Newtonspeed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), appears to be be latest reincarnate of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/HeadleyDown. See arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans. Please keep an eye on this editor. We should probably start with a checkuser, see archive: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/HeadleyDown. --Comaze 05:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing enforceable at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming. HeadleyDown appears to be banned by the community, rather than ArbCom. A more appropriate venue would be one of the admin noticeboards or directly contact one of admins who has blocked his other accounts. Thatcher131 06:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need. I am HeadleyDown. Just turning up the heat on Comaze and his COI antics. Feel free to kill my account. Newtonspeed 06:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's a surprise. 86.143.211.85 06:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beckjord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), better known as paranormal "investigator" Jon-Erik Beckjord, was banned for a year from Wikipedia in 2006 for inserting pseudoscientific garbage into articles relating to the paranormal (such as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster). He has since had his ban reset across two full calendar years for sockpuppetry.

On his Web site, Beckjord has information on how to revert the Bigfoot article back to his preferred version. And it's linked directly from his site's Bigfoot section. While he was here, he openly called for his supporters to help him insert his junk theories into the Bigfoot article--and is clearly still doing so.

It is evident that despite understanding our policies on verifiability and original research, the chances of him editing within policy are slightly better than finding a needle in a haystack. Furthermore, deliberately encouraging others to vandalize an article is a violation of the spirit of WP:MEAT. I therefore propose that Beckjord's ban be extended to indefinite.

I'd proposed this on WP:ANI, but was advised that this was a better venue. Blueboy96 19:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(For reference, the relevant case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord.) This all goes back to the issue of whether behavior on external sites can, or should, lead to onwiki blocks or bans. There have been only a very few cases where things posted on external sites have led to sanctions onwiki, and since he is already banned until February 6, 2008, I don't think extending it to indefinite would be worthwhile. Nor would it do much towards preventing any further bad edits, seeing provisions in the case make it easy for his account to be rebanned if he returns and misbehaves again. Any account that reverts to that version of the article can be indefinitely blocked immediately due to its similarity to him, per the "Edits by other accounts reasonably believed to be Beckjord shall be considered Beckjord for the purposes of this decision" text. Picaroon (Talk) 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picaroon does have a good point--the fact he's doing this makes it very likely that he'll be gone for good once this ArbCom ban is lifted (the decision allows him to be banned with the agreement of any three admins). However, I still say it's grossly inappropriate to use your site to encourage others to vandalize Wikipedia. I therefore propose amending the decision to read, "If the Bigfoot article is reverted in any manner similar to Beckjord's editing style, Beckjord shall be banned indefinitely." Blueboy96 12:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really the best place for this discussion. This noticeboard can not modify arbitration decisions; you would have to go to RFAR for that. If you want consensus for a community ban, you would be more likely to get sufficient input at one of the admins' noticeboards. Thatcher131 06:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity0 (talk · contribs) again broke his revert parole when he made two reverts to Anarchism. Diffs: 19:25, 29 June 2007 - first revert, 12:40, 30 June 2007 - second revert, old version to which he reverted to – same changes to anarcho-capitalism section are best visible in accompanying diff. -- Vision Thing -- 13:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Thing is being dishonest here. First edit is not a revert. Last diff he provides is from months ago. Vision Thing is also gaming the wikipedia system, by using the fact that I am on revert parole, to undermine my efforts to edit the page to reflect a consensus reached by WP:3O editors, and others, on Talk:Anarchism which VT alone is ignoring. -- infinity0 14:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decline. Edit warring is unacceptable. However, Infinity0 has recently commented on the talk page and other editors have complained about VT's reverts. Additionally, reading the discussion history, it indeed seems as though Infinity0 is trying to enforce consensus in good faith. (Both users blocked for 24 hours due to the edit warring with an encouragement to discuss, not continually revert and to be polite and constructive in their dealings with other editors. Infinity0. Vision Thing.) Vassyana 14:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: There is also a new arbitration case involving these editors currently pending at WP:RfAr. Newyorkbrad 23:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles related to Kosovo are currently on article probation per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. On 10 June, I rewrote and greatly expanded Gazimestan speech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article related to Kosovo. The new version was intended to reflect mainstream views from multiple scholarly sources and to take out previous material that was a combination of original research and heavy reliance on material from a non-reliable source, a personal website called emperors-clothes.com ([1]). Commencing 18 June, Nikola Smolenski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) began repeatedly edit-warring on the article, initially reverting the new version without discussion ([2], [3]) and later seeking to re-insert personal commentary, partisan views and non-reliable sources ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). This conduct has continued up to today. The issue of the non-reliable source has been discussed on Talk:Gazimestan speech and Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO#Discussion 6; jpgordon (who was not an arbitrator at the time of the Kosovo RfAr), KillerChihuahua and I all concur that emperors-clothes.com is not a reliable source, and the policy on reliable sources has repeatedly been explained to Nikola. However, Nikola does not accept this consensus and has repeatedly edit-warred here and on other articles to add links to the website, including links to copyright violations, for which he has previously been blocked.

This appears to be a clear violation of the article probation, specifically regarding POV editing, edit-warring and the arbitrary use of reverts without discussion. I've discussed the issue with jpgordon, who suggested bringing it here for broader review. -- ChrisO 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring is continuing ([9], [10]). Action really needs to be taken on this. -- ChrisO 19:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked 48 hours to give others time to repair the damage and get it stable again. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here on the Evidence page of the Minun Arbitration case, it said that 81.153.148.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was a sockpuppet of Minun, which is all but confirmed by the IP's edits, and in this WP:ANI discussion.

Looking at the contributions of this IP, the IP edited James May] on May 24th, 2007, which would violate the terms of Minuns ban:

Should Minun, editing under any username or IP, violate any ban imposed by or under this decision he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 6 to 0 02:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we assume good faith here, and assume that the IP has been assigned to someone besides Minun, or treat it as a violation? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 05:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be highly improbable for this IP, which is British Telecom, to be assigned to the same person for more than a year. Plus, the article is not something Minun was ever interested in. Seems unrelated. Thatcher131 23:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nrcprm2026 has edited Depleted Uranium and related articles in vilation of his arbcom ban. This is not an islated incident, and I had hoped that he would defer from doing this again, but he persists. A recent RfCu has confirmed his recent violations, but the archive on the RfCu page shows a long history and dozens of edits using sockpuppets. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator response: Could you please be more specific about which accounts you believe violated the ban and on which article(s). Thanks, Newyorkbrad 03:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, it was user:Rtt71 on Gulf War Syndrome; but has also been: user:GVWilson, user:-Alex- and user:Black Omega on depleted uranium, and too many ip's and other accounts to name (the RfCu link has all that). I have repeatedle and politely made him aware that his actions were noticed, but he refuses to listen. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for two weeks. [11] Thatcher131 01:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again pro-LaRouche editors are attempting to fill Wikipedia pages with pro-LaRouche propaganda, and are deleting properly cited criticisms, especially concerning the issue of antisemitism. How many times does this process have to be repeated? What are the appropriate options and sanctions? Please visit the pages Lyndon LaRouche and United States v. LaRouche (among others). The same pattern of endless circular discussions, deletions, revert wars, and other nonsense is once again happening. There has to be a better solution than wasting scores of hours of serious editors. Please intervene and stop this ridiculous waste of time. I fully understand that we need to represent the views of LaRouche and his supporters, but when the pro-LaRouche editors seek to sanitize pages concerning his conviction and his history of antisemitism, it is a disgrace. Sometimes basic morality and an attention to facts needs to be a factor. Please take responsibility for this shameful situation.--Cberlet 02:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three pro-LaRouchite editors, Marvin Diode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), MaplePorter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), NathanDW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). continuously seek to minimize criticism of LaRouche on the Lyndon LaRouche page, to the point of introducing factual errors into the entry. For example, the section to which the subsection on Alleged coded discourse keeps getting restored is titled: "Criticism of LaRouche, 1979-1985." However the cited criticisms from the Encyclopedia Judaica, Wall Street Journal, and New Internationalist, all refer to criticsms of LaRouche's antisemitism since the year 2000. The subtitle "Alleged coded discourse" should be "Alleged coded antisemitic discourse" otherwise the subtitle misrepresents the core topic of the subsection.

The outcome of the repeated deletions and reversions is to minimize ther seriousness of the criticism of antisemitism and to bury and hide the criticism of antisemitism. This raises issues of prejudice and bigotry that should concern Wikipedia as a whole, and that need to be addressed through NPOV and balanced editing of the text. This appears impossible so long as Marvin Diode, MaplePorter, and NathanDW are allowed to edit LaRouche related pages.--Cberlet 17:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this Arbcom decision:

• Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense.

See, for example: [12], [13], [14], [15]. --Cberlet 17:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I request that User: Don't lose that number [16] also be banned from editing LaRouche related pages on the same grounds as per Marvin Diode, MaplePorter and NathanDW.--Dking 20:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I agree, as Don't lose that number (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is now simply reverting without editing.--Cberlet 21:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional instances

Despite repeated requests and warnings, two editors (User:MaplePorter and User:NathanDW) continue to create fictitious cites to create the false impression that an entry in the Encyclopedia Judaica is really planted there by an anti-LaRouche author (in this case, me in my non-Wiki persona). These actions have repeatedly misrepresented the content and the authorship of the cited material. See: diff; diff; diff; diff. --Cberlet 13:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Cberlet 02:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now another editor, User: Don't lose that number is totally misrepresenting an actual quote from Robert L. Bartley, writing in The Wall Street Journal. Bartley terms the LaRouchite "Children of Satan" title "overt anti-Semitism," yet according to User: Don't lose that number, "Most of this stuff is clearly 'coded' -- it's definately not the real thing." Then User: Don't lose that number moves the material under a subheading "Allegations of coded antisemitic discourse." Especially on a BLP page, attempts to minimize, dismiss, or hide published allegations of antisemitism or any form of bigotry raise serious issues for a serious encyclopedia. See: diff. --Cberlet 13:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Don't lose that number

First of all, if the ArbCom accepts this case, I would be happy to participate, and I would suggest that User:Dking also be named as a participant. He has a POV, editing style, and pattern of violations of Wikipedia policy that is virtually indistiguishable from those of User:Cberlet.

Allow me to make the observation that the ArbCom case cited by Cberlet says the following: "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." (emphasis mine) As Cberlet notes in his statement, all the content disputes have taken place at "LaRouche-related pages." Consequently, this action is being taken in the wrong venue; Cberlet is not presenting any violations of the previous ArbCom decisions. It says above under "enforcement" that "Enforcement requests against users should be based on the principles and decisions in their arbitration case." Cberlet is alleging edit warring, and the proper venue would be a new ArbCom case.

I contend that two editors, Cberlet and Dking, are the chief cause of disruption and edit warring at the LaRouche articles, for the following reasons:

Violations of WP:COI

• Political activist Chip Berlet edits as Cberlet, and political activist Dennis King edits as Dking. Both have campaigned agressively against LaRouche since the 1970s, and their editing at Wikipedia is aggressive to the point of belligerency. At least one impartial observer[17] voiced concern about Cberlet's editing of the article United States v. LaRouche.
• On April 15, 2007, and on subsequent days, User:Athaenara of the COI team initiated a major cleanup of LinkSpam by Dking, mainly on the LaRouche articles.[18] Dking has continued to add links to his personal website to these pages, as recently as today, July 6.[19][20]
• Beginning no later than 1981, Chip Berlet and Dennis King collaborated together in a campaign to allege that Lyndon LaRouche was involved in illegal activities, and agitated together for criminal prosecution, as in this article. As Cberlet and Dking, they have agressively launched content disputes to remove material that displeases them, particularly quotes from prominent individuals that suggest LaRouche's trial was politically motivated.
• Cberlet initiated an edit war beginning on May 31[21] to remove a reference to Ramsey Clark from the lead of Lyndon LaRouche. Chip Berlet has published attacks on Clark for his involvement in the LaRouche legal case.[22]
• No sooner had Cberlet given up on removing the Clark reference, but he initiated a new edit war regarding the insertion of material he had written on LaRouche for Encyclopedia Judaica[23]. He claims credit here for writing the section, but when he added it to the article, he avoided attributing it to himself. This was reverted by other editors, who objected to the length of the material inserted, as well as the self-citing. I added a compromise version here, which I felt was a fair summary of the claims made in Berlet's entry. Cberlet commenced edit war, insisting that the entire segment must be included. I should add that most allegations that LaRouche is anti-Semitic, both in Wikipedia articles and in the outside world, originate with King and Berlet. Other editors have been extremely tolerant of their self-citing on this issue, despite what I think are serious violations of WP:UNDUE.
• Dking initiated an edit war[24] at United States v. LaRouche on June 12, by deleting a quote that compares the LaRouche case to the Dreyfus affair (see next section.)

Violations of WP:BLP

• Dennis King and Chip Berlet have pursued a slander campaign against LaRouche for decades by alleging that many of his political utterances contain coded forms of anti-Semitism, despite LaRouche's open and unambiguous denunciations of anti-Semitism. Editors Dking and Cberlet have repeatedly self-cited these claims.
• In this edit, Cberlet attempts to minimize the importance of a quote from LaRouche, opposing anti-Semitism, by placing it at the end of a long segment. The segment is primarily devoted to claims by Dennis King and Chip Berlet that LaRouche is an anti-Semite.

Edit warring and tendentious editing

• At United States v. LaRouche, Dking has removed the quote with the Dreyfus analogy approximately 25 times 30 times within 3 weeks, against consensus. He has heaped abuse on the author of the quote, a Professor of Constitutional and International law at the University of Mainz in Germany who had served in the German military during WWII and subsequently was a Brigadier General in the West German Reserve. Dking accompanied his constant deletions with edit summaries such as "Removed senile Nazi baron's ignorant and bigoted statement once again" [25] and "deleted once against disgusting and offensive linking of anti-Semite LaRouche to Alfred Dreyfuss--a linkage concocted in senile brain of aging and ignorant Nazi baron" [26]. Cberlet followed suit with edit summaries such as "Revert: deleted fawning sycophancy from a non-notable Nazi collaborator." [27] This sort of behavior did little to help resolve content disputes. Cberlet and Dking were asked on the talk page to provide some evidence for their claim that Von der Heydte was either a Nazi or a Nazi collaborator, and they were unable to do so. The Wikipedia article Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte states that he "had become involved in several brawls with pro-Nazi students, and only evaded the Gestapo by rejoining his old cavalry regiment."

Incivility

• At Talk:United States v. LaRouche, Cberlet mocked one one my comments by creating a new poll, signing my name to an opinion which I did not share, and posting the edit summary, "Is this formulation of your views correct User:Don't lose that number?" [28]

(to be continued) --Don't lose that number 22:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MaplePorter

If you visit the pages Lyndon LaRouche and United States v. LaRouche and check the edit histories, you will notice three things:

1. These articles were quite stable until Cberlet initiated the edit war over Ramsey Clark in June
2. The edits by Cberlet and Dking by far outnumber those of any other editors
3. Their edit summaries are tendentious and insulting.

Visiting these two page histories might give you a quick snapshot of what the problem is here. Another issue which has come up and should be addressed is that under WP:BLP, the articles should avoid an "advocacy journalism" tone, and here we have two advocacy journalists who are editing Wikipedia with the apparent objective of controlling these articles in violation of WP:OWN, and dominating them with citations to their own political tracts.

I would also like to point out that the accusations of antisemitism are a serious matter. Basing such charges on a purported ability to "decode" various "hidden messages" in LaRouche publications, an ability which Berlet and King claim to possess and which is cited throughout the Wikipedia articles, is troubling from the standpoint of WP:BLP. It becomes especially egregious when Berlet or King present their claims in these articles as if they were undisputed fact (see this edit: [29].) --MaplePorter 13:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Marvin Diode

I object to being called a "pro-LaRouchite editor." I like to participate in discussions about political controversy, and try to be reasonable voice. I have played a part at Talk:House demolition,Talk:Barney Frank,Talk:The Intelligence Summit, and Talk:Abortion debate, in addition to various LaRouche page disputes. I came to most of these through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, and I have see some heated discussions, but I have not seen any other editors at Wikipedia that are as intransigent and uncivil as Dking and Cberlet. --Marvin Diode 23:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object to being called a "pro-LaRouchite editor." Why do you do object to that? Please note that punctuation marks should be placed outside the quotation mark in proper english.--Astor Piazzolla 17:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request by NathanDW

I propose that this be moved to WP:RfAR, because Cberlet is not alleging any violation of previous ArbCom rulings. This warrants a whole new ArbCom case. --NathanDW 01:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator comment

As one of the commenters noted above, the LaRouche arbitration decision cited does not provide for enforcement by admins, but only on application to the Arbitration Committee. Moreover, the proscriptions against adding gratuituous mentions of Lyndon LaRouche or unduly promoting him are difficult to apply in the context of the articles concerning Mr. LaRouche himself. The editing restrictions and scope of the remedies may warrant updating in light of the fact that the original arbitration ruling is more than 3 years old. I recommend that either a request for clarification or a new arbitration case be filed at WP:RfAr. Newyorkbrad 03:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Brad. The penalties for using LaRouche publications as sources only apply to articles about other people, not LaRouche himself. This looks like a content dispute, and can not be resolved by admin action without actually looking at the content of the dispute and deciding that someone is "right" and someone is "wrong" which admins are not supposed to do. (Although intentional misrepresentation of sources might be actionable under a generalized probation clause for disruption, but these editors are not named in the prior case.) I think mediation should be attempted, then a new Arbitration case, if necessary. Thatcher131 18:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Diyako, I have concluded that User:D.Kurdistani is a sockpuppet of User:Diyako/User:Xebat. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman, Diyako/Xebat was banned for a period of 1 year starting on 7 May 2006. D.Kurdistani began editing on 17 August 2006, and thus violated Diyako/Xebat's ban. Since that ban has now expired, I'm unsure of what action should be taken now. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that D.Kurdistani also made "blatant, ethnically-motivated personal attacks" ([30], [31], [32]) continuing the disruption Diyako/Xebat was banned for. -- Cat ^chi? 20:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I edited the Neofascism article yesterday and today (hardly an article in good state), and pointed out on the talk page [33], that one section named Neo-fascism#Neo-fascist_international.3F is an original research synthesis of source material, and thus not allowed under WP:OR policy. This got me a rebuke [34] by User:Cberlet, who brought the above Arbcom case against me. My edits on the article were reverted [35] today by another user, User:Tazmaniacs, involved in my earlier Arbcom case. Part of revert edit summary talked about this material sourced, but this is not case, as the notions on Lega Nord, hardly a neo-fascist party, are still left unsourced in his reverts. I have now added POV tags to the particular sections [36], and explained the reasons therefore on the article's talk page [37]. But there seems to exist an unfair burden on my part to justify any edit I make. It's a catch 22 situation, if I make edits to an article, they get easily attacked as being "tendentious," if I go to the an article's talk page, and discuss things before making edits, I get attacked of having a particular POV, while the only thing I ask for are properly sourced edits. It is annoying to be accused of "sanatizing material"[38], while just a few days I started an article on Movement of Organized Nationalist Action, a group in Guatemala involved in killing César Montenegro Paniagua. Intangible2.0 17:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archived as stale. Thatcher131 17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this request at 3RR report page [39], but as no action was taken in 2 days, I am filing to ArbCom enforcement. By the ArbCom decision [40], User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani has been placed on 1RR per week parole. User:Hajji Piruz has violated his parole by POV/OR pushing, revert warring, gaming the system with partial reverts and spoiling the consensus achieved on the page for several months.

Safavid dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hajji Piruz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Atabek 16:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous version reverted to: 23:44, 6 July 2007

• 1st Partial Revert: 15:21, 7 July 2007 -- over User:Atabek - removing prior edit, and replacing "Azeri Turkic" with "most probably Kurdish".
• 2nd Partial Revert: 23:50, 7 July 2007 -- over User:151.204.41.4 and earlier edit by User:Grandmaster -- removing prior edit, replacing "probably Kurdish" with "most likely Kurdish".
• 3rd Partial Revert: 16:08, 11 July 2007 -- over User:Aynabend -- removing prior edit and reinserting again "were probably of Kurdish descent".

Thanks. Atabek 11:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Canvassing, you have already brought up your case on the 3rr page.

These were edits, not reverts. I never reverted to any previous version or removed anyones edits in favor of a previous version, I simply made edits.

The Safavids article has the clean up tag, and all I'm doing it is cleaning it up by making fixes and re-writing sentences for them to make more sense. This is not reverted, I havent reverted anything, I simply edited. For example, in the second diff shown, I never changed what the article said, I merely changed the sentence for it to make more sense (I did not change anything at all except to make the sentence sound better and make more sense, did not remove anything at all or revert to any previous version). Again, in the last diff Atabek has posted, I simply re-wrote a sentence for it to sound better, I did not change anything drastically, like he suggests.

The second diff Atabek posted, I changed "...is compounded by the ideological distortions which took place during their political reign, although they were probably of Kurdish or Iranian descent" to "is compounded by the ideological distortions which took place during their political reign, although they were probably Iranian, most likely Kurdish, descent" because the previous sentence did not make sense. Since you are not familiar with the subject, I will explain, Kurds are an Iranian people, so it doesnt make sense to say that they were probably of Kurdish or Iranian descent, because how can someone be of British and Indo-European descent, the British are a sub branch of Indo-Europeans, its the same with Kurds and Iranian. So I changed that sentence to say "probably Iranian, most likely Kurdish" which means that they were probably of Iranian origin, most likely of the Kurdish sub group.

Its the same situation for the third diff Atabek posted. None of these were reverts, these were fixes. None of these were reverts to any previous version and the second and third diff's had no removal of information at all, contrary to what Atabek claims. Examine the diff's closely.Hajji Piruz 13:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archived as stale. Thatcher131 17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ThePackLeader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose account who appeared shortly after the page was downgraded to semi-protect from full protect, and is making disruptive edits to St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine and Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine who is restrained from doing so by the final ArbCom decision Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/St_Christopher#Single-purpose_accounts_restrained. These disruptive edits include: 1) archiving or just plain blanking the section discussing spa accounts on the talk page [41], and 2) revert warring on the main page against consensus: [42], [43]. I request that this editor be banned from making edits to these pages as specified in the final ArbCom decision. Leuko 11:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ThePackLeader (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely per terms of that arbitration case. Picaroon (Talk) 18:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buzybeez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another single purpose account that has appeared, and is making similar disruptive edits against consensus to the blocked ThePackLeader. Most likely a meatpuppet. Leuko 18:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not look like a single purpose account to me; only about half of its contributions are to the pages in question. If you think the user is being disruptive in general, raising it at the incidents noticeboard is best. If you think it is a sockpuppet of thePackLeader, you can file a request for checkuser. But I'm uncomfortable blocking it as a single purpose account. Lets see if any other admins have a difference of opinion on the matter. Picaroon (Talk) 19:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all of the users' initial edits were to the article's talk page, and as soon as the editor could edit the article (after the 4 days due to semi-protect status) he/she did so. After that, the editor did make a few minor edits to other articles, but I still think that this is an WP:SPA and probable sock. Leuko 19:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on the conflict of interest noticeboard regarding this user. One participant bought up the possibility that said user has violated the terms of his arbcom probation. Please comment over there, as to keep the discussion in one place. MER-C 04:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No action. He has been banned by the community and may only appeal directly through Arbcom. There's nothing to be done here. Thatcher131 17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As part of his parole, Ombudsman (talk · contribs) is banned from tendentious editing to any medical article. This is per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others.

For a little while now, Ombudsman has continued to violate the terms of his parole. When warned, e.g. by Midgley (talk · contribs), that this is the case, Ombudsman rudely removes talk page messages claiming that they are "vandalism".[44] This has made open and rational discussion of this user's editing behaviour practically impossibly.

I would have enforced the block if not for my own long history with this difficult editor. JFW | T@lk 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ombudsman also has a habit of flagging edits that make significant additions/changes to content as minor ([45], [46], [[47], [48]); often accompanied by brusque (dare I say incivil?) edit summaries: rv: rm bias, rv: restore npov, rv: undo unexplained pov insertion. Many of these edits were part of an edit war that he was engaged in on Arthur Krigsman.

His response to a request to not mark substantial edits as minor ([49]) was met with an insistence that he is operating in a 'grey area' and the implication that any edit which introduces a non-neutral POV (that is, a POV different from Ombudsman's) can be treated as vandalism. From Talk:Eric Fombonne#Reliable sources, it appears that other editors have also requested – to no avail – that Ombudsman take more care on this issue.

As with Jfdwolff, I have a long history with this difficult editor, and feel that it would be best if a third party reviewed these concerns so as to avoid any possible appearance of a conflict of interest. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Osli73 was put on one year edit parole requiring that he make only one revert per week and discuss edits on discussion page before making edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Probations

Osli73 is again making multiple reverts -- several per day -- at the Srebrenica Massacre article. See this page for number of recent edits and number of undo's by Osli73. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&action=history

You can see on this page that he has made all of these July 21-22 edits with no discussion at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Srebrenica_massacre&action=history

Osli73 appears to have no intention of abiding by his parole. He has used a sockpuppet to avoid parole, but mostly as soon as he has any freedom at all, he simply ignores his parole using user:Osli73. It usually takes a few weeks -- if not longer -- for administrators to sanction him. Hopefully that will not be the case this time. See at the link below that Osli73 has been blocked several times but as soon as his user name is allowed to edit again he goes right back to violating parole.

Examples:

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for 2 weeks for breaking the revert limit on Srebrenica massacre; also banned from editing Srebrenica massacre for 3 months. Thatcher131 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for two weeks for directly violating his probation and revert parole at Srebrenica massacre. --Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for one week for directly violating his probation and revert parole by using a sockpuppet to edit war at Srebrenica massacre. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked KarlXII (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Osli73 (talk · contribs) proven by checkuser. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Recently he made a rather strange revert deleting the fact that Dutch peacekeepers were armed. In some cases in Bosnia, they were not armed, for example in the Bihac area. There is no question the Dutch troops in Srebrenica were armed. He knows this. He also knows that the sentence he deleted parts of is a sentence that editors have taken a lot of time and effort composing. I believe he has made this edit to test whether anyone is watching what he is doing. If no one holds him accountable, then, if he follows his earlier pattern, he will continue to revert the article more aggressively until there is a full blown edit war.

Please address this as soon as possible.

Thank you. Fairview360 17:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points:

1. The critical issue here is that I haven't been banned from editing the Srebrenica article, or limited to one edit per week. The Kosovo ArbCom decision simply stated that I "may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits". Everyone else is editing the article without having to explain everything they do.
2. The original remedy by the ArbCom was a bit weird - I was given one year's probation, by the Kosovo ArbCom which related to the Kosovo article for edit disputes on the Srebrenica massacre article. So, the remedy by the Kosovo ArbCom wasn't based on the the dispute on which it was set to arbitrate - the Kosovo article.
3. I'd have no problem adding back that the Dutch peacekeepers were armed, if that's the only sticking point. However, the edits made were to render the text NPOV.

CheersOsli73 20:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osli73 probation clearly states that he is "limited to one revert per article per week". He is willfully violating that restriction once again and as predicted he is now in the thick of an edit war on the Srebrenica article. Fairview360 18:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked' for one month by WikiLeon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Thatcher131 12:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hajji Piruz has been placed on revert parole and limited to one revert per page per week. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page [50]

However, on the List of Azerbaijani films: 1898-1919 Hajji Piruz removed the link to the country of Azerbaijan 3 times within the last 2 days: [51], [52] [53], which is a clear violation of his parole.

Reported by: Atabek 06:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a parole violation. I only made one revert on that article: [54]. My edit after that was not a revert [55]. Infact, it is completely different.

This is not the first time such a false report has been made. Atabek, the revert parole says that I cannot revert more than once per article per week. Assume good faith please.

I did not break my parole.

In the mean time, Atabek, Grandmaster, and Dacy69 have been trading reverts on that article. Grandmaster makes a partial revert: [56], then Atabek made a partial revert back to Grandmaster [57] and then Dacy69 makes a complete revert to Atabek [58] (interestingly, Dacy69's first edit since the 26, after a 4-5 day break, was to come and revert that article [59]).Hajji Piruz 15:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what I can see the purpose of your edits listed here (all 3 of them) was to remove the link to the article about Azerbaijan. So it was violation of parole. Grandmaster 17:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the purpose of my edits were to present the most accurate and factual information. Assume good faith. Wikipedia is not the place for POV or OR. The facts should always be presented.Hajji Piruz 00:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The clear intent of the edits was to remove the link to Azerbaijan as a country; two of the edits were clear reverts and the third edit had the effect of continuing the dispute by removing the link but replacing it with a different text. Blocked for 24 hours. Thatcher131 00:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Brahma_Kumaris.

It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that Green108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an incarnation of 195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Perhaps his account is being shared or he is editing and posting as a proxy. Green108 appears to have edited logged-out as 212.126.146.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The usual behaviours such as taunting opponents, edit waring, posting off-topic trolls [60], ignoring policies, guidelines and consensus are now in full evidence. Admin Utcursch recently cleaned up the article [61] after it was tagged to reflect the problems identified here and Green108 didn't waste anytime trying to revert all the changes [62] [63]. This pattern is still continuing. I suggest that it is absolutely impossible to keep the article within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines while it is under this kind of sustained pressure.

Addition suspected sockpuppets are Faithinhumanity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Bkangel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). These are being used to astroturf on the talk page [64] [65] and support his edit revisions [66] [67].

Checkuser request filed Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Green108.

Regards Bksimonb 18:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that Green108 is a sockpuppet of 195.82.106.244. He started contributing long before 195.82.106.244 was banned. Andries 18:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This leaves proxying as the only plausible possibility, but I have no idea how this can be proven beyond reasonable doubt or with even a degree of certainty. Andries 19:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andries. Yes I agree with your assessment. It is interesting to note that the various suspected sockpuppets of 244 that hammered the article mysteriously stopped as soon as Green108 arrived back in March. Also if you compare Green108's editing style from last year to now it is markedly different from March onwards. It would be interesting to see if any of the initial March edits match the edits made by the various socks before that. Now he is baiting editors into revert waring by making tendentious edits in a daily cycle which is exactly what 244, and the various suspected incarnations between January and March, did. Regards Bksimonb 09:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Checkuser came back with "Likely that Bkangel and Shortskirtlonglegs are Green108's sockpuppets." I found some more history at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/195.82.106.244 (2nd), which concludes with a note that the discussion was dealt with here back in March. That discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive4#User:195.82.106.244. GRBerry 16:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bkangel and Shortskirtlonglegs have been blocked indefinitely by WikiLeon; Green108 was blocked for one week by the same admin. GRBerry 02:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dacy69 is under ArbCom parole for 1 revert per week [68], and has been blocked three times since the ArbCom limited him on 1RR [69].

Dacy69 is gaming the system by meatpupeting for Grandmaster and Atabek by reverting for them when they exhaust their 1RR's. Please note that he never edited the following articles before or after the revert, neither did he participated in the talkpage before or after he reverted. His explanations in the talkpage for the reverts, were only a sentence long. He is clearly trying to circumvent his parole and continues his edit warring. The following are his reverts, edit summaries and the explanations in the discussion page.

Sahl ibn Sunbat reverts, edit summary: (rv - pls. engage in talkpage)

Talk "Agree that article should be fixed but not by using socks. I rv'ed new editor. Current version accomodate both version." He never edited the article before, neither did he participated in the talkpage.

House of Hasan Jalalyan reverts, edit summary: (rv - dont delete sourced info)

Talk "And put your arguments here so we will be able to discuss". Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.

List of Azerbaijani films 1898-1919 reverts, edit summary: (rv)

Talk "Discussion about the name of Azerbaijan does not belong here: Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.

Movses Kaghankatvatsi reverts, edit summary: "(rv - see discussion. we should use in article like that neutral source)"

Talk "MarshalBagramyan, your last edit has refrence to non-neutral source while you have reverted neutral source.". Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.

Khojaly Massacre revertes, edit summary: "(rv - see talkpage)"

Talk ":Statement is full POV we dont have personal interpretation here." Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.

This has already been discussed here: [70] --Grandmaster 06:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, stop soapboxing Wiki. We have discussed this issue on admin Alex Bakharev page. You are alone involved in revert and edit warring and removal of sourced information on so many pages, so punishment you ask for me is indeed should be imposed on you. My contribution is much larger than those you indicated and I left short comments in articles where much points have been already discussed or edit was obvious.--Dacy69 20:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As part of this arbitration it was ruled discussion should happen in WP:APARTHEID (see here). To make navigation of the series easier, a navbox was created ((Allegations of apartheid)). This navbox was subject to an AfD, which was no consensus[71] and further consensus after the AfD developed to edit the box to a version that includes a link to the centralized discussion. A number of anonymous editors have removed this link in the last few days, alleging it violates WP:ASR, and commented on the talk page [72]. However, one of the anon editors commented in an entirely different fashion, which leads one to believe that this is more a disruptive editor than a good faith attempt to defend WP:ASR[(see here). Furthermore, only anon editors have been involved, it is only rarely one sees anonymous editors defending policy, specially one as ignored and obscure as WP:ASR (I do agree with it, but facts are facts).

(The similarity of arguments leads one to believe this might be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet case, but I am raising this where appropriate.)

I just want clarification if linking to the "centralized discussion" (ruled by ArbCom) is in fact a violation of WP:ASR, and if it is, if it is reasonable to WP:IAR in order to publicize the centralized discussion as part of the dispute resolution process. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom merely ruled that WP:APARTHEID should be the central location for discussions; you make it sound as if they ruled that the template (which did not exist back then) had to somehow incorporate a link to it. I (yes, for the record, I use both of the IP addresses) did go thru and add a link to this centralized discussion page on the top of all the relevant talk pages (well, except the template talk page -- that only just occurred to me, I'll fix it done!). That's the proper way to handle this, not crossing namespaces, per WP:ASR. -- 146.115.58.152 04:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am asking ArbCom to rule if strict adherence to WP:ASR is more important than giving publicity to a centralized discussion ruled by them. I clearly invoked WP:IAR. Please read what I wrote again. Thanks!--Cerejota 19:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects seems clear cut -- "our articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves" -- as is WP:ASR#In the Template and Category namespaces: "Limited use of self-references are sometimes found in the Template namespace and the Category namespace, such as with disambiguation and stub notices. Expanding this to other areas is not encouraged due to the need of third party users to either delete those templates or modify them to remove the Wikipedia references." I don't see a compelling rationale for ignoring the guideline. -- 146.115.58.152 20:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you misunderstand WP:IAR, because I argue we have a compelling reason to self-reference: the need for a wider community attention to the ArbCom ruled centralized discussion. You are putting the needs of a dispute resolution procedure beneath the needs of WP:FORK. The question is: What is more important? To resolve a conflict or to guarantee a smooth WP:FORK?

However, I must state this again WP:ASR doesn't forbid anything, it even allows for self-reference in certain circumstances: it discourages, which we all agree is not forbidding or requiring. I think your argument that WP:ASR applies is weak, and furthermore, that the needs of the community are to be considered before the needs of the WP:FORKing. ArbCom should clarify which perspective is correct. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The need for wider attention of WP:APARTHEID is already addressed by linking to it at the top of the various involved talk pages (1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 and 8) as well as including Template:Wider attention on the WP:APARTHEID page itself. You may suggest the WP:ASR guideline is merely window dressing for a bothersome existance of WP:FORKs just as easily as I can suggest it's a core underlying part of WP:ENC, a principle which in my perspective is undermined by cross-linking to wikipedia space from article space at a whim. But I would also appreciate ArbCom's clarification. -- 146.115.58.152 22:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have resolved the WP:ASR allegation by including the "offending" text and links under ((selfref)) as WP:ASR. I find it ironic that the anonymous editor so keen on defending WP:ASR overlooked this solution. I'll admit I overlooke dit because I am sure there is no WP:ASR violation, however, that is moot. A self-reference included within ((selfref)) is allowed as the only reason to avoid self-references is to allow WP:FORK. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does solve the problem on mirrors, which was my main concern. However, WP:FORK is only a secondary rationale behind WP:ASR: "The first is that self-references are often considered disruptive in an encyclopedia because they distract from the topic at hand." So I'm still not sure if it is in the spirit of WP:ASR, but I'll leave it until ArbCom makes a decision here. -- 146.115.58.152 22:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is pointing in the direction of an ArbCom-ruled centralized discussion disruptive? Thanks!--Cerejota 06:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may be something to be said for not going out of our way to draw ordinary reader's attention to all that ugly and endless bickering. Please ignore the man behind the curtain, to coin a phrase. A lot of the original ArbCom issues were resolved long ago by the consensus to merge all the different "type X apartheid" articles into Allegations of Apartheid, getting rid of Apartheid (disambiguation), making Apartheid redirect to the historical South African Apartheid with dab links up top, and moving Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid (though people have been complaining about that ever since, even people who supported the move in the first place). So for the most part, WP:APARTHEID has already accomplished what the original ArbCom intended it to accomplish. If they aren't going to take up another case and give that page new direction, it won't be anything more than a central place for people to vent. -- 67.98.206.2 19:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think the controversy is over, and hence the centralized discussion has outlived its usefulness? If so, please raise an RfC in the centralized discussion itself, or present the question to ArbCom. But first saying you want something out for techno-bureaucratic reasons and then switching to a clear content dispute is suspiciously close to try to overcome consensus by bureaucratic means. Likewise, I offer by the level of activity this has recently seen, that your impression that the centralized discussion has "already accomplished what the original ArbCom intended it to accomplish" is wrong. The controversy (And even the cast of characters) remains essentially the same. However, this is the ArbCom board, so what better place to ask!

ArbCom: Is 67.98.206.2 correct and the centralized discussion "already accomplished what the original ArbCom intended it to accomplish" or is it still a valid place for this discussion? Please provide guidance and clarification. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin response Just for reference, Arbitrators rarely if ever post here. This board is for requesting enforcement of enforceable remedies, like revert parole, probation etc. This does not seem to be an enforcement matter, although allegations of bad behavior surrounding the template could be added to the current arbitration case. Purely as a matter of opinion, a template used in main space should not link to a discussion in project space; putting a notice of the centralized discussion on the talk pages would be much more appropriate. You do not, for example, see advertisements for Wikiprojects on article pages but on talk pages. Thatcher131 14:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Bmedley Sutler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is editing on behalf of banned FAAFA, based upon this edit summary and this admission that they are in contact. This editing in proxy for a user banned by arbitration ruling is a violation of said ruling. - Crockspot 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Proxy users. - Crockspot 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a completely different case, actually...maybe place it above the NuclearUmpf one with a seperate heading?--MONGO 18:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved up. - Crockspot 18:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh... couldn't "for fa" also mean that they were trying to get the article up to Featured Article status? Raymond Arritt 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was majorly edited by FAAFA, and is sparsely edited by anyone else (see edit history of Chacala), and Bmedley admits they are in contact. Their pattern of behavior and disruption is also very similar, and Bmedley passed along a message from FAAFA on my talk page this morning. It doesn't specify it is from FAAFA, but if you compare the message to most of FAAFA's edit summary taunts, it is a match. He further admits on his talk page that he is in contact with FAAFA, and an editor named fnord (FAAFA's "favorite word") on WR has also disclosed that he is in contact with Bmedley. This one is not hard to figure out. - Crockspot 19:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Result Blocked 24 hr for proxy editing and 24 hr for taunting. This will be his only warning. Thatcher131 19:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think further investigation is called for. I was just emailed a charted posts-by-time-of-day analysis with Bmedley overlayed over FAAFA's edit pattern. They are a perfect match, right down to every peak and valley. I do not have permission to upload this chart, but someone else should be able to run one themselves, and see that Bmedley Sutler is very likely the sockpuppet of FAAFA. - Crockspot 21:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then this page is more dysfunctional than I thought. Eventually, we'll have more banned users defending one another's socks than legitimate editors identifying them. Posts like the following are no more than trolling.[90][91][92][93] The appearance of anarchy increases daily.Proabivouac 21:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. This guy too, huh? The %age of editing time prior to my indefinite wikibreak I spent arguing with banned users goes up yet again. Still waiting for something fundamental to change to remedy this situation. - Merzbow 03:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dacy69, who is on a 1 revert per article per week parole, has violated his parole on Brenda Shaffer:

First revert (August 16, 2007): [95] which was a revert (he inserted teh two reviews) of this edit: [96]

Second revert (August 20, 2007): [97] once again he reinserted the same material in a partial revert which was a revert of this [98].

I just realized this as this is the first time I have logged into Wikipedia in days. This is a clear violation of the parole.Hajji Piruz 01:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After few days of constructive editing in absense of User:Hajji Piruz, he is back to false reporting and Wikistalking. Most notably at Mirzaagha Aliyev, article which I just started couple of days ago, and no one besides me edited yet, User:Hajji Piruz appears today with another disruption removing the reference to Azerbaijan [99]. With all assumptions of good faith, I don't see how User:Hajji Piruz could be watching this completely new article about an Azerbaijani actor, unless he was clearly Wikistalking me. His another disruption along national lines, appears at another page [100] today, again removing the word Azerbaijan. Atabek 02:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dacy69 has been blocked for 24 hours by Alex Bakharev. Sean William @ 02:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of the Midnight Syndicate arbitration, User:GuardianZ is barred from editing any articles related to Midnight Syndicate or Nox Arcana. ArbCom decided that GuardianZ edits were biased towards Joseph Vargo (an individual who was previously associated with Midnight Syndicate and is now a member of Nox Arcana). I believe that GuardianZ has created a new user name, User:Ebonyskye, to thwart ArbCom's decision.

• GuardianZ largely stopped editing after the arbitration decision. Her last edits were on March 12, 2007.
• Ebonyskye's account was created on March 2, 2007. She is clearly an experienced user (her 3rd edit was to Wikipedia:Cleanup), but she claims in this edit that "all this wiki stuff" is new to her.

Edits that point to Ebonyskye being GuardianZ's new identity:

• Both use as a reference and defend a defamatory website (which clearly does not satisfy WP:Verifiability) created by Joseph Vargo and his girlfriend Christine Filipak solely to discredit Midnight Syndicate and its founder –

• GuardianZ (editing as User:Oroboros 1, proven sockpuppet of GuardianZ) – [101] and [102]
• Ebonyskye – [103] and [104]

• Both accuse Midnight Syndicate of copying Nox Arcana album concepts –

• GuardianZ (as Oroboros 1) – [105]
• GuardianZ – [106]
• Ebonyskye – [107]

• Both assert that Joseph Vargo initiated the contact with Wizards of the Coast that led to the Dungeons & Dragons album –

• GuardianZ (as Oroboros 1) – [108]
• Ebonyskye – [109]

Edits in violation of ArbCom decision (assuming I'm correct):

• Ebonyskye's first edit to Nox Arcana on April 2.
• Ebonyskye's first edit to Midnight Syndicate on May 13th to reinsert reference to Nox Arcana.
• Other edits to the Midnight Syndicate article - [110] and [111]
• Edits to a Midnight Syndicate related article Dungeons & Dragons (album) -[112] and [113].
• Other edits to the Nox Arcana article –[114], [115],[116] and [117].
• Edits to Nox Arcana related article Darklore Manor – [118], [119],[120], and [121].

Please let me know if you need anything else or if I should have presented this differently. Thank you, Skinny McGee 04:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Confirmed. A topic ban will be enforced. Thatcher131 00:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I submit the following diffs from the late controversy at Talk:Free City of Kraków. They are about equally from the two users at the head of this page; other users grew heated at the discussion, but largely through provocation by one of these two; and one of the others has recognized that he should not have, on my talkpage. This entire exchange would seem to be contrary to the requests for 'reasonable and calm behaviour" at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus; and I have not quoted everything. I intentionally list one German and one Pole; we should preserve the balance between the factions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• They were inserted by Matthead in order to confuse the issues.....These are the real proportions Matthead tries so hard to misrepresent.
• Do underzealous Poles that are native English speakers promote Kraków then?
• Do you want your town to be listed among the countless absure places with funny names instead?
• P.S.: I refuse to respond to all other claims made by Matthead like the one made above, quote: “English speakers kept Cracow and Warsaw "verbally alive" then, and reinstated Poland after WW1, and this should be respected for decades to come.” — Please read History of Poland to learn more about how Poland was “reinstated” after WW1 by “English speakers” (wink, wink) with blood, sweat and tears, no doubt.
• And why exactly are you advocating peace, PMAnderson, while driving a stick in an ant colony?
  • This must refer to this edit Calm down, everybody! Please remember there is an Arbcom decision on Eastern Europe, advising reasonable and calm behavior out of everybody; and I do mean everybody. - my only previous edit.
• I'm sick of all the talk promoting "Krakuf", which is the way our Polish friends pronounce their "Kraków". Anyone ever heard that spoken, maybe in a BBC radio broadcast of 1978 "... and the new pope is ... the Archbishop of Krakuf"?
• Obviously, the only reason you're here is to pick a fight.
• the Austrian Grand Duchy of Cracow existed from 1846 to 1918. If the English name Cracow gets rejected in favour of a native name, I conclude that this also applies to the name of the 1846-1918 period, Krakau.
• meaning that you also promote the Polish Oświęcim concentration camp for English Wikipedia?
• edit summary: smear campaign removing comments by other people, on his arguments.
• lengthy claim that the Polish editors who have written country-specific articles have a right to name them.
• “godlier than though” attitude,
• Move of Grand Duchy of Cracow, as threatened above

User:Pmanderson who requested Arbitration enforcement against me has been actively involved in content dispute regarding article mentioned above and in spite of my repeated pleas, continued to make derogatory comments about me all the way through till the end of his failed request to rename the article.[122]

I submit the following comments against me, made by User:Pmanderson for your consideration.

• "Please leave us to our sloth and heathen folly, and allow us to follow our policies and write in English."
• "who else was least constructive in this discussion."
• "not the only contestant for the least constructive editor award, which is not awarded here."
• "this is not the place for awarding least constructive editor awards."
• "If PoeticBent indeed knows our customs, he should, as a matter of civility, abide by them."

Also, please note that a number of examples cited above by User:Pmanderson are several months old, hardly acceptable in the face of the recent Eastern European amnesty decision by the ArbCom.

My comments on examples provided by PMAnderson

• The first example from seven and a half months ago, refers to a heated debate regarding a different subject. To bring it here, after the amnesty declared by ArbCom, is a clear proof of defiance by Septentrionalis PMAnderson.
• The next two examples originate with Matthead.
• The following edit was made as of 19:19, 12 January 2007, again, seven and a half months ago, about a baiting comment made by Matthead that disregarded Polish historical drive for independence.
• User:Pmanderson's next comment seemingly based in WP:NCGN was a clear misrepresentations of policy, and if it was to be taken literally, it would indicate that the place called Cracow doesn't exist anymore.
• [123] User Septentrionalis PMAnderson repeated the same comment twice in a survey, above and below my vote, claiming that is was a "red herring". His aggressive repetition of the same statement sounded like a warning and had a threatening look to it. Meanwhile, his supporter, Charles, wrote next to him about my vote: "grievously misleading or misunderstood interpretations of the conventions." In fact, following the vote, User Charles only intensified his personal attack on me in support of abusive comments by Septentrionalis PMAnderson, making me feel swarmed by the two of them. Please read the list of fantastic accusations by User Charles right under my refutation. The user has no business commenting here, yet feels compelled to continue his harassment.
• [124] Please read for yourself my comment at Talk:Free City of Kraków. User Septentrionalis PMAnderson is attempting (above) to make me sound wrong by interpreting my message contrary to its spirit. The User supports his claim with a statement by an unsuspecting editor who since asked Pmanderson to have his diff removed from the above.[125]
• And one more baiting comment by Septentrionalis PMAnderson about me, quote: "contestant for the least constructive editor award", etc.[126]

Thank you for your consideration. --Poeticbent talk 06:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin response Obviously someone who is involved in a dispute can make a report here, it is the job of admins reading this page to attempt to decide if the complaint is legitimate or not. Unfortunately there are no enforceable remedies in that case, so even if one or more users have ignored the advice to play nice, there is nothing that can be done from this board. General blocks for incivility or just being a dick can be requested at WP:ANI. or you can ask ArbCom to review the case and apply new remedies. Thatcher131 02:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comments

I know this is coming after the admin response, but I must say that I was driven to respond to PoeticBent's behaviour each and every time because I did find it to be grievously misleading, disruptive, uncivil and just plain rude. I don't feel that PoeticBent has observed WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:UE, WP:NCGN because he simply does not feel like it. Such behaviour obviously causes stress for all editors and makes it incredibly difficult for anyone to keep their cool. I truly feel that Pmanderson was not trying to make feel PoeticBent wrong because PoeticBent was wrong. The twisting and manipulation can be observed on the talk page and it is not Pmanderson doing it. The clear misrepresentations are all on the part of PoeticBent to obviously achieve a bias, which is disheartening for the quality of Wikipedia. I find most of PoeticBent's "dispute resolution" methods to be inflammatory and chiefly for the purpose of insulting the intelligence of others. Also, I found PoeticBent removing other individuals' comments to be entirely inappropriate. PoeticBent is not a censor and has no right to be.

Matthead, of course, is wrong, very wrong. The fact that he supported the move to the correct title using Cracow and then moved the Grand Duchy article to an entirely German form makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. I think that is all I need to say on the matter. Charles 07:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement by User Charles is yet another example of his personal attacks on me following his failed attempt to rename the article. Please read my refutation to accusations by User Septentrionalis PMAnderson for particulars about corresponding harassment by Charles. --Poeticbent talk 15:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say, but PoeticBent can best be described as one who shifts blame. Charles 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the swarming, you two. There must be a better way. Septentrionalis PMAnderson abuse was directed at me if one follows the thread. No denying it now. --Poeticbent talk 17:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, shifting blame, swarming, etc, etc. Own up to your transgressions some time? I wholly believe that PB's behaviour has been entirely discourteous, a little at first but extremely so later, from the point I first disagreed with him on the talk page, if not earlier. To me, the fact that PB had to significantly augment his posting here to include his thoughts on me speaks to the fact that he feels he can continually be discourteous with one hand and wrongfully try to discredit someone with the other. The fact that PB says that he feels cornered but owns up to none of his poor actions and the fact that PB insists that it's just other people insulting him is wholly ridiculous. PoeticBent, consider for a moment that I am not Pmanderson's supporter because I like him or whatever, I'm agreeing with him because he's right, you're wrong and you have spoken out contrary to so many conventions it's not funny. I would have said what I said regardless of whether Pmanderson had said anything or not. Anyone who can read the naming conventions without a bias to hide would do so. I have every amount of business to comment here. Like the articles you insist being named the way it suits you, read WP:OWN. I can disagree with people, but I also do not stand by when someone else thinks that I'm stupid and can be convinced that naming conventions don't say what the text spells out. I still cannot believe that you see it fit to call out shots, insult others, accuse them of swarming you, etc. All of these delusions. Unreal. People tend to address problems as they see them. Are we to stand by while you have your way with whatever you want? Charles 17:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deplore Poeticbent's removal of my comments. I repeat them for the record; but unless some admin disagrees with Thatcher131, and feels that the ArbCom decision does encourage action short to returning to them, this is moot.

• The quotation from Kipling was not addressed to him, as the diff will show, it was to Ulla, whose edit it is attached to; the "sloth and heathen folly" is self-deprecation on behalf of all anglophones.
• I went out of my way not to indicate any editor as least constructive, and I still am not sure which was. Unless Poeticbent obviously has the worst record, this is not an attack on him. Is he claiming that he has?
• And it would be civil of Poeticbent to comply with our customs, wouldn't it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the remedy #2 of the recent arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, the admins can place any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility on revert parole and other limitations, established by the arbcom. Please see [160]

Hetoum I (talk · contribs) was placed by the admin under the remedy #2, which includes revert parole, limiting him to 1 rv per week. [161] This was logged here: [162]

As soon as Hetoum I returned from his 24 hour block reported below, he violated his parole again, making 3 rvs in less than 1 week on Battle of Baku: [163] [164] [165] This is another violation of parole by this user. --Grandmaster 05:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another violation on Khurshidbanu Natavan: [166] [167]. Grandmaster 05:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another violation on Karabakh khanate: [168] [169] (removed the category) Grandmaster 05:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed an example of blatant nonsense, that is Orignal Research - there was no mention of the residence of natavan, despite claims by grandmaster information was sourced.Hetoum I 05:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Parishan violated parole, he reverted 3 times in less than a week [170]Hetoum I 05:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parishan is not on parole. Grandmaster 05:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [171], the first one after the block expiration, seems to be in violation of WP:CIVIL as well. Atabek 06:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Two reverts within 24 hours on Battle of Baku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), both after the block expired. [172] [173]. Blocked for 36 hours. Thatcher131 14:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Occupations of Latvia has been placed on probation over a long pattern of various disruption. During the recent months, largely thanks to new, previously non-involved editors such as Termer, the article has been severely overhauled. Recently, it passed Wikipedia peer review with no major content problems found.

However, Irpen and Grafikm_fr have engaged in a campaign of developing artificial controversy over this article's compliability with Wikipedia standards. It's all the more insidious that both have refused -- not merely neglected -- to provide any specifics of the non-compliance issues proposed; see Talk:Occupations of Latvia#Suggestions for improvement for details. Despite refusal to actually cite compliance issues, both have reinstated the ((noncompliant)) tag ([191], [192]) after it was removed following the consensus developed on the article's talk page. Such behaviour is clearly disruptive, and there's currently a discussion on Talk:Vandalism going on over whether it can also be classified as vandalism.

According to the arbitration decision:

I'm requesting administrative intervention to enforce the arbitration decision in an appropriate manner. Digwuren 20:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed attention to this article is warranted. Objections to its condition remain not addressed despite their being described at talk multiple times and in detail. The editor above dares to revert war on the article on probation, repeatedly removing a well-epxlained tag. Feel free to join the discussion and enforce the ArbCom's decision. --Irpen 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen refuses to explicitly articulate what those objections are and continues to claim the old discussions regarding the old article are still applicable. However the article was extensively revised and subject to peer review since then. This approach of tagging while being evasive about the reasons is disruptive to building a good article Martintg 21:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response It appears that the one of the main concerns originally identified by the Arbitrators, namely whether the Soviet presence in Latvia was an occupation, and whether—regardless of the answer to the first question—the article's current title and scope are appropriately chosen has not been addressed by the recent re-write. The question of whether to identify the Soviet presence in Latvia as an "occupation" or something else is a problem that is not confined to this article, see obviously Occupation of Baltic states among others. I am not pursuaded by the alleged peer review, to whom the only contributor seems to have been javascript that analyzes grammatical and style issues. Therefore I am not convinced that Grafikm_fr and Irpen are creating an artificial controversy. I suggest that the editors engage Irpen and Grafikm_fr in a discussion to determine whether, as a matter of editorial judgement, it is acceptable to refer to the Soviet presence as an occupation, and whether, as a matter of editorial judgement, the three phases of occupation should be described in 3, 2 or one article. I also suggest that comments be solicited in a neutrally-worded way from the RFC process, the admins' noticeboard, and even the Village Pumps, to obtain a significant outside comments on these issues and a more meaningful peer review than a grammar bot. I ask Grafikm_fr and Irpen to provide meaningful feedback and suggestions on how the article might be split and especially on how to refer to the 1945-1991 period. If after one week significant progress is not being made on these issues please make a new report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher131 23:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be mild, this reporting is a WP:KETTLE thing. A discussion was evolving on the talk page (slowly it's true, but given the subject, better take it slow) with some advances made.

OTOH, User:Digwuren exhibited an extremely disruptive behaviour on this page (and not only on this page, I might add) that is currently under examination by the ArbCom.

As you noted, I'm not attempting to create a controversy but merely to get answers to questions I've been asking for months. Obviously I got only PAs...

A lot of suggestions were provided, but all were turned down by only a handful of editors who're crippling the whole thing. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there has been a previous pattern of tagging with insufficient clarification on this article, ending up with tag warring (being one of the main reasons it was taken to Arbitration in the first place). In this instance the same scenario was beginning to unfold, particularly that significant revision of the article had occurred. Hence notification was necessary in my view, which had the beneficial effect of prompting Irpen to add more clarifcation of his issue, and the welcomed input of Thatcher131. However, it is apparent your only input is to snipe here, rather than engage in any meaningful discussion on the article talk page. For the record, User:Digwuren had only reverted once (your placement of the tag without providing your own reasons on the talk page) and engaged in dialogue on the talk page, unlike you. So your claim of "extremely disruptive behaviour" is totally untrue. Martintg 00:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I held a small attempt of dispute resolution and mudclearing on the talk page. During this I checked the issues raised by arbitration case and the article itself. I have to agree that there are more things to do, but the issues raised seem to be addressed.

1. Although some editors seem to disagree with the articles concept "Occupations of Latvia" and claim it should be split into separate articles, it is notable topic in one article, because it was continous event of Latvia being under occupation. Latvia was republic - Latvia was under occupation - Latvia became republic again.
2. The articles dealing with separate events are correctly winked with (({main))}.
3. Marting provided list of books which treat the Occupations of latvia continuously.
4. All issues of possible Original Research have been removed.
5. All issues of possible NPOV violation have been removed.

Thus, I see that the noncompliant tag is anything but appropriate for the article.

During the latest discussion Irpen and Grafikm showed non-constructive editing. I asked for providing the points where and how the article is non-compliant, but nobody gave anything constructive. Instead Irpen claimed that this is waste of editors time. I think it is waste of editors time when you have to reread the whole arbitration discussion of problems which have been fixed long time ago.

Thus, I have removed the template from article. The article is definitely compatible with wikipedia quality standards. Ofcourse, it is not a GA candidate yet, but I do think it is possible to get it there.

My wish is that everyone who oppose my decision would take part of discussion and present their concerns in civil and constructive fashion. Tagwarring or saying: "This article sucks, try again" is not constructive. Suva 08:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-constructive editing" accusations sound like a joke. For the umpteenth time same editors force me to repeat my objections, stated multiple times at the article's talk page. And in response, they resort to more accusations and same of the old claims. After the page gets filled with a few screens of same old, I am asked to repeat what my objections are. This is just ridiculous. The article's problem that stem for the apriory non-neutral combination of its title with its scope remain unaddressed. The selective tendentious presentation of the topic remains unaddressed.

Any experienced editor with a sufficient time on his hands and an ax to grind may write a perfectly sourced but extremely POVed and tendentious article simply because sourcing is only one of many requirements of academic integrity. This article is a perfect example of this approach. I wholeheartedly invite anyone to comment and not only on the editor's behavior, but on the content dispute itself. This whole ArbCom brought about no meaningful decision because it was essentially a content dispute and remains such no matter how some try to dress it into a policy debate. --Irpen 09:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles scope is "Latvian history under the occupation". First by soviet, then shortly under German and then under Soviet again. As the Germans took Latvia from Soviets, not from Latvians, and Soviets retook it from Germans also not Latvians so, atleast for Latvia itself, it was continuous event of Latvia being occupied by foreign powers.

I fail to understand what your problems are. I guess you don't see the soviet occupation as occupation and think the article should be named to: "Free will joining with Soviet Union, Evil Occupation by Nazi Germany and free will rejoining with Soviet Union". Is that the case? Suva 10:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about free will. I said that the country's history over the period of time should be called [[History of Country (Year1 - Year2)]] while articles about the events of occupation are legit as well as the article that explains why the entire period of Soviet control qualifies as occupation. You want a period article? Call it as such. You want an event article? Fine by me. But do not paste separate events together arbitrarily under a tendentious title to make a WP:POINT. I accept both extended history and single event articles. I object to the tendentious approach in POVish selection of both the title and the scope. --Irpen 10:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]