Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive5

Copperchair (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction and is currently under a 1 year ban from editing. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair

As the

Reported by: --Bobblehead 05:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Esteban "Lex" Saborío (talk · contribs), plus Kronsteen (talk · contribs), another Copperchair sock. Filled out an RFCU for LaManoTom (talk · contribs), who I suspect is also a Copperchair sock. I'd really like it if something more permanent could be done, but I'm happy to block his socks whenever they show themselves. TomTheHand 19:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Socks blocked and ban reset by TomTheHand.

Thatcher131 00:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• 71.57.90.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 216.125.49.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )

• I run the Web site plasma-universe.com. *My server logs note various visits by IP address 71.57.90.96 and 216.125.49.252 (Wikipedia contributors) whose timing coincide with the actions from two users named "Asshole" (on 23 Feb | Log (359K) ) and "Anon" (on 25 Feb | Log (285K)). Yesterday (11 Mar) I also received over 400 emails (example available on request) sourced from IP address 71.57.90.96, and another contributor to the plasma-universe.com web site received numerous emails,[1]
• Both IP addresses 71.57.90.96 and 216.125.49.252 resolve to ILLINOIS, and an email I received from someone at "Harold Washington College" in Illinois, also shows the IP address of 216.125.49.252.
• WP:NPA on "
  Off-wiki personal attacks
  notes that "Wikipedia acknowledges that it cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks elsewhere may create doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are being conducted in good faith."
• The evidence suggests that User ScienceApologist will be shown to also operate 71.57.90.96 and 216.125.49.252, and he is responsible for the vandalism and spamming of users on plasma-universe.com. Will an Admin check the IP addresses and username? --Iantresman 11:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed about this notice from a third party who monitors this board. The first time I heard about Ian's website was when Ian made mention of it at Talk:Plasma cosmology, but I thought that he was simply spamming for his website. Now it seems he is accusing me of unbecoming behavior and trying to sully my reputation at Wikipedia. I have some ideas who might be orchestrating this (I believe it is a student of mine), but I'm pretty upset that Ian would accuse me of this behavior without ever having asked me for assistance. I do use the two IPs in question to log into Wikipedia, but the accusations he is leveling against the ScienceApologist account are not connected with the person who logs into Wikipedia as such. --ScienceApologist 12:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So what you're saying that you believe that 71.57.90.96 has been compromised, though the comments to Talk:Plasma_cosmology under IP address 71.57.90.96 are yours? --Iantresman 17:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I can also corroborate, as I am the other party who received several messages for "password change request notification." Appx 25-30 on plasma-universe.com and one from wikipedia.com. The one originating from wikipedia.com has been forwarded to wikipedia. Though at that time I didn't have any information on who may have had access to anonymous IP 71.57.90.96 (noted as the originator of the illegitimate password change requests). I assume these were either designed to disrupt use of the system (despite measure in place that countered disruption by outside parties, so usability was not ACTUALLY compromised, thankfully), or as an [unsuccessful] attempt to hack my password on that forum or on wikipedia. I assume it was more of a "nuisance" than necessarily a hack attempt. I can't say with certainty who originated the illegitimate password change requests, nor will I speculate. If ScienceApologist states the IP address is his (I'll accept his statement), but has been in some manner compromised, I hope that further steps to limit such action in the future will be taken. If the machine is a shared machine, say at a university or other educational institution (or the IP is used by a proxy server shared between many users), etc. it may be difficult to track down an actual perpetrator. So, I won't jump to conclusions as to intent, etc. I'll just hope it doesn't happen again. ;o] Anyway, nice chatting with all y'all again. Not quite sure how I got roped into the whole thing, aside from I'd left comments on Ian's talk page on plasma-universe.com and signed it, and perhaps someone followed that link and spammed it too, though not to the same extent as they spammed Ian. Like I said, I can corroborate THAT it happend, but not much more than the IP address noted in the e-mails from here and thereabouts, and the number received. Hope everyone has a good day, aside from this little quibble. I bear no ill will, so long as I don't get roped in any further. =o] Mgmirkin 03:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I may also note that the anonymous user ID 71.57.90.96 and Ian have been having discussions on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plasma_cosmology in recent days, and possibly contentions elsewhere. As I recall from prior WP experiece, SA & Ian can occasionally be mutually antagonistic over contentious issues. I won't comment on rightness or wrongness of either party, or speculate on whether these contentious issues may have spilled over into vandalism of Ian's site by IP 71.57.90.96 (whether SA or someone else) and current spam issues today. Again, don't really want to get involved much beyond that. Just noting for contextual purposes that both, as I recall (I don't frequent WP much anymore, so I was surprised when I got roped into the spamming bit), have had prior conversations, some of which possibly leading up to today's issue (or not). I hope all this gets resolved amicably, of course. Best of luck all. Mgmirkin 03:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin comment.
  WP:AE. I'd be interested to hear what other admins have to say. Bucketsofg 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• plasma-universe.com received another attack last night, this time through a proxy server. Unfortunately the uploading of many megabytes of images, and the double redirects put into place, not only crashed the site, but knocked out a number of my client's Web sites too. As Admins may appreciate, this directly affects my business (I am a Web publisher), which I consider malicious.

• I can corroborate this too. I was sent an additional appx 40 messages this morning around 6:00 am. I would still prefer to be kept out of this. However, the perpetrator appears to have their own agenda, and may not even know about this discussion, since it may not be ScienceApologist, but another party who has co-opted IP addresses (or these may be proxy addresses used by a proxy server service, and may be used intermittently by different users). Other IP addresses used included: 75.126.48.148, 85.195.119.22, 85.195.123.22, 85.195.123.25, 85.195.123.26, 85.195.123.29 (I note that their talk pages generally indicate that they may be "shared"/proxy/zombie IP's). I don't know whether these were by the same user (sock puppets), or by copycats (I believe I'll remove a comment from Plasma Cosmology ^talk with details of the initial incident in order to curtail copycat issues). —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by Mgmirkin (talk • contribs) 17:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]

• I acknowledge that Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over any individuals that may or may not be involved. I will be going over the incidents and my server logs more thoroughly for further clues. --Iantresman 12:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin response. Your best recourse may be to contact the ISP of the individuals involved and/or your national law enforcement (since such attacks are illegal in most places). One way or the other, you should probably not bring such matters to this page (arbitration enforcement) since we only deal with enforcing existing arbitration rulings. Again, I'm interested in hearing comments from other arbitrators. Bucketsofg 13:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, I wouldn't involve ISPs and law enforcement here. Unfortunately the latter is difficult as I am based on the UK, and the culprit is using computers in Illinois (and proxies elsewhere). --Iantresman 14:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist Off-wiki personal attacks: Concluding evidence

• 71.57.90.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 216.125.49.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previously User:Joshuaschroeder,[2]
• "Asshole" | Anon | Anoo (Offsite attack usernames)

Here is what I think is concluding evidence on the three cases of off-site vandalism and personal attacks of my Web site, plasma-universe.com.

• 216.125.49.252 is an IP address of "Harold Washington College". ScienceApologist is quite correct that as a shared IP address, one of his students could use it.
• 71.57.90.96 appears to be residential (home) IP address. Its times of use suggest out-of-college hours; My server log files (available on request) include the modified IP-address entry "c-71-57-90-96.hsd1.il.comcast.net". I contacted the customer service department of Comcast.net who told me that "it looks like it belongs to a subscriber .. probably a home"[3]. This would make it very difficult to "compromise" this IP address as recorded on Wikipedia.
• A student may plausibly have been responsible for the attacks using the shared IP address, 216.125.49.252, the likelihood that they would also have access to the home IP address 71.57.90.96 is slim. The student would require direct access to the home computer, or the installation of trojan software. We also have to assume that the student would have the motive, the will, the expertise and a streak of malicious ill-will again both myself and ScienceApologist. Or the student has authorised access to the home computer, but the owner does not notice.
• ScienceApologist says he heard about plasma-universe.com after my mention of it on Talk:Plasma cosmology,[4] on 23 Feb 2007 at 20:08 UTC (14:08 CDT). My server log files shows a visit from the home IP 71.57.90.96 at 8:05 UTC (2:05 CDT), 12 hours earlier. It results from a Google search for: "redshift wikipedia" an article which ScienceApologist has been heavily involved.
• While some of the vandalism was carried out through anonymous proxies such as Anonymouse.org and hidemyass.com, the most recent attack on 13 Mar at 03:08 UTC (10:08pm CDT+1 12 Mar) was preceded one minute earlier by a server log entry from "c-71-57-90-96.hsd1.il.comcast.net", the home IP address.
• Where the off-site Web site vandals left comments, it is interesting to compare some of them with previous comments by ScienceApologist

• Conclusion. Scienceapologist's IP address 71.57.90.96 appears to be a residential IP address associated with a home PC. The same IP address was also responsible for attacks on my server that has damaged my business. One attack appears to have come from the shared college IP address.--Iantresman 22:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier, I have a student who works on research projects with me and I encouraged him to look into these controversies at Wikipedia (and yes, he shares my home internet connection with me through a proxy network as he cannot afford his own ISP but needed acceses to the internet to conduct research). He has personally admitted to me that he did vandalize Ian's site and has made a few posts under both my IPs at Wikipedia. I have taken measures to prevent this sort of action in the future, but as far as I'm concerned this is a matter best left to private conversation. --ScienceApologist 00:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note There's not much ScienceApologist can do about editing from the college, but certainly there shouldn't be any further incidents coming from his residential IP address. It would be best for Ian and SA to work this out in private; there is no precedent for taking on-wiki action here. Any negative behavior on wikipedia coming from SA's residential address after this has been brought to his attention would be another matter.

Thatcher131 00:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

These users are working together to avoid 1rr and game the system on the

Here is the history of the article: [15]

Here is the history of the article's talk page: [16]

Notice how Grandmaster has not been involved in the article since the 21st of February and did not participate in any of the recent discussions. Here is Adil Baguirov's revert, in which he is adding information which has nothing to do with Rasulzade, let alone his exile: [17] Then, after I revert, with good reason, since the information is completely irrelevant and I have said this many times, Grandmaster comes out of nowhere and reverts back to Adil, saying that "you cant decide on your own whats relevant and whats not": [18] None of what Adil inserted into the article is relevant about Rasulzade or his exile. I keep telling Adil that he should put his information in the relevant article (such as the ADR article) but he wont listen. If you read the full quotes from the sources that Adil is using to put that information in the article, you will see that known of them are referring to Rasulzade. Adil also clearly distorts the Swietochowski quote, which would not be the first time he has distort quotes and information. My conclusion is that either Grandmaster was reverting blindly, without even looking at what he was reverting, or he reverted due to a request by Adil, or maybe because he is stalking me. None of the information Adil is trying to add is about Rasulzade, let alone his exile.

Also note that while Grandmaster is telling me not to revert and wait until there is a consensus, yet he again shows his double standard by continuously reverting to his own version: [19]Azerbaijani 21:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user Azerbaijani, all my edits you complain about are a response to your insertions of taken out of context quotes (such as Atabaki's poorly cited and ripped out of context quote). Meanwhile, when you attempt to attack Prof. Swietochowski (a preemenent authority on Azerbaijani history in the West), at least try better, and not some weird and baseless "Adil also clearly (?!) distorts (?! huh?) the Swietochowski quote" (really? how?). It's you who try to portray Mammed Amin Rasulzade as some Pan-Turkist maniac, deny his own voice to be heard (MP3 file), remove Academician Iqrar Aliyev's quote (another top authority on Azerbaijani history, and himself of Iranic extraction), try to make Rasulzade appear appologetic for the name "Azerbaijan" and make him appear pro-Iranian (nice -- you are going from Pan-Turkist to Pan-Iranian) and argue about a host of other things. Meanwhile, both myself and GM have been active on Azerbaijan-related pages before you, and specifically, have been active on Rasulzade page before ArbCom, so all your other accusations are just as groundless. All my edits are well explained on the Talk page, and quite frankly, I've presented far more versatile and full information on Rasulzade, as opposed to your carefully selected, take out of context snippets. --AdilBaguirov 07:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note Unfortunately the injunction limits each editor, not each side of the dispute (as useful as such a ruling might have been). Reverting in general is poor behavior but I don't see grounds for a block at this time. If you are currently outnumbered you will have to try the

Thatcher131 00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

AdilBaguirov has diverted a whole section on a talk page to personally attacking me: [20][21]

For those of you who know the history, Elsanaturk, Atabek, and Adil have continuously thrown personal attacks against me, and they have been warned by admins several times not to do it again.

He doesnt even know what hes talking about, just his usual OR. For example, not only is he attacking me, but all of his information is wrong. He is not distinguishing the Iranic culture that is till within the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Russian culture that is still within the Republic of Azerbaijan, and the Turkic culture which is still in the Republic of Azerbaijan.Azerbaijani 00:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy this to

WP:ANI since it seems to have no relevance to any arbitration ruling. --Tony Sidaway 18:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Personal attacks are not part of the injunction in the open arbitration case. "You're not a real Azerbaijani or else you would understand" is rather mild, but he should be asked to avoid such comments in the future.

Thatcher131 16:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Artaxiad, who is one of the parties in ArbCom case, has reverted the page removing major part of relevant referenced material [22] and without leaving any explanation at Talk:Varoujan_Garabedian. I would like to remind that another user with the same type of violation [23] was blocked for 5 days. Thanks. Atabek 09:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For faster repsonse post to

Thatcher131 16:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

By the way this was not a revert, and I have explained my reasons on the talk page, thanks. Artaxiad 17:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response It was not a revert, it was an edit. Not all edits are reversions. Atabek did revert [24] Artaxiad's removal of the information. The example of Adil you cited is also a reversion, [25] Adil reverted to his own version, erasing 11 intermediate edits that had stood for 5 days. However in the case of

Thatcher131 02:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I just wanted to check for how long I will have to tolerate the personal attacks and harassment by User:Fadix on ArbCom Workshop page. His recent proposal and comments were really a last straw [26] in assuming any good faith about this contributor. He is simply unable to move beyond personalities, keeps attacking them, stalking and finally simply lying about my affiliation as "official representative of the position of Azerbaijan republic in the United States". I hope arbitrators can address this ad hominem some time, I will be happy to furnish evidence to dismiss such false claim. User:Dacy69 already provided evidence dismissing the claim [27] . But I just wonder how long this will go on? This kind of activity is clearly contrary to principles and regulations of Wikipedia. Thanks. Atabek 18:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposition is not a personal attack, a proposition which has been already supported. There is a conflict of interest and those are really the official spokesmen, if of course we exclude Azeri ambassadors. Fad (ix) 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richardmalter (talk · contribs) is banned from editing the article BDORT per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura. He has been soliciting changes to the article at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology#Clinical and medical topics, which seems questionable, particularly considering he is banned from article talk pages as well. Diffs [28] [29] [30] [31] etc. --Minderbinder 13:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response A limited amount of advocacy is probably acceptable, as long as he makes his point and then stops. The article ban is for disruptive and aggressive editing and if he is nice and polite and calm on the RFC page then that's probably ok. If he harangues editors who do not agree with him he can be banned from the page (enforceable by block if he continues after notification). However other editors (hello, Crum?) who do not agree with his suggestions would be advised to politely decline and then stop talking and not rise to the bait or continue to engage him.

Thatcher131 01:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I blocked Richardmalter today for one month for editing BDORT and its talk page with a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Details here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richardmalter has filed an RFC [32] for BDORT linking to an extensive list of edit requests on his user talk page [33]. Is this appropriate for someone banned from the talk page of an article? Doesn't seem much like a request for comment as much as a way to try and work around the ban. An admin should probably have a look. --Minderbinder 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left a note on

Thatcher131 15:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

User:MarshallBagramyan is under ArbCom on Armenia-Azerbaijan with its 1RR injunction and requirement to always leave an explanation for a revert on the appropriate Talk pages. Today, user:MarshallBagramyan did 3 reverts (and thus re-inserted POV external links that were agreed to be removed with admin FrancisTyers[34]) so far with no explanations on the Talk pages. Specifically, on the pages:

• Sumgait Pogrom (Talk page [35]) Current revision (17:48, March 22, 2007) [36]
  ,
• Battle of Kelbajar (Talk page [37]) Current revision (17:46, March 22, 2007) [38]
• Capture of Shusha (Talk page [39]) Current revision (17:45, March 22, 2007) [40]
  .

reported by: adil 22:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was never a party to the ArbCom and am not bound by its limitations; adding my name as part of the dispute after its over makes little sense. I'm not going to be baited by you with your disruptive and provocative comments and edits. I'll allow the admins. formulate their own opinion but this borders on harassment. How many times do you have to be blocked in ordered to understand any of the rules on Wikipedia?--MarshallBagramyan 23:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are very much part of ArbCom. According to ArbCom admin Fred Bauder 13:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC), "The current listing is incomplete. Anyone aggressively editing these articles should assume they are a party. Add their names and give them notice. No motion is necessary". You have been editing the same pages as other members of ArbCom and are very much part of disputes involcing Karabakh issue, ancient history, etc. That you name for some reason was not in the list until I added it (back?) is an unfortunate shortcoming, but you were well aware of the ArbCom, you were very well informed about the March 15 administrators decision, yet you continued to revert and otherwise engage in disruptive editing. --adil 00:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I was not. Enough of your delirious accusations; you delete important references on the basis of the ethnicity of the author and yet you have the gall to accuse me of disruptive editing? Every article you have touched has been locked. Everything you do is related to besmirching the name of Armenians. You have been blocked again for another violation of the injunction. Your baiting rhetoric only hurts you, you're the one who's the verge of a perm. ban, not me.--MarshallBagramyan 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were, you were very well aware of the ArbCom going on. Are you really going to deny this?! Meanwhile, your words on the "basis of ethnicity" - well, that's a nice name for what has become to be known as POV, and being POV, should be removed. Sorry, but external or internal links from Armenian sources, all of them unscholarly, about a controversial topic are not permitted. This case was explicitly agreed to by admin Francis Tyers[41], so yes, you are being disruptive, you do engage in revert warring. Because the number of Armenian editors is at least twice larger than Azerbaijani editors, and some of the former (as opposed to only one of the latter) use a great number of sock- and meat-puppets, not to mention IP anons (Mikara, HyeProfile, Zurbagan, Pulu-Pughi, Ararat Arev, etc), what you allege against Azerbaijani editors (e.g., "besmirching", etc) is not even physically possible, no need to make baseless allegations. --adil 00:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently repeating everything to you only hinders your understanding more. I'm just going to let this one slide by; there`s no point in telling people it rains upwards during a storm. You have been blocked 5 times in the past month and are now grasping for straws by trying to bait me into the ArbCom dispute.--MarshallBagramyan 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

) Marshall, you've been named a party long before me, and in fact, on March 1, 2007, none other than you left this comment in ArbCom: [42] After this, don't claim you didn't know about ArbCom as you tried to do above. --adil 03:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a comment - not an announcement of entry into the ArbCom. Your churlish and puerile comments, on the other hand, continue to reflect the fact that you are still unable to hold yourself to an honest debate. Is there any article that you have touched that has not been locked or ended in up in perpetual debate? The

None of your contributions ultimately illustrate nor suggest that you have maintained an ounce of good faith in your editing.--MarshallBagramyan 07:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that my edits interfere with your POV on the above articles. Truly sorry. But you cannot include Armenian websites in these articles, that's common sense and that's the consensus, which Armenian editors themselves enforce too (generally). As such, there should be no double standards. And pages lock up because of meatpuppets that come to the rescue -- meats like Vartanm, Davo88, HyeProfile, Zurbagan, Pulu-Pughi, etc., none of which are Azerbaijani as you know. --adil 16:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please spare me from sarcasm with your condescending lecture; there's been enough POV edits by you to banish you from Wikipedia for several lifetimes, it's only a matter of time now anyways. --MarshallBagramyan 18:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response In order to be subject to the revert limitation he would have had thave been listed as a participant in the case and informed on his talk page of both the case and the probation. I don't see that those things ever happened.

User MarshallBagramyan has been named as a party long before the above complaint, by user Atabek, for example. Moreover, user MarshallBagramyan himself left comments on the Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom page on Revision as of 14:27, March 1, 2007 [43] As such, I have added Marshall back to the ArbCom at 18:43, March 22, 2007 [44] His name was later removed, despite the clear statement on two occassions by Fred Bauder that anyone who aggressively edits Armenia-Azerbaijan (which certainly qualifies Marshall even by the above involvement in aggressive reverting of several pages) is party to the ArbCom. --adil 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't notified on his talk page.

Thatcher131 00:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Both user:Eupator and user:Fedayee are part of the ArbCom [45] but despite the 1RR injunction that mandates leaving Talk page comments for all reverts and changes, have reverted and modified Ramil Safarov page without leaving edit summary and more importantly, any comments on the Talk page [46] for their March 23 and March 24 edits[47].

The appropriate diffs are:

• Revision as of 14:08, March 23, 2007 [48] (where user Eupator reverted back to the vandalized version of the page (e.g., having some comment on the bottom of the page and misspelling the name Safarov as "Sahib"), which even user Fedayee realized and made changes to below)
• Revision as of 14:24, March 23, 2007 [49]
• Revision as of 17:44, March 24, 2007 [50]

Reported by: --adil 00:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desperate measures. My first edit there removed vandalism and I have written in the edit summary to say that. My 2nd edit was the removal of a DEAD image, big deal? Eupator also had an edit summary about his RV. Keep trying! - Fedayee 01:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary is not sufficient, the injunction is clear, and was further clarified by Dmcdevit, that everyone must write in the Talk page, especially when reverting. And especially when reverting blindly, like what Eupator did with "Sahib" and that weird comment in the bottom of the article. --adil 01:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result Eupator blocked 24 hours for reverting without discussion [51]. (That he reverted to a vandalized version is an irrelvant goof, he was reverting the "suppression of a source" per his summary.) He should have initiated a discussion on the talk page about why he felt the Geocities reference was acceptable. Fedayee did nothing wrong.

Both user:Aivazovsky and user:MarshallBagramyan (even though the latter tries to appear to be outside of ArbCom) are part of the ArbCom [52] but despite the 1RR injunction that mandates leaving Talk page comments for all reverts and changes, have reverted and modified several pages without leaving proper edit summary and more importantly, any comments on the Talk pages. The appropriate diffs are:

• Revert by Aivazovsky as of 17:03, March 25, 2007 [53]
• Revert by Aivazovsky as of 17:03 (wow, he was quick!), March 25, 2007 [54]
• Revision by MarshallBagramyan as of 17:46, March 22, 2007 [55]

Reported by: --adil 05:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stale Please report future 1RR violations to the

Thatcher131 20:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

There seems to be an edit war brewing on Kven and Kvenland which is relevant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kven.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• Kven and Kvenland:

Summation

The dispute over whether the Kvens are different to the Finns appears to have sprung back up again. Both edits reverted by Drieakko.

Reported by: Sam Blacketer 14:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm not sure what you want here. The disruptive Kven editor/Art dominique is banned from the topic and if this is his sock it can be blocked for violating the ban.

I was just bringing it to wider attention because it concerned an arbitration ruling. I'm not myself involved, never been to Kvenland etc. Sam Blacketer 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbustoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is under Arbitration Committee sanction; the final decision in the case is here: Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi.

Arbustoo was warned to avoid edit warring on November 9 2006; findings of fact included "idiosyncratic interpretation of policy by Arbustoo". Arbustoo had one edit between November 13 and March 2, when he resumed active editing. One month later (April 2), he was blocked for four reverts in an hour and 20 minutes on Drudge Report. In his unblock request, he argued an idiosyncratic interpretation of 3RR with the blocking admin.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• Previous version on Drudge Report: 20:06, April 2, 2007
• 1st revert: 20:35, April 2, 2007
• 2nd revert: 21:23, April 2, 2007
• 3rd revert: 21:30, April 2, 2007
• 4th revert: 21:55, April 2, 2007

• User talk:Arbustoo, interpretation of 3RR policy. Diffs:[56] [57][58][59][60]. Compare of diffs including entire exchange: [61]

Summation

I previously filed the 3RR report, as I wasn't aware until now of the ArbCom case. One of Arbustoo's four reverts was of an edit of mine;[62] I was otherwise uninvolved, although I encountered Arbustoo months ago at Talk:Christopher Shays. The Drudge Report issue was also raised at AN/I by Arbustoo.[63]

After only a month of returning to active editing, Arbustoo is edit warring and idiosyncratically interpreting policy, and shows a lack of understanding of edit warring. He also reverted an edit inviting him to an RfC on the Drudge Report,[64] and accused me of filing a "deceitful" 3RR report (apparently I entered the diffs in reverse chronological order).[65]

Notification to Arbustoo here; he denies a connection between edit warring on other articles and the ArbCom decision.[66]

Reported by: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is bordering on a

malicious persecution

. From the ArbCom case, that I filed and Sandy cited above, the decision was:

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College, and any related article which contains poorly sourced controversial material are placed on article probation. The material in dispute between Vivaldi and Arbustoo has been determined to be controversial material which does not have an adequate source. They are warned to avoid edit warring and encouraged to edit the articles in dispute appropriately.[67]

So Sandy, how does the Drudge Report relate to this ArbCom? I've already asked for clarification from you, but it was ignored.[68]

You "are warned to avoid edit warring". Not warned to avoid edit warring on certain articles (as if that should be needed). And I'm surprised that you defend edit warring on any article after two prior blocks (now 3) and an ArbCom warning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the context. Arbustoo 16:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is something else going on here. The revert that was my "fourth revert" was a revert of Sandy's addition.[69] More interesting I was engaging other editors regarding the mistake of including the claim, which isn't back by the source in two places.(#1 the article's talk and#2 the AN/I board (Three if you count the contact on my talk page). If you note from the time stamps, my reasoning was given well in advance of Sandy's revert.

Incorrect. First, your post to AN/I was made after I began cleaning up the article and while I was working on it (do review the time stamps). I saw it when I was finished. Second, your talk page was not something I was aware of when I began article cleanup. Third, your post to the article talk page was also after I began reading and checking references on the article so I could begin cleanup (I don't click my watchlist every ten seconds when I'm working on cleaning up an article). As far as I can tell, all of this was within about ten minutes, while I spent several hours cleaning up the article. While I was working, another editor changed the sentence in question; I left it alone and began to investigate the history of that sentence. At that point, I discovered you had four speedy reverts; yes, a pattern I've seen before from you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't bother addressing my concerns. You didn't address anything on the talks; a pattern I've seen before. Arbustoo 16:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's almost nothing from me at Talk:Christopher Shays, is there :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This diff shows how active you were on cleaning it up. Arbustoo 17:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importantly, if you note, Sandy reverted the removal of the incorrect claim without giving any explanation on any talk page. Moreover, rather than her trying to work out the issues she reported my activities to the 3RR. Of which she listed my "fourth revert" as one that was one of my clean up edits that removed a incorrect claim and moved the source to the proper section.

Incorrect; I don't understand your distinction about a "cleanup edit". It's still a revert, as many have now explained to you. And it is your judgment that text I reinstated is an "incorrect claim". In the views of others, it is fully supported by the source provided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the question is why did Sandy add in an incorrect claim without justification and opted to get me blocked. Furthermore, why is she trying to get me in trouble here when the cases aren't related.

And for the record, I was blocked as she mentioned before. I was blocked over a year ago for reverting

First Baptist Church of Hammond, which even to this day gets whitewashed.[71]

More to the point, this isn't the first time SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) has played games with my edits.[72] Both issues that Sandy has been involved with are related to Republican figures. She has tried to remove material that reflected poorly on a Republican Congressmen, and added in a claim that a Conservative blog "is regarded as an important news outlet: ABC News concluded that the Drudge Report sets the tone for national political coverage."[73]

"Played games with your edits?" "Tried to remove material that reflected poorly on a Republican?" You must be referring to the time you speedy reverted all of my attempts to balance the verbatim copy of an opponent's attack ad that was added to

Christopher Shays? I left that article because of your edit warring—I'm too busy on Wiki to hang around articles where POV is being pushed, and don't find it a productive use of my time. I just checked the Shays article, and the verbatim copy of his opponent's attack ad stands today. It is an embarrassment to Wiki that we allow that; it's the sort of thing that ends up getting reported in the media, generating bad press for Wikipedia. By definition, copying verbatim an unbalanced, one-sided attack ad into a politician's article during a campaign is POV, even if I did finally succeed in getting each portion to be at least correctly referenced (just as I worked equally to assure that his opponent's article was correctly sourced and conformed to MOS—that's what I do on Wiki, whether for Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Joe Lieberman or Barack Obama—review my contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Interesting spin. I'm talking about you trying to remove material and adding a NPOV for two weeks prior to an election. Arbustoo 16:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for Sandy's justification for reinserting that claim on the Drudge Report. Or for the justification of how bringing a block that she instigated relates to the ArbCom cited above. Arbustoo 23:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstating accurately-sourced text needs no justification. I'm happy to supply an explanation for why I submitted this report. As an uninvolved party, seeing this ArbCom case for the first time, several things seem to stand out—of course, I could be wrong, but these are my impressions:

• You have a history of edit warring, and don't recognize this as a problem. In fact, in a lengthy dispute with the blocking and reviewing admins, you deny you violated 3RR, and you still deny it.
• What I encountered from you at
  Christopher Shays
  was apparently not atypical; there seems to be a long-standing pattern.
• In spite of two prior blocks and an ArbCom warning, you don't appear willing to adapt your ways.
• In spite of a several-month absence from Wiki, you quickly returned to the same editing style.
• More importantly. It appears to me that Guy has bent over backwards to mentor you because you also fight vandals and trolls in other areas of Wiki. It appears to me that you aren't heeding the message, and are interpreting that you can edit war with impunity and admin protection and veiled threats. Worse, it appears that you have a tendency to treat edits from serious and respected editors on Wiki the same way you treat the trolls and vandals that you are accustomed to speedy reverting. In particular, you had no reason for the original AN/I report on Drudge Report. At that stage, it was a talk page issue, as was pointed out to you.

I understand admins may hesitate to admonish you because you fight vandals and trolls in other areas, but community patience eventually wears thin when you carry those editing practices into other articles and use the same style on established editors. I hope someone can get through to you, because I can certainly see that Guy has tried, yet you seem to have an entrenched editing pattern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't bother addressing a single point, just personal attacks. Arbustoo 16:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response There are no enforceable remedies in the arbitration case. You will need to follow the normal

• Revision by Aivazovsky: 21:00, March 31, 2007

Reported by: --adil 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response No action at this time. Adil, you have made numerous 1RR reports against your fellow editors and they all seem to be reverts of edits you have made. I am not analyzing every edit at this time but it gives me the feeling that you are gaming the system to get your fellow editors blocked. At this point I am inclined to wait for the case to close, which should be quite soon.

Thatcher131 20:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Artaxiad has vandalized my page twice:

• [76]
• [77]

using incivil language. As the ban decision has been taken with regards to this user in ArbCom, he intensified his attacks and fierce revert warring using the "last chance". Can you please, take care of this? Thanks. Atabek 16:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the Arbitration enforcement section this was handled in the incidents board already. Artaxiad 16:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 48 hours. This is just pointless but these [78] [79] are a real problem especially in the face of a pending arbitration decision. 48 hours was probably generous.

Thatcher131 17:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Tommysun (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction. The final decision in the case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience.

Judgement was passed against User:Tommysun in the ArbCom decision on pseudoscience. Included in this decision was 'Tommysun is banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience.' Tommysun made a large number of edits to Systems theory. Immediately following these edits, User:Fixaller, a single-purpose account for the Systems theory article, made its first edit and Tommysun ceased editing the page. Fixaller's edits to Systems theory show blatant COI, and are similar in tone to those of Tommysun. Fixaller has recented stated an intention to request an account under the name 'Tom Mandel', stating that this is his real name. I seem to recall Tommysun signing with this name, but haven't dug for the relevant posts yet. See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tommysun.

Addendum: User:Tommysun signed postings at the ArbCom decision proceedings, and was referred to as, 'Tommy Mandel'. Michaelbusch 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following diffs show the offending behavior:

• Systems theory, see [| article history] from September of last year.

Systems theory is an article related to science and pseudoscience. If User:Fixaller is a sockpuppet of User:Tommysun, it is being used to evade the ArbCom decision.

Summation: I suspect User:Fixaller of being a sockpuppet of User:Tommysun, for the purpose of trying to evade the ArbCom Decision on Psuedoscience. Because User:Tommysun is now dormant, a normal request for Checkuser is insufficient.

Reported by: Michaelbusch 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reminded him of the ArbCom ban. I'm prepared to give him a second chance.

Thatcher131 01:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Mr. Mandel has been editing the Systems theory article again, this time as User:Tom Mandel. He is ignoring warnings. Michaelbusch 00:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response blocked for 24 hours.

Thatcher131 01:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

user:Ombudsman continues to make disruptive edits to mediucal articles in violation of the Arbcom restriction. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccine_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=116167517 He has in fact made no change to his behaviour, and continues to attack other users - particularly me - and the rest of the medical establishment. Midgley 05:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide at least a few diffs showing disruptive behavior and personal attacks. I would rather not have to browse his entire contribution history myself. thanks.

Thatcher131 20:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

My impression (having reported him here once before) is that he remains as tendentious and disruptive as ever on medical topics, if not more so - but he has not been editing much recently, so it's hard to justify a block as preventive. If he became more active and continued his current modus operandi, that would be a different story. His removal of well-meaning talk page comments with nasty edit summaries ([80], [81]) is uncivil but not block-worthy by itself. MastCell ^Talk 21:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, remember that the reason he is on probation is that ArbCom has already found him to be disruptive; the threshhold for taking action on the probation is much lower than it would be for a user who had not previously been through the dispute resolution process. Article and article talk page bans are a fairly mild remedy, since it would allow him to edit any of the other 1.5 million or so articles. Things don't have to get unbearable before requesting action.

Thatcher131 11:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

General request: in case a fresh admin comes by and takes a look at this page, please include a link to the relevant arbitration case where it isn't clear from the context. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 01:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Blocked 24 hours. For the future, new requests go at the top of the section, and please include a link to the arbitration case.

Thatcher131 11:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, thanks, I will bear that in mind. Grandmaster 11:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fedayee (talk · contribs) is placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan.

Fedayee has been placed on revert parole and limited to one revert per page per week. [85] However on March days article he made 2 reverts within the last 2 days.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• March Days, Fedayee reverted the article [86] to this version: [87]

• March Days, Fedayee reverted the article [88] to this version: [89]

Summation

As can be seen from above, Fedayee is in violation of his parole.

Reported by: Grandmaster 04:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

• April 11 Grandmaster removes section about muslim allegience [90], Fedayee re-adds [91]
• April 12 Atabek makes a substantial rewrite [92], Fedayee reverts most of it [93] —The preceding
  talk • contribs) 13:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]

Response I'm going to block for 24 hours. There seems to be some improvement in that the parties are discussing the issues on the talk page, but I feel I need to block for 3 reasons. One, in the current environment changes should be discussed before reverting them, not after; two, I don't want to inadvertantly create an impression of selective enforcement, and three, without strong enforcement, the parties might begin to take additional liberties and the situation could rapidly deteriorate.

Thatcher131 14:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• First revert (13 April 2007)
• Second revert (16 April 2007)

Rex 16:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a link to the arbitration case, please.

Thatcher131 16:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz is the relevant case. There is a clear violation if this is one of the editors placed on revert parole and probation in that case, but the log of blocks and bans reflects some uncertainty on who's who, so I will defer to Thatcher's greater knowledge of IP ranges and assignment methods. Newyorkbrad 17:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who is who here as the IP was included in the arbcoms sanctions later on. (see here [94])Rex 18:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See last item at the very bottom of the arbitration case page. Newyorkbrad 18:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know. Arbcom probations were installed on him/her too. Rex 18:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(As can be seen with the link I already provided)Rex 18:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see ... I saw the additional remedy was the same date as the note about the checkuser finding, but I didn't realize the new motion came AFTER the checkuser. However, the remedy is against 194.9.5.12. These edits were by 194.9.5.10. Can we tell if this is the same editor? If so I would block for 48h with a warning that the next block would be much longer. Newyorkbrad 19:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes these users are the same person. This can easily be seen from their contributions:

User:194.9.5.10 ([95])

User:194.9.5.12 ([96])

Rex 20:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rex, you added weasel words, 195 removed them (which could be counted as a first revert) then you reverted to re-add them, then he reverted to remove them. I suppose it's a 1RR violation but I don't like weasel words, no one discussed in on the talk page, and if Ludwig's intent was to honor German achievement, it seems reasonable to mention that, even if some of the things he honored were arguably not of German origin. I'm unwilling to act without a second opinion.

Thatcher131 02:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thatcher is generally stricter than I am, so I will accept his opinion on this. However, please return if problems continue. Newyorkbrad 02:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those weasel words are even in parens. Not really very handy, it's better to either provide a reference or remove entirely if you're unsure about things. I would be inclined to tolerate this once, but I'm notoriously soft. ^^;; --Kim Bruning 02:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Of course we shouldn't get a similar complaint a second time, right?

Rex has changed the article twice without giving any explanation and I have simply restored the original version. By the way, it is a fact that the hall was built for that purpose. (194.9.5.10 13:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

PS: please note that Rex has violated the arbcom probation and,hence, he should be blocked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rex_Germanus/archive5#Blocked_for_violation_of_Arbcom_probation (194.9.5.12 13:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No 194.9.5.12 (talk · contribs), nowhere did I break my arbcom restrictions. You did. As for "weasel words" I don't think adding "supposably" to a temple (built during the heyday of European nationalism) which claims half the scientists, leaders and writers of western Europe as German (including people who could never have been germans, like arminius who lived 2000 years ago) is a weasel word. Do you (directed at admins, not pro german IP) Rex 15:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HALF of the honored persons are not German? You should check this again! Anyway, I do not see the point as the article clearly states the selection criterias applied: "As being "of the German tongue" was the main selection criterion for the original 160 persons representing the 1,800 years, the King included persons from modern-day Sweden, Austria, Poland, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Russia, Switzerland and the Baltic States." However, if you want to discuss the article`s content, do that on the respective talk page. (194.9.5.12 16:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)) ps: what is wrong about being "pro-German" in a patriotic but non-nationalistic sence? At least, I do not hate other nations as you obviously do according to your constant anti-German contributions.[reply]

User:Johnski is in violation of the arbitration decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision) and is once again using meatpuppets to revert Dominion of Melchizedek article. I strongly believe User:Harvardy, User:Oregonic and User:125.212.108.206 is Johnski or an organizational contact of DoM.

[97] Nov 9, 2006 (Harvardy)

[98] Nov 25, 2006 (Harvardy)

[99] Dec 2, 2006 (Harvardy)

[100] April 4, 2006 {Oregonic)

[101] April 6, 2006 (IP 125.212.108.206)

Immediately follow the above edits these two occured 46 minutes later and 1 hr 9 minutes later by Harvardy also on April 6th: [102]

[103] April 7, 2006

The finding of fact was that Johnski was "Johnski, and his numerous puppets, are reasonably believed to be associated with the Dominion of Melchizedek and are capable of using a wide variety of IPs to access Wikipedia."

The proposed decision was as follows: " Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski, or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so."

Currently the DoM article has been semi-protected by User:Tom harrison, however the meatpuppet is continuing to be a constant problem. Given the fact that the arbitration decision only gave two vague tools to combat the problem of Johnski and his sock/meatpuppets, I am asking for stronger enforcement of this decision.

Harvardy has attempted to bypass the DoM talk page by using a subpage of another user to make editing changes where no one else could discuss it and then proceeded to revert the DoM article [104]. That page has been shut down by Tom Harrison and redirected to the DoM page.

Furthermore, Harvardy has been reverting his user page constantly, which have been the only edits he has made to Wikipedia. The reverts are in response to the sockpuppet tag on his page, which he adds, "Believe it or not" at the bottom. This is done to try to create a cover and whitewash his poor behavior regarding reverting DoM articles. His page has been protected by an Admin so he no longer revert that page. Davidpdx 09:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response It appears that admin Tom Harrison has indefiinitely blocked

Thatcher131 01:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note that the undue weight provision is intended to avoid giving
  undue weight to a minority view about the subject in question. It should not be used to justify giving a lot of weight to criticism of a minority view. [109]

And the redirect I created was not an article. It just fills in a red link from a talk page discussion. I've been doing that for 5 years, and you are the first one I can ever recall objecting to this. If you think a red link is better, just deleted it or ask an admin to speedy it. --Uncle Ed 15:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, my mistake. It was an article, but I have userfied it and left a speedy delete tag behind. If information about

Global warming controversy article, though. But it's not "tendentious" to create a new article and then agree to let it be deleted or userfied. Not tendentious on my part, anyway. --Uncle Ed 15:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

recovered from edit conflict

But you didn'tcreate a redirect. You made a barely coherent amalgamation of essay and dicdef. That said, I am willing to

eg92contribs 15:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll second that, it wasn't a redirect, it was originally a short article which has since (after my initial post on this pagea) been moved to User:Ed Poor/belief in global warming [110]. I'd like to AGF, but it doesn't instil confidence when there isn't honesty about a link in question. --Minderbinder 15:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used strike out codes to mark up the part where I made a mistake. I confused the article creation with a redirect. The article is now in my userspace, even though I disagree about whether it is an "essay" or a bona fide article. --Uncle Ed 15:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response (In the future, please provide a link to the closed case.) This certainly looks like a

My bad on the case link, I copied it and forgot to paste. --Minderbinder 15:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Thatcher. See also my new essay,

Wikipedia:Consensus version. If asked to do so, I am willing to confine all my 'project page' edits regarding the complex issue I'm trying to raise, to this essay. --Uncle Ed 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It would be best to discuss these policy changes on the policy talk page before trying to implement them, and I see no reason as yet to invoke your probation to ban you from those talk pages.

Thatcher131 16:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Ed, please stop playing it so close to the line. You were doing better than this. Newyorkbrad 17:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take this as a request to avoid making edits to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. Is it okay if I discuss these two articles at their talk pages? --Uncle Ed 17:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear. I was referring more to the "global warming" issue. I concur with Thatcher that talkpage discussion on the policy pages is fine. Newyorkbrad 18:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit I recall making re:

global warming was a comment to Raymond Arritt, who then flew off in a snit. What were you referring to? I'll stay away from any specific page, on request. Not being noble, the terms of my probation would seem to require this. --Uncle Ed 21:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

As the snit flier, or whatever charming label you think is appropriate for me, I'd like to add that the example discussed above is merely one instance of Ed engaging in rather strange redirects and the like. Unilateral page moves that come out of the blue, like this one and this one cause confusion. And no one knew quite what to think about this. There's a difference between

being bold and creating chaos. Raymond Arritt 16:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Apparently Ed's response to Raymond at a GW article is one of the reasons Raymond has largely left the project, it should be pointed out. Ed's tone above taken with that fact is alone is evidence enough of causing sufficient disruption to warrant a block. 151.151.73.165 21:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the global warning page cited above doesn't exist any more, I'm not requesting that you keep away from anything in particular, just edit in general in accordance with the spirit of your probation and collaboration. Newyorkbrad 21:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's also been very active attempting to alter the policies/guidelines he ran afoul of that resulted in his RFAR, [111], and has been attacking those who've bothered to point this out, like FM: [112][113] 151.151.73.165 21:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the old days, someone leaving the project because I asked them to follow NPOV or Civility, was taken as a sign of 'good riddance'.

I have no wish to alter policy, I am only pointing out that "undue weight" applies in both directions: i.e., as Jimbo has said we should not give extra prominence to a majority view or allow the article to endorse the majority view at the expense of the minority; rather, we must limit ourselves to identifying which views are held by a majority or a minority. (I wonder what part of that you imagine to be a change of policy.)

As for personal attacks by FeloniousMonk on me, I have so far ignored them in accordance with (my own essay) Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. If you think I should complain about his abuse, I will consider doing so but would rather not at this point, if you don't mind. --Uncle Ed 22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In the old days, someone leaving the project because I asked them to follow NPOV or Civility, was taken as a sign of 'good riddance'." That's called hubris. And it's certainly not true when a good contributor with a clean record was chased off by a marginal contributor with a shoddy record, as is the case here. Also, that was just the sort of behavior that lost you your adminship at Wikipedia from what I've gathered. Considering you're handing out 1 year blocks for exceedingly minor infractions at Conservapedia using your shiny new admin status there, I think Wikipedia was wise to deny you access to any form of authority. 151.151.21.104 16:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"we should not give extra prominence to a majority view or allow the article to endorse the majority view at the expense of the minority" Where exactly did Jimbo say that? Diff please. That actually contradicts undue weight - we should give prominence to a majority view. Since we're required to present views proportionally, that means the wider the acceptance of a view, the more prominence it gets in an article. Not giving prominence to majority views would mean that half of the article earth would talk about how some people still think it is flat, is that what you'd like to see? So where's a link on that Wales quote? --Minderbinder 16:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that "someone leaving the project because I asked them" refers to Raymond Arrit: Ed, are you awake? Raymond is one of the most patient and civil editors we have. He also is highly competent both in climate science and in the use of the English language. In contrast to you, he not only understands NPOV, he also understands the various POVs involved. Loosing even a bit of him is a heavy loss indeed! --Stephan Schulz 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• SS:If he left because I asked for an article to be more balanced, then either he doesn't understand NPOV or doesn't support it.
• MB: You misunderstood what I meant by extra prominence. I meant "more than it merits". If 85% of readers think a certain way, then 96% of the article shouldn't be about why the 15% view is wrong.
• Instead of complaining here, a place I have to remember to check, you could simply have dropped a note at my user talk page. See AGF, will ya? --Uncle Ed 17:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, maybe you were just typing too fast but it's not about 85% of readers. It's about 85% of the academic/expert community or 85% of the public at large if there is a survey that indicates what the public at large thinks. What readers/editors think should not be given any weight otherwise the credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is at the whim of the readership/editorship. --Richard 17:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I'd still like a source on the JW quote "we should not give extra prominence to a majority view or allow the article to endorse the majority view at the expense of the minority". Thanks. --Minderbinder 18:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, per Thatcher131 below, it's time to take this to

WT:NPOV or Ed's talk page. --Richard 18:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Ed is on probation.

Thatcher131 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Elsanaturk has violated his Arbcom parole, which state that he must accompany every revert with a comment on the discussion page: [114]. He reverted on the History of Baku article without specifying his reasons why: My edit: [115], then his revert, which came about 3 hours later[116]. He didnt even bother to leave a comment on the edit summary.

Furthermore, this user has used personal attacks since the Arbcom, and I reported him to the Adminstrators noticeboard, Thatcher [117], and Dmcdevit [118], yet he was not punished at all (racist comments, insulting comments, etc...).

Now, on top of attacking users, he is violating his parole.Azerbaijani 04:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours In the future, you may get a faster response for revert violations at the

Thatcher131 00:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This user was reported to

• Since the user seems to have no prior blocks, I would handle it as a regular 3RR case, plus a warning that the Kosovo-related articles on probation and further violations may result in much harsher measures. A 3RR report is stale after 3 days, but I would recommend that an appropriate warning with a link to the case page be given. Newyorkbrad 23:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting temporary protection of

Protected for 3 days. After that, if the parties can't work out their differences, I will apply individual article bans to allow non-disruptive editors to work on the template.

Thatcher131 00:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Azerbaijani has been placed on revert parole and limited to one revert per page per week. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. [120]

However, on Talk:Atropatene he made this edit: [121], which is an rv of these 2 edits [122] [123] (by removal of tags of Azerbaijan and Armenia wikiprojects) without providing any substantiation for his revert on talk, which is a violation of his parole.

Reported by: Grandmaster 09:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, this is ridiculous. 1) Grandmaster, you havent even shown me revert anything, as my edit on the talk page was not a revert of anything, as your diff's clearly show and 2) I'm not about to go through every single edit every made on an article just to make sure I didnt revert or partially revert something that happened months ago. One of those versions that Grandmaster claims I reverted to is from October 2006... Grandmaster, this is laughable.

Nice timing by the way, note that this ridiculous report against me came right after I reported Elsanaturk (Ateshi - Baghavan) personal attacks and actual revert violation. This is yet another revenge attack on my character, reminiscent of what AdilBaguirov and Atabek used to do. Again, note the timing of this report, right after I reported Elsanaturk for the first time for actually violating parole.Azerbaijani 23:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really what the arbitration committee had in mind, I think, although you will hopefully ask for a third opinion about which project (if any) this article belongs too, and not edit war over something so trivial.

Thatcher131 23:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This was clearly a revert. Other people added wikiproject tags, and Azerbaijani reverted them without any discussion on talk. I think it is a violation of parole, which holds that every revert needs to be explained on the talk page of the respective article. Grandmaster 04:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been some causing serious disruption to celebrity articles - in particular the Randolph Scott article where there is an edit war going on. More seems to be happening in the Elvis Presley, Nick Adams, and James Dean articles as well though I haven't taken a close look. This user is on probation with regards to celebrity articles [124], but judging from the number of bans, he doesn't to take the hint very well. No administrators seem to be readily patrolling these articles unfortunately, so I thought I'd better bring it to the attention of the relevant people--Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 08:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on
  Thatcher131 03:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • Ban reversed.
    Thatcher131 23:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Since user violated

Diyabarbkir (the sockpuppet) has been blocked indefinitely. I would support a motion in the Moby Dick case to restrict Moby Dick to editing with one account. Newyorkbrad 23:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cat, a lot of the diffs on the checkuser page are pretty old. Can you give me the best recent examples of Diyarbakir harassing you? Thanks.

Thatcher131 00:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

08:58, 10 April 2007 edit of User:Diyarbakir voting on a cfd I initiatedis a good example as per clarification. This edit alone from a random new user is nothing problematic since they wouldn't be voting strictly to contradict me. It is problematic when coming from Moby Dick. This edit of Moby Dick also violates his topic ban. -- Cat ^chi? 01:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cat, you really can do a much better job marshalling your evidence :) . That one CfD edit is a topic violation but insufficient to block for harassment. However, I found 5 diffs just from April 23 where he specifically reverted one of your edits. [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] Blocked for 2 weeks.

Thatcher131 03:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your time and assistance. :) -- Cat ^chi? 03:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]