On this article Users GiovanniGiove and Ghepeu are vandalizing the article

[27] [28] [29]

They simply delete the entire paragraph . I remind that Giovanni_Giove has a limit afor editing per week and I believe he broke it with this. [30] [31]

Regards! --Anto 22:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read up on Wikipedia:Vandalism; removing text disputed by multiple people is not necessarily vandalism. Apparent forum shopping on your part aside for the moment ([32], [33], [34], [35]), Giovanni Giove is restricted to one revert per article per week and appears to have made that revert during his seven successive edits here (most obviously, removing the "Italianization today" section). Where do you feel he violated his 1RR? – Steel 22:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:ARB/Dalmatia: Giovanni Giove is "limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page".
This action that Giove took [36] from 15 Nov, 16:23, got no explanation by him on the talkpage. That's violation of ARBCOM decisions.
Here's the recent history of revert war.:
14 Nov, 23:51 Ghepeu deletes whole section [37], with comment "blatant propaganda".
15 Nov, 00:42 Giove deletes the line he doesn't want to be seen. [38].
After a streak of article upgrades by user Aradic-en (no lines removed, only new ones added), Giove appears.
15 Nov, 16:22 Giovanni Giove deletes the references (!!) [39] with the comment "deleted false sources" (BBC, NY Times, l'Unitá). No explanation on the talkpage.
15 Nov, 16:23 Giovanni Giove deletes whole paragraph (!!) [40] with the comment "DELETED: the present article is about "Fascist Italianization"". No explanation on the talkpage, nor discussion with others.
After that, user Aradic-en restored the deleted paragraphs.
15 Nov, 18:56 User Ghepeu has engaged himself into revert warring (so that Giove can avoid 3RR rule or 1 revert/week limitation; still, Giove didn't discussed his actions). Here [41] he deleted whole paragraph with references. Of course, no explanation.
I'm not giving complaints toward the content, this is not a place for that (that's the matter of talkpages, 3rd opinions, mediations).
I'm reporting the trollish behaviour, behaviour that is supposed to be of admins interest (deletions of whole paragraphs and references, ignoring of discussion, violation of ARBCOM decisions, revert war, actions performed to help trolls to avoid violations of wiki-rules and decisions).
Sincerely, Kubura 08:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What needs an explanation is the shameful behaviour of a group of Croatian user (Kubura,Anto, Direktor, you can easily find the others) who regularly team up to push their rabidly nationalist pro-Croatian POV in all the article which are more or less related to the coasts of the Adriatic Sea. This group of user constantly tries to add blatant nationalist anti-Italian, anti-Venetian, anti-Serbian propaganda to the articles and engages in coordinated actions too ensure that their biased POV prevail, reverting alternatively their edits, producing false references and biased interpretations until the other editors are "defeated". GhePeU 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I have contacted a few administrators because I was not sure who exactly was in charge for this issue. Acts of Giove might not be breaking the 1RR but they certanly are vandalism. I will try to give more sorces for that. REGARDS! --Anto 09:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is more and more evidence that you act as a Meatball, toghether [User:Kubura|Kubura]],Anto, DIREKTOR, user:Raguseo, and the others...--Giovanni Giove 16:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced there are unexplained reverts here, but I've protectec Fascist Italianization for a week. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Giovanni Giove did make a couple of edits that would qualify as reverts, and he was not participating in the discussion of the issue he was disputing, so a block is warranted. However, the behavior of Aradic-en (talk · contribs) (Anto) is concerning; it is not vandalism to remove a section that you disagree with. Aradic-en inserted material that is controversial and not entirely supported he references he cited; the correct behavior for all parties is to discuss the issue. Also, Raguseo (talk · contribs) has used sockpuppets to edit war (on another topic), and I am generally concerned with both Raguseo and Aradic-en who, although checkuser says "unlikely" to be sockpuppets, joined at about the same time and only edit this topic area. I will be requesting expanded enforcement authority from ArbCom. Thatcher131 01:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has violated the restriction placed on him at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's#Giovanni33 restricted. He has previously violated it but I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he did not understand that partial reverts count. He has done it again, and I have let him know, nicely, giving him a chance to self revert. He responded only by assuming bad faith and name calling.

He is restricted to only one revert per article per week. He gamed that by reverting once on Nov 7th, and then Nov.14, a few hours after the one week limit for another editor. I'm ok with that. But then he reverted my edits today. He mixed this is with other changes, which he thinks excuses it.

• 12:08, 7 November 2007
• 19:40, 14 November 2007

• 08:47, 16 November 2007

The revision section in question is his removing my footnote, and this section in particular. He reverted this text found in my version: [42]

"The book received high sales and was placed on bestsellers' lists, also receiving largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media. The reaction to the book in academic journals from Sinologists was far more critical, generally viewing the work as fundamentally flawed."

Back to his version: [43]

"In addition to achieving high sales and being placed on bestsellers' lists, Mao: The Unknown Story received largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media. The reaction to the book from Sinologists was more critical."

He also removed the footnote, I added. These are clearly undoing another editors work, and he did so more than once within a week. I don't want to report him but he is not being reasonable, just argumentative and combative. He also denies this counts as a revert. I leave it to the wisdom of those who enforce Arbcom decisions to give the proper instruction. Thank you.Giovanni33 11:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained that my edit on the 14th November was not a reversion at all - it was a clarification. User:Cripipper had made a point on 7th November about a supposed abscence of any public response to criticism of the book. I provided fresh material that updated it to what was correct. If Cripipper had objected and changed it further, another edit by myself would have counted as a revert. But he agreed with it. Revert parole is designed to stop edit warring, not working out problems between users. Giovanni is implying that if I had made a revert and then wanted to make the change that I did on the 14th, I would have had to wait a whole week before putting it in even though the other user I had been discussing it with accepted the point. If you uphold Giovanni's complaint then that would discourage positive, consentual editing by people under a revert parole. As I have said before more than once, if we hold to Giovanni's logic then every edit on wikipedia is a revert because it undoes the actions of other editors. That is complete nonsense, so this report does not hold any water.

I'd ask that you take Giovanni in hand and stop him from making warnings like this. I see them as a means of intimidating and controlling the actions of other users. I don't even think my edit today was a revert, as I was merely updating the section to conform with that on the main article. How is that a revert? Giovanni tries to bully people to get his way. Clearly that is very much against the spirit of Wikipedia and a poor way to interact with other users. John Smith's 11:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a violation by John Smith's here. But both Giovanni and John Smith's have basically kept up with their edit warring within the limits of their 1RR/article/week restrictions - modifying each other's edits without concensus with each other first, making sure that any reverts are done outside 1RR/week, etc, etc. To the best of my knowledge, most of this is happening at Mao: The Unknown Story‎ and Jung Chang, the same articles that got them on their current restrictions in the first place. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing that there has been no violation. As for "edit-warring" between the two of us, I think what's worse is Giovanni's harrassment in making a report like this. He's trying to stop me from editing articles he's interested in, essentially, by making threats of reports like this. -- John Smith's (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is my first edit here, and I see John Smith's edit right after mine as a clear reversion as it reverts to his previous version, in part. My understanding is that partial reversions count. Otherwise, all one has to do is to add several other changes (as he does) within a revert, for it not to count? That makes no sense. JohnSmiths knows very well what he is doing. The previous edits also count for the same reason. If its true that the other editor agreed, then JohnSmith should have let the other editor make the change--not himself. If he makes it himself--it counts. I also noticed he waited exactly one week (nov. 14) for him to make the edit, suggesting that he knew it would count as a revert. The 3RR page clearly explains that "undoing the edits of another editor"---even if just partial---count as a revert.-- Giovanni33 (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I waited a week because I didn't have the time and also I knew you probably would try to hold it against me as a revert. If you weren't around twisting the rules I might have made it much earlier. You've also clearly ignored the point I made that I was updating incorrect information with some facts. I'll say it again - if Cripipper has objected or some such I wouldn't have made the change. As it was, he agreed with it.

If you want to wikilawyer that much, then any edit to existing content is a reversion. Clearly that is not the case - the guidelines are there to prevent edit-wars, not stop people making consensus changes! The more you persist with this obviously illogical line of reasoning it can only support my assertion that you are making a bad-faith report to get me in trouble - throwing lots of mud at the wall in the hope some it will stick. -- John Smith's (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni - A reversion is when an edit undoes a previous edit. Which means if you added A, it would count as a reversion whether or not John Smith's removed it, changed it to B, or C or anything else, as long as his edit stands to take out A, which you added. I don't see how the second and third link you provided here are undoing the same thing. And the first edit you linked up here falls outside the 1RR/week/article restriction. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, and that is what I think JohnSmith did. On Nov. 7th we have this "undoing" of a previous edit in the change from: "Academic opinion on the book was divided, with historians generally giving a negative response…" To his version,: “The book received high sales and was placed on bestsellers' lists, also receiving largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media....”[44]

One week later, on Nov. 14th, he undid this edit by removing the text, and inserted something else--but in a different section. [45]

"They have as of yet to publicly respond to specific criticisms of the book, such as examples of them deliberately misreading sources, using them selectively, or out of context (see main article).^[1][2]"

To me that counts as undoing another's edit. If JohnSmiths said that the other party agreed to remove it, then he should have let the other party remove it. I don't see that the other party agreed. JohnSmiths just assumes so because he did not edit war over it with him. But it still counts as "undoing" the other guys edit, the same way he reverted the editor a week earlier.

Now, John Smith claims even his latest reversion of my edits on Nov.16 do not count as even a revert?! Again, I show that he did exactly this by reverting this text found in my version [46]"

"The book received high sales and was placed on bestsellers' lists, also receiving largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media. The reaction to the book in academic journals from Sinologists was far more critical, generally viewing the work as fundamentally flawed."

Back to his version [47]:

"In addition to achieving high sales and being placed on bestsellers' lists, Mao: The Unknown Story received largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media. The reaction to the book from Sinologists was more critical."

Would you agree that, at least, that counts as a reversion? JohnSmiths continues to deny it, which bothers me. Btw, thank you for restoring the footnote and other information that JohnSmiths deleted in his reversion of my edit [48]. As you noted, he failed to discuss this, which is also a violation of the terms of his revert parole.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni, give it up - you're clutching at straws now. I gave a reason for my large edit, which was to stay in conformity with the book's article but to keep things brief. Originally you tried to claim I had made two reverts. Now you're trying to claim I didn't discuss the latter so that's a violation. If you want to state I didn't discuss it "enough" then you're guilty of the same thing - my posts on the talk page following edits were about as long as yours.

To me that counts as undoing another's edit. If JohnSmiths said that the other party agreed to remove it, then he should have let the other party remove it. I don't see that the other party agreed. I can't make other people edit, and I certainly didn't want to rub his face in it by asking him. The fact he conceded the point was enough when he said since you have correctly unearthed a reply (of sorts) from the LRB to qualify the statement further with regard to journals would, I admit, involve an unnecessary degree of specificity. The fact I made the edit and he didn't raise even an iota of complaint, though he did take the time to write back afterwards, goes to show he agreed it was a fair replacement.

What I find troubling is that to you rules appear to be a means of neutralising people you disagree with. You keep ignoring the simple point that according to your logic any edit that changes existing text is a revert. Clearly the regs don't want that to be the case, so why do you persist with this non-logic? John Smith's (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's what I see so far. These edits at 23:11, November 6, 2007 appears to be a revert. His edit at 12:08, November 7, 2007 does not seem to be a revert - was it? I can't tell if his edit at edit at 19:40, November 14, 2007, the important one here, was a revert. If it was, what content did it revert? And his edit at 08:47, November 16, 2007 is a revert of Giovanni's earlier edit. So, Nov 6 was a revert, Nov 7 doesn't seem to have been, I'm unsure about Nov 14, and Nov 16 was a revert. Giovanni or someone else, can you show how the Nov 7 and 14 edits were reverts? Also, as JohnSmith's noted, the purpose of the remedy is to limit edit warring, so if Cripipper agrees with his edits he's not really edit-warring. Can I have a diff of Cripipper assenting to your version, JohnSmith's? Picaroon (t) 23:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Picaroon for trying to make sense of this. I agree if Cripipper stated agreement and asked JohnSmiths to make the change, as per agreement, then I don't have a problem with that. I mainly came here because John Smiths was denying he made any reversions, in particular, his reversion of my edits on Nov. 16th, which he still denies counts as a revert. I think bringing it here so it can be officially stated that he is wrong about this, is important. So, thank you for clarifying that. My interpretation of the other important edit in question was that he deleted the addition by the other editor, but if the other editor agrees, I have no problem with it. However, I think JohnSmiths would do well in the future to ask the other editor to make the change himself, if he agrees. Then there would be no question. John Smith should really err on the side of caution, instead of walking the tight rope, and grey areas, including denying that obvious reverts are not really reverts. And, on top of that making bad faith assumptions about my pointing this out to him.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picaroon, Cripipper agreed with my changing his original statement here - pretty much the first paragraph. When he replied on the next day he didn't mention the edit at all. As far as I have been told, silence equals consensus.

Giovanni, I don't believe that you came here to prove I was wrong. I'll quote what you said on the talk page here. You are in violation of your revert parole here. It has already been explained to you that any undoing of another editors work, even if its partial, counts. You already reverted someone else, then waited 7 days, and now only after 3 days your revert of my changes counts as a violation. But instead of reporting you, I will give you a chance to self revert. If you do not self revert, I will report you and you will probably get blocked. Its your choice. I don't see anywhere a comment that I had reverted just once and you wanted clarification - you wanted me blocked. John Smith's (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right this is completely absurd. First Giovanni complains I'm reverting, now he has definitely made a second revert this week here. This follows his reversionary edit here earlier on. He is also acting in bad faith because he is turning upside down the consensus we reached on Mao: The Unknown Story, re-ordering the article without prior agreement and deleting a long-standed reference. I would ask his last edit is reverted and he is blocked per the arb-comm judgment and his bad-faith editing. John Smith's (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell how the first edit is a revert. The second one definitely is, where he moved the Goodman mention back to the original place where it was added. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Picaroon implied that my edit here was not a revert due to the fact that I had obtained Cripipper's consent. If that is the case then Giovanni's first edit was a revert because he was substantially changing the page without gaining consent. He was also undoing Cripipper's change to the introduction to the section on the book. Cripipper changed it to The reaction to the book from Sinologists was divided, with historians generally giving a negative response, and non-historians a more positive reception. Giovanni then changed it to The reaction to the book in academic journals from Sinologists was far more critical, generally viewing the work as fundamentally flawed. This removed the reference to the division, which is important, so he was undoing the change.

At the very least he is edit-warring/gaming the system - the latter certainly by removing a long-standing review without consent, which I can't undo because then he would again complain I had broken my revert parole. He came here to report me, obviously hoping that I would get banned. Then he saw things weren't going his way, so he tried to back-paddle and claim he just wanted clarification that my last edit to the page was a revert. That's why he didn't edit the page after I did - he knew that his previous one was a revert. Now he's trying another approach which is to pretend he hadn't reverted at all, despite the fact it goes against the consensus he agreed to on Mao: The Unknown Story. That is not a good-faith approach to editing. John Smith's (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am under the impression that the 1RR restriction is similar to the normal 3RR rule - that it pertains to multiple reversions of one particular edit, and not reversions of different edits. That's coincidently why I don't think you (John Smith's) have broken the 1RR restriction. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, you cannot really accuse someone of edit-warring without also implicating a second person as well, so you might want to be careful where you're going with that. Honestly, I suggest both you and Giovanni just stop editing those articles for a while and not risk getting sanctioned again. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, 1RR applies to 1 revert per article period. The reason I didn't break my revert parole was because at the least I got Cripipper to agree to the change. John Smith's (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, JohnSmiths applies a double standard and this seems to be in bad faith and retaliatory, a point violation. My first edit was not a revert. It was my first edit introducing new material, Prof. Goodman and restructuring so that an important point is made clear. It follows the principal agreed to on the main page, and does not alter the intro sentence in meaning except to make the same point clearer, stronger. It was an attempt at a better wording, narrowing it down to academic journals, specifically (as opposed to popular press). As usual JohnSmiths tries to whitewash the criticism, and obscure this point, which is why he reverted me, and in doing I thought he probably violated this probation, as I explained above. I did do a partial reversion in my second edit, but that is my one revert--the first one doesn't revert to a previous version. And, I held off doing this edit until I had a better understanding of what would constitute a revert, per above. JohnSmith wants to have it both ways, it seems. Interesting.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is bad faith and again a sign of your attempts to control my editing. I can't report you because you reported me? That's ridiculous. If you don't want me to report you, don't try to game the system and dance around your revert parole so that you can force changes on to long-standing versions of the article.

I don't want to have it both ways because (and I've said this several times) I got an agreement with the person in question before I made the change (on the 7th). You did no such thing. So you're comparing apples with oranges. John Smith's (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The agreement aspect was not your idea or argument. You clearly said you made no reversions, even your reversion of my edit on Nov. 14. So, please stop changing your story over and over. At least be a little more consistent. Your hypocritical because you want to apply standards that you say don't apply to yourself, and then change the argument. This is what proves bad faith. And as far as my initial edit not obtaining agreement first, unlike you---well that is because there was no conflict. Unlike you, I was not involved in any edit war with anyone. Your edit that you say was with his agreement was only after your reverting each other on the issue. No such condition exists with me, so there was no one to obtain permission from. Disagreement only became evident once you reverted me on the same day, without even discussing anything in detail with me. Drop your combative attitude, and accusations, please! Giovanni33 (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always said that my edit of the 14th was not a revert because I reached agreement with the other user (didn't mean to say 7th) - that is not changing the story. It's very simple - either previous to your last edit we had made 1 revert each or we had not (I don't get to decide whether my edit of the 16th was a revert, that's up to someone like Picaroon). If anything I'm arguing from a point of consistency - it's you that want to have it both ways.

The idea that I was having a revert war with Cripipper was a joke. We edited the article a few times and then were able to move on. As for your edit, you knew perfectly well I'd object - that's why you jumped in a day or two after I'd made by edit of 14th. You thought that was a revert so you took your opportunity to get in an edit. When I edited you reported me. When the report didn't go your way, you made another edit even though it was clear we were disagreeing. That is bad faith editing and gaming the system, even if you didn't revert twice.

"Accusations" - what are you talking about? I've reported you for violating your revert parole and am highlighting the fact your arguments in defence don't hold water. Again, you're trying to stop my editing. First you bullied me by claiming I'd reverted twice, then you pretended I was pushing double standards, now you're trying to make yourself out to be a victim because I'm being "combative". Please drop the act and edit in good faith. John Smith's (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit doesn't seem to be a revert. Which of Cripipper's edits was Giovanni undoing? Please show me a diff of Crippipper's edit, copy and paste the relevant part, and then show where in Giovanni's edit this was undone. The second one was definitely a revert, as noted by HongQiGong. Picaroon (t) 18:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He made a lot of edits rather than just one. But here is a general summary of what he changed.

The previous version was "Academic opinion on the book was divided." This was changed to "The book received high sales and was placed on bestsellers' lists, also receiving largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media. The reaction to the book from Sinologists was divided, with historians generally giving a negative response, and non-historians a more positive reception." 12:29, 7 November 2007

Giovanni changed it to "The book received high sales and was placed on bestsellers' lists, also receiving largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media. The reaction to the book in academic journals from Sinologists was far more critical, generally viewing the work as fundamentally flawed." 02:02, 16 November 2007 As you can see, he undid Cripipper's reference to the division amongst Sinologists in how they viewed the book. John Smith's (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this first edit of his is a revert. While Giovanni's edit did have the effect of modifying Cripipper's text so it suggests that the reaction among China-specialists was more universally negative, he wasn't undoing the change; a distinction needs to be made between modifying someone's addition and undoing someone's addition, and I think was a modification. On the content level, I would recommend finding a reference which explicitly comments on what the reaction of historians has been, as aggregating the opinions of several of them the way Cripipper did could be considered original synthesis of published opinions which have not collectively referred to as positive, negative, or in between before. Picaroon (t) 19:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references that explicitly comment on the reaction of historians, just as there aren't any that say that "the reaction to the book in academic journals from Sinologists was far more critical, generally viewing the work as fundamentally flawed." That's why I wanted to introduce the version we agreed on for the Mao: The Unknown Story page. But as you can see from Giovanni's actions he believes he can re-write that consensus any time he pleases. Also he removed a perfectly valid and well-sourced review in his second edit (the Michael Yahuda article), which can be considered vandalism. He may not have broken the rules but he's certainly dancing around the lines and editing in bad faith. John Smith's (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Picaroon, and I think you know its not true that there are no references that makes this observation. For example, here is a report on that, which is currently linked to the main article page that makes exactly this same point:[49]Giovanni33 (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your citation does not prove the text you have put into the article at all. That is a WP:SYNTH violation - even Hong agrees on that point. John Smith's (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not. I commented about the lack of references in the Talk page before he added the reference. The text right now does not necessarily reflect the source 100%, but it's hardly a synthesis violation. I've offered a proposed change in the Talk page. Hopefully you two can agree with it or at least agree with how to present what the source says. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to broker a solution here

John Smith's and Giovanni - how about the both of you self-impose a ban on editing Jung Chang and Mao: The Unknown Story? Keep discussing the edits you want on the Talk pages, and if the two of you can agree on an edit, I'll make the edit myself. And to make sure I'm neutral, I won't make edits to those articles unless the two of you agree on the edits to make. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, but if we agree to an edit on a talk page either person can do it. Though you can still agree to not make your own edits without prior agreement between us two. But I still want Giovanni's last edit reverted as he was breaking long-standing consensus in removing conent through breaking his revert parole/gaming the system. He also undermined the consensus reached on Mao: The Unknown Story. If we are to enter into something like this it's only fair he show some good faith in that respect. If we're to start off with the current version we'll never get anywhere. John Smith's (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HongQiGong. I proposed this same solution before, as I felt that if JohnSmith wasn't trying to POV push and violate undue Weight, I would not have to have any conflicts with him--and he only seems to do it on this one topic/issue. I don't have any objection to your proposal. We could both be active on the talk page and convince others to make the edits per our suggestions. This can start now, with the contested aspects that currently exist. I believe my edits are consistent with consensus obtained in the main article page.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni that is complete nonsense. We reached consensus on the version currently in the book's article. For you to imply you can make arbitrary changes including deleting an entire referenced extract is not credible. If this is going to work you need to stop trying to game the system and twisting things to suit yourself. John Smith's (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section in this article does not reproduce the entire section in the main article. It is, and should be, a shortened version of that. My main changes follow that. I removed the Guardian piece to save space, as you had added in others, making it larger. My choice in trimming was to keep the best sources, i.e. academic ones, hence my taking out the Guardian piece. Leave that for the main article. In fact, even in the main article, that addition was contentious, due to its non-scholarly nature.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're dodging the issue. We agreed on various parts, such as the lead/intro to the debate section and inclusion of the Yahuda article. Too bad if you would have preferred the Yahuda piece wasn't part of consensus but it was. You changed the wording arbitrarily and removed the review. Also if you wanted to make it shorter you could have also deleted a point from the criticism section. Yet you completely removed the Guardian piece. You added the review so I added one myself and added a little content to the Yahuda article. That was balanced - there was no need to remove it.

John Smith's (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith's - yeah if the two of you agree with an edit, either of you can do it. That should have been happening about 6 months ago. But we are still not seeing it after the two of you have been sanctioned. You two are experienced editors, for all this time you've been feuding, you could have been agreeing to edits before making them. But obviously that's not what's happening here. The two of you are editing and reverting each other without reaching an agreement with each other first. So this is why I suggest you both self-ban yourselves from editing. Let me be blunt here - the two of you editing against each other is very disruptive. Please stop. Instead of further engaging in your prolonged tit-for-tat to gain the upper hand against each other, just stop editing those articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've said I'm happy to work something out if Giovanni reverts his last edit. I'm not going to give someone a veto over any changes I make to the article if he won't even abide by the consensus we reached on the other article and tries to redefine it to suit himself. John Smith's (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New user:Ugesum appears to be today's incarnation of AWachowski/LWachowski/Nexxt 1/etc. He has picked up exactly where the latter left off on the BKWSU page with persistent large-scale edits without discussion or attempts to gain consensus. Further, as an extremely vehement ex-BK member he suffers from a COI (and is a single-purpose account). Please see Ugesum's first edit below and then compare with the exact same persistent edit reversions in the following difs:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=172445848&oldid=172120342

(With this massive change above, identical to those difs below, this is all he wrote on the talk page.)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=169339063&oldid=169128361
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=169484684&oldid=169365976
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=169512295&oldid=169496108
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=169531222&oldid=169526066
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=169695579&oldid=169548520
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=171341777&oldid=170961438

This is getting extremely tiresome. He just changes usernames and comes back as a different person over the different months (and check his userpages, they are full of warnings). Then, he tries to file complaints on his own when really he is the one not discussing changes[50], making wholesale reverts[51], and engaging in the fililng of numerous false reports like this and [ this].

I filed a report on the ANI board and everyone keeps referring the case to the arbitration board (including AWachowski/ugesum/green108/etc.'s reports) and then nothing happens.

I am happy to work in good faith with this editor but all he is interested in is reverting to his version, attacking what he perceives to be the pro-BK person (i.e., user Bksimonb), and then filing numerous reports on edits that were in response to his wholesale reversions without discussions.

Please help! I have absolutely no affiliation with BKWSU and came to this article from an RFA. This is a waste of good-faith editors' time. Thank you for looking into this. Renee (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Renee. From my experience, I think the response will be that we need to file a Request for Clarification on the Requests for Arbitration page. The problem, as I understand it, is that the scope of enforcement needs to be extended to cover disruptive editing by editors other than the banned 244 editor. Such as request was suggested some time ago has been declined on the basis that the article was improving and there weren't sufficient problems to re-open the case. I am hoping to prepare a draft request some time in the next week but unfortunately I'm working more hours than I usually do so can't promise. I would hope that this issue has been going on for long enough now to merit a review. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- you'll be preparing this then? I'd be happy to endorse it. This is getting ridiculous. Renee (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of an editor editing under multiple user names (especially editing the same article) you can file a Request for checkuser and if the accounts match, have all but one blocked as sockpuppets. This is separate from and in addition to any arbitration remedies that might exist. Thatcher131 20:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have had several weeks of peace since the conclusion of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren, now RJ CG has returned flagging his intention to deliberately to create an article Whitewashing of Nazi Collaboration in modern Estonia [52], even attempting to provoke participants on Wikiproject Estonia [53]. Could somebody remind RJ CG that a specific remedy against turning Wikipedia into a battleground is in force Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Editors_warned, and if he persists this will be taken to ArbCom. Martintg (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The article Birmingham pub bombing is the subject of an edit war involving parties to the Arbcom case on "The Troubles". Two substantive issues appear to be in dispute: whether it is appropriate to add the article to Category:Massacres in the United Kingdom and whether the article should include a list of those killed in the explosion.

Relevant links:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Involved_parties
• Birmingham pub bombing revision log during the edit war
• Discussion on the Irish Wikipedians' notice board
• Talk:Birmingham pub bombings#Birmingham_Six_names
• Discussion on my talk page: User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Birmingham_Pub_Bombings

I have participated in the IWNB dicussion and expressed some views on the substantive issues on my talk page, so I take no view on whether arbcom enforcement is appropriate, beyond noting that it may fall within the arbcom ruling that "edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator".

I note that the edit-war appears to be fizzling out, with the last edit at 02:07 today. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Also:

• User:Dreamafter/Mediation/Answer/Summaries/Final/Discussion
• this
• and this --Domer48 (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BHG. This is the sort of edit-warring that the probation was designed to stop. Having been chastised for enforcing the probation previously, as an "involved" admin, admins such as myself, BHG, Alison and SirFozzie are not in a position to do so. Could an "uninvolved" editor please take the appropriate action regarding those that have been ignoring their weekly WP:1RR limit. Rockpocket 20:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also the latest edit war at [54]. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, it's quiet here. We should have a visitors' book for the people who find their way here! It does seem rather pointless having the ArbCom going to all the time and effort of considering 'the Troubles' if neither that Committee nor an 'uninvolved Admin' is prepared to enforce the judgment six weeks after it was handed down and one week since BrownHairedGirl posted her request for enforcement. Ah well! Now please excuse me - I'm off for a little light edit-warring myself! --Major Bonkers (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into this a bit. As far as I can tell, none of the participants in the edit war were under probation, and the edit war has stopped because the page has been protected. So, unless I missed something (which is entirely possible), no action is required at this time. --Akhilleus

talk) 17:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This comment is inappropriate to the process of mediation or the findings of Arbcom - there was no finding not to add the list. Aatomic1 (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Alison, who made unfounded allegations against me during the Arbcom. Has placed me on probation. I have made this comment to the cabal and would respecfully request the input of an uninvolved administrator Aatomic1 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorsed - I'd appreciate that, too - Alison ^❤ 23:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The closing of the mediation now accurately reflects the situation Aatomic1 (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite - Alison ^❤ 00:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like two parties asked for independent admin input, so here goes: 1) the opinion of the cabal seems clear 2) User:Aatomic1 clearly doesn't want to accept that, but really should...not everything goes you way in life, friend. For peer mediation to work, all parties need to be willing to give in, even when things don't go their way. 3) The ArbCom decision is very clear about edit warring on related articles. 4) User:Aatomic1 is clearly edit warring, and clearly not respecting the process, which is not a very gentlepersonly thing to do 5) Based on the ArbCom ruling, User:Alison was correct in applying the probation/pan provisions to User:Aatomic1. 6} For a community to work, everyone needs to respect each other, even when (and especially when) they disagree; I would thus strongly suggest to User:Aatomic1 that he exercise such respect. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Akradecki. It looks like I had pretty poor timing with my earlier post here--Birmingham pub bombings was unprotected at 17:15, I posted at 17:22--so I missed out on today's edit war. But the probation of Aatomic1 seems warranted. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the birmingham case...the way the mediation has been done is VERY strange. The case has essentially not been closed. The input of several editors was apparently ignored. Hughsheehy (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related links:

User:Giovanni Giove User:151.67.87.93 Istrian Exodus

He was restricted to one edit per week per article with discussion. He edited Istrian Exodus EIGHT TIMES IN ONE DAY. He also is using the IP as a sock to attack user:DIREKTOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gp75motorsports (talk • contribs)

That IP address appears to be LEO, not Giovanni Giove. Picaroon (t) 02:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still skeptical about him. He needs a checkuser. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so file one at WP:RFCU. Tell us if there are any arbitration committee decisions which require enforcement. Picaroon (t) 16:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is personal attack!!!! Giovanni Giove is in Venice and I stay in Altamura: you can control!!!! LEO is my technical and variable IP!!!! Stop this personal attack against Giovanni Giove!!!! LEO, 28 nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.85.5 (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

User:Bakasuprman and User:Dbachmann were parties to the ill-starred Hkelkar 2 arbitration case. At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann_2, Bakasuprman has made a statement which starts "Dbachmann's pernicious racism and obvious incivility is a noxious menace on the India related pages. He is inherently prejudiced against actual Indians/Hindus editing pages on India and Hinduism..." The statement contains other allegations of racial/religious bias, supported by a collection of misinterpreted, out of context, or mischaracterized diffs, including the infamous "shithole" comment. And, when Bakasuprman refers to "Herr Dbachmann", I doubt it's intended as a mark of respect. User conduct RfCs are a place for frank speech, but this is going over the line.

Remedy #7 ("On Notice") in the Hkelkar 2 case states "All parties are reminded in the strongest possible terms that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for conspiracy, personal attacks, nor the continuation of ethnic disputes by other means. Parties who continue such behaviour, and parties who consider it their moral duty to call out such behaviour, will be hit on the head with sticks until the situation improves." Since Bakasuprman's statement contains a nice helping of personal attacks and since he seems to belive that it's his moral duty to throw light on Dbachmann's supposed anti-Indian bias, I think it might be time to apply a stick. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here – actually, Dbachmann's characterisation of "Indian trolls" does seem to be problematic. And since, there have been really offensive comments made in the past, I really doubt, if his attitude towards "the Indians" and the Indian users has improved. And some of his comments directed at the "Africans" don't really make me emphatic to his cause either. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Nick, I'm sure you realize that in that diff, Dbachmann was referring to this edit by User:Xyzisequation, whom I blocked as a throwaway sockpuppet. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with this area knows that there's a plague of trolling accounts afflicting Wikipedia's India-related articles; the continuing activities of Hkelkar and Kuntan are obvious examples.

I don't think it matters, but for completeness' sake I'll note that Sir Nick was also a party to Hkelkar 2. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain to me what does the phrase – "Indian trolls" means? Are there trolls and Indian trolls too? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know that too. I remember reading that statement and going "hmm." And for completeness sake, I would like to note that I am not a party to anything. I have just noticed dab make some seriously offensive statements towards Indians in the past year or so. No, I don't have a list of wikilinks to show. --Blacksun (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilleus has turned from an admin to a forum-shopper [55], [56], [57] Akhilleus' wikilawyering for Dbachmann and Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) is despicable. Arbcom instituted Remedy #5 for a reason, that alone should be food for thought.

Is this what Arbcom is? Wikipedia is a place for contributions, a place where anyone can edit. I would hope that personal feuds dont become the norm on these boards, because that certainly takes away from the value of the pedia when users are subjected to unjustified harassment. This, even while users are innocently working to protect the reputation of the pedia, which is (in no small way) tied to the quality of admins. Attempting to make admins more accountable for their actions can hardly violate the spirit of "remedy 7" which has been grossly misrepresented. Thoughtcrime.Bakaman 19:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for "Herr", I removed that after seeing that my olive branch of understanding enraged the great protector of Wikipedia, Akhilleus. Even as he referred to the land of my ancestors as a "shithole" and my religious brethren as "hopeless" and "sexually aroused by old people", I stood in stark contrast to his ethnocentric rants by engaging in some cultural understanding, utilizing a respectable title to refer to Dbachmann.Bakaman 19:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bakaman, I'm glad that you removed the "herr" comment, but, don't try to justify it as a nicety, it was a mean thing to say. (I'm not saying this to you to downplay things that Dbachmann has said. But it is sort of hard to ask other users to be civil when you aren't being civil yourself.) futurebird (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit more than "mean". If you're accusing someone of being racist, then mention their German (or in this case German-speaking Swiss) heritage, well...do I really have to spell out what's being implied? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the implied accusation is lower than low. It's deeply ironic that User:Bakasuprman complains of others carrying on "personal feuds" and displaying "ethnocentric" behavior. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree with your spurious extrapolations, especially when its patently obvious that Dbachmann is the only one that has referred to users as "fascist". What perturbs users is that certain admins think petty feuds are more important than fighting trolls like Willy on Wheels (talk · contribs).Bakaman 05:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the Willy on Wheels thing? Listen, if you spot WoW, post to ANI, and he'll be taken care of quickly. If you think Willy is a more serious problem than your repeated (and specious) accusations of ethnic and religious prejudice, well, I guess I see why you call this a "petty feud." Apparently, you think that calling people racists is no big deal. Why, then, do you pretend that you meant nothing by referring to "Herr Dbachmann"? Why even bother complaining about his behavior at all, when it's so "petty"? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the histories involved, Akhilleus' note here seems rather pointy and pointless. Everything he's given there is sadly, par for the course. Akhilleus would do well to post dab's vicious responses too, failing which his note here would appear hypocritical. And need I remind people here that Kelkar2 was about the arbcom unceremoniously throwing out Akhilleus' friends' case and upholding Baka and others' credentials as editors in good standing. Sarvagnya 15:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this is really quite brilliant. My post is about Bakasuprman, but starting with Sir Nick's first response, it's somehow turned into another flood of complaints about Dbachmann. Sarvagnya seems to be saying that Baksuprman's behavior isn't objectionable because dab's responses are "vicious". Is he saying that two wrongs make a right? At least that's an (implicit) acknowledgment that Bakasuprman's behavior is uncivil, I suppose that's a start. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying that two wrongs make a right. Only saying that dab gets as good as he gives and your crybaby finger pointing is quite lame and you're only wasting the community's time. Bakaman's been through two arbcoms and come out clean. Its simply time that you let go. Sarvagnya 03:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One might well say that in response to Bakasuprman's statement as well, since he can't seem to get over a statement Dbachmann made back in 2005. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is merely an introduction to many more numerous diffs that have been provided. Neither myself nor Dbachmann complain about each other's civility, seeing that the incantation "WP:CIVIL!" is often used as a way to stifle discussion. Distrust of forum-shopping springs from actions like these that serve to perpetuate falsehood and character assassination on Wikipedia. Bakaman 05:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per Kirill's message [[58]] I kindly request Admins to look into possibility of removing my parole as I never got involved in any incivility in my discussions and edits. Thank you in advance for your consideration. --Aynabend (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still conserned that while users Andranikpasha, VartanM and Baku87 were relieved of their parole per Kirill's comment[[59]], I did not get the same treatment. I am the only one left paroled. I claim equal treatment and insist that my parole be lifted. --Aynabend 07:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aynabend, just to let you know, I'm looking into his as we speak, I'll speak to the admin that placed you on parole. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've already spoken to him about it so I've removed your name as there was no incivility coming from your account. Please be aware however that edit warring is extremely bad practice, and this can lead to blocks, even without infringing on the three revert rule. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to look a this right now, so it would be nice if someone else could check it out. I am copying a message I received on my talk page below:

Thanks! Dmcdevit·t 00:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Atabek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.[69] After reverting Shusha article[70], he leaves the following comment in the talkpage:

"Andranikpasha, back at removing referenced material after the lifting of his parole. Please, stop doing that, follow WP:NPOV and achieve consensus. On a side note, why the article does not mention the fact that Shusha was founded as a capital of Karabakh khanate?" [71]

The above comment is a clear violation of his parole, instead of discussing the content of his revert, he is commenting on another user. Also, his call for Andranikpasha to reach consensus makes no sense. Andranikpasha has and is actively discussing all of his edits, while the last time Atabek participated in any discussion was on November 16th and before that September 7th. VartanM 00:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, actually the same ArbCom requested you and all others involved in editing Turkey-Iran-Azerbaijan-Armenia related pages to do so in a constructive manner and in good faith. So please, assume one. I merely indicated a fact that lifting of Andranikpasha's parole only raised the number of his reverts per day per page. And he does continue to remove sourced material from pages without completely discussing them or achieving consensus. Thanks. Atabek 06:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Shusha we had a whole bunch of socks reverting the article in favor of a certain POV, i.e. Bassenius, Verjakette and Hnarakert, which was established by a checkuser here: [72] And Andranikpasha clearly took an advantage of being relieved of his parole, he made at least 3 rvs on Shusha within the last week: [73] [74] [75] The latest arbcom ruling specifically mentioned among its principles that edit warring was harmful. Now that the article is protected and the socks are blocked the involved editors can discuss the problems and reach a consensus. Grandmaster 12:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of which is irrelevant to this page and doesn't require discussion here. This is to point that Atabek violated the Arbcom restrictions.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How? He left a comment. Whether someone likes it or not is a different issue. Grandmaster (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was supposed to explain the rational of a revert not commenting on a contributor. He clearly violated the terms. Andranik was discussion and explaining his changes in the talkpage, while Atabek came and meatpuppeted with his revert. He commented on the editor not the edit, same applies to the edit summary. VartanM (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek provided rationale for his rv. He explained Andranikpasha that he should not remove referenced material from the article. It is not a comment on the contributor, but rather on how the article should not be edited. Grandmaster (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, you know Atabek removed references and justified it by accusing Andranikpasha of doing just that. Where did Atabek justify his revert to that version? Where has he justified the deletion of the material? Show me where? On the other hand, Andranik has discussed every bit of his changes in the talkpage. I am expecting that Atabek will get away, again. Fedayee was blocked for a revert for an article which had nothing to do with Armenian-Azerbaijan subject a revert which was even if obvious with a summary enough even for ignorants, and Atabek not only commented the contributor by removing materials rather than justify his edit but did it in one of the main articles having to do with Armenian-Azerbaijan.

The next time I am not going to report here but elsewhere, no administrator even bothered to read or comment. Some members don't even need to be reported to be blocked(e.g. Fedayee), while others are given a green light. VartanM (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think you can refer to Fedayee’s block as a precedent here. He was blocked for not leaving any comment, while Atabek commented. Whether you agree with his comment or not, Atabek did not violate the arbcom ruling. Grandmaster (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second Grandmaster's take on the situation. He left a comment; disagreeing with the content of the comment or thinking its not a good enough explanation does not make the action blockable. Please assume good faith and work with other editors. Shell ^babelfish 08:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Shell. No block, please move along. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also concur. Nothing doing here. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!!! Ignored for 6 days and then boom! 3 comments in a row, must be a record. So you are saying that it doesn't matter what you write in the talkpage, as long as we type words in there, we will be ok. We can comment on the weather outside, sing our favorite song(not all of it, we don't want to break the WP:C). Hell, why not even comment on another editor. Revert the article for not reaching CONSENSUS, but the last time you posted anything in the talkpage was a month ago and you didn't reach consensus either. We can just say something completely unrelated to what we did on the main article,

If AA1 wasn't enough lets take a look at the AA2 principles (remember those?)

• Negotiation: Willingness to negotiate in a more or less civil way with the other editors of an article is a condition of editing the article.

Removing references material without reaching consensus and accusing another editor of doing the same is not a good way to negotiate.

• Edit warring considered harmful: Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Reverting to the version you prefer and accusing another user of not reaching consensus while the last time you posted anything in the talkpage was month ago

• Consensus: Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Accusing another user of not reaching consensus while he didn't reach one either.

• Wikipedia is not a battleground: Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable.

Commenting on another user while you just reverted the article turns Wikipedia into a battleground. Andranikpasha was wise enough to ignore his comments.

• Disruptive editing: Users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site.

Reverting the article and not discussing the revert is disruptive and this report here is a testament to that disruption.

• Courtesy: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Words that are spelled out in CAPS letters and targeted toward another user are not intimidating and create hostile enviorment.

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

No comment.

• Diplomacy: It is when there are serious disagreements that courteous negotiation is most necessary.

He wasn't negotiating nor was he courteous.

• Provocation When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate. Provocation of a new or inexperienced user by an experienced and sophisticated user is especially inappropriate.

Hostile comments toward another user are provocative and escalate the already heated argument.

When was the last time anyone minded those? When was the last time anyone read or enforced those? Was the AA2 a big waste of time? Thank you for your time, I'll be moving along now. VartanM (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, why don't you assume good faith, stop targeting me, and please, check the disruptions of User:Andranikpasha instead, whom you're supposed to actually mentor.

• On Shusha pogrom (1920) - 3 reverts within 2 days removing POV tag without consensus achieved on talk page - [76], [77], [78]
• On Shusha - 3 reverts within a week - [79], [80], [81] joined by his assigned mentor, that is yourself - [82] in between.

So VartanM, it's clear that the lifting of User:Andranikpasha's parole did not serve the lessening of edit warring, just the opposite, it fueled it further by increasing the number of his reverts without complete discussion and consensus across several pages. And I hope arbitrators and administrators will pay attention to such disruptive editing as well as mentorship. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith? Did you assume good faith? Was the above comment an assumption of good faith? Were you assuming good faith when for two days(Nov 20-22) your only stalked and harassed me. When was the last time you assumed good faith with me or any other Armenian user. Not a single diff exist where you assume good faith with another Armenia and lets not even mention Iranians.

Is this your defense? You didn't even bother explaining or justifying your revert. You point fingers at others and try to shift the attention away from you and blame others. Please be advised that your comment above constitutes to WP:SOAP. I am very proud of Anranikpasha, he hasn't been blocked, he discusses each and every of his edits and ignores the negative personal comments, thus avoids creating hostile environment. He knows all the rules and isn't afraid to point out the mistakes in the articles. Again I will kindly ask you to stop soapboxing about Andranikpasha's mentorship. VartanM (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Atabek’s diffs, I need to also mention a page move war in which Andranikpasha (talk · contribs) has recently been engaged and which was discussed here: [83] I also mentioned above a strange coordination of reverting activity of Andranikpasha with banned User:Verjakette and his socks. Now there’s another strange contributor, User:Hakob, who rvd Shusha pogrom (1920) (to which he never ever contributed) in support of Andranikpasha [84] and who turns up only to rv controversial articles, to which he never actually contributes, such as Paytakaran: [85] [86] [87], Movses Kaghankatvatsi: [88] and others. It is enough to take a look at his contribs. This has to stop, otherwise I see no end to edit wars. And I don’t see the mentorship of Andranikpasha yielding any positive results so far. Grandmaster (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster how is this relevant to Atabek? VartanM (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vartan, Atabek is not going to get blocked. You might as well not waste more of your (valuable) time here. I am also concerned about Andranikpasha's edits - there's stuff there that needs looking into. The edit-warring is a valid concern. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we already established that. I was going to move along, just as I noted, if it wasn't for Atabek and Grandmaster soapboxing about Andranikpasha. Atabek presents 3 diffs of "reverts" where only one is a revert. What happened to assume good faith that Atabek was preaching minutes ago? How can an administrator tolerate such misinformation? And you were so quick to jump into the conclusion that Andranik was edit warring. I guess its easy for you to just ignore the problems and hope that they go away, I would go away if you did something to stop the disruption that Atabek is causing. This actually proves my point about the AA2 being big waste of time and arbitrators not reading the evidence presented or enforcing the sanctions they passed. I really hope that you get elected into this arbcom for the simple reason that you comment, even if its 6 days late. I'll take your advise and not waste your time anymore. VartanM (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here is more evidence of User:Andranikpasha's edit warring:

• At Tzitzernavank Monastery - 3 reverts within 3 days, pushing the same unsourced and absolutely non-neutral information - [89], [90], [91].

Also, User:TigranTheGreat just moved the article Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907 - [92] without any comment on talk page. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Atabek's arbcom restrictions violation was conveniantly ignored by several admins and in addition turned into a discussion of Andranikpasha's edits might as well point out that it's becoming more and more clear that the edits of Grandmaster and Atabek as well as several other users are becoming more and more in unison ergo Andranikpasha's reverts on one article as so generously provided by user Grandmaster on a topic regarding user Atabek. I wonder if there is some behind the scenes coordination going on? -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one revert there, and Tigran left a rather lengthy comment in the talkpage and he actually explained why he was doing it. So now its Tigrans fault that you didn't explain your revert? Whos next? MarshallBagramyan? Euprator? Fedayee? VartanM (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, I did explain my revert on the relevant talk page, this has been repeated to you a few times already by administrators responding to the thread. Please, assume good faith, and be concerned about the disruptive edit warring of the contributor whom you were mentoring as well as those you deliberately listed in your comment above. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you falsely accuse users of not commenting on the talk page, you can't ask others to assume good faith before you do so yourself. Being a generous contributor, though, I am still going to assume good faith on your part, and give you a friendly warning not to lie again on this page. False statements are violation of the ArbCom decision itself.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is about the time admins pay attention to the offensive comments Tigran leaves on talk pages. This is the recent example: [93] Referring to Azerbaijani people as "so called "Azerbaijanis" does not help building consensus and may result in baiting other contributors and further escalation of the dispute. Tigran's attempt to move the page without any consensus on talk was not helpful either. This has to stop. Grandmaster (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the fourth rv by User:Andranikpasha on Shusha pogrom (1920) within the last week, ironically marked as "compromise": [94] This user was just relieved of his parole (along with a few others), and I don't see that he changed his behavior in the least. Grandmaster (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmasters here attempts to make out-of-context accusations. The correctness of the term "Azerbaijani" is crucial to the discussion, going on on the Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907 article. The discussion is on whether we should use the term Tatar or Azerbaijani. As demonstrated by several contributors, the term "Azerbaijani" has been applied to a group with little or no national identity. This is a content dispute and it's not appropriate to bring it in here.

Now, if Grandmaster finds content-based opinions offensive, then he needs to reconsider using statements such as "Nagorno-Karabakh is a non-existent state" or "Nagorno-Karabakh is an illegal entity," which he has made on the Shusha talk page and elsewhere. Such terms could be construed as offensive by Armenians. If Grandmaster can express such potentially offensive opinions on the talk page, then he is in no position to complain about "offensiveness" of relevant opinions with which he disagrees.

As for renaming the article, AndranikPasha correctly renamed the article before me, only to be reverted by Grandmaster. I don't see why Grandmaster can revert the article with no consensus and still complain that others revert as well.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I never made any offensive comments about Armenian or any other people. I’m sure no one would like to be referred as “so called”, considering that Tigran was talking about Azerbaijani people in the modern context (His exact words: The loss of Nagorno-Karabakh alone presents a very real fear to so called "Azerbaijanis" about losing their own identity). Second, independence of NK is not recognized by any state, therefore it does not exist de-jure, and any elections there are considered illegitimate until the conflict is resolved, see the article on the region. I don’t think mentioning this fact could be offensive to the Armenian people. And third, there’s an ongoing discussion on talk of the article, which so far have not resulted in consensus. Moving the page in support of Andranikpasha is not helpful at all in current situation. Grandmaster (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and "Azerbaijanis" is an artificial term refering to a group of people with underdeveloped national identity and little ethnic unity. This is supported in literature. If you see no problem in stating your opinions on Nagorno-Karabakh, I see no problem in stating the obvious about the "Azerbaijanis."--TigranTheGreat (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tigran's comment is addressed above, and here's 5th rv by Andranikpasha on Shusha pogrom (1920): [95] I see that the arbcom failed to address the problems with disruptive edit warriors, giving them carte blanche to do whatever they want as long as they don't make incivil comments. Grandmaster (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Parishan has been reverting quite frequently on that article as well ([96], [97], [98]). Unfortunately, he is still not placed under supervised editing. If he can do that, I don't see why can't AndranikPasha, especially that Andranik always goes the extra mile to discuss disputes.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, what else can I do at Shusha pogrom (1920) while you, Atabek and Parishan never answered to my suggestion at talk to start a discussion but all of you just reverting to a POV and undiscussed version without any explanations. I hadnt any other way than to ask for an admin mediation to know why you're putting the same dubious text directly to the article's lead. Anyway I prefer to discuss article's content not here but at the talk! Andranikpasha (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Shusha pogrom you persistently delete the info from Thomas de Waal, a critically acclaimed British author, who wrote the best book on the history of NK conflict. This is clearly a POV push, and you were explained many times that you cannot do that. Still you do that in defiance of wiki rules and go as far as reverting the Wikipedia admin, who tried to stop your disruption: [99] 5 reverts within a week is clearly edit warring and needs urgent admin intervention, otherwise this article will get protected the same way as the other articles on which you edit warred. Grandmaster (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the same article User:Parishan has reverted 3 times in a week. There is no rule that says 3 reverts are not disruptive while 5 is. If the page gets protected, it could very well be due to Parishan's reverts. You and Atabek have recently reverted an admin (User:Golbez) on the Shusha page--so you have engaged in disruptive editing as well. Whether Thomas de Waal's quote should be in the article or not is a content dispute and irrelevant here.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert # 6 by Andranikpasha on Shusha pogrom (1920): [100] It was admitted here that edit warring by this user is a valid concern, but sadly nothing is done so far to stop it. Keeps on removing de Waal from the article, despite it is being a reliable source. Grandmaster (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, pls stop to Wikistalking me everywhere- you're using my name here, in the section "TigranTheGreat" and in the "ArbCom" board at the same time! Pls read what is about this notice! Its not only me who reverted your unexplained editwarrings at Shusha pogrom (1920). You were asked many times to discuss your adding and deletions at talk, you never done it! Lets to not support the political propagand on massacres denial and be more tolerant to each other. Andranikpasha (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that Grandmaster reverts only to report that someone else reverted him. At this point, his latest revert seems like an attempt to bait Andranikpasha, which of course is a violation of Wiki rules.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first rv on that article in months, and I just restored my edit that was removed from the article by Andranik without any consensus on talk. Andranik made 6 rvs on this article alone after his parole was lifted. Grandmaster (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think User: Asgardian violated his restriction on the Vision (Marvel Comics) article (making two reverts in four days) and on the Quicksilver (comics) article. --DrBat (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The user above, however, did make several blind reverts. I have not responded with still another revert, as this will only cause an edit war. Rather, I will explain the changes on his Talk Page and the relevant character Talk page. Thank you.

Asgardian (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin response In the future please provide diffs of the alleged reversions so we don't have to hunt them down. On Vision (Marvel Comics), this and this are both reversions in the broad sense of the term, since they discard the majority of changes introduced by other editors and revert to a version that is substantially identical to the previous version in the diff. I'm not finding any reversions (as distinguished from normal collaborative editing) in the Quicksilver article. Many people assume that editors on restriction are allowed to edit an article only once a week, this is not true. A reversion is distinguished from an edit by discarding most or all of the intervening contributions without making an attempt to edit collaboratively. The edits I cite on the Vision article are reversions and this is a violation. Since this is the first reported violation I will issue a warning only, but it will be logged. Thatcher131 03:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• On 22 December 2007, Asgardian made an interim change re-installing "Earth-616" fan-insider jargon and then a second revert here to reinstall an image that did not meet superherobox (SHB) criteria, replaced an image that did. The page that his two reverts affected was restored here. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at it, that really falls into Asgariand's first revert within a week. There should be a bit of leeway for his not being aware, or noting, that there was a different image available when he uploaded a new one. Just my observation though. - J Greb (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The net result of Asgardian's edits was to revert to the image used by Moshikal. That's only one revert in the last week, so no problem. Thatcher131 17:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge and R2.1. The exact ruling is a little confusing, which resulted in a request for clarification. The ruling says that Ferrylodge is "restricted", but the clarification said that FL "is not under any general ban". This has caused FL to start editing at the topics mentioned in the ArbCom remedies (abortion and pregnancy). I'm still a little confused on the nature of the ArbCom ruling, but from what I gather, they basically said "FL is unblocked, and unrestricted in his editing, but if he is disruptive on two specific topics (interpreted broadly) uninvolved admins have the added ability to impose an article ban on FL, on an article by article, case by case level."

Moving on, since FL has been back, he has, to my knowledge, been warned twice about civility. Once by User:The Evil Spartan 23:28, 1 December 2007, and once by User:Cool Hand Luke 01:33, 17 December 2007. Needless to say, someone coming out of a community ban should not need to be warned about civility. Not once, and definitely not twice.

Next, FL has begun editing topics related to abortion, specifically Roe v. Wade and Abortion. I am currently in a content dispute with FL, and I am here to ask an uninvolved admin to ban him from the article, per the ArbCom ruling. I urge you to please read the talk page starting from Talk:Roe v. Wade#Context for poll results. I do not believe FL can discuss content, not editors. He has made this discussion personal multiple times. In fact, he posted a personal message to me on the page (see the "Editorializing" heading), which I kindly asked him to move to my talk page (which he refused). I was trying hard to work with FL, really hard. But it is incredibly hard to stay on topic and stick to content, when the other party is making things personal, on an uncivil level. I've reached the point where I do not feel I can discuss this further with FL, and I realized I shouldn't even be in this situation. FL has been uncivil in this talk page discussion. He has been warned twice for civility issues since he has come back. The article in question is on a topic covered by the ArbCom enforcement. So I ask an uninvolved admin to review this case and possibly ban him from Roe v. Wade.

Severa has shown similar concerns that an uninvolved admin may want to considered as well, see this. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informational: Applicable text of the remedy reads "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing."

Question: Is the editing Ferrylodge has done on these topics "inappropriate"? I feel this needs to be shown before any block/article ban takes place. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I was not informed about this request by Andrew c (or about Severa's comment to which he links), I hope it won't be inappropriate to respond here briefly.

I hope that people reviewing this matter will keep in mind the following recent comment by SandyGeorgia:

"Considering how extremely helpful, patient and civil I found Ferrylodge to be on restoring Roe v. Wade to featured status, and that I couldn't decipher his POV during that FAR, I hope post-ArbCom hounding of Ferrylodge doesn't become an issue."

Andrew c is correct that we are having a disagreement at a talk page. However, the ArbCom decision involves edits to articles rather than talk pages: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." Nor does it does not involve the articles where Evil Spartan and Luke interacted with me.

I hope admins and others will feel free to visit the Roe v. Wade talk page that Andrew c mentions, not to decide whether I should be banned (the ArbCom decision does not authorize banning for talk page comments), but merely to see whether I was uncivil as Andrew c contends. I did not accuse him of "bias," or of "editorializing," or of trying to "jab" me, or of trying to insert "personal opinion" into the article. Those were things he said to me. All I did was deny it.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "interpreted broadly" clause might mean that talk pages are indeed included. But the fact remains that it needs to be shown that you are editing inappropriately. --Ali'i 19:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's possible, though that isn't how I read the decision. If the decision does include talk pages as well as articles, then I'd like some clarification on that point. In any event, I was not disruptively editing the talk page in question. Incidentally, although I don't think the article where Luke and I interacted is at all relevant here, he also commended me for my work there.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Not going to comment on Ferrylodge's recent conduct on the two articles in question, but just noting that part of the reason why Ferrylodge was brought to CSN was because of his conduct on talk pages and it seems that is what is in question here, not his actual article editing. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment Bobblehead. The CSN has been abolished, and the complete ban on me that the CSN imposed has been overturned. So, why is the CSN relevant here? Also, KillerChihuahua brought her complaint at the CSN for alleged edit-warring in articles, not in talk pages.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Sorry, should have been clearer and expanded my wording to include the evidence in arbcom. I mentioned CSN because that was the initial place that your conduct was brought up in a manner that requested some sort of "punishment". It should also be pointed out that the evidence that the arbcom chose to use in their Finding of Fact about you having a history of disruptive editing in pregnancy and abortion articles, but productive editing in other areas[137] includes your conduct on the talk pages.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the findings of fact nor the decision mentioned anything about talk pages.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geez... I've gone ahead and sought more clarification from the arbitration committee. Drop this until we hear back? --Ali'i 20:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question posed by Ali'i: Yes. On the article Roe v. Wade, Ferrylodge inserted commentary on a particular opinion poll,[138] which he had previously done on several abortion-related articles beginning in January 2007.[139][140][141][142][143] The recent pursuit of a fetal illustration at Talk:Abortion,[144] while not an example of an edit made to an article itself, shows further that Ferrylodge has not let old matters drop with regard to articles on abortion. Ferrylodge added just such an image to the article Abortion in September,[145] resulting in a lot of complication, as documented here. The point is that there are a 2 million articles to edit on Wikipedia and just as many edits which could be pursued on those articles related to pregnancy and abortion. But, even after the ArbCom decision, Ferrylodge is still opting to concentrate on the same narrow range of things as before (the Harris poll on Roe and fetus pictures). It's this fact which I consider worthy of examination. -Severa (!!!) 20:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Severa is citing only two recent diffs, and all the others are from before the ArbCom proceedings. This is the first of those two recent diffs, in which I updated poll results at the Roe v. Wade article (presumably Severa does not object to that updating), and in which I mentioned that "the poll question quoted above asked about only 'part' of the decision." That statement is factually correct, and is fully supported by the text of the poll question itself. Nevertheless, Andrew c objected to that factual statement, and the matter is currently under discussion at the Roe v. Wade talk page. I did not reinsert that factual statement after Andrew c removed it. Severa's second diff is here. This is what I said at the abortion talk page, that Severa finds so offensive:

"I hope that some thought will be given to including a non-shock image of a typical fetus before it is aborted, so that the image is not a shock image. Susan Faludi, in her book 'The Undeclared War Against American Women' (1991) said: 'The antiabortion iconography in the last decade featured the fetus but never the mother.' In contrast, the present article now features iconography of the mother but not of the fetus, and I think this situation needs some balancing."

Frankly, I do not understand how there is anything inappropriate about what I said at the abortion talk page. Am I to understand that it is forbidden for me to even mention that pictures of a fetus exist?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I found anything "offensive" about the particularities of what you had said so please refrain from reading that into my comment. What I do find questionable is that you seem to have returned to abortion-related articles just to pick up on old battles instead of letting sleeping dogs lie. And, while we're on the topic, was it really necessary to give this reply to Y? Sometimes the best response is none. -Severa (!!!) 21:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Severa, if you did not find my edits to be offensive or disruptive, then please let's discuss them elsewhere. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to my request that you not present my words out of context is to do so to an even greater degree. Above, you stated, "This is what I said at the abortion talk page, that Severa finds so offensive," and then provided a quotation. I responded to clarify that I found nothing "offensive" about what you'd said specifically — I don't agree with the fetus picture suggestion, but that doesn't mean I'm offended by it. What I do object to is the apparent effort to reopen disputes over the Harris poll and fetus pictures months after they've closed. I believe that I was quite clear about the nature my objection in the post above so I am not sure from where you have inferred that I "d[o] not find [your] edits to be...disruptive." -Severa (!!!) 21:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Severa, if you found my comment to be disruptive but not offensive, then that's fine. I'm not sure I understand the distinction, but let's not quibble. All I did was mention the issue of photos to some new editors at the abortion article who have never even thought about it before. I didn't argue back and forth, and I didn't edit the abortion article. If you think it's disruptive for me to not let sleeping dogs lie, do you also think it might possibly be disruptive for you to not relent in your criticism of me?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification has been provided that article talk pages are covered by the ArbCom decision in my case, although I may be given "more freedom on talk pages." In any event, as explained above, I was not being disruptive at the talk page in question.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has now become clear that Ferrylodge is editing the Roe v. Wade article in an attitude that is having a derogatory and negative effect on the article, and by extension Wikipedia as a whole. In my capacity as a neutral, uninvolved administrator, and in accordance with the remedy outlined here, I instigate a ban on Ferrylodge from that article for disruptive editing: he simply is harming this article. Anthøny 21:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, your notice says:

"The user specified is on probation and has edited this article inappropriately. The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. This ban must be registered on the administrators noticeboard. If you disagree with this ban, please discuss it with the administrator who imposed it or on the noticeboard. At the end of the ban, anyone may remove this notice."

May I ask what article edit I made that you deem inappropriate? Was it an article edit or a talk page edit? This information would certainly help me to improve. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main motivation was the entire atmosphere around your editing, over both a recent and long period of time. Despite an Arbitration Committee ruling against you, you seem to have proceeded in pretty much the same manner. This edit was in some ways the final straw: you are editing in a negative manner, and I cannot stand by and allow it to happen any more. Ferrylodge, please edit constructively: further patience is unlikely to be sent your way, if this poor standard of editing continues. Anthøny 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, thanks for your explanation. I assume that the ArbCom did not want me banned from any article based on activities predating the ArbCom decision, so I appreciate your providing me with an example of a recent article edit. May I ask, what is it about this edit that you find objectionable? Was it the fact that I updated out-of-date poll results? Or was it the fact that I quoted from the poll question? Do you realize that, after I quoted from the poll question, and after that quote was deleted, I did not attempt to reinsert it? There was no edit-warring whatsoever.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Request for clarification... how exactly is that edit you provided "editing in a negative manner"? Ferrylodge was trying to update the polls, and clarify the context. How is that negative? You'll have to forgive me if I miss how it is. Mahalo, AGK. --Ali'i 22:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(e.c. mark two) First off, I must admit I'm impressed by the way you are conducting yourself around this: most users who come out of AC cases in this way are rather difficult to deal with. Secondly, I chose that edit as an example: having looked through recent contributions by Ferrylodge in that area, it was and is clear to me that Ferrylodge is not editing there in a positive manner, hence my action. Ferrylodge, are you absolutely positive you can edit constructively in that area? Anthøny 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, I promise I'll do my best. I've only tried to make the article better. It's a contentious topic, so there are bound to be disgreements at the talk page, but I promise I'll not make unconstructive edits to the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense AGK, but if you look at the history of Roe v. Wade, you'd see that Ferrylodge has probably done more to help the article than any other one person. His editing has hardly been "derogatory and negative". Even since his arbitration committee decision, he has contributed positively. I request that you look at the history page of Roe v. Wade and look at more edits that haven't been brought up here. I think Ferrylodge has done exceptional work in this area, and is in the midst of an ever-lasting content dispute (it's a bout abortion... of course there is going to be debate). Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I reviewed the history, I picked up exactly the opposite. However, I have been impressed by FL's handling of the situation, so I've reversed the ban for the moment. Having said that, Ferrylodge, I would like to discuss the matter with you, some time; I'm going off-line in a moment, but I'll try and catch up with you tomorrow (talk page, email or IRC?) Anthøny 22:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anthony. I've never used IRC, and don't know how to. Email would be good.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have no prior involvement in this case whatsoever, so I'm neutral, but it seems to me that Ferrylodge's continued reinserting of the same material (the poll for example) is a continuation of prior behavior. But it's also true that this Roe v. Wade article is always a hot one. As FL and AGK are going to discuss it, let's hope something works out. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse, I'll do my best to minimize controversy here, and to work with Anthony, and to make only constructive edits. Regarding "the poll" that you mention, there are two polls involved here: a Harris poll that has been in the article for a very long time and that I have therefore not had any occasion to reinsert, and also an LA Times poll that was included during the featured article review but subsequently removed. At the talk page, I did urge reinsertion of the LA Times poll, but I never actually reinserted it into the article because there was no consensus. The reason why I urged reinsertion is because the article right now has Harris poll results that cover the first trimester, but the article omits poll results for the second trimester, which is not a balanced presentation (the LA Times poll covered the second trimester). Anyway, I hope that kind of explains the polls. I will not reinsert that stuff without consensus to do so. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[redact my comment. reposted at User_talk:Andrew_c#Moved from WP:AE]-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good wishes, Andrew c. Vice versa, of course. Out of sympathy for Thatcher131, I'll let my comments at the talk page speak for themselves.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Redact my comment per Andrew c. Reposted at User talk:Severa/archive8#Moved from Arbitration enforcement] -Severa (!!!) 01:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the warning I issued at Mitt Romney was caused by uncivil exchanges entirely unrelated to abortion. In fact, two other users were warned at the same time. I had previously asked if such activity could fall under the language of the ArbCom, but User:Crockspot and others indicated that editing on non-abortion aspects of Romney could not run afoul of his editing restriction. I agree. The restriction is not a topic ban, but is instead a prohibition on: (1) editing disruptively (2) on abortion topics. Neither of the warnings satisfy these conditions, so it should be shown that Ferrylodge is currently editing disruptively on abortion topics. A mere disagreement is not disruptive. Cool Hand Luke 04:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note from someone being quoted above - I, like Luke, did indeed leave a message for FL. However, this message was intended as a means for two users in a dispute, and banning FL from the article makes little sense. In fact, I have found FL's contributions to the Mitt Romney article to be helpful, and I worry (with all due respect, Andrew c), that banning him from the article is just a way of getting a hand-up in an edit dispute, just as I believe his last ban was. I do not believe that "interpreted broadly" should by any means mean "any politics articles at all". The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate for MartinPhi to come into a conflict with which he admits he is not involved and poison the well against me? Here is the relevant diff: [146]. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the relevant Arbitration cases? Thatcher131 19:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. I was involved in that case, so take this for what it's worth: but following ScienceApologist around to various talk pages , by tracking his contrib history, specifically to bring up the Arbitration case seems like borderline Wikistalking and probably violates MartinPhi's restriction against disruptive behavior. MastCell ^Talk 19:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is well known that Wiki is very, very hard to follow. If ScienceApologist is (to use the current word) poisoning the Wikipedia experience for new or newish users, or simply users who are unfamiliar with him, it is quite ok -only ethical- to let them know that he is under sanction probably for doing exactly what he's doing there. They deserve to know that, and how else can they find out? If the sanction does not apply to the case, then it does him no harm. If it does, then the sanction should be applied, because the newish users have a right to defend themselves. Otherwise, they are in the position of being bullied by a highly aggressive and highly experienced user, without recourse. Far from being disruptive, this is merely a step toward ArbCom enforcement. Also, I was not wikistalking- I watch the article, and saw that SA was giving other users a hard time -whether justifiably, I don't know.

In point of fact, one of my first experiences with being attacked on Wiki was by ScienceApologist, when I was just in the position I guess they are- a newish user, unable to find my way around very well at all. Boy, was that a negative experience. I wouldn't want anyone else to have to go through that. They deserve the help.

ScienceApologist admits above that it is in fact a conflict (rather than a debate, for instance) and says that I am not involved. I'm involved in WP, and made a contribution as an outside party, giving a bit of highly relevant context as a more experienced user. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments seek to position yourself as an altruistic "outside party" simply "providing context" for a new user. However, the title of the relevant ArbCom case attests to a long-standing conflict between yourself and ScienceApologist. Furthermore, the "newish" user in question has been on-wiki since May 2005, predating all of us. It would be advisable not to track ScienceApologist and insert yourself into discussions he's having; doing so is virtually guaranteed to be counterproductive given the deep historical antagonism between the two of you. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I will consider your advice. When I see IP users I assume they are new, though that isn't always true. But also consider that it does him absolutely no harm in the case that he is not violating the terms of his probabtion.

Also, I don't track him. I just watch that article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Per that ruling, Martinphi, you may be banned from any article or talk page you disrupt. That was in my view a disruptive edit, pouring petrol on the flames and in the process bolstering someone who is advancing a fringe view and impeding SA's attempts to help people there understand sourcing, verifiability and neutrality policies. It's hard to see what intent there was other than undermining SA, which is borderline harassment. It may well be that SA's style is brusque, but your intervention has consistently failed to do anything to improve that, and he's never going to accept you asn an honest broker, so I strongly suggest you butt out of that dispute. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget that SA is under restrictions too...These two have been to arbcom already and a quick look makes me think this is just a rehash of old issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Martinphi, you jumped in to a talk page dispute where you have never edited before in order to poke ScienceApologist with a stick. Don't do it again. ScienceApologist is under restriction that he may be banned from a page or pages for being uncivil, making personal attacks, and assuming bad faith about another editor. I don't see that in his discussion with the IP editor. In any case, the proper response, if you see such behavior, is to report it rather than make it worse. I repeat, don't do it again. Thatcher131 01:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]