The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

User blocked for one year ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Final Arbitration Decision: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ

Diffs

[1] Bad Faith and false three revert warning tag. I made only one reversion

[2] - referring to an edit by Gamaliel as bogus.

[3]- sample of edit warring.

[4]- warning that if he didn't desist, I would come to Arbitration Enforcement for assistance.

[5]- Admin using a VOA script that shows a stong likelihood that Mtracy9 and RPJ are one and the same.

There is strong evidence that RPJ has returned to Wikipedia under the username of Mtracy9. To wit, Mtracy began appearing just as RPJ's ban ended. He edits on the same articles as RPJ, editted. He also appears to have the same characteristics of RPJ. He writes from the same POV as RPJ, and uses the same "all significant viewpoints" and "let the reader decide" arguments. More concerning is the tendentious editing he continues to engage in. As the diffs above show, he has placed a false three revert warning on my talk page, referred to another editor edit as "bogus", and has edit warred profusely to attempt to put his conspiracy innuendo into Kennedy assassination related articles.

From the Arbcom decision, RPJ was placed on indefinite probation. "He may be banned from the site for an appropriate period by any administrator if he edits in a disruptive manner. Edits by anonymous ips or alternative accounts which mirror RPJ's editing behavior are subject to the remedies applied to RPJ."

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• One year block - Per report and evidence. User mirrors RPJ's editing behavior, and is subject to the remedies applied to RPJ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

User Topic-banned] for 4 months by Moreschi

Another case for WP:ARBMAC. Makedonij (talk · contribs) has long been among the more disruptive Balkan editors (see block log and history of warnings). Almost all his activities have been related to Macedonian nationalist POV-pushing. They are also tarnished by poor behavious, incivility, very poor English and failure to grasp copyright rules. Now, by creating an article on an alleged Macedonian Genocide, he's overdone it, in my view. Blatantly tendentious; text mechanically copied from the Armenian genocide page with "Macedonian" substituted for "Armenian", leading to factual claims that are complete fabrications (e.g. "death marches"), citing fake "sources" that are neither reliable nor even support the claims made in the article. This is pure disruptive editing bordering on vandalism. Balkan editors have been sanctioned for less, much less in fact. I request a longish topic ban or block. In my view there is no hope that this user can become a constructive contributor in the near to medium future. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WHY? Becouse one article, with two sentenses and i only start to editing an article?? No matter, "block me", i'm considered as an nationalist by someone (Fut.Perf.. Also take a good watch on him, how neutral he is,and his friend Laveol, the one who revert every single macedonian article, and how he is answering questions, he is also useing double standarts in every thing. Regards.--Makedonij (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. Fut.Perf sory.--Makedonij (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I replied to Makedonij on his user talk page after he asked for some help. I replied before realizing there was an open ArbCom enforcement discission occurring. I provide the link to that reply here, as it might offer insight into M.'s state of mind. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Topic-banned for 4 months. If he evades this with new accounts, it'll be finis. Makedonij, you have been warned. I don't mess about. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will take a brake, becouse i'm disapointed. By —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makedonij (talk • contribs) 13:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC) --Makedonij (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Tundrabuggy banned from the Muhammad al-Durrah article and talk page for 3 months. Julia1987 given editing advice, however no action taken. PhilKnight (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also: here and here.

Relevant case: WP:ARBPIA.

There is a genuine debate to have here, but we're not going to make any progress with a bunch of tendentious single-purpose accounts floating around. I request that Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) and Julia1987 (talk · contribs) aka Southkept (talk · contribs) be banned from the article, its talk page, and those closely related to it. This would I do myself, but I'm too involved in the dispute. Thank you. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would want to see specific diffs for such disruption before applying arbCom sanctions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From a cursory examination, it appears that Tundrabuggy edit warred after being notified of sanctions, and in this context, I think a 1 week topic ban could be justifiable. PhilKnight (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the same also applies to Julia1987 and Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs), who appears to have twice been notified of sanctions. I'll sort out some diffs for review. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi ChrisO, my old username was Addhoc, and I notified Canadian Monkey of the sanctions, and then belatedly listed the notification. I wasn't aware that he was notified twice. I've warned Tundrabuggy for edit warring, and left a note for Julia1987 relating to her talk page conduct. However, in the context of the page now being fully protected, I'm not intending to ban Tundrabuggy, or anyone else at the moment. I'll obviously look at any diffs with interest. PhilKnight (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm hoping to use the breathing space that protection will provide to get some mediation underway. I'm not very hopeful that it will resolve the matter, given that the SPAs are overtly soapboxing on the issue, but it's worth a try. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(ec)I'd like to see some diffs of disruption as well - from a quick look around, there has been edit-warring on both sides. (Hopefully protection will tamp this down.) At this point, I wouldn't support any topic ban of Canadian Monkey, he/she seems to be discussing the point of view on the talk page. I'll remind everyone there is nothing wrong with SPAs per se so long as they abide by the same policies as everyone else. Kelly ^hi! 15:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So long as they abide by the same policies as everyone else. Just so. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PhilKnight , you write above "it appears that Tundrabuggy edit warred after being notified of sanctions, and in this context, I think a 1 week topic ban could be justifiable. " If this is the yardstick being used, surely it applies equally to User:ChrisO, who is obviously aware of the sanctions, yet has edit warred (some recent examples - [6], [7], [8], [9],[10]) extensively on this article? If sanctions are to be applied, let's make sure they are handed out in equitable fashion. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have not edit war at all: every attempt of me to edit the article is reverted but I have not engaged in reverting back.

most (85%) of my contribution has been on talk. The whole SPA issue is sidestepping the real issue which is : Who is editing based on policy and who is not.

ChrisO is simply unable to deal with editors who do not share his own POV and hence the reverts etc... No honest attempt in WP:DR was done prior to going after bans and intimidations. If anyone should be banned from this article it is those who revert it all the time.

I wonder if there is an "admin of wikipedia" who can look at what was discussed on talk page of that article (believe me I have tried and tried) and simply tell ChrisO (and his fellow reverters):

"There is another POV – different than yours. Go figure out with the other POV how to describe the controversy and include both POV in the article – This is the essence of WP:NPOV..."

--Julia1987 (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should note that I'm trying to get a mediation organised at the moment. In view of this, I suggest holding off on arbitration enforcement for now - the article is protected, so the SPAs' edit warring has ceased. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• An amazing chutzpa by ChrisO as he and not the SPA is the edit warrior and reverter – he just escaped a 3RR block because it was filled too late…. A quick look at the history page will show that Chris has been reverting and reverting and reverting so if anyone need an I/P arbcom decision to be enforced – ChrisO would be the place to start…. --Julia1987 (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are big problems in this area, as I've noted elsewhere. In short, this incident (and in particular, the original reporting thereof) is of particular interest to an outside body recently found to have been using deceptive means to try to infiltrate and distort Wikipedia. The recent arrival of a number (three?) of unlabelled SPAs is bound to raise suspicion there is a hi-jacking campaign in progress. PR^talk 18:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is stronger than any conspiracy theories. If there is disruption, it can be dealt with, so far I do not see efforts made to provide diffs to support enforcement of sanctions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with Jossi, provide evidence please. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PR, some advice: it's really not a good idea to promote or insinuate the idea that other Wikipedians are engaged in an off-wiki conspiracy unless you have specific proof to that effect. I'm guessing you don't, since you haven't cited any. Vague suspicions are not only not enough, they're a straightforward case of not assuming good faith. Don't go down that road. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition to what has been said above, it is hardly necessary to invoke any conspiracy theories in order to see why various new single-issue editors might get involved in this. The al-Durrah thing has been a white-hot topic in the blogs since forever, and the libel appeal verdict came very shortly after the same blogs were abuzz with the fallout from the CAMERA-pedia thing. Also, jumping right in to an obscure Israel-related controversy and spending almost all of your editing time there would not be characteristic of any well-organized campaign. Even the CAMERA folks, who were pretty ineffective, knew to avoid jumping right in to these sorts of topics, because it makes them look (fairly or unfairly) like problem editors. <eleland/talkedits> 02:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am persuaded by the argument/s. I am grateful to all who grant labelled SPAs (like me) more credibility than unlabelled SPAs as we're discussing relative to this article. PR^talk 13:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[outdent]Well hello all. Nobody invited me to this little tea-party. I guess my input is either unnecessary or unwanted?Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a quick question. If there is "nothing wrong" with SPA's then why was notication logged that way , and why do ChrisO and others constantly refer to us as SPAs? Is it an attempt to prejudice others? I acknowledge that most of my editing has been at the al-Dura site, like Julia, the vast majority of it has been on the talk page. For the record, articles I have edited since May 28 included BBC, Kaleet River, Canoeing, Robert Peary, Douglas Mawson, as well as the various venues where ChrisO has been discussing this issue(and my behavior) such as here and here and here and now here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, I'm willing to take a look at this article, as an uninvolved administrator. I have posted a couple notes on the page, and will see if I can help steer things a bit. --Elonka 15:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good, some real uninvolvement would be helpful. I will be watching with interest to see how this will be resolved. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

No action necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

I recently made some changes to the article Gaza beach blast (2006), clarifying the lead (here). This edit was promptly embraced and extended by User:Jaakobou, adding statements that were not supported by the rest of the article itself (here). Following WP:BRD, I reverted User:Jaakobou's edit and modified my original edit slightly following User:Jaakobou's edit comments (here). Also following WP:BRD, User:Jaakobou started a discussion on the article talk page (here), to which I responded, explaining my revert (here).

So far, so good, but as of here things get weird. A few hours later, a previously uninvolved editor User:TenPoundHammer, who's edit history shows no record of participating in Israeli-Palestinian articles, reverts my revert (here).

Not really understanding what was going on, I asked User:TenPoundHammer to reconsider his edit, pointing out that the article is subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions and that there was an ongoing discussion (here). I also asked him how he happened to chance upon my edit. User:TenPoundHammer responded, quite swiftly and frankly to his credit, that he had been solicited by another user on IRC (here and correction here). Upon asking who had solicited him (here), he replied, with the same frankness, that it was User:Jaakobou (here).

So, what's up here? On one side, User:Jaakobou follows WP:BRD and engages in discussion, which is highly laudable and the way to go, on the other hand he solicits uninvolved editors off-wiki to revert for him. I haven't found any specific piece of policy addressing stealth edit-warring, but this definitely goes against the spirit of the ArbCom ruling and WP:GAME.

This is not User:Jaakobou's first time here for yet a new attempt at gaming the system, and I suggest, through a long topic-ban, that it be his last.

I would also encourage other editors who have seen the same phenomenon -- apparently uninvolved editors swooping-in to make reverts on edits User:Jaakobou didn't like -- to bring these matters here too.

Cheers and kind regards, pedrito - talk - 11.06.2008 06:34

One would assume that this sort of gleefull, GOTCHA! cries would be sanctionable as well: [11]. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a battleground and this sort of gaming is truly bad form. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In situations such as this one it is a good idea to contact the editor and/or his mentor before taking the matter to a noticeboard. As everyone who's familiar with the Israel-Palestine disputes knows, editing the subject can be like walking on eggshells. So Jaakobou does his utmost to put his best foot forward. He often seeks feedback and advice before he posts. That is, are his sources reliable? Is his tone civil? Has he addressed the important points in the best way? There are limits to my abilities to help him, so Jaakobou sought a second mentor. Then because there where points where neither of us are really suitable to help Jaakobou tried the idea of occasionally contacting a larger circle. And I emphasize: always requesting advice and never requesting support. He also invites the people he contacts to get in touch with either me or his other mentor if they feel that his request is inappropriate in any way. Durova^Charge! 07:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It surprised me to see Pedro's post at my user talk.

Durova is correct - I showed TenPoundHammer the page and asked whether my edit was appropriate because Pedro suggested I added "way to much information".[12]

I specifically did not ask him to intervene in any way, and didn't know that he had until hours afterwards.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to me this is a potential violation of WP:CANVAS, although technically it probably depends on the nature of the message Jaakobou left on IRC. CANVAS states that Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, through the use of non-neutral tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of an individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages. So if Jaakobou has placed a non-neutral message on IRC rather than just neutrally asking for more eyes on the page, that would be a violation.

I think it's also worth noting however that off-Wiki canvassing is strongly discouraged. While there isn't actually a specific policy prohibiting canvassing on IRC, it could be seen as putting other Wikipedians at a disadvantage, especially if for example those using IRC at the time just happen to share the opinions of the poster. It also potentially disadvantages those who don't use IRC. So perhaps some more discussion of this issue might be useful. Personally I lean to the view that canvassing should probably be confined to portals and other venues that are transparent, in order to avoid potential problems. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to contest the notion that User:TenPoundHammer studied the edit on his own and made the revert based on a self-formed opinion. His edit summary says: "It's valid sourced info, don't remove", yet the link to the first source is broken, something he would have noticed had he actually checked the source. Furthermore, both sources are already quoted in the main article (references 33 and 21), something that User:TenPoundHammer would have also noticed on inspection. The statement he re-inserted ("Subsequent Israeli and international investigations concluded that Israel did not shell the beach") is not supported by the source, which User:TenPoundHammer also missed. Finally, User:TenPoundHammer reverted without even bothering to check if there was an ongoing discussion on the talk page, which there was.

User:TenPoundHammer ist an experienced editor with aspirations to adminship. It is somewhat difficult for me to believe he did this without prior priming.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 11.06.2008 08:58

I can believe Jaakobou's statement that he did not canvass for a revert: yes, he does ask people if his edit is OK and I'll accept that that's all that happened here. In the absence of the relevant logs, I am forced to believe it. TenPoundHammer is whacked with a very large TROUT for making ill-thought-out reverts like this in such a contentious area. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go ahead, trout me for that. I really should've known better. (Now do you see why I'm still not an admin? Even when I think things through I still foul up.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it's worth, I was going on my opinion on this edit. I didn't realize the one link I re-added was broken, though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pedrito's interest in Jaakobu[edit]

As per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions, it may be time to request that Pedrito refrain from making any post or comment about Jaakobu other than e-mailing or talkpage messaging Jaakobu's mentors (Durova and myself). The sanctions include failing to "…adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process," of which potential harassment or stalking is also against wikipedia standards of behavior. Pedrito knows that Jaakobu has, on his own, requested experienced editors' help in trying to navigate the difficult shoals of I-P articles, and looking at Pedrito's history, their appears to be a distinct over-interest in Jaakobu's behavior and a tendency to post on various administrator noticeboards at frequent intervals. If Pedrito is truly interested in the proper working of wikipedia, it would be more appropriate, in my opinion, were he to confine himself to bettering the encyclopedia through addition to and enhancement of the material with proper sources, good grammar, and the other necessities of an encyclopedia, as opposed to taking on the perceived self-appointed role of Jaakobu's policeman. I believe that requesting this of Pedrito is covered by the General sanctions, and if not, it is covered by our inter-editor behavioral polices. May I have the thoughts of other admins here please? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can support your proposal. This is another example of conflict between editors which has become personal and rather toxic, and some sort of disengagement appears to be needed. There is a disproportionate level of scrutiny the two editors are applying to each other, and in this case I don't think Jaakobou is the one who is overreacting. Horologium (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And actually, in my opinion, I'd say that what Jaakabou did was commendable in this case. Asking a neutral, non-IP-involved editor for their opinion on his edit was probably the best course of action. We all need doublechecks when we're dealing with issues that are close to the heart, rather than something we are interested in for purely intellectual reasons. Perhaps doin so on TenPoundHammer's talk page would have allowed for more transparency, but the spirit of what he did was not against policy. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Premature. If we stop people from reporting potentially dubious conduct the whole darn system falls to pieces. We should only do so if the "reporting" is tipping into open harassment. Even then I'm dubious: anti-stalking remedies have been tried by ArbCom before, but they have a tendency to force bigger issues of non-neutral editing under the carpet (example). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[EC]Hi Avi,

You might be quite surprised to hear that for the past six months or so I have been actively trying to avoid any interaction with User:Jaakobou, since the resulting friction is both a waste of time and nerves which do not help ameliorate the encyclopaedia. User:Jaakobou and I tangle often because we edit articles with a similar focus. As far as I know, I do not follow User:Jaakobou around (a.k.a. stalking) and would be very surprised if you could point to an instance in which I have done so.

The current case can even be used as proof of the opposite, where my recent edit to Gaza beach blast (2006), a quiet page that had not been touched in more than a month, prompted a response by User:Jaakobou, who had not touched the page in almost a year, within less than three hours. Who's following who around?

What I have done is consistently report User:Jaakobou here every time he as broken the rules. I have also, on many occasions, contacted User:Durova, one of User:Jaakobou's mentors, to try to resolve behavioural disputes before taking them here or elsewhere up the ladder, as she will no doubt confirm.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could be more specific in your accusations (e.g. diffs of me stalking and/or harassing anybody, diffs of me being uncivil/unproductive, etc...) , as I myself see nothing wrong with my behaviour.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 11.06.2008 13:14

I don't see that Avi needs to be any more specific in his accusations, when you admit they are true. Above you write that "What I have done is consistently report User:Jaakobou here every time he as broken the rules." - which sounds exactly like what Avi has claimed - that you have nominated yourself to the role of Jaakobou's personal policeman. It also seems that it woul dbe very hard for you to "consistently report User:Jaakobou here every time he as broken the rules" unless you were following him around - so please stop it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific: "What I have done is consistently report User:Jaakobou here every time he as broken the rules in our interactions." I don't think I've ever put him up here for offences that did not involve me personally. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 12.06.2008 06:28

If you are following him around and making sure you interact with him, the qualification you made above makes very little difference. As a case in point, the article which is the proximate cause for this report, Gaza beach blast (2006), is one that Jaakobou had been editing extensively since May 2007. You followed him to that article on March 11, 2008, and began to systematically revert or modify his edits to that page. And before you trot out the “he wasn’t editing that page at the time” excuse, I’ll point out that on that very same day (March 11, 2008), you followed him to another article (Tomorrow's Pioneers) that he had been editing (as recently as the 3 days earlier) and proceeded to revert him. The day before that (March 10), you were reverting him on Israeli-Palestinian conflict‎. So to me, your claim that “for the past six months or so I have been actively trying to avoid any interaction with User:Jaakobou” does not ring true. There are over 2 million articles on Wikipedia – go find something to do that does not involve Jaakobou, at all. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually I cannot confirm that Pedrito contacted me many times, certainly not with a frequency that begins to approach Jaakobou's requests for assistance (which often tax the limits of my time), and it has been a while since Pedrito contacted me at all. This call for a topic ban surprises me very much, particuarly in the aftermath of a single neutral editor deciding that Pedrito's own removal of properly sourced information had been a bad edit. This thread illustrates the reasons Jaakobou seeks advice: any action he takes is apt to be construed in the worst possible light and may lead to formal complaints. Jaakobou has been following my advice to interact politely, to broaden the scope of his editing, to contribute DYKs and featured content, and to seek harmonious resolution to content disputes. I shake my head to see this thread unfold. Pedrito, imagine yourself in my position for a moment: how would you encourage a mentoree to approach mediation optimistically with someone who acts so eager to stick a fork into him? I'm at wit's end. Durova^Charge! 15:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I must protest: A broken link is by no means "properly sourced information". Stop pretending that User:TenPoundHammer's reversal during an ongoing discussion was justified. It wasn't. Had there been any reason to think otherwise, I would neither have questioned his motives (to which he responded quite frankly) nor brought this issue here.

Furthermore, I though I was engaged in a normal, civilized discussion with your mentoree on that article until I was reverted at what seems to have been his behest. After the short exchange with User:TenPoundHammer it was I who had cutlery dangling out my side.

User:Jaakobou is a problematic editor and I am by far not the first person to report him to various levels of arbitration or enforcement. As a problematic editor maybe you should suggest to him to avoid doing things like seeking advice off-wiki in a non-transparent way that, given his background, may be interpreted as gaming the system.

Cheers and good evening, pedrito - talk - 11.06.2008 15:28

It doesn't help to see myself told to stop something I haven't done in the first place, or to see iterations of Jaakobou is a problematic editor without specific evidence. Pedrito, I'd like to see you acknowledge that maybe Jaakobou isn't so bad, that he's been improving, and that this thread might have been started in haste. I certainly wouldn't encourage Jaakobou to seize upon a single event and demand a topic ban against you without trying to clarify the events better. Durova^Charge! 15:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, things have been quiet in the past few months and I was looking forward to a constructive, normal discussion with User:Jaakobou on Gaza beach blast (2006) until this whole thing happened. Now that his preferred version is up though, he doesn't seem to keen on responding to my comments... Well, I guess I'll WP:AGF yet again, and just wait for that good discussion I was hoping for to get going. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 12.06.2008 06:28

I've added a mirror to the broken Reuters ref in my edit and also another working citation referenced to JPost.

• The Reuters mirror from My edit

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's clear this matter is not going anywhere. Without a log, no-one can accuse Jaakobou of canvassing unfairly on IRC. However, I think the issue of canvassing on IRC in general may need to be clarified, as I suggested above. Gatoclass (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - I believe Pedrito is now in violation of the WP:3RR after reverting both Jaakobou (me) and TenPoundHammer while ignoring the talk page notes YNhockey and Jaakobou has made.[13] There is clearly no consensus for another revert and being that he has also made a bad faith suggestion here while edit warring, I would appreciate some advice/3rd opinion on how to proceed without aggravating the situation further. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• While the edit history for Gaza beach blast (2006) does not indicate a 3RR violation, there is edit warring going on, and everyone, including Pedrito, is counseled to stop and take their discussions to the talk page. -- Avi (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• And I'd like to remind the editors there that administrators eyes ARE on that article so play nice, k? :) (I'm not an admin, but I know at least one has mentioned on RFPP that he'd be watching it.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• More people keeping an eye on the topic is a very good idea. The mentors can't do it all. Durova^Charge! 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• By the way, Jaakobou contacted me via IRC, in case anyone wants to know. He told me that he was in need of a sanity check on an article, and wanted a third party; I looked over the edit history, and to my eyes it looked like Pedrito had removed unbiased, sourced info. Although I'm sure that Pedrito was acting in good faith, I reverted the removal because I see no reason to remove anything that is neutral and sourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

User blocked for 24hrs by Rockpocket (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

• Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist

Per this case LP is "banned indefinitely from articles which relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland. The ban is intended to include any page in Wikipedia which Lapsed Pacifist engages in a dispute related in any way to the conflict in Northern Ireland", due to his POV pushing. After making a previous highly contentious edit describing the Black and Tans as "British terrorists", LP seems to be under the impression that the ban does not apply to this aticle and proceeded to make another highly contentious edit adding his newly created category "State terrorism in the United Kingdom". This seems to be gaming the system to me, as the Britain/Ireland conflict applies just as much to that article, and similar incidents involving other editors have shown that liberal interpretations apply, especially when the system is being gamed. There's also tendentious edits in other areas as well. Domer48 (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A clear violation of the spirit of the remedy. I have blocked for 24hrs and, if there is genuine confusion over the limits of the ban, I will inform LP that he should interpret the scope of it liberally, when in relation to Irish/British conflict. Rockpocket 17:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

User blocked for one week by Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

• 8bitJake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitJake

Also see the Admin noticeboard thread up to this point here. [14] The 8bitJake remdy says "He may be banned for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious or disruptive editing." 8bitJake's contributions look very similar to the evidence in the case that got him probation to begin with in the most recent Democratic Leadership council edit war. See the following diffs for the type of language he's using in edit summaries. ([15] [16] [17]) and his talk page attitude ([18]) that doesn't reflect well on anyone involved. There is a strong chance 8bitJake violated 3RR on this, as well. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 12:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per FCYTravis at WP:AN/I: Work out the issue on the talk page. It takes two for a straight-up content edit war, which this appears to be. Request the involvement of other editors. At first glance, this doesn't appear to be tendentious, disruptive editing - it appears to be two people involved in a heated content dispute. We either ban both editors or they need to try to involve other editors to assist them with their dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except that both editors aren't under article probation. Is someone baiting 8bitJake? Are you trying to say that 8bitJake is not editing disruptively as he did in the past? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 16:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please carefully read #Enforcement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears it was actually enforced by someone who cares about arbitration rulings, so this is all set. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 13:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

blocked and then unblocked by Ryan only to edit arb pages applying to him

Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1/7 RR parole per [19]. Broken on Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism; [20] (unmarked revert) and [21] (marked revert) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Blocked for 72 hours and logged. Note that since G33 is the subject of another ongoing ArbCom case, I've offered to unblock if he promises to edit nowhere except for the ArbCom case pages for the duration of the block. MastCell ^Talk 21:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • During a prior arbitration case I unblocked him for the specific purpose of arbitration, and he blatantly disregarded those terms. Durova^Charge! 02:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Why isn't he just eating an indef block? How many times has he violated this restriction anyways? Jtrainor (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Since I've resigned the admin tools I have no direct power over that. Two things are worth noting, though. First, he's quite capable of communicating with the Committee via e-mail. Second, his block log states last fall that I specifically lifted an indefinite block on him for the sole purpose of arbitration. His subsequent edit history shows how quickly and prolifically he violated that stipulation. I cut him a lot of slack then. Don't think a second lease on AGF would be appropriate. Durova^Charge! 03:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I also note that he is arguing on his talk page that since the two reverts were to different sections of the article, they don't count as a break of parole. Such false naivety doesn't bode well for any future promises William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • That claim is also inaccurate. He restored the exact same sentence twice. His first revert covered more than one edit and he is using that to hide the full nature of the revert. Details on his talk page. Sentence starts on line 12. revert 1revert 2 (and to show they were reverts and not edits, revert 1revert 2--DHeyward (talk) 07:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Note: G33 has removed my evidence from his talk page. Here it is. --DHeyward (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have denied the request to unblock, as the block was appropriate, and as the arbcom case is in voting phase, and moving slowly, there is no great need for the user to participate in the case. They can use arbcom-l if anything needs to be urgently brought to the attention of the arbcom. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Re: why not an indefblock? I think one is warranted, but... the ArbCom remedies clearly state that the blocks may be escalating in length up to 1 week on the 5th infraction. This appears to be the 3rd (or so) time G33 has violated his ArbCom restriction, so the remedy explicitly disallows anything more than a 1-week block. So there you have it. MastCell ^Talk 15:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, this is his fourth block for breaking parole - he has also broken parole on other occasions in the past and been let off/been allowed to self-revert. John Smith's (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I missed this thread - I've unblocked Giovanni33 because he agreed to only edit the arbitration pages that involve him. This is in line with what we've done with users in the past, and MastCell said in his block message that he was fine with this. If he edits any other pages, then he should be swiftly reblocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

IP blocked one week by Jay

We have a problem with a rotating set of single purpose accounts and conspiracy theory advocates trying to whitewash the lead of this article. Could an uninvolved arbitrator administrator look at the edit history and dish out stern warnings as needed. Thank you very much. Jehochman ^Talk 03:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Arthur appears to think that the IP address is User:Bov, who was already warned about editing disruptively. It doesn't help that he uses IP addresses, which makes it difficult to tell whether or not he should know better. --Haemo (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While the four editors could be Bov it could also be one or two editors supporting someone who might or might not be him. A discrete ISP check first might have been more appropriate than an accusation. As Jehochman didn't see fit to support his claim with diffs I submit the following:
152.131.10.133 (Department of Veterans Affairs Washington D.C.) made the following edits:[22], [23], [24] and [25] between June 5 and June 12. 24.175.107.174 (Houston Texas ?)made one edit [26] on June 12. 67.170.205.8 (San Francisco California ?) made the following edits: [27] and [28] on June 13. Go-here.nl made one edit [29]on June 13.
Only one problem edit plus three edits that only moved a box to another location involved the lead while most look like grammatical edits. I think Jehochman is possibly over reacting as there was no revert war or overtly disruptive editing with the edits easily reverted without arguement. If they are Bov, what is the problem as long as he is not disruptive and accepts the reverts? While the 911 articles are peaceful we should be keeping it that way rather than creating conflict by threatening every one with WP:AE. Wayne (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving the box so that it sticks out below the bottom of the article is vandalism clearly harmful. They're definately "problem edits". And, as I pointed out in ANI, 67. made one edit correcting an error in copying one of Bov's edits on 7 June, before starting the problem edits (not just on this article) immediately after 152. was blocked for the second time. As the block should have expired by now, perhaps we should invite the parties to comment here? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies as I did not check to see what the moved box looked like. Did the editor also not check? He said in the comment "moved template to help clear up top of the page" and i've made bigger mistakes in good faith myself. However, I still say that even if all the edits were bad (which they were not) WP:AE is premature in this particular case. Wayne (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jehochman: You are asking for the intervention of an "uninvolved arbitrator", but note that this noticeboard is for enforcement of ArbCom restrictions, by administrators. If what you need is a clarification from the ArbCom, you can do that at WP:RCAM. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was a typo (or braino). I meant administrator. Jehochman ^Talk 03:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have blocked 67.170.205.8 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours due to this and other edit warring, and Go-here.nl (talk · contribs) is dangling near the edge of a long block as well. Locewtus (talk · contribs) came into this dispute after a long break, so they are probably a meat puppet, but the user has now been warned, and I think that is sufficient. Not much can be done about 152.131.10.133 (talk · contribs), as they havent edited since their last block expired. If it does start editing disruptively, a longer block might be in order. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

block 31 hours

• Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Astrotrain was places on a one revert per week as a result of the above arbcom[30], he has been warned before then about his use of the fromer Northern Ireland flag (a matter relating to the arbcom)User_talk:Astrotrain#Flag and has now been edit warning on Template:British flags Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I count three reverts in 3 days. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Article in question is not considered subject to specific guidelines of the ArbCom ruling, but editors are reminded that regular policies and guidelines relating to edit-warring are obviously applicable.

User:Shell Kinney notified users Str1977[31] and Bless sins[32] that their edits to Banu Qurayza are covered by the editing restrictions implemented by the ArbCom under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Several people, including myself, have asked Shell Kinney on their talk page why they believe the article falls under the scope of that ArbCom decision, but received no satisfactory answer. I inquired Shell Kinney whether other instances when Muslims massacred Jews in the Middle Ages (like 1066 Granada massacre) must also count as Palestine-Israel articles,[33] but again, Kinney's response was far from clear.[34] While the ArbCom apparently wants Palestine-Israel topic area to be interpreted broadly, extending it to events that predate the conflict by about 1,300 years looks like an overstretch. Beit Or 20:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought I was pretty clear; I felt due to the subject of the article, the historical dispute over the accuracy of accounts and the obvious undercurrents in the current article dispute that it is, while historical, an aspect that would be covered by the Israel-Arab conflict case. I would be happy to go into further detail if any of that explanation is unclear. Even an editor who showed up to argue against its inclusion under this umbrella had to agree that the subject was polemical and disputed along those same lines [35]. As I said in my reply, as to the other article I was asked about, I am completely unfamiliar with it and can't speak intelligently as to whether or not it would fall in the same dispute. I didn't look into that question farther, since honestly, I'm not sure mentioning that other article was supposed to relate, unless its a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type argument.

While I welcome additional input and clarification of the applicable case, its interesting that the editor question was not involved in the dispute nor was he notified of the case. If anyone would like further background on the current dispute and problematic behavior that led to these notifications, please let me know and I'll put together an overview. Shell ^babelfish 20:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If said massacre still has contemporary repercussions, or if the editors involved in the dispute are also part of the same set who fight over Israeli-Palestinian articles, then yes, the arbitration case applies. If not, no. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The wording from the arbcom case is:

area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted.

I'm not sure whether this applies. The article concerns a conflict between Arabs and Jews, but not (obviously) between Arabs and Israelis. We could request a clarification about this. In fact we could request the wording be broadened to include all Arab-Jew conflict-related articles. PhilKnight (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the word broadly is the only way this would be applicable and its possible that I'm misunderstanding or over-reaching what the ArbCom meant by that decision; part of my consideration here was several parties comments (some unvinvolved) that indicated the incident the article describes is still a point of contention between Arabs and Jews and that the current dispute on the article seems to fall squarely on those lines. It seems that there is a division among scholars about the actual events and who was a fault; the current edit warring and incivil behavior stems from the two parties who were warned taking the side of one set of scholars or another and making this article their battleground to hash out those differences. Shell ^babelfish 00:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not see how this article would fall under the Palestine-Israel article restriction. "Broadly" has its limits, and this historical dispute is certainly out scope. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ArbCom case was P-I disputes. Even broadly interpreted, I do not believe that should include the superset of all Jewish-Muslim disputes. While there is a strong correlation between positions of editors in contentious Palestinian-Israeli articles and corresponding positions in contentious Jewish-Muslim articles, to extend the arbcom remedy to the latter would be overreaching in my understanding of both the spirit and letter of the arbcom judgement. -- Avi (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What would be the damage in broadly interpreting the ruling? From my point of view, if there is disruption on an article that might fall under the ArbCom case, then it makes sense to use the case's ruling as a tool with which to help restore stability. This is a good thing. If we make a too narrow interpretation of the ruling though, then what? Take the long view here. If we say that no the case's restrictions don't apply, then it decreases the authority that uninvolved administrators have in an area of dispute, and sets the stage for a conflict that may have to escalate through the various stages of dispute resolution until it too can be an ArbCom case that takes months of time, to come up with effectively the same decision that the original case already did: "Disruptive editors should be told not to disrupt, and uninvolved administrators should use their best judgment to take actions to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." So why waste the time to quibble about exact wording, when we're talking about a very general sanction in the first place? If there were a specific remedy, such as, "This article cannot be edited for 90 days", then it might make sense to debate the finer points of which articles apply. But a general remedy such as "Uninvolved administrators can use their best judgment to restore order", isn't something that we should even really need to debate about. --Elonka 17:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Topical rulings have to have boundaries, or else one could conceivably extend them to any topic on Wikipedia. The usual kinds of remedies can deal with the issue at this particular article, no need to invoke the I-P remedies. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there is disruption on the article, it must be dealt with just like any other disruption. No evidence has been presented so far that the subject of this article is relevant to the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Beit Or 17:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(<-)Elonka, disruption needs to be handled in the proper way, which in this case would appear to be sans any "extra" gravity lent by indirectly applying an ArbCom ruling. The ARbCom ruling seems to allow for an acceleration of the remedies applied, for example year-long blocks and article/topic bans are expressly mentioned, and these should not be applied to "regular" disruption in Jewish-Muslim disputes, when there is still hope that much lighter and shorter remedies may result in the defusing of the situation. Of course regular remedies and protective measures should be applied as per ANY article in the wiki, but the enhanced measures allowed for in I/P articles should not directly apply here in my understanding of the ruling. -- Avi (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Avi; Jewish-Muslim disputes are not automatically Israel-Palestine disputes. This article is about the former, not the latter. The uses of incidents surrounding the Banu Qurayza tribe to boster specific positions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are done in retrospect, and don't actually signal any real connection between what happened then and the present-day conflict. -- tariqabjotu 19:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Though it's probably impolitic for me to disagree with my mediator, I have to agree as well - a Jewish-Muslim dispute in the 7th century is not part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which began at the earliest, in the early 20th century. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nah, you can disagree with anyone on Wikipedia, that's half the fun. Looks like the general feeling here is that this particular article falls outside the scope, though I would like to address one point Avi made. The point behind informing these editors of the case was not to speed up sanctions or avoid the bureaucratic process (though seriously, why wouldn't you when it improves Wikipedia?) but to lend more weight to my warnings that their specific behavior has been to arbcom before and was sanctioned. I did not follow up the notification with any kind of restriction nor try to apply any remedy and in fact, in cases where I've seen this arbitration ruling being used, I don't find that the norm is to apply long restrictions as Avi implies.

I think the most interesting part of all this is that simply notifying these editors who have been edit warring and generally incivil for more than 6 months now caused them to suddenly stop edit warring and be civil to each other. I wonder if something more formal and spelled out seems more "official" than typical friendly warnings and that's why it seems to work in cases where other things aren't working? Anyways, I appreciate all the opinions and the clarification that the Arb case isn't really about Arab-Israeli relations, but more about the specific disputes in the last century. If anyone who's more knowledgeable about the disputes surrounding this article or the Israel-Palestine disputes wants to leave some pointers on my talk page, or even point me at some good reading, I would greatly appreciate that as well. Shell ^babelfish 02:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shell, I did not mean to imply that you or anyone abused the sanctions. However, I am worried about "sanction creep," especially in entire tracts of articles that tend to engender responses that are more emotional than logical. The fact that I-P articles may be approached by admins with the ArbCom sanctions in their back pocket does afford the admin decision more weight—"ArbCom" is a scary word after all. This is also why invoking it in other areas will, at least initially, have a greater effect. However, overusing it, especially where it is not directly applicable, has its own slew of problems, chief of which is desensitization. The usual response to desensitization is an increase in severity, and we start a vicious cycle that ends up with someone being banned. Where ArbCom expressly authorized suh actions and the potential fallout is one thing, but allowing it to creep into other areas, even if the players may be the same, is dangerous in my opinion. Finally, while the above is an argument as to why the I-P sanctions should not be extended, the simple facts are that we do not have the right, in my opinion, to extend an ArbCom ruling beyond its bounds without asking for clarification, and as was pointed out above, the events of this article predate the Israeli-Palestinian issue by a number of centuries. Of course, you have my apologies if you feel I misrepresented your actions or position on the issue. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I am allowed let me also comment on the matter. I did raise my objection on Shell's talk page and got no satisfying answer, not even to my question where I can ask for an official review of this action. But thanks to Beit Or's insistence, this now has been sorted out here. Thanks to all involved in solving this.

Let me also note that I was not involved in any editwar about Palestine issues, that I can't see how the BQ article ever fell under that issue, that the inclusion of me and BS did not help Wikipedia in any way. There was no incivility and hardly any reverting before the notification. Shell's intervention, after initial misunderstandings, certainly helped a lot but not this action that was under review here.

So again, thanks to everyone. No hard feelings to Shell. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm guessing that you didn't look very hard at my talk page where I answered your questions and twice, I indicated precisely where to go to bring this up if you were unhappy. Its really disappointing to see you come here and claim that you haven't been edit warring or being incivil - it takes nothing more than a quick glance at the article history and your block log (and talk history) to see that you're not being completely honest here. Please understand that regardless of whether or not your behavior falls under this particular ruling, this does not give you (or anyone else) license to return to edit warring and personal attacks and you may find yourself placed under other sanctions or even blocked if those behaviors resume. There's been a lot of progress in resolving the disputes on the article, so please, lets continue working in that direction Shell ^babelfish 17:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Its really disappointing to see you come here and claim that you haven't been edit warring or being incivil." Only that is not what I wrote. Please do not misrepresent my posting. My block I still consider under false accusations. I don't need your threats. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Alansohn was blocked, and then following assurances was unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relevant discussion at

→ WP:ANI#Latest edit warring by User:RedSpruce → the "Footnoted quotes" ArbCom case

Arbcom decision: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Alansohn restricted. "Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked..."

Violation diff here.

• Assumption of bad faith and personal attack: "repeated reverts has been done in arbitrary fashion by User:RedSpruce" -- claiming that my edits are arbitrary, despite vast amounts of discussion in which I have justified my edits.
• Assumption of bad faith: "repeated good faith edits to expand and source these articles were used as an excuse to initiate the litigation" -- claiming I used "an excuse" to initiate litigation.

RedSpruce (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Volation diff # 2:

• Assumption of bad faith and personal attack: "RedSpruce's edit history for nearly a month has consisted almost exclusively of reverting edits to "his" articles..." -- false and unsupported accusation that I claim ownership of articles.

RedSpruce (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been following this, and I think RedSpruce's behaviour needs to improve as well. Some of the edits made by RedSpruce have been wholesale reverts. I'm not saying Alansohn's behaviour is excusable, merely that there is more than one side to this and, eventually, something will need to be done about RedSpruce's behaviour. RedSpruce has said: "Sometimes when I remove their garbage edits I take the time to filter in the good edits. Other times it just doesn't seem worth the effort, because I know that my time and effort will just be undone by a revert." This attitude of reverting the good with the bad (especially when the "bad" is debatable - the arbcom case, quite rightly, did not deliver a verdict on that) is not acceptable for a collaborative editing environment. RedSpruce, if you want others to work with you, you have to hold yourself to the high standards you expect of others. Carcharoth (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carcharoth, the ArbCom restriction was against Alansohn, not me. If you think that decision was in error, take it up with them. RedSpruce (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The same Arbcom case found that RedSpruce calling me an "idiot" and a "moron" was not uncivil. Any incivility by anyone else has to be measured by that yardstick from now on. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• User:RedSpruce has finally come clean and admitted that "Alansohn and Richard Arthur Norton have made quite a few valid and worthwhile edits to the articles in question.... Sometimes when I remove their garbage edits I take the time to filter in the good edits. Other times it just doesn't seem worth the effort." (see here). I and other editors have made repeated edits to expand, improve and source the articles in question; User:RedSpruce has in turn simply reverted the changes, with edit summary justifications rationalizations of "rv; see endless discussion elsewhere", "restoring to better version", "rv for the usual reasons", just plain "rv" and no other explanation", no explanation at all, and my personal favorite RV to version _I_ choose to call "stable". RedSpruce has cynically abused Wikipedia process to enforce his ownership of these articles, and he's back at it again. RedSpruce's edit history for nearly a month has consisted almost exclusively of reverting edits to "his" articles and shrill complaints that it's everybody else's fault. It's time to deal with User:RedSpruce once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • All one has to do is look at User:RedSpruce's first claim to see that he is trying to game the system - Assumption of bad faith and personal attack: "repeated reverts has been done in arbitrary fashion by User:RedSpruce". It is RedSpruce himself who has clearly acknowledged that he can't be bothered to pick out what he admits are "good edits" from the ones he has decided as "garbage edits". All of his edits to the articles in question over the past month have reverted back to "his" version of the articles, regardless of the quality of changes made by any other editor. This is the very definition of the word "arbitrary". The word "his" has been placed in quotations to demonstrate that RedSpruce has shown no willingness to find any edit as acceptable; every single edit has been reverted by RedSpruce back to "his" version, the very definition of taking WP:OWNership of an article. Alansohn (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For violating the restrictions of the footnotes case, specifically harassment, trolling, and bad faith at [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], I have blocked him for 31 hours and added it to the case block summary. MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does this board really ignore the other side of a dispute when that side is not the subject of an ArbCom remedy? That seems a remarkably bureaucratic way of doing things. I will leave a warning for RedSpruce in any case, even though that is not related to arbitration enforcement. Carcharoth (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well if one has broken a policy or done something wrong, then we call him out on it, warn, then block, if the subject has additionally been sanctioned by Arbcom, then that leash of what is acceptable behavior is even shorter. In any event, I think there is an ANI thread addressing RedSpruce's actions, and this thread addressing Alansohn, each in its proper place, I was dealing with this one and and not that one. MBisanz ^talk 07:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have more concerns than this though. I've been reading through the edits you provided to justify your block. In general, providing a long list of "breaches" and a laundry list of charges "harassment, trolling, and bad faith" is not helpful. What would be better is to say specifically what you find problematic about each edit. In particular, which ones are trolling, which are harassment and which are bad faith? I read those edits, and I don't see the problems you describe. I see someone raising issues that need to be discussed, not brushed under the carpet. Carcharoth (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, lets do this the long way Alansohn and Rlevse disagreed on the content of an article, they brought the dispute to Arbcom as part of the Footnoted quotes matter, Rlevse and Alansohn presented evidence indicating the other person had violated various policies in their edits. Arbcom found that Alansohn's overall conduct violated policy. As a result, it issued special sanctions on him.

Within hours of the case closing, he was accusing Rlevse abusing BLP], posting a case study railing at Rlevse at an unrelated page, reposting another summary of his issue with Rlevse at the same unrelated page. When questioned on why he is reposting the same matter, he responds that it may continue until the article is changed. Then brings it up a third time at the unrelated page in an unrelated thread], additionally, he reinserted himself in the debate at Rlevse's talk page, citing the same evidence he had at the arbcom in subsequent posts to the user talk page and assuming further bad faith to Rlevse's actions.

To me this is trolling a dead issue and harassing Rlevse by continuing to dredge up a dead issue at his talk page, while assuming bad faith. I'll note another admin does not disagree with this block, and given the short leash Arbcom placed him on, I feel it was entirely warranted. MBisanz ^talk 08:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point here is that, if you strip away the excess, I agree with Alansohn's basic arguments here. If I chose to engage with this issue at Talk:George Thomas Coker and discuss it with Rlevse, will I be accused of trolling and continuing the dispute? This is why accusations of trolling are rarely helpful. It is incredibly hard to refute a vague accusation of trolling. This is also why blocks such as the one you have made can have a chilling effect. Your block will not only prevent Alansohn from presenting his arguments (any time he tries to talk on the issue now, he can be accused of trolling and harassment) but it will discourage others. Thus the block does nothing to resolve the underlying problems. You are treating the symptoms, not the cause. Carcharoth (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have so many places to resolve content disputes, RFC, 3O, Mediation, etc, Alansohn is experienced enough to know about them and to know that shouting about it and the people he is disputing the content with on random pages until someone listens is not the way to solve content disputes. MBisanz ^talk 09:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Permit me to also add that Alansohn's last "engagement" at the article talk page was May 4th [42], Rlevse responded [43] and Alansohn never answered him, hardly what I would call good faith engagement in trying to solve a content dispute. MBisanz ^talk 09:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is stretching. The offer by Rlevse is troubling enough in that he sets up admins to resolve a content dispute. He should have centred the offer on editors, regardless of whether they were admins or not. I'm not surprised Alansohn didn't take the offer seriously. Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MBisanz. How about I make an edit to Talk:George Thomas Coker to indicate that Alansohn has made some valid points and that his block does not negate those points, and that the underlying cause of the dispute remains unresolved? Whether Rlevse still remains involved is up to him, but I would suggest that both he and Alansohn let others resolve this. Carcharoth (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The block could be longer given that parties are strictly expected to comply with arbitration rulings - he's made no assurance that he will. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could you point me to where it is said that editors under arbcom restrictions can be blocked for not making assurances that they will comply with the restrictions? That seems to be asking people to say something, and then judging them by what they don't say, rather than what they do. It is only fair to judge people by their actions, and not what they fail to say. I will also point out: "...he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month." - please don't extend the block to a week, especially given that the initial block is disputed. Leave it at that, and see how things go later. And note that the maximum block is a month. More than that would have to be done outside the remedy and outside arbitration enforcement. Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I had 72 hours in mind to prevent him from continuing in the next couple of days - his actions speak loud and clear and I see nothing to suggest he'll stop. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I agree that RedSpruce's behavior has been questionable here. However Alansohn is not helping his case with his reactions and edit summaries. If he can moderate his own behavior, and just present his concerns in a calm and civil way, I'd say let him back. If each time we unblock him though, he just resumes spouting off in an uncivil manner, then I think a longer block might be appropriate, while we ask him, "Will you comply with ArbCom restrictions?" If he gives his word to moderate his own behavior, then the block can be lifted early. If not, the block should be left in place. --Elonka 16:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Just a note that I have no problems with other admins tinkering with my admin actions, so if someone wants to undo, lengthen, shorten or change the terms of the block, its fine by me. I do like the idea of asking him if he'll comply with Arbcom Elonka MBisanz ^talk 16:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Agreed, someone should ask. With all the talk about longer blocks, please don't forget my point above that the remedy doesn't allow for blocks under this remedy to be longer than a week, then the maximum later increases to a month. I suspect that is also put in place to stop people running to the community or arbcom for a longer block or ban or change of the remedy. Let's try and run the gamut of option in the remedy before going further. Carcharoth (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Whoever asks will do well to unprotect Alansohn's talk page, which was fully protected (unnecessarily, IMHO) upon Alansohn's using his talk page to work on (wholly uncontroversial) content to be migrated later into mainspace (difficult to miss the ((pp-usertalk)), I know, but I leave a note in any case, lest someone should be irked by A's failing to reply to a query about his willingness to comply with the ArbCom restrictions). Joe 18:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • Alansohn's talk page has been unprotected. PhilKnight (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • Wow, I have no idea why it was protected, he was doing what ((2nd chance)) encourages blocked people to do. MBisanz ^talk 20:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                  • In view of this response I think the point has been taken; any objection to him being unblocked?. TerriersFan (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                    • I have asked him for one further clarification (about whether he would be willing to "wipe the slate clean" and let go of old disputes), but that's a minor point. If some other admin feels that his first response[44] is sufficient, then I would agree with an unblock. --Elonka 23:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                      • Nice job by El. I have unblocked him because, from the responses, it seems that the point has been made. I hope that Alansohn realises that this is the time for a fresh start all round and that, in future, he will use dispute resolution procedures. If he fails so to do then in the event of a future infraction of policies a lengthier ban will follow. Having said that, any provocative behaviour towards him will also be firmly dealt with. TerriersFan (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                        • Agreed. Nice job, though the page protection could have been handled better - if it hadn't been lifted, then things could have got worse, not better. I also endorse the need to deal firmly with provocative behaviour, but would ask that anyone that appears to be acting provocatively should be warned first. Let's hope everyone can move on from this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed - nice job. This matter is resolved, until or unless the misconduct resumes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Blocked for 48 hours

• Mrg3105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

• I believe that this edit [45] made by Mrg3105 on Soviet partisans in Poland is an assumption of bad faith, a personal attack and not helpful in any form. I am too involved with the user to block, and I wonder whether this clouds my judgement. So I ask for more opinions.
• Mrg has been warned and blocked under this restriction before and a quick look at their talkpage shows that they have been reminded on at least two occasions in the past 4 weeks of this editing restriction. Woody (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thank you, Woody, for bringing it here first. I certainly feel highly offended by mrg3105 comments, and not for the first time - he has shown bad faith to me and other editors during our discussions at Talk:Armia Krajowa in April, for example (rv summary "because you are Polish", "I find it fascinating that the article was protected by a Polish administrator" and others; do note my request to him to stop commenting on other editors nationality was simply reverted without a comment).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Unbelievable. A guy insinuated that Piotrus "promotes Poland's never ending crying fowl over the Second World War". How does he dare to edit Wikipedia? Off with his head! --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked 48 hours. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Blocked for 72 hours

• Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Astrotrain was placed on a one revert per week as a result of the this arbcom[46]. He has just been unblocked but still continues with his reversions here and here. I feel judging by this comment here that he will continue on reverting and not adhering to the enforcement that was placed on him. BigDunc^Talk 17:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pretty cut and dry, since Astrotrain is on a 1 revert per week restriction. He's been blocked for 72 hours. Shell ^babelfish 18:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

acted on by Ryan

• Wotapalaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Colin4C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine

Per remedy #1 from this case - All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page.

After much misrepresentation of sources and/or original research originally added in this edit by Colin4C, today Colin4C sourced a sentence of previously disputed sourcing with this edit. After reading the source, I saw that it clearly did not source the text that was in the sentence in question. I explained this fully with this edit to the talk page, saying exactly what the source now cited in the aticle actually said, in comparison to the actual text of the article, and invited discussion regarding any possible problems with the wording. I then edited the article, to make the text accurately reflect what the source said, and not original research or other unsourced opinion.

Without any discussion on the talk page, Wotapalaver reverted me, thereby adding original research or other unsourced opinion in the process. In the edit summary (which is obviously not the same as discussion on the article talk page) he stated "Since she died in 1977 it's incorrect to quote her as if reflecting today's view", which was repeated with his first post to the talk page regarding the revert two hours later. However, this is nonsensical as the sentence Wotapalver was reverting to was "The famine caused a sense of lasting bitterness by the Irish towards the British government, whom many blamed — then and now — for the starvation of so many people", which contains the phrase "then and now" which obviously presents the view as today's view. Therefore the only possible justification presented for the revert is now null and void.

Despite this Colin4C reverted the edit, thereby adding original research or other unsourced opinion in the process, and has yet to make any attempt to discuss his edit on the talk page.

My original edit was not a revert to any previous version, it was accurately citing a source, unlike the original research laden version reverted to without discussion by Colin4C and Wotapalver. Thanks. Domer48 (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notified the three article mentors of this thread. GRBerry 04:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Domer48 inserted text which used an author who has been dead since 1977 and whose book was written in 1962 or so, as a source to describe TODAY'S feeling about the famine. As a source for today she's either 31 or ~45 years out-of-date. The edit he made [47] says clearly "She says that it is the terrible years of “the Great Hunger” which are remembered and she suggests only just beginning to be forgiven." Remember, this woman has been dead since 1977 and wrote those words in the early 1960's so this is factually wrong. She doesn't say anything anymore. There was no date attached, nor any caveat about how this quote as as contemporary as quoting Eden about modern British Foreign Policy. Domer48 is engaged in a campaign of disruption on the article and has been using various tactics to try to own the article. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems to me to be the ultimate storm in the teacup. The Woodham-Smith source supports the original text that the famine caused a sense of lasting bitterness by the Irish towards the British Government. There is no great original research mystery about this or any other controversy. I just thought that Domer's reformulation was very clumsy. Compare:

• Original: "The famine caused a sense of lasting bitterness by the Irish towards the British government, whom many blamed — then and now — for the starvation of so many people".
• The Domer Version: "According to Cecil Woodham-Smith the famine left hatred behind between both Ireland and England because of the memory of what was done and endured. She says that it is the terrible years of “the Great Hunger” which are remembered and she suggests only just beginning to be forgiven."

IMHO Domer's version makes it appear that Woodham-Smith was just expressing her personal opinion on the matter, whereas in reality the dire effect of the Famine on Anglo-Irish relationships is common knowledge. Also Domer's second sentence has a very contorted syntax and is hardly grammatical at all. Anyway, I leave it up to the sage judgement of other editors as to which version they prefer. Colin4C (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One other thing..the reversion WAS discussed on the article talk page. So far my last comment on the talk page is the last comment there. So far Domer48, nor anyone else, has managed to say WHY he should quote long dead authors as if they were alive today. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps you can explain how the same author can be used to source a sentence containing the phrase "then and now", which is in the original research laden version you and Colin4C reverted to without discussion? Domer48 (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Domer48 is - again - forum shopping since he doesn't get his way on the article page itself. The previous text can easily be sourced from multiple sources because it's describing facts that are very well known and entirely uncontroversial (and not even Domer48 is even disputing the facts). If additional references is the concern then there's no problem and Domer48 could provide them himself if he had any interested in improving the article. Unfortunately, it isn't what Domer48 is worried about. He's worried about his ownership of the article being "challenged". His tactics to enforce his ownership have ranged from blanking, reverting, insulting, to now putting in edits which are (inaccurate) block quotes from authors he likes. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the diffs show, you made no attempt to discuss the revert before making it and your first post on the talk page was two hours later. Colin4C has not made any post on the talk page to discuss his revert. Domer48 (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per remedy #1 from this case - All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. It is being discussed on the talk page. So far no good argument has been presented against it. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever else comes of this, Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blocked by me - for the lesser of 31 hours or until he apologises - for repeatedly referring to another editor as a liar. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with GRBerry, the article mentors should act on this. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article mentors have already acted on this - Domer has been blocked by Angus and I've endorsed it on his talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

I find little merit in Moldopodo's claims. However, I find much in Biruitorul's against Moldopodo. Couple this with Neil's warning to Moldopodo only two days ago that if his disruption continues, he'll be indef blocked, I have little choice but to indef block Moldopodo, so I've done so....next day, changed to a month to comply with Digwuren.

— Rlevse • Talk • 20:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Biruitorul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

User:Biruitorul, being completely aware of the Digwuren general restriction accuses me of bad faith [48] with no justification, for the mere usage of my right as any user of comment and vote. I have perfectly justified my position: the sources are not credible and highly biaised, the article does not fulfil basic requirements of Wikipedia for notability. Besides a gross lie is being put through by those who insist on using UNHCR as an argument, as it has explicitely declined responsibility for the referred to source and the document itself is not even the result of the UNCHR's work, but of one of the unknown organisations.

Also please take note of this comment of User:Biruitorul, which not only is irrelevant on the discussion where it was placed, but also is located far beyond decency and civility.[49]--Moldopodo^talk 18:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, have a look at the difference (namely sources presented after line 70) supported bu User:Gutza, and User:Biruitorul, as well as User:Bogdangiusca - there are about 30 sources provides for what I writeDiscussion on the talk page of article Moldova on the usage of the term "cession" in the Bucharest Treaty 1812, therefore it's a lie to say I provide unsourced edits, or to say I push through POV of any kind. Another talk page - another almost 15 sources provided by me - History of Moldavian language, further - more: Moldavian language - attempts by some users to interpret a scholarly scientifical writing of Dimitrie Cantemir, trying to say what was never said in his work. Here is the edit, which User:Bogdangiusca described as "tedious adding of ^{[citation needed]} tags everywhere"; please, admins, and be convinced, that here again, the said does not correspond to the reality, therefore it is another lie, consequently uncivil[50]. On the article Moldovans, please check the sources I have provided[51], just as on the article Moldavia, where I requested move to the Principality of Moldavia, as these articles are separated on other Wikipedias, and it is the question of a mere logic reasoning: are we writing articles on Wikipedia on a specific subject or do we write one article to cover three different topics? As for redirect Moldavia - it should be directed to Moldova (as it is also the case on other Wikipedias) - which is the only political formation which always kept this name, being both subject of international law or a territorial unit inside of a bigger body. In fact the present article Moldavia was merged from Principality of Moldavia with an article apparently called "Moldavia as Romanian region" (please, bear in mind whether this is or is not an original research, as Romanian legislation does not provide, AFAIK, for any specific status, nor does it set any legal framework of any kind for any region with a name Moldavia, nor are Moldavians living in Romania recognised as Moldavians, for example during banal censuses) and some other article (honestly I don't remember, but I am sure experienced admins may check). I have also initiated discussion on the move of Moldovans to Moldavians as the article Moldovans describes Moldavian ethnicity and not Moldovan citizenship, so it's a complete confusion of terms. As for disruptive editing of User:Biruitorul - on the article Cinema of Moldavia - you may se it here (I apologoze, I think I said it was User:Oneil earlier by mistake). The article is clearly about the cinema in Moldavia - Moldavian SSR. Please see another move of [[User:Biruitorul] - again with no proper justification, nor any comment left on the talk page. (also, please check the talk pages' histories [52] and [53] of both articles, some of the diffs I am unable to find anymore, as I guess they disappeared with repetitve deleting and moving articles by User:Biruitorul - without any constructive contribution to the contents of the article. I hope this gives you a clearer picture (message to admins).--Moldopodo^talk 20:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)--Moldopodo^talk 13:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This "report" is utterly absurd and disruptive, coming from a user on his final warning. It's a shame I even have to defend myself from such charges, but I'll do it nonetheless.

I accused Moldpodo of bad faith for this remark: "The main goal of this invention is to deny the existence of everything that relates to Moldavian state, ethnicity, nation, culture, history and language". Actually, the good-faith interpretation is simply that the article in question (Moldovenism) is to inform readers about a concept, using the reliable sources where it appears, and this reading of anti-Moldovan conspiracies in articles that he happens not to like is rather tiresome, and indeed manifests a failure to assume good faith.

The next comment is, as noted by an administrator, "no[t] in the least bit incivil or indecent".

The next long rant isn't entirely about me, but let me just defend the egregious charges related to Cinema of Moldova. Moldopdo created a Cinema of Moldavia article (in line with his attempts to conflate Moldavia with Moldova), which I moved to Cinema of Moldova, in line with most every other country's "cinema of..." article. He then split the article into Cinema of Moldova and Cinema of the Moldavian SSR, after I asked him not to content-fork, and it remains split as of now.

My own record is clean here; it is Moldopodo who has filled the ANI with tendentious threads in a desperate effort to deflect attention from his own malfeasance, which, I remind enforcers, has already earned him two Digwuren blocks and a final warning. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Biruitorul, please, refrain from irrelevancies and uncivilities in my regard: "This "report" is utterly absurd and disruptive". As for "final warning" it has been dismissed by other uninvolved users and no answers were given to me for the not corresponding to the given qualification diffs first of all, secondly, what's the relevance of this here? It's just like on arbitrator's noticeboard, where you and other Romanian users started posting irrelevancies[54]. Please provide diffs for your accusations.: your constant attempts to confuse the issue have proved disruptive. . Please, also provide a diff how you are: just trying to maintain some order and consistency? Is it by moving pages, independently from my numerous requests to stop your disruption as I was writing the article on the Cinema of Moldavian SSR (I have provided diffs above), or may be by changing all adjectives "Moldavian" to "Moldovan" (diffs provided as well above), whereas the period described is Moldavian SSR and the term "Moldovan" was never even applied to this period of Moldavian history, or by pushing through amateur propagandistic writings of an unknown "personality", whose statements are contradicted by more than 30 sources (at least the ones I 've found), or may be by adding this [55] to the article on the actual state of cinema in Moldavia? Do you consider all of this a constructive non-disruptive contribution to Wikipedia?--Moldopodo^talk 15:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Biruitorul, I have provided above detailed diffs, where your conduct is disruptive and have explained the reasons. Please, provide a diff (or rather diffS, as it seems there are plenty of them according to you) for your following statement: "and it is your constant moves, splits and other measures that are disruptive". May be you could also provide a diff where you explained all of this on a talk page? As a matter of fact, you didn't explain anything as you were moving the articles around, leaving all the relevant talk pages on Moldavian cinema - blank, be it Cinema of the Moldavian SSR or Cinema of Moldova, the articles to which you have never contributed constructively, except moving them around. As a matter of fact, User:Biruuitorul has never added any contents to these articles, except after I warned him of this fact, he added a phrase that there is basically no cinema in Moldova today and sourced it to.... Lonely Planet.--Moldopodo^talk 07:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, User:Biruitorul please do not deviate from the subject. The source is not reliable, nor verifiable as it is a mere personal invention of Gribincea, based on references that themselves do not mention the notion of "moldovenism". The UNCHR has explicitedly stated it has no responsibility whatsoever for this writing. The following statements by User:Biruitorul: "and the UNHCR doesn't generally pick unreliable individuals to do their research", "although questioning the validity of the Gribincea paper certainly seems tendentious as well" - are his personal interpretation. User:Biruitorul, please refrain from personal subjective interpretation. Using bad faith argument against a user (me) who is merely stating that the source you provided is unreliable, (and subsequently proved it on this occasion as well as on the occasion of controversial King's writings with 30 sources saying the contrary) seems to me to be bad faith of User:Biruitorul himself.--Moldopodo^talk 15:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Reviewing administrators, please analyse this recent comment of User:Biruitorul in light of my request to apply Digwuren general restriction against User:Biruitorul, as well as in light of Wikipedia policies regarding personal attacks.--Moldopodo^talk 15:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Er, where's the beef? This absurd "report" should be laughed right off the page! Biruitorul ^Talk 15:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Reviewing adminsitrators, please also take in consideration, that my first request for the enforcement of the Digwuren general restriction against User:Biruitorul appeared by my error[56] on the administrators' noticeboard, as I really thought that was the place where it had its place. I do not think that when User:Biruitorul tries to make a some kind of argument even out of this is a relevant helpful constructive contribution to this discussion.--Moldopodo^talk 15:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - check out two recent WP:ANI discussions here and here. There's a lot of bad blood between these guys but most if not all of the problem seems to lie with the massively disruptive activities of Moldopodo. andy (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

not an AE issue, and even if it was, were applied to both sides in long running problematic area

While I have respect for Vassyana as a person, I think this administrator has imposed a rather ridiculous set of arbitrary standards on me that will make this noticeboard light up. in particular he has tried to claim that I inappropriately edited psychic and spoon bending here: [57]. Both of these articles are on my watch list and I have edited Psychokinesis in the past with respect to spoon bending and I have edited [58]. My work on Wikipedia is to make sure that people do not violate WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. I am not stalking Martinphi, but this kind of absurd monitoring is unreasonable since I work in a variety of areas. Note also that Vassyana did not comment on the actual edits (as to whether they were justified by out content guidelines) but seems unusually obsessed with who was making the edits rather than what the edits actually are. This is unreasonable. I strenuously object and will continue to raise the issue until someone explains to me some justification for not making edits simply based on who has edited an article previously.

Thank you.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This set of restrictions applies equally to ScienceApologist and Martinphi. Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Spoon bending and psychic. Vassyana (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have directed Vassyana to no longer warn me on my talk page. Pursuant to the note I left at the restriction page, I do not monitor which individual is making a specific diff. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No accepting intervention by an uninvolved admin that is enforcing an arbCom restriction is unacceptable and in itself a violation of the imposed restrictions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not an ArbCom restriction. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi. Vassyana (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. Refactored my comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

closed. see comment at top. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

user blocked for 48 hrs by Shell

• Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist

Per this case LP is "banned indefinitely from articles which relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland. The ban is intended to include any page in Wikipedia which Lapsed Pacifist engages in a dispute related in any way to the conflict in Northern Ireland", due to his POV pushing. He was informed here that this did cover POV editing relating to earlier conflicts between Ireland and Britain such as the Irish War of Independence. Yesterday he made this unsourced and contentious edit. BigDunc^Talk 12:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He added that material the same day. When he was reverted and then reverted himself it definitely and unambiguously put the page in the restricted pages - "The ban is intended to include any page in Wikipedia which Lapsed Pacifist engages in a dispute related in any way to the conflict in Northern Ireland." Thinking. GRBerry 13:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that this is a rather blatent violation of the spirit of remedy, while the article itself is not about the war, Lapsed Pacifist clearly wrote about the conflict and then reverted when the content was removed. I've blocked him for 48 hours. Shell ^babelfish 18:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Information removed.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children’s privacy[[59]]

I ask that personally-identifiable information, namely the ages of young Wikipedians, be removed and oversighted on the Age and Adminship essay per Remedy 3 of the ruling. Ripberger (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you e-mail me the diffs that had the information I can delete them, as for oversight, that will have to go to the oversight list. -- Avi (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have sent the e-mail with the diffs I've seen so far, though I fear there may be more if the editors editing on that page are not counseled as Remedy 3 instructs. Thank you. Ripberger (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done - please forward others, if needs be. I was disturbed to note that one of the subjects mentioned had to personally remove references to themselves and their age - Alison ^❤ 04:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Alison. -- Avi (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you both. I'll forward any other diffs I come across to Alison if need be. Ripberger (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

no action

These diffs show WLRoss (talk · contribs) running the discussion in circles, endlessly arguing in favor of presenting conspiracy theories as something factual: [60][61][62][63][64] . It's time to invite this editor to work on other areas besides 9/11. Jehochman ^Talk 14:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The second diff is particularly worrying, because he seems to be arguing that undue weight should be given to the conspiracy theories. I suggest a 1 month topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

one month sounds good. --DHeyward (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a note that this editor has participated in similar discussions at Talk:7 World Trade Center. --Hut 8.5 19:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read the comments on these diffs, and I do not see how these comments can warrant a topic ban. The discretionary sanctions are to be applied if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. I do not see how these diffs support such an assessment of this user's comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Has the editor been warned? That's a prerequisite before enforcement measures can be taken. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, he was. Still, I do not see anything in these diffs to warrant a topic ban. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Just no. It's not a surprise what Wayne's POV is on the issue, but he certainly isn't disruptive and is highly fairminded about what can be said about conspiracy theories. I say this as someone who has had differences with him in the past, but he's made an honest and concerted effort to make the tone on 9/11 articles better. A topic ban is simply not appropriate. --Haemo (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I challenge Jehochman to show where any of those diffs request conspiracy theories be presented as fact as he claims. Some of the diffs are supporting a request by another editor that a cite be supplied for a claim (while at the same time rejecting his edits) and the rest are in relation to the reliability of a source already in the article. I may have strong views on how to present the articles but of the 911 related edits I have made, better than 90% are still in the articles and this is due solely to the use of the same type of discussions on talk pages that Jehochman wants to ban me for. ARBCom enforcement was meant to stop the more extreme POV pushers not to prevent edits that Jehochman doesn't agree with. Wayne (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I object to the close, so I've unclosed this. "[T]he more extreme POV pushers" you say.[65] I say that the ArbCom decision was intended to stop all POV pushing, both extreme and subtle. If you are editing the article in order to advance conspiracy theories, you need to stop. We do not achieve NPOV by having a scrum and letting the different sides battle until they reach equilibrium. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Jehochman, the ArbCom decision wasn't intended to discriminate against editors who hold a specific view, merely to prevent disruption. PhilKnight (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Close this again with no action taken. The ArbComm is meant to stop all pushing for a point of view other than the neutral point of view. This includes POV pushing by those who think the government explanation is correct. The ArbComm's decision must not be abused to eliminate all input from those who disagree with the government. It should be properly used to deal with those who are disruptive for or against the government explanation. The relevant question is whether Wayne is being disruptive. I've looked at the diffs you offered, I've read the entire talk page, and the talk page Hut8.5 pointed out. He is not. Learn to edit with those who don't fully agree with you.

Wayne wouldn't have to remind editors that citations are needed if they were provided the first time another editor requested them. You'd probably make more progress toward stability with that article if you had topical archives instead of date archives or a talk FAQ that included all sources deemed relevant by consensus. GRBerry 14:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stating the obvious, a discussion should be closed after it's finished, so the earlier close was inappropriate. Also, the problem of polite pov pushing is complex, and your remark about learning to edit with those who disagree with you was unhelpful. PhilKnight (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GRBerry, I am not a supporter of the government explanation, so please don't mis-characterize me like that. It is not a secret that I dislike our current administration. A bit of clever Googling will uncover my political leanings. The problem here is the appearance of advocacy on behalf of the 9/11 Truth Movement. You can help by watchlisting Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. Jehochman ^Talk 14:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to pretty much agree with GRberry. The remedy says "that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia," but there is little here other than talk page edits that are civil. I don't see disruption, edit warring, name-calling etc. The statements referred to as "subtle-POV pushing" hardly violate this. Talk page edits are where things are supposed to be discussed first. Unless some hard evidence is shown that shows a violation, I'll be closing this soon. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although I don't think I've ever agreed with this user, he isn't disruptive. I don't think that a ban is warranted. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I'm satisfied. Thank you all. Jehochman ^Talk 01:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closing — Rlevse • Talk • 01:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

User blocked for 48 hrs. by [User:Moreschi

• Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer

Bharatveer is restricted to one revert per page per week (excluding obvious vandalism) and must discuss all reverts. He has reverted twice this week on Martha Nussbaum, the second time without discussion on the article's talk page.

• original edit: [66]
• 1st revert: [67]
• 2nd revert: [68]

Bharatveer has already been blocked once for violating his ArbCom remedy. I can't take action myself here because I have edited Martha Nussbaum recently. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked him for 48 hours. The 1RR vio took place on Romila Thapar, though, not Martha Nussbaum. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

User blocked for a week by Khoi

• Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's

Giovanni33 is under editing restrictions, such that he cannot revert more than once a week, and must discuss all reversions first. Despite this he has resumed a slow motion edit war on the New antisemitism page, removing an image he dislikes, and modifying the lead to a version he prefers (describing it as a "controversial concept"). As far as I can tell, he hasn't discussed his changes to the wording of the lead in weeks, yet he continues to revert to his version. He was blocked for this on January 8, and has responded by slowing down the pace of his reverts. Reverts include:

• January 8, 2008
• May 28, 2008
• June 9, 2008
• June 21, 2008

As his block log shows, he has perhaps the most lengthy block log of any non-banned editor in Wikipedia history, returning from his most recent 72 hour block just this month. I'm requesting a longer block at this point, as the shorter ones don't seem to make an impression, or just lead him to game his restrictions. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upon reviewing the article and its talk page, it appears that Giovanni has made any justification to his last two reverts to the lead since last month. I have blocked him for a week, and made note of this at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's. Khoikhoi 03:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

SPAs warned against 1RR per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher#Single-purpose accounts restrained. Article semi-protected to prevent return of new SPAs. No one is currently banned from article; however, Further escalations should be brought back here for remedies as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher.

• Relevant case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher

There have been recurring issues with single-purpose agenda accounts whitewashing this article, which covers a medical school which is considered unaccredited by numerous agencies. The ArbCom remedy provides that single-purpose accounts may be banned from the pages for disruption. Multiple batches of SPA's have been thus banned. Most recently, a brand new batch appeared, working in tandem to remove well-sourced information from the article yet again. I reverted this inappropriate but distressingly familiar editing and notified the accounts in question of the decision. I also chose to place a 1RR/24 hour restriction on each of these sock/meatpuppet accounts as a preliminary step. One of the accounts, Uponleft (talk · contribs), has challenged this. I would like outside attention to review the single-purpose accounts listed here, with an eye toward enforcing the ArbCom restrictions intended to prevent exactly this sort of abuse. MastCell ^Talk 05:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MastCell's bias shows through with the blatant and incorrect information he has provided here to try and bring about the resolution he desires. The ArbCom remedy provides a ban only for a week for multiple violations and then for a year after five 1-week violations for that specific page. If the accounts listed on the ArbCom page are reviewed you will see multiple accounts indef. banned from all of wikipedia which is not within the scope of the ruling by Arbcom. Most of the information removed from the article was synthesis, speculation and weasel wording. Anyone can easily check that. A significant amount of information was restored that was well sourced and verifiable but was stripped inappropriately at a previous point in time. Is there any proof that the accounts are sock/meatpuppets and not individual editors working by themselves? I believe it is inappropriate to say such things without any proof. I ask that this all be reviewed by uninvolved admins and if appropriate the ruling by Arbcom enforced (to the letter, not an inappropriate interpretation as has been done before). Thank you. Uponleft (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SPAs can be indef banned without an arb ruling, using standard wiki policies. As for the arb ruling, it also says SPAs on this topic can be topic banned. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SPAs can be indef banned without an arb ruling ?? I do not thing that this is a correct statement. What are the standard wiki policies you refer to? WP:SPA is a nice essay with some good advice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SPAs are usually socks and disruptive socking can be indef'd. Hope this clarifies. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, the arb ruling, it also says SPAs on this topic can be topic banned, but only if disruptive. So, what we need is evidence of disruption in order to consider arbitration remedies enforcement. Diffs, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: I have some familiarity with this case from the OTRS side and I have to agree completely with MastCell here - this series of edits [69] is almost identical to the problematic edits that first brought the Arb case. Note that they're using their older preferred version of the article which conveniently leaves out the overly well sourced paragraph on the multiple organizations that have pointed out their diplomas are bunk - instead, they put in a lengthy, misleading bit about being recognized as an entity by various states - this has absolutely nothing to do with accreditation and simply means they are registered to do business, but it does give the appearance of propriety. Given Uponleft's knowledgeable response above and his reverts to include the same information (with misleading edit summaries), I'd be tempted to indef him as a sock of one of the banned editors. Since Bluestrawsz, Luceey, Serologic, Stapler have been assisting (its the same series of edits and its interesting that they switch between accounts during each series) I see no reason not to ban the lot of them from the article - they are either socks or meatpuppets but very obviously coordinated and yes, whitewashing the article yet again. Shell ^babelfish 17:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One way to curtail disruptive activity by new users, would be to simply place the article in semi-protection. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. -- Avi (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Avi. If these SPAs engage in disruptive behavior such as multiple reverts, or adding same material again and again, these accounts could be indef-blocked for disruption. I move to close this report and open a new one if that happened. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Blocked indef, upheld by consensus

AE regulars will remember Astrotrain from his numerous past visits here. For those of you who have not run into him previously, first, a refresher on him.

Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Astrotrain is on a 1RR/week + civility parole on "Troubles" related articles as part of The Troubles ArbCom case

I have just blocked Astrotrain for 72 hours for disruptive editing/edit-warring on articles like Arthur Chatto (an article that was merged to the article about his mother per an AfD back in April ([82]). Instead of opening a DRV about the article, he just shows up, and reverts the redirect back to a full article against consensus.

Blocks do not work that well against Astrotrain, because he's a habitual edit-warrior on a random schedule. He'll show up, revert a bunch of articles to his preferred version, edit war on a few of them that get noticed, and then disappear for 72-96 hours at a time.

I am asking that, short of an indefblock (look at his block log, for gosh sake!!!), that his revert parole be expanded, and that be placed on a 0RR parole on ALL articles, not just "Troubles" related articles. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that Talk:Arthur Chatto has a link to the first AfD discussion (result: keep) and does not link to the second AfD, so perhaps he didn't know that there was a more recent consensus for the redirect. I would be reluctant to change anything on this incident alone. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[83] Please note that he knew well that the article was a merge, he figured he could just source it with a live article (he was also informed multiple times that there was an AfD that was a merge, he just went on reverting merrily). Also, look at the reason for his unblock request. That should tell you what he's here for. SirFozzie (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, fair enough. I didn't dig that deep into it, so thanks for the additional details. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NP. I'm somewhat familiar with him, and he's somewhat familiar with me [84]. Sorry, Astro, but if I was the dictator of Zimbabwe, as he is now claiming on his talk page (see that edit), I'd spend a hell of a lot less time on WP :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support 0RR on all articles. Sandstein declined unblock and extended to a week. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Um, no, just no. No way are we ever putting this guy on 0RR. Hasn't he had enough chances already? The crap he put on his talkpage was vile. So I've blocked him indefinitely. I trust there will be no objections. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I do have an objection. We have invested a lot of time and effort keeping Troubles editors with a history of trouble on the project. We have done that by putting them under editing restrictions, despite extensive block histories and plenty of vile language. If we are willing to do that with one editor, we should be at least willing to try to give other editors a similar opportunity. We have nothing to lose by putting Astrotrain on a 0RR. If he is unwilling to adhere to that, then indef blocking is an option. I feel jumping to that now will simply stoke the feeling among editors from one "side" that the other is getting preferential treatment (and, to be fair, they would appear to have a point). Rockpocket 21:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are there any editors from the other "side" left to complain? If he wants to try and negotiate some unblock terms you go from there, until then this discussion is moot. His block log is a disgrace, his comments every time he's been blocked recently are a disgrace, and his current editing is a disgrace. The onus is on him to show he can improve his behaviour. 15 cans of Stella₃₀₃ 00:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if there is (at least from any account that I am aware of) which kind of supports my point, if anything. True, efforts to keep these editors editing presupposes that they are willing to work within restrictions. If not, then it is a waste of our time. I'm not about to argue about the disgraceful nature of his comments or reaction to previous admin action. But that is not particularly unusual in the Trouble's sphere, and hasn't lead to indef blocks when others have said similar (and worse!). But you are right, we should wait to see what Astrotrain has to say for himself before considering alternatives. Rockpocket 01:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I agree. Partially. See also Number 50. Fundamentally I disagree with the whole way the Troubles flamewars are being handled. Too many second chances. And third chances. And twentieth chances. It looks weak. It simply gives out the message that if you're Irish or British you can get away with murder. If these chaps were from the Balkans instead they wouldn't last a week. There's also a miserable attitude to the effect that "we can't ban anyone for fear of sockpuppetry". Which is just silly. Obviously unenforceable rules shouldn't exist, but it has been comprehensively shown that we can prevent effective sockpuppetry.

Whatever else has happened, this guy has violated basic community norms to such an extent his time here has to be over. Whatever the wikipolitics of the situation. At any rate, he can hardly accuse me of national bias. I'm as English as they come. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand that perspective and for a long time advocated it myself. But the bottom line is that people who have very similar records on very similar subjects are not indef blocked, and instead were given a chance to edit with severe restrictions. Is anyone willing to take such a firm, no-nonsense line with those people too, and incur the inevitable wrath of their noisy supporters? Or are we only enforcing policy when the subject is lacking friends in high places. I would rather we appear weak than biased. Rockpocket 21:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the problem is that in doing so we often end up appearing both weak and biased. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"But the bottom line is that people who have very similar records on very similar subjects are not indef blocked, and instead were given a chance to edit with severe restrictions. Is anyone willing to take such a firm, no-nonsense line with those people too, and incur the inevitable wrath of their noisy supporters?" - answer, yes. Besides, appearance of bias is not actuality of bias. I do not see here how appearance of weakness would not also be actuality of weakness. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not object to the indef either. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Umm - I'm kinda unhappy with an indefinite block of Astrotrain as I don't think we've exhausted all avenues here at all. While his recent behaviour has been atrocious[85] - I've already blocked the guy myself for this two weeks back - but I don't believe he's beyond redemption. As Rocky points out, we've had far worse on the project and they're still editing under clear constraints and conditions. Why can't we negotiate criteria like this for Astrotrain, work towards his buy-in, and let him edit again? Maybe appoint a neutral, non-Troubles mentor? This seems to me to be only fair here - Alison ^❤ 05:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm willing to explore this. How about terms similar to User:Vintagekits. These never-ending disruptive edit warriors onethnic topics all over wiki are getting old. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would agree with allowing Astrotrain return on restrictions along the lines of what were imposed on Vintagekits. BigDunc^Talk 14:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As long as a 0RR is involved..Astrotrain has too much of a habit of logging on, edit-warring, and logging off. SirFozzie (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How much more stringent can we get? 1RR/week is the maximum revert limitation I can recall anyone ever being under. 0RR would be unprecedented, and perhaps for good reason. If you can't cope with 1RR then surely increasing that to 0RR is just plain silly. It indicates that the sanctioned editor is transparently unfit for editing.

Besides, has anyone noticed that this latest revert-warring was not related to the Troubles? So, will a ban from all Troubles pages really make that much of a difference? Astrotrain looks to me like an incorrigible revert-warrior regardless of topic, and those have no place here. VK is at least a good and constructive editor on boxing articles, or so I am led to believe. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've had limited experience with this user before, and I never had the impression that anything other than indef block would be enough for this user. He almost got it a year ago. I do believe in a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th chance, but there are limits. This user will not reform. If he requests unblock under a promise to live under a 0RR, no sockpuppeting rule, then that alone would be sufficient. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I recently had experience with Astrotrain, and had warned him that I was considering an extension of his 1RR restriction to all content. After that, I started looking more closely at his editing history, with a mind to trying to develop an individualised editing restriction, similar to that affecting Vintagekits. In the case of Vintagekits, there was pretty clear evidence that he was a useful contributor in at least one specific area, and so the restrictions were tailored to keep him where he was helpful, and keep him away from areas where he wasn't. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a similar area of useful contributions from Astrotrain; it seems he has edit-warred in just about every area he's worked. Nonetheless, like The Evil Spartan, I'd be willing to consider an editing restriction of no reverts, adding information after discussion and consensus on talk pages, no recreation of deleted material (which is why he was blocked this time), and no sockpuppeting. In addition, any allegations that other editors are terrorists or dictators or racists should result in immediate indef block. Risker (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but that's just silly. I would block anyone indefinitely for alleging that other editors were dictators or terrorists pending retraction. That would be a meaningless restriction. Ditto for a "no sockpuppeting" restriction. I've already pointed out that 0RR is overkill. So what's left? We don't have to exhaust every conceivable avenue before we ban someone, we just have to decide that the encyclopedia would be better off if we did. Particularly when many of those "conceivable avenues" are either meaningless or stupid. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I endorse the indefinite block and counsel against giving him yet another chance. From my limited experience with Astrotrain - which always involved disruption of some sort on his part - the troubles he causes outweigh any productive contributions he may have made. Labeling fellow editors as dictators, etc. is just not the way we collaborate here.  Sandstein  09:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we please not archive this yet as I've further comments to make here (busy IRL) and I am also waiting for a statement from Astrotrain - Alison ^❤ 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certainly. There are at least three major paths of options here and we need to reach consensus and it's only fair that Astrotrain have a chance to make his input. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was completely unacceptable - support indefinite block. PhilKnight (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As do I. I don't see this user reforming his ways even if he is provided a mentor with no background in the Troubles case. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I've stalled things for long enough now & it's clear that Astrotrain is no longer interested in the project. He's commented a number of times since being notified but has not addressed anything. I think it's time to close this AE case - Alison ^❤ 03:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Neptun88 blocked as a likely sock of Giovanni33. MastCell ^Talk 16:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also submit that Aliciahjoy (talk · contribs) is an obvious Giovanni sock.

OK, I am reluctant to bring this before enforcement, because I know we will see the same crimineyload of wikilawyering that we saw in the recently closed Giovanni case. However, I believe the connection here is fairly obvious that Neptun88 (talk · contribs) is Giovanni33 (talk · contribs). The checkuser case came up false, but this is not surprising, given Giovanni has been known to edit from IPs stemming from distinct locations around the globe (see below). The evidence:

1. This is someone's sock. The first edit used a common Wikipedia edit summary, and the second edit used another Wikipedia acronym. The editor's fourth edit was to jump into an edit war: [86]. Giovanni socks are known for doing all this.
2. The user shows the same propensity for edit warring as Giovanni33.
3. The editor is engaging in an edit war on one of Giovanni's favorite subjects, and is engaging in an edit war on a page which Giovanni is sockingpuppetting on (checkuser proven)
4. The editor has a similar style username to a known Giovanni sock who was editing this page (Aquarius28).
5. The editor, like Giovanni, is supporting the edits of other SPA accounts. Cf. [87] [88] [89] [90] with [91]. Like Giovanni, the different IPs mysteriously come from different parts of the world: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence#IPs_that_have_edited_Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States. As one person pointed out on the ArbCom case, [92] "All in all, there is a very disturbing pattern of new users with no prior history at Wikipedia arriving and coming to all the pages he edits, agreeing with him on the talk page, reverting to his version, claiming consensus where none exists, and following him to other articles and voting for whatever he votes for."
6. The editor, like Giovanni, exhibits the same propensity for sniping at other edits in a semi-uncivil manner: [93].
7. The editor uses the same edit summaries that Giovanni uses; cf. [94] [95] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal_conservatism&diff=prev&oldid=225624420 with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence#Evidence_by_The_Evil_Spartan. Cf. with the use of "rv" to start an edit summary, and the oft reference to the talk page.
8. The editor, like Giovanni, primarily uses his edit warring to support leftwing philosophy: [96].

I am pleased to see that Giovanni is finally branching out from only editing as a SPA. I think it's fairly obvious he learned from his Arbcom case that he was a touch too obvious last time. However, it's equally obvious that Giovanni is Giovanni, and he simply cannot keep himself from edit warring on his favorite pages, from using socks to back himself up, and from being mildly snipy. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aliciahjoy (talk · contribs) seems to have been created specifically to participate in an editing dispute in a manner that advanced Giovanni33's position, and I'm willing to block the account (which has been inactive) on that basis. The checkuser case involving Neptun88 (talk · contribs) is being reviewed - I think this is a likely sock on a behavioral basis, but will await further checkuser results and/or opinions here from other admins before acting. MastCell ^Talk 17:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MastCell you have my support. This is highly suspicious and probably blockable on disruption alone. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ditto. WP:DUCK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some observations:

• Four hours after Spartan's post above, we have this edit from Neptun88: "neutralized left-wing POV, the book had also positive reviews". Also note that the book in question is Mao: The Unknown Story, a subject G33 is very very familiar with (being the source of his 1RR/W). Could this be a covering edit in response to Spartan's post? Certainly seems implausible for him to be suddenly "neutralizing left-wing POV" after so many edits to add left-wing POV. I remember looking through N88's contributions a few days ago and was puzzled by that out-of-place edit, but I didn't know about this AE post at the time. Now it fits.
• We know already from RFCU that Aquarius28 is G33. Does it seem to anyone else for it to be an unlikely coincidence that another aquatic-themed SPA - "Neptun88" - also ending in two letters, shows up in the same area? - Merzbow (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Closing this report; based on the above feedback, as well as the contribution pattern, Neptun88 is blocked as a likely sock of Giovanni33. I'll log this at the ArbCom case page. MastCell ^Talk 16:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]