tis that a number of editoprs feel the same way as me and are unhapy at Ju's aggressive approach, of which this is clearly a part. He claims that because I criticise the article I am criticising him wherreas the only critixcisms of him have concernecd his personal behavious. He says here he is reporting me becasue he has lost his temper and then claims he is making a better wikipedia and I am not. He also has a [patronising attitude that is simply not wikipedia. I really dont know what hios problem is but if he wants mediation I am happy to go for it. I dont believe there is a case to answer here,

]

• Admin comment. These are indeed personal attacks: in the edit summary in the final diff quoted above Squeakbox calls fellow editors racist. I will deliberate and impose a block. Bucketsofg 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your

Thatcher131 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Well what do you suggest then? I was not attacking users I was attacking the article and maybe Americans in general but clearly not editors either in general or specifically, I also understood that case was entirely involving Zapatero,

]

• Blocked for one week. I've reported it at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SqueakBox_and_Zapatancas#SqueakBox_and_Zapatancas_placed_on_personal_attack_parole. Bucketsofg 23:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well my apologies if I offended anyone,

]

It has been brought to my attention that NuclearZer0 is on probation for tendentious editing and revert waring. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults#Zer0faults placed on Probation

The following examples of such on {{911ct}} may indicate a problem. May I suggest the ban apply to all 9/11 articles and related XfDs, if a ban is chosen.

(A few dozen edits to the template on January 18, eventually leading to a version similar to bov's

11:14, January 22, 2007 (rv to bov, this is good it shows another trend. where is tom?)

20:17, January 22, 2007 (rv to bov, and per concensus on talk page.)

• Any concensus is in his own mind.

11:16, January 23, 2007 (alternate theory / jersey girls is a group supporting alternate claims. hence they are under the title of supporting alternate claims.)

• More or less the same revert.

23:17, January 25, 2007 (rv. seems Arthur Rubin is misunderstanding. Noone is sating CT doesnt stand for Conspiracy Theory, just that templates covers a dif topic better)

• He's found another damaged version to revert to.

23:26, January 25, 2007 (rv seems you arent paying attention. This was just addressed in my comment. the templates contents cover the new name better then the old one ... Please read before reverting)

• same version, and still no justification

And a few related edits removing the template from articles it belongs on and adding the template to articles it doesn't belong on. [36]

Also note that, on {{911tm}},

11:25, January 18, 2007 (rm, theory is not accepted by movement members.)

removing an entry, immediately followed by

17:34, January 18, 2007 (add note + change, there is nothing to be a member of, its a movement, not a club house.)

changing the word "members" to something wrong, namely "researchers".

followed by a note on one of the XfD's, contradicting my comment that he had said that the

9/11 Truth Movement

doesn't have members.

And this is just related to the articles on my watch list. Who knows how many times he's been edit warring on other articles.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This shows the concensus[37], note the edits were made before Arthur Rubin stepped in to say he will not participate in any discussion of renaming. Since he decided he will not even attempt to discuss his position, it was noted and we moved on. Arthur can you explain how all those reverts were against you? Are you honestly attempting to revert war then come here to have some penalty enacted? Sounds like trying to game the system since your next revert would have been a 3RR violation. Arbcom enforcement isnt for revenge, or for going around 3RR. I would like to point out the only people supporting Arthur Rubin is Tom Harrison, which as an admin has been edit warring on the page as well. Myself, Lovelight, Bov and Fiddle Faddle all support a change to alternate theories. Arthur Rubin and Tom Harrison keep revert warring to change it, oddly enough Arthur Rubin has voted to have the template deleted, so I am afraid of the intent of his edits as well, but I have continued to AGF and not accuse him of anything. Just to point out if its wondered why I have so many mentions here, they are all from members of the former GabrielF Noticeboard which I contributed to having moved, which they arent happy about. Tom Harrison, Mongo, TBeatty, Morton Devonshire, Arthur Rubin, Derex, rogerd, etc. So do not be surprised if MONGO interjects to give an "outside opinion" or Tom for that matter. --NuclearZer0 11:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also this is a content dispute, note him pushing his content based points, of if they should be called "researchers, since they research, or members etc. This is not the place for content based issues Arthur Rubin. I told you Thatcher131, the Arbcom enforcement page is a way for people who do not agree to just push their weight instead of discuss, notice Arthur did not attempt to discuss this with me on the talk page, just reverted constantly then ran here. --NuclearZer0 11:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the members arguement, let me explain. The 9/11 Truth Movement is a group of people. Much like the Civil Rights Movement was a group of people. For a person to say "Civil Rights Movement preached the complete destruction of anyone that cannot trace their heritage back to Africa in 2 generations" would be a lie, even if you could find 1 person that had some involvement that did say it. The problem is that the majority of people involved in this movement, I call them members, much like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. are members of the civil rights movement. No they are not members in the sense that they signed a piece of paper granting them super secret access and secret decoder rings. They are members because they are frequently mentioned in step with the movement. Some people want to argue that there are no prominent "members" since noone signed a charter, or keeps a list of who is "in" and who is "out". In seeing that arguement I changed membership to researchers, its a neutral terms and their appearance on the template basically showed their common thinking. So Arthur if you would ask me, instead of reverting, you could have had an answer. --NuclearZer0 14:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This is why people use talk pages." Yes, why don't you do so before deleting information from templates, either by reversion, or by a direct edit. This is not a content dispute, although I disagree with Nuclear about the content. This is a dispute on his editing without using the talk page, or using the talk page to make a

WP:POINT

rather than to discuss the issues.

Also, I fail to see where your link indicates that I'm refusing to discuss the issues; a clear reading would indicate that I believe YOU are unwilling to discuss the issues. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this is how you know Arthur doesnt read the talk page nor do more then revert. The reason half the content is on the template is because I added it, more then 75% of the items I believe. What have you contributed? You say I am not willing to discuss but then we have this quote from you " I consider it effectively vandalism of the articles the template is included in, whether or not that was the intent. Perhaps the templates should be deleted if we can't reach agreement as to what should be the subject of the template."[38] And when told it would be better to work toward an agreement you responded by stating "It would be nice. So would peace in the Middle East. I'm not sure which is more probable"[39] So my apologies, you did use the talk page, to announce you would not work with your fellow editors that is. --NuclearZer0 20:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As should be obvious, my comment was intended to imply that your position was so set that it was unlikely you would agree to anything sensible. (This was before I found the information on your probation.) You seemed to be willing to change the templates to anything at all plausible which was not consistent with the original intent of the creator of the template, while I see nothing wrong with that intent, and was attempting to preserve it. As for consensus on

9/11 Truth Movement, and commented to that effect the first time an argument was presented on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:AGF

- "my comment was intended to imply that your position was so set that it was unlikely you would agree to anything sensible."

Original intent of the creator?

WP:OWN

A clear count of editors in line with the talk page, not your friends reverting, shows a concensus. I am sure the talk page has little discussion since they wouldn't have much more to say other then per Arthur. I hope you can review some of these Wiki pages and see that numerous items you said above are just incorrect and not how Wikipedia works. --NuclearZer0 14:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a generalization, but there are many places in the policies and guidelines which state that unless an concensus for change is obtained, the original status of the article is to be maintained. I see no reason why this shouldn't be followed. This is not a

WP:OWN

violation.

Until the non-straw-poll was added yesterday, the number of editors who expressed opposition to the "Conspiracy theory" version of the template was 3. And the editors reverting those changes (who are not my friends) number at least 4, not including me. There is clearly no concencus for "alternative".

As for

WP:AGF, your RfAr found that questionable. Isn't "tendentious" editing, by definition, a violation of "good faith". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It is good you admit you have never assumed good faith in any of this, unfortunatly I have and it is perhaps why I kept discussing while you kept reverting, very sad. Perhaps you should read up on Arbcom hearings, they arent meant to be used as weapons against people you do not agree with, seeing as you never assumed good faith, which is probably why you reverted without discussion says alot. --NuclearZer0 20:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thatcher131 23:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

NuclearZer0 has a history of tendentious editing on articles involving the War on Terrorism. A prior Arbcom case against him found that he has "engaged in editwarring and other disruptive editing" and has "failed to negotiate in good faith, engaging in repetitive assertions and circular logic". Since being placed on probation, he has notheless been blocked repeatedly for violations of policy. Now NuclearZer0 has begun to disrupt the encyclopedia by tendentious edit-warring on Iraq War and related pages. [40][41][42][43][44][45]

Any assistance in dealing with this behavior would be greatly appreciated.--Alecmconroy 10:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Arbcom already tell you I wasnt involved in your dispute, get over it. You filed an RfC against Rangeley an Arbcom against me, do you plan to actually discuss with the people who do not agree with you? or do you plan to file other RfC's an Arbcoms against the other 12 left? Arbcom judgements are not weapons. I have discussed on the talk page of Rangeley's RfC, the Iraq War page, etc. So who do you plan to file on next that doesn't agree with you? --NuclearZer0 20:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that from my point of view as a previously uninvolved editor that NuclearZer0 has used a very belligerent and confrontational style of editing in respect to the article of question. He has repeatedly inserted the disputed content while all other editors have been discussing the mater under the talk page, justifying his unilateral insertion of the text by the same style of circular logic that saw him censured, he has also been uncivil to many editors and has taken actions that border on personal attacks.Freepsbane 22:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me if everyone is "talking" and I am the only one reverting ... who have I been reverting? Wouldnt the first time I put it back have caused it to be there till today? I mean if everyone is just talking and noone is reverting? Do yo uhave similar words for Timeshifter who has reverted 3x today alone? For some reason I doubt you do, perhaps cause he shares your view? --NuclearZer0 23:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not noticed I have not edited or reverted the sentence in question, furthermore I have only edited its parent article twice within the past month.Freepsbane 02:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, noone said you did. I am asking if you want to see impartial why you are not citing everyone for reverting, acting as if I am the only one who did it, when someone who shares your view did it 3x that day and the other 2x? --NuclearZer0 18:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit by 5Q5 made on 19:26, 26 January 2007 linking to the website of the Indian Skeptic containing possibly poorly sourced critical information about Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 21:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What negative information about Sathya Sai Baba was being added to the article? There is none that I can see. I think Andries is advancing a ludicrous interpretation here, and I'd like to demonstrate that with a hypothetical example. Suppose a British MP were, in the course of a speech in the

House of Commons, to make some remark attacking Sathya Sai Baba. That would be transcribed and reported in Hansard and then appear on the Parliament website. According to Andries' interpretation, all links to the Parliament website would then have to be removed from all articles. Sam Blacketer 22:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Linking to the website of the Indian Skeptic www.indian-skeptic.org/html/index.htm Do not complain to me because I do not make the decisions here. But you are right abou the House of Commons that made critical comments about Sathya Sai Baba on their website which is archived. I will give make a warning there too, because it may be a violation of the arbcom decision. Same for the European Parliament. Andries 22:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your position is that no Wikipedia article anywhere may link to http://www.parliament.uk? Sam Blacketer 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me exaggerated, but I will file a violation here to get more clarity from the people who make the rules and the decisions here. Andries 22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From 5Q5 14:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC): I included the link on the JREF article because of the prize money and I thought I was being helpful. This "Sathya Sai Baba" person is of no interest to me. I live in the U.S. Wiki user "Andries" left the following message in my Wiki account suggesting I might be banned for my edit. I took it as a threat that I should not be involved with anything negative about this "Sathya Sai Baba" person ever again directly or indirectly. This is a ridiculous complaint and a waste of Wikipedia's disk space. "Hi 5Q5, I filed a complaint about your editing behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#5Q5_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_on_James_Randi_Educational_Foundation_possible_violation_of_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FSathya_Sai_Baba.23Removal_of_poorly_sourced_information for your possible violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Removal_of_poorly_sourced_information Here is the possibly problematic edit that you made edit by 5Q5 made on 19:26, 26 January 2007 that links to the website of the Indian Skeptic containing possibly poorly sourced critical information about Sathya Sai Baba. I do not think that you will be banned for a long time, because you are new to Wikipedia, but I do not make a decision and cannot predict what others will decide. Andries 21:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)" (end of quoted material)[reply]

5Q5, You can say anything negative about Sathya Sai Baba as long as it is well sourced. Andries 18:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the opinion of the arbcom clerk

user:Thatcher131 regarding linking the website of James Randi (containing possibly poorly sourced negative informaiton about Sathya Sai Baba) to the article James Randi. The website of the Indian Skeptic ( www.indian-skeptic.org/html/index.htm ) contains a higher fraction of criticism of Sathya Sai Baba than the website of James Randi. Andries 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

From 5Q5 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC). I did not submit an external link on the article of James Randi or Sathya Sai Baba. I submitted an external link, one of several, on the article for the James Randi Educational Foundation to various skeptics around the world who are offering prize money for proof of the paranormal. That's all I did. I did not see any mention on the article that it is subject to censorship and no external link even remotely associated with this Sathya Sai Baba person is not allowed. I could care less if you undid all my small amount of editing on the article. If Andries's goal is censorship of Wikipedia, then, you have won in my case, as I will never attempt an edit of the JREF article ever again! Filing this complaint againt me (if that's what this is) is an abuse of Wikipedia because it wastes the Administrators' valuable time. This is ridiculous![reply]

Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction for Revert Parole. The final decision in their case is here: [46].

As per the Arbcom decision Xenophrenic may not perform more than one content revert in any 24 hour period, and must discuss any content revert. A Checkuser found it likely that Xenophrenic is also the anonymous IP mentioned in the ArbCom case [47]

The following diffs show the offending behavior:

• Vietnam Veterans Against the War, [48]

Performed content Rv without discussion

• Vietnam Veterans Against the War, [49]

Performed content Rv without discussion

• Vietnam Veterans Against the War,[50], [51], [52] Three content Rv’s in one day on the same article.

Summation

I am sure that Xenophrenic will deny that he was correctly identified by the Checkuser, and if sanctioned will just create another account to evade, but a quick look at the editing style and focus of the articles involved most likely led to the “likely” finding. Why this user was not permanently banned for his continual and repeated Copyvio on this and related articles is beyond me [53].

Reported by: Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

125.204.39.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new account and I suspect is yet another sockpuppet of banned user 195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based on the familiar POV and style. So far this user is trolling on the discussion page with comments like, "The BKWSU team wanting to turn this article into their PR, or remove facts that they are uncomfortable with being made public". The ISP is based in Japan, NTT Communications Corporation. Regards Bksimonb 06:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've banned the IP for 48 hours. However, he seems to be able to use a lot of IP addresses. In the future, try reporting him at

Thatcher131 13:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Messhermit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on probation, and "may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts by any administrator." He has also been banned for one year "from editing articles which relate to the conflict between Peru and Ecuador." (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit). Messhermit has moved on from disrupting pages related to the conflict between the war in Peru and Ecuador to disrupting pages related to the war between Peru and Chile. (See [54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77]. I do not know if it would be appropriate to ban Messhermit from editing pages related to the war between Peru and Chile, but someone might want to look into it. --Descendall 17:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that a bunch of these edits are blatant violations of 3RR. --Descendall 17:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is outrageous! In the first place, I'm being accused by a person that has clearly making this a personal issue against my person. Besides the fact that User:Descendall is a left-leaning Wikipedian that simply loves to insult anyone that doesn't support his political views [78] [79], Descendall is ALWAYS behind every single edition that I do and ALWAYS ignoring the other persons in this disputes, selecting information that only suit his political point of views. Messhermit 19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, HE IGNORES THE ACTIONS OF ANOTHER LEFT-LEANING Wikipedist, User:Bdean1963. User:Descendall and User:Bdean1963 share the same political views and in more than one opportunity they have team up together to attack my person and integrity here in Wikipedia. The other side of the coin that User:Descendall avoids to mention is the fact that this revert war an all the following editions ((See [80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103].) clearly involves his dear friend Bdean1963, and that it was my person the one that requested protection to this article [104]. Also, User:Descendall avoids mention that while I was keep asking (and eventually trying to force Bdean to discuss the issue in the talk page), Bdean WAS NOT willing to talk, insulting me [105], [106]. Off course all this is purposely ovbiated by User:Descendall. Messhermit 19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Bdean1963 has not made a single attempt to discuss the issue. On the other hand I have already exposed my arguments against his editions and I'm still waiting and answer that doesn't involve Bdean's "feelings" that it should be included [107]. As of today, two days after this dispute was solve with the protection of the articles, there is no response. What should I expect from someone that behaves in that way? But of course, User:Bdean1963 is innocent because User:Descendall didn't include him in this accusation. Messhermit 19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing more than a political persecution against my person created by two left-leaning Anti-Fujimoristas and anti-democratic Wikipedians. Thus, I must define the present accusation against me as being only motivated by political hate that this two user have against me. This has reached a point where it seems that both Wikipedians are obsessed with the idea of forcing me to leave Wikipedia. Messhermit 19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I wonder how an innactive Wikipedian is so concerned about my editions here in Wikipedia? Is it because of the nature of my editions or because he is always looking for an excuse to get me into troubles? Messhermit 19:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get involved in these conspiracy theories. The only other run-in I've ever had with Messhermit is when he was violating the terms of his arbitration and was blocked for five days, but that was months and months ago. The bottom line is that 1) Messhermit has violated the terms of his arbitration multiple times 2) Messhermit is currently on probation 3) Messhermit is creating a problem on a bunch of articles that are similar to ones he is banned from editing. Again, I do not know if it would be appropriate to ban Messhermit from editing pages related to the war between Peru and Chile, but someone might want to look into it. --Descendall 20:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theories? So now your editions are not credible? Do I have to remind you about the times that you decided what should go in the articles of

People's War and many others? If you are going to be neutral then STOP selecting information and day things the way they are: Bdean1963 refused to compromise, he does not want to discuss and that you are stalking me. Messhermit 20:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I literally have no idea what you're even talking about.

People's War? I don't think I've even edited that. Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else? Anyway, I'm not even involved in the dispute that I've listed. I'm also not on probation, nor the subject of arbitration. Nor am I violating 3RR. Nor am I making wholly illogical edits, such as refusing to allow a link to the text of a treaty in an article. You are. That's why I brought this up here. --Descendall 20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I'm not confusing you. If you claim that you are not involved, then why did you listed me and not him? Because you are both comrades? Because you both believe that I'm a agent of the bourgeois and imperialist Peruvian right? Messhermit 20:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I just don't know what to say. I've read conspiracy thorists on wikipedia before, but this one takes the cake. Sorry for dumping this problem on you, admins. --Descendall 20:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if your nearly illogical defense to naming

Sendero Luminoso as the "Communist Party of Peru" (even thouh nobody in Wikipedia ES heared your arguments as an IP user and inmediately removed that) is also a "Conspiracy theory". Messhermit 20:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I still have absoutely no idea what you're talking about. I'm not even on Spanish wikipedia. I don't even speak Spanish. --Descendall 20:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And about the illogical editions, I'm not the one insulting people just because I don't like their POV. And its not about a "link to a text of a treaty" but rather to a whole section (READ BEFORE LAUNCHING SUCH A SERIOUS CLAIM) that has nothing to do with the War of the Pacific. Messhermit 20:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, once again: you are retired. What a coincidence that your editions are against my person. Your only motive is that I don't agree with your political views. Messhermit 20:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bdean1963 has refused to answer any call to discuss the dispute in the "Talk Page" in both articles. I believe that after exposing my case in BOTH "Talk Pages" and not hearing anything from the other party involved, I have already done more than enough to solve this dispute. Once the protection is lifted, I believe I have the right to revert it to its original estate based on the FACTS that:

• The other Wikipedia doesn't have the will to discuss.
• The Maritime dispute between Peru and Chile can only be traced back to the early 1950's and NOT to the War of the Pacific

I would appreciate any sort of advice that this committee might have, and to certify that my editions are based on logical and plausible conclusions, not based in neither emotional nor ideological differences. Messhermit 14:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can not involve myself in this case as an administrator because I know both of these editors. However, as an editor and member of the Peru Wikiproject I will say that I am disappointed by the amount of edit warring that has gone on in articles related to the

personal attacks from both sides.--Jersey Devil 04:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I have already been blocked by an Administrator for a certain period of time, and I'm willing to avoid getting into this kind of situations as long as its necessary. In this case, I have already exposed the necessary documentation in both articles that demonstrate that I was acting in good faith and with reasonable arguments the exclusion of certain paragraphs. I will revert no more, and I'm fact I'm still waiting for the other party involved in the dispute to respond in a civilized way and settle this problem once and for all.

Thus, I'm asking to any Administrator to mediate for us in this dispute and help us to solve this problem. I have already requested a RFC in the "History & Geography" section, with little result. Messhermit 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bksimonb (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: [108].

User Bksimonb is now removing comments from the BKWSU discussion page, a topic under probation, by way of attempting to control not just the article but even discussion of it where there has been a history of edit warring and ownership.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• BKWSU, [109], [110]

Conflict of interest. Individual is member of the BKWSU IT Team. [111]

"17:19, 9 February 2007 Bksimonb (Talk | contribs) (Rv Banned user. Thanks for the "mediums" reference. However you are banned. If you have any more tips email me instead since you are not entitled to either edit or discucss on Wikipedia now.)" Reported by: 218.138.12.8 00:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i believe, based on your tone, content, and certain common phrases, that there is a strong likelihood that you are the user who formerly posted from 195.82.106.244, or that you know that user and are posting on his or her behalf. That user is banned for one year, and under the

Thatcher131 04:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

May be "banned from articles he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring." Is now going through my contribution hisory in an attempt to edit war back in an unreliable source. When will something be done to get rid of this problem editor? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O grow up. You decided because you and one other person do not like David Horowitz, that its enough to remove ever External link pointing to Discover The Network, which is a very popular, sourced website, from Wikipedia. I am preparing a complaint against you now. Further, after I asked you to seek a larger concensus you attack me with a WP:STALK claim? You have already been cited for 3RR today for this action. Please stop it and seek a larger concensus then you and someone that is on the other end of the political spectrum, its not enough to edit 20+ articles. --NuclearZer0 17:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that most of the comments sources to DTN can be tracked back to their original sources; they look like a news and comment aggregator. No matter what the politics of an aggregator or blog like this is, it is always best practice to find the original source of the comment, rather than rely on an intermediary. Unfortunately, they do not provide these bibliographic details themselves, and for some comments it may take a college student/teacher with access to Lexis/Nexis where a basic google search fails. In the meantime, whether to remove the cited material entirely, or leave the comments and replace the citation with {{fact}}, is a matter of editorial judgement. Insisting on either extreme (remove all now or leave all for now) is likely to be unwise.

Thatcher131 18:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hkelkar (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Proposed_decision.

I have demonstrated that Rumplestiltskin223 is in fact the banned Hkelkar. [112]

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• Persecution of Hindus, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Hindus&diff=66609642&oldid=63303512

Edit made by Hkelkar under a sockpuppet.

• Persecution of Hindus, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Hindus&diff=105319772&oldid=105142042

"corrections"

• Checkuser report on Hkelkar,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hkelkar

Summation

Many have suspected this, though today it was found Rumplestiltskin was using an anonymous IP to provide citations to content Hkelkar added some time ago. Understand that many users have been alleging the two were the same person before this. Because the sources were books published in the 50s and 60s, no longer in print, and Rumplestiltskin knew the exact locations of the related content, I argue it's impossible that Rumplestiltskin ,now given other mentioned similarities that,is anyone other than Hkelkar.

Reported by: [[MinaretDk 03:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations were brought forth? You mean the *7.xx IP range in england? Home to nocled user Mustafa Bhai (talk · contribs) and probably TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs).Bakaman 03:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please refer to this ANI report by Aksi great, detailing some of the evidences linking User:Rumpelstiltskin223 to User:Hkelkar.

ITAQALLAH 02:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry what's the sound I hear? Oh thats just the checkuser proving minaretdk is indeed bhaisaab.Bakaman 05:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That cow dung soup you drink has you hearing things. That's nothing but the wind.Monsat 18:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cow dung soup? Wtf are you talking about.Bakaman 04:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get monsat blocked for that comment?--D-Boy 02:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has been.

Thatcher131 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

]

I'll leave a note about this for Richard. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further violation evidence. I reviewed SlimVirgin's note, followed it to SlimVirgin's talk page, and discovered more evidence to support my request. (iii) In addition to turning the BLP talk page essentially into a talk page for Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT, Richardmalter turned SlimVirgin's user talk page into a talk page for Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT four days after the ArbCom ruling.[113] Analysis and request. In addition to his aggressive use of Wikipedia forums to mobilize support for Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT point of view editing, it is Richardmalter replying to posts by others about Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT - exchange his thoughts on the topic with others on Wikipedia - that particularly violates the ArbCom decision. What further compounds the ArbCom decision violations is that his Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT post continue to be disruptive and made with little regard for what ArbCom sought to accomplish. Despite the February 2 ArbCom decision, my February 9th post here, and SlimVirgin's February 9th note on Richardmalter's talk page, Richardmalter continues to use his Wikipedia account as a single purpose account to influence both the content in and the user contributors to the Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT articles, from which Richardmalter has been banned indefinitely by ArbCom. Please review my request above along with this new evidence and take the appropriate action. -- by original requestor. Jreferee 16:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please accept the possibility that there is another interpretation possible. As SlimVirgin informed me, the ArbCom ruled/s on 'behaviour' not content. The version that was edit warred pro for by user Crum375 et al did in established fact contain clear blatant violations of WP:BLP that I argued against and subsequently were deleted as such BLP violations by SlimVirgin at my insistance. This is all verifiable (by looking at the record and SlimVirgin's Admin intervention and comments). There are still serious WP:BLP issues with the current entry. I wont take up space here repeating what I have detailed on other BLP pages. I am requesting other editors/Admin deal with this BLP issue. Crum375 follows me around and creates a discussion wherever I post a request for help/intervention - this is not my doing. It's as simple as that. I have not attempted to edit the page - I am keeping to the ArbCom decision; even though I strongly disagree with it. Thanks.Richardmalter 04:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Jreferee, also, how you describe my calm requesting of help and setting out of details - process and content, to support the need for it, according to WP:BLP, as 'aggressive' and 'disruptive' I do not know! Richardmalter 11:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard may not edit the article

Thatcher131 14:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for addressing most of my concerns. However, Richard not only was banned from editing the article, he was banned from the article talk page. Yes, he may raise concerns about the article on other fora and others in good standing with the article/topic may reply to those concerns. However, can Richard, who is not in good standing with the article/topic, then respond in kind? In other words, although Richard was banned from the article talk page, can Richard engage in the same kind of response talk banter that could have appeared on the Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT talk page but for Richardmalter's ban from those pages? For example, post ArbCom, Richard responds a first time to Crum375 (who is editing the BDORT article) on SlimVirgin's talk page about Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT [114], Richard continues the talk and responds a second time to Crum375 on SlimVirgin's talk page about Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT [115]. Richard then incorporates Talk:Yoshiaki_Omura talk page information into the SlimVirgin's talk page discussion by providing Diffs 6 and 7. [116]. Also post ArbCom, on the BLPN page, Richard responds to Crum375 about Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT [117] and responds to GenghizRat's post [118] with statements about Yoshiaki Omura/BDORT content here [119]. I think it's important to note that Crum375, GenghizRat, and Philosophus were Involved parties in the ArbCom case with Richardmalter and a request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. -- by original requestor Jreferee 18:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a complicated issue. First, regarding SlimVirgin's talk page, it's her page and she is quite capable of deciding if Richard is abusing it. If she is interested in discussing the article with him, that is her choice, and Crum and the other's don't even have to involve themselves if they would rather not. Regarding the BLP noticeboard or other areas where Richard might raise concerns, I would think a case by case evaluation would be needed. Arbcom did not ban him from ever mentioning Dr. Omura or BDORT, so some level of engagement is potentially tolerable. Suppose Richard raises an issue at the BLP noticeboard and it is discussed and either acted on or not, and Richard drops it. No problem. Suppose on the other hand he becomes disruptive over it, or posts the same complaint over and over again no matter how many times it has been considered and dismissed. That certainly would be grounds to extend his topical ban to cover other areas of wikipedia. Admin judgement and discretion is usually required when enforcing arbitration rulings.

Thatcher131 05:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Hkelkar socks. Location + Edit = Obvious. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hkelkar (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction for sockpuppeteering etc. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• Hindutva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), [120]

Special:Contributions/128.83.131.122 Wikistalking [121] other users, etc.

• National Development Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), [122]

Anons Special:Contributions/128.83.131.123 Continuing edit wars from previous sock User:India Rising. Disruption is ongoing through other following anons

Summation

Aksi_great indicated at [123] that User:Hkelkar a.k.a User:Rumpelstiltskin223, User:India Rising and so on was also using open proxies and IP Special:Contributions/128.83.131.122

Following IPs (and probably others in the range) observed being interchangeably used on similar articles: Special:Contributions/128.83.131.123 Special:Contributions/128.83.131.124 Special:Contributions/128.83.131.130 Special:Contributions/128.83.131.131 Special:Contributions/128.83.131.139

Reported by: --IslesCape^Talk 00:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Those IP addresses belong to the University of Texas at Austin, where Hkelkar is a student. From the narrowness of the range, I'm guessing he's hopping to different terminals in a library or computer lab. I blocked the range 128.83.131.0/24 for a few days. By the way, any suspicions about
  Thatcher131 01:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

apparently someone else, because one of the above IPs (128.83.131.123) have been reverting [124] its edits. --IslesCape^Talk 12:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can put a name to him I can file a checkuser request, but just saying "it's someone from the Hkelkar case" is too much of a fishing trip.

Thatcher131 12:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Suspected sock/meatpuppet of user:Fowler&fowler. This user has edited in the same articles as Fowler&fowler (see here, here, here and here). He is being used by fowler to have me trapped into 3RR in Indian mathematics, an article I worked hard on but every single one of my edits (including citations from the Univ of Michigan etc.) get removed. Not only has this user been accused of being Fowler's sockpuppet, he has also reverted my edits to Fowler -- see here and here. I'm getting tired and in just a bit I'll either have to get caught in the 3RR or see my work removed belligerently in Indian mathematics. Please help urgently. _{Freedom skies| talk}  04:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this anon account was formed on 22 February 2007. It has attacked Indian mathematics twice. Fowler had been working on the same "Charges of Eurocentrism" aspect of the article which can be verified here. I'll almost certainly have to watch my hard work go to waste or incur the 3RR. _{Freedom skies| talk}  04:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which arbitration case is this related to?

Thatcher131 13:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Ed Poor (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction for disruption. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Ed_Poor_placed_on_Probation.

Ed Poor has taken to disrupting Global Warming-related articles again, the locus of his previous disruption that prompted the arbcom ruling.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• Global warming controversy, [125]

Ed here replaces a passage and link properly detailing the wide scientific consensus on climate change with a passage that gives undue weight to the minority and fringe view. This corresponds to:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2/Proposed_decision#Ed_Poor_has_engaged_in_tendentious_editing

• List of scientists who dispute the anthropogenic global warming theory, [126]

Ed unilaterally moved List of scientists who dispute the anthropogenic global warming theory, a hotly debated topic, to List of scientists opposing the global warming consensus without prior notification or discussion. This resulted in mass disruption at the article: Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_global_warming_consensus#Too_bold.2C_too_soon Ed's move was described as a new "new low" by User:Stephan Schulz : [127] Unilateral page moves corresponds to :Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2/Proposed_decision#Disruptive_behavior

Taken with his recent disruption of intelligent design-related articles, his return to disrupting the topic that prompted his probation, and unwillingness to move on and edit another less controversial areas of Wikipedia, I doubt anything short of a block will get his attention.

Reported by: FeloniousMonk 00:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly does seem to be an attention deficit regarding the outcome and related admonishments of his RFA; I'm not sure that a simple block will be effective in correcting the disorder. •Jim62sch• 00:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user's response at User talk:Ed Poor#Move of List of scientists opposing global warming consensus states a willingness to respect consensus. Hopefully this is a sincere statement of his intentions and the incidents discussed above do not presage a return to the behavior that resulted in sanctions in the past, as a pattern of such behavior could lead to severe enforcement action in light of the user's overall record. No action taken for now, but I will draw the user's attention to this complaint. In the event of further problems, return to this noticeboard and mention this complaint and the warning. Newyorkbrad 00:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that his outward appearance of reasonableness isn't carefully calculated, particularly given his history. He's continuing to make some dubious contributions: [128] FeloniousMonk 01:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already deleted that,[129] the moment someone pointed out to me that it wasn't regarded as helpful. You know, it would be nicer if you'd simply tell me what's wrong with an edit, instead of immediately pushing for "enforcement". If you want a certain type of thing discussed first, you need only tell me. --Uncle Ed 01:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that I'm satisfied with Ed's later handling of the page move, though I still find the original move rather imprudent.--Stephan Schulz 23:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, you and I both know that once you're on probation it's the case that you've already had plenty of warnings leading up that and that no further warnings are necessary. The fact that you are continuing to disrupt

Talk:Global_warming_controversy#Temperature in the intro after yesterday's warning is sufficient grounds for immediate blocking. I do wish you'd move along and leave alone the articles where you earned your probation and find a quiet little uncontroversial corner of Wikipedia to contribute to quietly. Doing so would be a fine demonstration of your good faith and go a long way to reestablishing the community's trust. FeloniousMonk 23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Further to this is his gratuitous and disruptive

]

Regarding the page move, in my opinion Ed's apologies are rather meaningless since he knew full well there were significant objections to moving the page. He participated in a discussion about such a move which began 30 July 2006 (see discussion) as well as another discussion on whether there exists a consensus, in response to Ed's POV edits, on 3 August 2006 (see discussion). In addition to the page move, he has also continued to put his POV in the article itself (diff).

That said, I'm not really offended by the "Temperature in the intro" discussion referenced above. Adding redlinks is a bit annoying but I wouldn't call it disruptive (unless this was a big issue in the past?).

A minor note: FeloniousMonk seems to have stated it backwards above but his point is correct. Ed moved the page from its longstanding title, List of scientists opposing global warming consensus, to List of scientists who dispute the anthropogenic global warming theory (diff) and then attempted to move it back, but couldn't and instead moved it to List of scientists opposing the global warming consensus. See discussion. I apologize if some of these discussion links are broken, but as I write this the talk pages are still messed up from Ed's moves. --Nethgirb 02:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make my apology more meaningful: If FeloniousMonk, Raymond Arritt or Nethgirb wishes, I will refrain from editing any article they name for any period they choose (up to six weeks). Fair enough? --Uncle Ed 11:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your offer. I do not really want to have that power, and would prefer to leave it up to the ArbCom or administrators. As a personal suggestion I think you would do fine if you just discuss changes on the talk page first, and think critically about your edits and make sure that statements (or implications) that you add are backed up by reliable sources which you cite. --Nethgirb 12:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree mostly with Nethgirb. Ed, I think you're sincere about wanting to do better. But your repeat offenses across a long period of time and a broad range of article space -- global warming, intelligent design, etc. -- suggest that you just can't help yourself. A very wise man once said "Lead us not into temptation." Maybe you could find some uncontroversial topics related to, say, music, hobbies, and so on where you could contribute without being tempted to go overboard. You're obviously a smart guy and can make useful contributions to Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt 03:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, this isn't let's make a deal; you're on arbcom probation. Either abide by it or not, the choice rests with you, as does the responsibility for failing to comply. FeloniousMonk 05:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Between apologies Ed has been busy translating Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) into Weaselish. "Wells rejects evolution" suddenly became "Wells questions the teaching of evolution in a way that implies outright rejection" in Ed's idea of neutral editing for example, among other interesting ditties: [130] Is this Ed's idea of a 'meaningful apology'? 151.151.73.171 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can deleted my latest series of changes, and no one objects on the talk page, that tells me something. I'm going to avoid touching that article for the rest of the month. --Uncle Ed 02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you avoid it altogether moving forward considering you were falling over yourself apologizing here with one hand while making the clearly biased edits at the Wells article with the other. Again, arbcom probation is not let's make a deal. And your faux naif questions while arguing for elevating the views ID proponents to being on par with that of the scientific community which outright rejects ID at Wells article over the last few days is precisely one of the activities named as evidence of tendentious editing in your RFAR that eventually landed you here. Now if you think you can with a few strategically-placed apologies (while still making blatantly biased edits) game the system to side-step your probation, I don't think you'll get too far with that. FeloniousMonk 05:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As an outside observer, this request to me seems extremely vexatious. I see no prior talk discussion, no mention on his page, just an ArbCom enforcement request. ArbCom rulings are NOT there to strongarm people or bypass proper
  dispute resolution methods. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Your statement is long on emotional language but short on substance, I think. The Arbcom ruling is in place because this has been an ongoing problem, and previous efforts to resolve it have failed. Are you really suggesting we start over from scratch and treat it like a fresh problem each time? To do that would be to say that Arbcom sanctions are meaningless. Friday (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest that you actually try talking to someone before you throw sanctions at them. You never know, it might just actually work. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a controversial geezer myself but I have mediated Uncler Ed before and would be happy to do so again,

SqueakBox 19:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Whoever's interesting in talking this over is free to do so, of course - please, go ahead. And those who are interested in seeking enforcement of existing remedies are free to do that, of course. If the talkers are very successful, the enforcers won't be needed. But it's silly IMO to suggest that talking is the only appropriate way to deal with this- the sanctions exist for a reason. Friday (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying talking is the only way to deal with it. To put it bluntly, I'm saying you should try to talk to them before you cluebat them. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, this was the cluebat. The instructions 'Arbitration Committee decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution. ArbCom has already decided that certain types of behavior by these users is not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia. If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned.' make that clear. 151.151.73.164 22:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the talking doesn't seem to be successful. Despite his previous pledge to not disrupt a certain set of articles, [131] Ed Poor is back a week later violating

at the same articles: Adding a biased intro to Intelligent design: [132] Reverting self: [133] 4 edits that ignore and misrepresent sources to an article that was just made a Featured Article!: [134] I'm interested in reading Ed's explanation for how these do not violate WP:POINT. 151.151.21.102 18:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted all my changes to SlimVirgin. [135] Fair enough? --Uncle Ed 18:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: [136]? 151.151.21.102 19:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I wrote On 2nd thought, maybe the burden of proof is on me. Hmm.. in my Edit summary.

If anyone, even an anon who won't sign in, feels I've made a disruptive edit, I am willing to self-revert. Come on, guys, work with me here. You don't have to paint me as the bad guy. Just tell me what you want me to do. You want me to propose all me edits to ID before making them? If so, say so. --Uncle Ed 21:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best advice given so far is that you stay away from controversial topics altogether, since you are continually doing things that you later regret. Raymond Arritt 22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After his being sanctioned, the user continued aggressive edit warring at the Srebrenica Massacre article under the sockpuppet KarlXII. After being exposed for using a sockpuppet, the user as Osli73 has continued to violate the terms of his parole which states that the user is "limited to one revert per article per week". All violations reported here are at the

Srebrenica Massacre

article.

The following diffs show examples of the offending behavior

Osli73 made the same revert 6 times in an 8 day period: Feb. 19, Feb. 18, Feb. 12, Feb. 12, Feb.11, Feb. 11

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=109268846&oldid=109214494

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=109151310&oldid=109016423

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=107677280&oldid=107676953

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=107533765&oldid=107531574

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=107317225&oldid=107292804

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=107214563&oldid=107160737

Osli73 made two reverts in a 3 day period deleting the same sentence Feb. 11, Feb. 9

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=107423607

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=106923855

Here, Osli73 admits that KarlXII was his sockpuppet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=prev&oldid=108050155

Here is one of many examples of the user edit warring with the sockpuppet KarlXII. KarlXII made the same reverts to the Srebrenica Massacre intro 5 times in 3 days: Dec. 16, Dec. 18, Dec. 15, Dec. 15, and Dec. 15.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=95058246

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=94679996

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=94579838

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=94579364

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=94559356

Summation

From his statements, Osli73 has shown that he fully understands the restrictions placed upon him. From his actions, he has shown that he is not willing to abide by those restrictions.

Reported by: Fairview360 16:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Blocked for 2 weeks: [137] by Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at 01:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC) ++Lar: t/c 21:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huaiwei (talk · contribs) and Instantnood (talk · contribs) are both under Arbitration Committee-imposed "probation" and "general probation". The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3 (see also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2).

• Initial detailed complaint and counter-complaint at AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive203#Blocking revert of move. In brief, Instantnood claims large numbers of edits by Huaiwei to articles "standardising" the spelling "Macao" to "Macau" without consensus; Huaiwei alleges large numbers of reverts by IN on the same articles.
• Discussion ceased (though disputed behaviour did not) during: Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 4, which was in due course declined on grounds of alleged sufficiency of existing remedies (provision for page bans and site bans (see below)).

I in particular draw your attention to:

• Huaiwei rescopes and recategorises "Mainland China" stub template to "People's Republic of China", ignoring (lack of) outcome of earlier discussion at
  WP:SFD
  on the scope of this stub type.
• Instantnood reverts this three times in total, including twice in two hours (on these occasions with another editor not under such probation) [138], [139], despite an AC enforcement item by an admin claiming to limit him to 1RR. Given that each of these edits recategorises and rescopes about 900 different articles, I'd say all of this constitutes "disruption".
• Instantnood rescopes {{
  WP:WSS/P
  .

(The potential for significant disruption, and not to say pointless server load, by editing stub templates is precisely why we have

for discussing these naming and scoping issues, and while they're not technically obligatory, editors under probation would be well-advised to pay them some heed.)

Summation

I propose to institute page-bans on both at {{

}}, with a view to extending this to any other stub templates and stub categories similar disruption occurs on. (I mention this in advance here only in the interests of full disclosure.) I invite discussion of whether either (or both) should be site-banned for a period for edit-warring over the totality of their behaviour as manifest over this series of articles, templates and categories.

Reported by: Alai 05:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add {{

China-struct-stub}} [140]. SchmuckyTheCat 05:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the reminder. Yes, on both, per -geo-. (H. first, and IN sustainedly.) Other editors weighing in too. I'd protect that as an "HRT", but I'd rather not be accused (again) of improperly favouring a particular version. I suggest we take the scoping issue back to

WP:DRV. Alai 05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The scope of {{China-geo-stub}} as decided by consensus was mainland China. The same is the case for {{China-struct-stub}}. It would have been fine if user:Huaiwei were willing to propose and seek consensus from the community first, before going straight to edit according to his preference. User:SchmuckyTheCat, although no longer under probation (as he tactically stayed himself away from problematic edits during the course of the third case), knows very well too about what has been going on. Since I was not the person creating trouble to {{China-geo-stub}} and {{China-struct-stub}}, and I was merely trying to halt attempts to avoid discussion and consensus building, I don't think it is necessary to ban me from editing the templates. I don't even edit the templates (cf. edit history records of the two templates) unless there is attempt to not following consensus established. — Instantnood 07:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for {{China-road-stub}}, I've explained in details to user:Alai on why I have rescoped it. To repeat briefly, i) user:Alai said " upmerged " in the edit summary when he recreated the template, and I supposed it was recreation of the previously deleted template bearing the same title, therefore following the original scope of the old template, ii) the template applied (and applies, and will apply) only to roads in mainland China, and iii) the scope user:Alai had chosen did not go in line with what was decided for similar stub types, namely {{China-geo-stub}} and {{China-struct-stub}}, by consensus.

Since user:Alai has insisted to have his preference prevails, and since the template is still at proposal stage at WP:WSS/P, I'll leave it as it is until a clear decision is made through consensus at WP:WSS/P. Meanwhile I'd also like to take this opportunity to urge wikipedians to decide scopes of stub types according to structures of comparable existing stub types.

— Instantnood 07:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about content, it's about behavior. You will not stop reverting and you do not discuss and that pattern has continued for 2½ years now. You also say "I'll leave it as it is until a clear decision is made" and your very next edit is to change the scope of one of the mentioned stubs AGAIN. SchmuckyTheCat 15:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whose responsibility is it to start a discussion at the talk page? The one who modifies an entry while knowing such modifications are controversial at the time of the edit, or the users who revert such edits with reference to an official guideline? Well yes those who revert do have the responsibility to tell what's wrong, yet would that be neccessary to tell such users who have persistently making controversial edits, and and who have been spreading their drive to more and more entries? — Instantnood 11:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom has placed you under probation for making disruptive edits, POV re-orgs, etc. As the one who shouldn't be making such edits, I'd say the onus is on you. As you make the same edit hundreds of times it is unreasonable to hold hundreds of simultaneous discussions. If there is a problem that affects hundreds of articles bring the issue up in a centralized place. SchmuckyTheCat 16:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Instantnood page-banned under "probation" remedy for disruptive editing from {{
  China-struct-stub}}. Alai 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Instantnood (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee-imposed "probation" and "general probation". The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3 (see also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2). Remedies for his behavior include time based bans from all of Wikipedia, article based bans, and, any three administrators may agree to impose a permanent ban from all of Wikipedia.

Disputed behaviour did not cease when asked to stop without using dispute resolution User_talk:Instantnood#Revert.2C_hello.3F, and other messages left by other users. An extension to his ArbCom penalties was requested. The reverts did not stop during, or now immediately after: Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 4. ArbCom declined to create a new sanction and prefers the remedies of article bans and site bans, potentially including an indefinite site ban with the support of any three administrators.

In order to understand the seriousness and ArbCom sanctions him you have to understand Instantnood. He games the system to stay under any revert limit but he carries on the same revert war for years which is what makes ignoring him disruptive to those trying to maintain consistency. He makes a few reverts to an article once a week or once a month to what he prefers then leaves it for a bit and returns after the disruption has died down to do it again. His edits singularly enforce his POV and his edits are usually minor changes to categories, templates, intro, etc that change the presentation of articles. Changes to templates and categories can affect hundreds of articles at a time. He often makes changes to two templates/categories, each individually looks like a minor content change but together he has re-classified something entirely the opposite of what it was.

In every ArbCom case, and every excuse for enforcement, he always argues about why his content is right, and he seemingly ignores or is entirely oblivious to his behavior. It is his behavior that is sanctioned. Time base blocks on Instantnood do not work, as soon as the block is over he will return to reverting. Given his method of making disruptive reverts, then leaving the article alone, the time based block is ineffective - he would have left it alone anyways. He needs to be blocked from editing these articles using the {{userarticleban}}.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• Special:Contributions/Instantnood

the majority of his edits over the last week are content reverts based on his solo crusades. For offending behavior, I offer his entire contrib history for the last week, since Lunar New Year (Displays as Feb 18 or 19 in his contrib list depending on your time zone).

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), [141] [142] [143]

Revert warring on policy/guideline pages is particularly disruptive. This revert now goes on for years. In this case he was making this revert in 2005, [144] after long heated discussions with many participants this sentence/phrase was removed. Nood restored it repeatedly and was banned from editing this page for a year, and on expiration of the page ban, he made the exact same revert.

Remedy: Page ban.  Confirmed

Thatcher131 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The following list of articles contain general revert warring, generally without discussion, anywhere from 2 to 10 reverts in a few days. Alternatively, they contain particularly egregious examples of POV re-organization which his ArbCom sanction also prohibits. This is only a list from the last week and is incomplete. The worse examples are bolded. He should be page banned from each.

• Thatcher131 00:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Template:Corruption Perceptions/Corruption perceptions index
• Thatcher131 00:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rubber-tyred metro [146] (seventeen edits, mostly reverts, between two editors in the span of a few days)  Confirmed
• Macau Light Transit System [147]
  , 5 reverts, two days.
• Thatcher131 00:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Thatcher131 00:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Thatcher131 00:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Thatcher131 00:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Cangzhou Not checked
• List of road-rail bridges (reverting to 2005 version!)
  Not checked
• List of cities in China (restoring text from 2005) Not checked
• Thatcher131 00:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Thatcher131 00:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Culture of the People's Republic of China (one revert this week, but the reverting by 'Nood to enforce a POV goes back an entire year)
• Rail transport in the People's Republic of China (one revert, but the reverting to 'Nood to enforce a POV goes back two years [148]
   Confirmed
• Censorship in the People's Republic of China
   Confirmed
• Category:People's Republic of China building and structure stubs  Confirmed
• Demographics of China restoring text from 2005 [149] after this content was moved to the next article, so he could point to this article on a talk page and state the next article was superfluous. Not checked
• Demographics of mainland China continuation of above revert war, here he objects to changing the article title, so he is reverting both articles to remove what he doesn't like and make it appear consistent, though lots of discussion in 2005 resulted in the community changing these way back then.
  Not checked
• Category:Hong Kong company stubs

—Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs)

Analysis

Instantnood has edit warred at all the articles and categories listed above, including many violations of his 1 revert per day parole imposed by admin

. Many of these edit wars involve categorization of articles and categories. Instantnood specifically targets category changes made by Huaiwei, even if they were days or weeks earlier, showing that Instantnood is specifically tracking and reverting Huaiwei.

Huaiwei has edit warred. The changes he makes may or may not be in good faith. However, when Instantnood reverts, Huaiwei edit wars rather than seeking other forms of assistance.

Remedies

1. Instantnood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for one month for persistent edit warring, violating his 1RR parole, and wikistalking of Huaiwei's edits.
2. Instantnood is banned from editing any category page related to China, including but not limited to its history, culture, territories and disputed territories.
3. Instantnood is banned from adding or removing any category related to China from any article related to China. He may be blocked without further warning for up to a week for each violation.
4. Huaiwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for one week for edit warring.
5. Huaiwei is also banned from editing any category page related to China, and from adding or removing any category related to China from any article related to China. Huaiwei may be blocked for up to one week per violation without further warning.

]

Some steps were clearly skipped in concluding the decision to block. Please refer to the response at my user talk page. — Instantnood 11:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee-imposed "probation" and "general probation". The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3 (see also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2). Remedies for his behavior include time based bans from all of Wikipedia, article based bans, and, any three administrators may agree to impose a permanent ban from all of Wikipedia.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• Editing as an IP editor after being banned for a month: [150] (note signature block)

He was just banned for a month for revert warring.

• Demographics of the People's Republic of China, [151]

Editing as an IP editor to perform reverts.

Summation

After being banned for a month, and appealing same. Instantnood returned as an IP to perform the same reverts reported before. Please {{userarticleban}} him from

Demographics of the People's Republic of China

.

Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 23:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP, but it's probably dynamic. As long as he is blocked for the month, any edits he actually signs can be reported to AIV or AN/I for a faster response, as well as reverted wthout limit. I'll get around to some article bans tomorrow. There's no rush at this point. —The preceding

talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

swell, thx. I actually thought this was strange for him, he usually respects bans. SchmuckyTheCat 07:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that you were taking the advantage of my absense and have tried to speedy two stub categories which you wanted them disappeared. Both of them would have disappeared if I did not put on the {{hangon}} tag. — Instantnood 11:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as they were orphaned, being deleted would have been the right thing. Stop editing as an IP. SchmuckyTheCat 16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classic case of 'two wrongs make... two wrongs'. Schmucky's depopulations and speedy-taggings were quite inappropriate, given this was known by him to be a disputed matter. There's a venue (or several) for discussing these matters. Amd IN's hangons were besides the point: one of them was deleted anyway; the other I removed becaused I was going to that page anyway to take the matter to

WP:SFD. (The other I didn't notice it unless after it'd been speedied.) Accordingly, I'd caution IN to respect his ban, and StC to desist from behaviour essentially similar to what got IN and H. sanctioned in the first place. Alai 18:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Azerbaijani (talk · contribs) is under revert parole by the ArbCom's temporary injunction stating "Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Temporary_injunction.

He has has reverted twice in just over 24 hours twice, and failed to give rationales as required:

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• Azerbaijan (Iran), two reverts in a 26-hour period
  • [152]
  • [153]
  • Additionally, neither of these two reverts were justified on the talk page, as the injunction requires.
• Mammed Amin Rasulzade
  , two reverts in a 26-hour period:
  • [154]
  • [155]

There are other articles where he has made two reverts in just over 24 hours today as well. He

]

Thatcher131 06:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

on 22 february 2007 I, user:Elsanaturk and User:Azerbaijani were restricted on two pages to 1rd parol[156], but user:Azerbaijani since then have violated this restriction in order to do edit warring, on 4 march he did six edits in 27 minutes, on 10 march he did two edits, in 12 march again two edits [157] and also an arbitration commitee decided to restrict involved parties among them User:Azerbaijani on 28 february and thus User:Azerbaijani still violates that decision. [158] Elsanaturk 20:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Its a one revert restriction per 24 hours, not an edit restriction. I have not broken 1rr at all on any article I am involved in, infact, I have put it upon myself to wait 48 hours between reverts to prove that I have no intention of edit warring anywhere. Its funny that you should report me, because you are the one that broke 1rr: [159][160] (thats two reverts just under 24 hours)Azerbaijani 21:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin response There is a technical violation by Elsanaturk and no violation that I can see by Azerbijani. However there is a lack of productive discussion, so whether you revert once a day or once a week you're still not making progress. I tend to think that if someone made a dramatic speech on VoA you could find a newspaper or something that talked about it, or a book or other source on the history of the region. If there is no real dispute about authenticity the speeech might go in the external link section and some reference found to describe the speech's content in the article body.

Thatcher131 02:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

]

Consider the page Tigranes the Great [161]

• Revision 08:48, March 22, 2007 [162]
• Revision as of 00:02, March 2, 2007 [163]
• Revision as of 16:14, February 20, 2007 [164]
• Revision as of 14:20, February 20, 2007 [165]
• Revision as of 12:38, February 20, 2007 [166]
• Revision as of 14:14, January 27, 2007 [167]
• Revision as of 13:49, January 27, 2007 [168]
• Revision as of 17:23, June 10, 2006 [169]
• Revision as of 08:52, June 10, 2006 [170]
• Revision as of 23:31, June 9, 2006 [171]
• Revision as of 18:43, June 9, 2006 [172]
• Revision as of 07:39, June 9, 2006 [173]
• Revision as of 13:50, June 8, 2006 [174]
• Revision as of 08:13, June 8, 2006 [175]
• Revision as of 07:46, June 7, 2006 [176]
• Revision as of 08:22, June 1, 2006 [177]

Consider the page

• Current revision (08:49, March 22, 2007) [179]
• Revision as of 08:23, June 1, 2006 [180]
• Revision as of 07:48, June 7, 2006 [181]
• Revision as of 08:17, June 8, 2006 [182]
• Revision as of 13:51, June 8, 2006 [183]
• Revision as of 07:40, June 9, 2006 [184]
• Revision as of 18:42, June 9, 2006 [185]
• Revision as of 23:35, June 9, 2006 [186]
• Revision as of 08:51, June 10, 2006 [187]
• Revision as of 17:23, June 10, 2006 [188]

Consider the page

• Current revision (08:48, March 22, 2007) [190]
• Revision as of 16:38, March 1, 2007 [191]

Consider the page

• Current revision (08:48, March 22, 2007) [193]
• Revision as of 13:49, January 27, 2007 [194]
• Revision as of 14:13, January 27, 2007 [195]

There's no need to include older ones, your revision of Armenian history is wrong refrain from nonsense. Artaxiad 18:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One can easily look at the talk pages for all the articles and clearly see that I showed plenty of good faith initially even though it was obvious that user AdilBaguirov was merely disrupting the articles with pov intepretations of various literature. All of his pov pushing has been rebuffed on each of the talk pages of the articles not only by myself and user TigrantheGreat but also by third party editors such as user Aldux and Ali among others. Read the talk pages and make your own judgement. Good faith was thrown out of the window after a month or two of discussions. Notice that not even Adil's allies have supported him in these attempts of disruption. Since registration this user has made no positive contibutions to wikipedia. None whatsoever. Created no articles. Reverted no vandalism. Helped no users. He has concentrated all his efforts to one goal, that is the disruption of various unrelated Armenian historical articles. After almost a year, nothing has changed. I could have easily turned each of those articles into an FA article like I did with Tiridates I of Armenia from scratch had Adil ceased his disruption. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Unless there has been a violation of the revert parole imposed in the

]

Previously, Eupator did violate the 1RR injunction, but no action was taken: [196] Meanwhile, the above shows consistent and gross violation of Wikipedia's policies -- never mind bad faith, revert warring and disruptions -- but repeated removal of sourced, verifiable information. --adil 21:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response fundamentally this is a content dispute. Normally your first step would be RFC, then mediation, and finally arbitration. Since you are both already parties to the ongoing arbitration, deal with this there. This page is for enforcing the decisions of the ArbCom.

Thatcher131 00:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

After his being sanctioned, the user continued aggressive edit warring at the Srebrenica Massacre article under the sockpuppet KarlXII. After checkuser exposed KarlXII as a sockpuppet, the account was blocked indefinitely and Osli73 was blocked for one week. Once re-instated, Osli73 continued to violate the terms of his parole which states that the user is "limited to one revert per article per week". His violations were reported here and he was again blocked for 2 weeks ending March 14. Upon re-instatement, he has again continued to violate his parole making the exact same multiple reverts as before.

The following diffs show recent examples of the offending behavior (multiple reverts) concerning one sentence in the Srebrenica Massacre introduction. These reverts occurred between March 19 and March 22:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=117056919

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=117050986

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=116845062

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=116137617

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=116135826

The following diffs show examples of the offending behavior regarding the same sentence from before the March 1-14 ban:

The same revert 6 times in an 8 day period: Feb. 19, Feb. 18, Feb. 12, Feb. 12, Feb.11, Feb. 11

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=109268846&oldid=109214494

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=109151310&oldid=109016423

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=107677280&oldid=107676953

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=107533765&oldid=107531574

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=107317225&oldid=107292804

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=107214563&oldid=107160737

Here are examples of the user edit warring with the sockpuppet KarlXII again over the same sentence in the intro: Dec. 16, Dec. 18, Dec. 15, Dec. 15, and Dec. 15.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=95058246

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=94679996

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=94579838

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=94579364

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=94559356

Summation: From his statements, Osli73 has shown that he fully understands the restrictions placed upon him. From his actions, he has shown that he is not willing to abide by those restrictions.

Reported by: Fairview360 17:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Thatcher131 02:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

, consensus and respect for other editors.

I am reasonably certain that this editor is a major contributer to the http://www.brahmakumaris.info website forums that are mentioned in the arbitration case and posts under a similar alias there [201].

The following diffs show the offending behavior

Starting with a crap-flood of the talk page including statements made in bad faith [202] he is forcing his edits onto the page in a manner that suggests contempt for the views of other editors [203].

He has also taunted and made personal attacks & accusations against other editors [204].

I have tried to reason with him on his talk page [205] but received the response, "...i am not interested in speaking with you" [206].

Summation

It is clear to me that this editor has no intention of cooperating. I would appreciate some action is taken to restore order to the article. We just don't need this kind of rubbish.

Thanks & regards, Bksimonb 08:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the form of article probation put in place by the Arbitration Committee does not allow direct action against disruptive editors (other than the banned 195 editor). I have asked the Committee to review the situation; you may wish to make a comment

Thatcher131 15:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for raising this for review. Bksimonb 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ombudsman (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction - indefinite probation, to be banned blocked for any disruption on a medical article via tendentious editing. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. He has engaged in tendentious editing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frequency of autism, a medically related article, including putting forth various conspiracy theories and using the AfD as a platform for accusations against other users (such as User:Essjay and User:Midgley) for alleged misdeeds in the past.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• Comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frequency of autism (wikilink rather diff provided for context)

Violates probation and injunction to avoid tendentious editing and disruption of medically related articles (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cesar_Tort_and_Ombudsman_vs_others#Ombudsman_placed_on_Probation)

Summation

Request review of Ombudsman's edits at said AfD as I believe they are tendentious and violate terms of his probation. I am a participant in the AfD, but have not participated in any of the autism-related articles. Ombudsman has been notified of this report here.

Reported by: MastCell 01:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note Just to clarify, Ombudsman may be banned from any medically-related article he disrupts. Violations of the article ban may be enforced by blocking. Since the AfD is closed, there doesn't seem to be any response needed here at this time.

Thatcher131 00:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The edits were in the manner of advocacy, which is consistent with the purpose of Articles for deletion. He is entitled to express an opinion differing from community consensus in contexts where it cannot be mistaken for encyclopedic content written from the neutral point of view.

Ombudsman has also edit warred over a redirect at

Autism (incidence), could justifiably be described as tendentious. A ban from that redirect/article, which he is certainly disrupting, might be in order. --Tony Sidaway 18:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, Tony. I agree with your comments. At this time, however, the dispute over the redirect seems to have settled down. If it flares up again this can be reconsidered. It's not necessary to wait for a full blown edit war before applying an article ban to a user on probation.

Thatcher131 01:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs) is banned. The final decision in their case is here: [211].

This user is believed to be continuing to edit the

but the protection has now lapsed however even semi-protection would be insufficient since this user seems to be using various named accounts also.

Now the user is believed to be using the handles Quickerection (talk · contribs), Jankijunky (talk · contribs) and Fineupstandingmember (talk · contribs). The first of these three is already blocked for being an obscene name. In the latest bout I have not yet seen the usual pattern of taunting other editors but the type and style of edits is very familiar.

He/she is currently making edits to the

page. Here are examples of contentious or biased editing,

• Removal of NPOV tag [213]. The 244 editor has always strongly contested any NPOV warning tag [214]. This view is unique and quite unusual since an NPOV tag is usually applied for much less reason to many other articles.
• Re-insertion of obvious bias [215].
• Biased opinions being referenced as a source for flatly stated facts [216]
• Misuse of references. The
  Wikipedia:OR tag is removed, reference inserted, but the reference does not address the fact being queried [217]
  (that murlis were ever on sale to the general public).

Summation

Often the edits deliberately undo changes made by pro-subject editors which were made with consensus on the discussion page. We are currently building consensus on the talk page between editors with differing views. It is a shame that this disruptive editor seems to be able jump in at any time and make a mockery of our otherwise promising efforts to form a balanced team of editors. I was a participant to the arbitration case. Two other participants are currently active on the article, TalkAbout (talk · contribs) and Appledell (talk · contribs). It has never been possible to reach any consensus with 244 due to his/her agressive stance towards other editors, even editors with similar views [218]. I've noticed that 244 just seems to edit as he/she sees fit.

Reported by: Bksimonb 22:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Result Blocked Fineupstanding. Will probably checkuser the others to make sure.

Thatcher131 07:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks

Thatcher131. FYI the username Jankijunky is a reference to one of the administrative heads of the organisation, Dadi Janki. Obviously adding the word "junki" after it indicates that a point is being made. Regards Bksimonb 09:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

What appears to be the same user is now continuing the reverts as 86.152.174.239 (talk · contribs). They follow exactly the same pattern and preferred version as the sockpuppets listed above. This is a static IP address based in London using British Telecom. Thanks & regards Bksimonb 18:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't prove/nor will I assert that the vandalism is .244 (I don't trace IPs nor seek to find out identities), I will ask here as I did on the bot (it removed the protection on some automated basis) page, to please put the protection back on the article as it is only creating havoc. We are just now beginning to get some level of decorum and peaceful working agreements in working with the resources available. Thank you for your time and consideration with regards to this matter. PEACETalkAbout 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address has changed to 86.137.200.131 (talk · contribs) now, still based in UK, Newham and using BT ISP. Also the usual WP:OWN and BKWSU taunts have started appearing in the edit comments. Regards Bksimonb 14:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Re-indenting)We now have a new suspected sockpuppet Shortskirtlonglegs (talk · contribs). Interesting new style but enough similarities to give the game away. I have also reported on sockpuppet board [219]. Regards Bksimonb 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request long-term solution

This user isn't going to give up in a hurry. This is getting to be hard work. Right now I am the only user around to revert the disruption and because of an obvious perceived COI with the article subject on my part I am probably not the best person to be doing it. Plus, since I am not an admin, I have to post here and other places to report the disruption and this creates a lot of noise (read attention for the banned user). I would really like to discuss what we can do as a long term solution. Ideally, I guess I, would like an admin to monitor the article and article talk page and block any socks as soon as they appear, they are easy enough to spot due to common themes, style of editing and the nature of allegations/insults thrown. Experience has shown that this user will dominate a talk/article page faster than Russian Vine takes over a garden given half a chance, so speed of response is essential.

I am also being subject to off-wiki attacks on the website that is run by this user [220].

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 07:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shortskirtlonglegs (talk · contribs) is starting to make disruptive changes to the article now in the usual escalation pattern of previous sock puppets. Would appreciate some attention to this matter or at least some response. Thanks Bksimonb 15:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response checkuser finds Shortskirtlonglegs to be unrelated to the previous socks of the 195 editor. This is a plain fact of life; with anonymous editing, there is always the possibility that a banned user will come back so skillfully that he can't be detected with confidence. I am not convinced in this case although it is possible, and without checkuser confirmation, I am unwilling to block. You could try to find another admin willing to investigate. Ultimately 195 was blocked for being abusive and making legal threats; if these new editors do not do that, there's not much to be done except attempt to follow the regular

]

OK thanks for looking into this. I am reasonably sure it is a disruptive account of some sort for several reasons even if the mechanical tests don't show it. Is it OK to follow the normal dispute resolution process when an arbitration request is pending, in progress etc? Regards Bksimonb 08:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Arbitration is a last resort, and it is always preferable to work things out through mediation or something.

Thatcher131 11:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

And Green108? Should I start posting NPA warnings and escalate that to WP:PAIN? Or ask for an RFc on this editor's behaviour? Or a Wikiquette alert noticeboard? That's the biggest problem right now. That's what I was referring to as already being queued as an arbitration issue. Sorry I didn't make that clear in my previous post. Regards Bksimonb 11:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:PAIN has been dismantled. Some of Green's content edits seemed to be adding good sources to previously disputed material, so that may have to stand. If he is making improper personal comments about other editors certainly wikiquette would be the place to start, followed by a user conduct RFC and/or mediation. (NPA template messages rarely have the intended effect, I'm afraid, but a brief personally worded note to the effect that, "while we disagree about some we can work out content agreements without getting personal" might help and even if not, would demonstrate good faith on your part.)

Thatcher131 16:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the advice. I agree that a lot of the edits are useful, although it is strange that Green108 has not edited so prolifically before. I have filed a Wikiquette alert and it seems that Talkabout is kindly offering to mediate [221] if required. Let's see how it goes. I may have over-reacted, in which case I apologise from distracting you from your duties. I would still like arbcom to review the case since it is likely there will be more disruption in the future and there are also at least three known editors connected with the critical website in operation on the page. This is a problem since, as an example, corrections to obvious bias are being reverted [222] with some strange edit comments. There is also an imbalance in favour of negative statements about the subject which I can see getting worse with time. Regards Bksimonb 17:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

) without leaving proper edit summary and more importantly, any comments on the Talk pages. The appropriate diff is:

• Revision by Aivazovsky: 21:52, March 28, 2007

Reported by: --adil 05:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

User has been edit warring on the talk page to delete comments he disagrees with, and has been reverted by multiple other users at this point. From his commenting style and ISP, it's pretty clear that this is

]

Looks like it's semi-d now. In the future RFPP will be much faster on most days than WP:AE (Sorry).

Thatcher131 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]