Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:40, 23 November 2007

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343

Edit this section for new requests

User:RJ CG

We have had several weeks of peace since the conclusion of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren, now RJ CG has returned flagging his intention to deliberately to create an article Whitewashing of Nazi Collaboration in modern Estonia [1], even attempting to provoke participants on Wikiproject Estonia [2]. Could somebody remind RJ CG that a specific remedy against turning Wikipedia into a battleground is in force Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Editors_warned, and if he persists this will be taken to ArbCom. Martintg (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aynabend

User:Aynabend, formerly known as user:Ulvi I., is a member of both Armenia-Azerbaijan I. [3] and its sequal [4] and is limited to a 1RR as he is involved in aggressive editing and reversions as observed by his contributions. According to the final decision to both Ar-Az arbitrations, everyone of such is placed on 1RR and is required to leave a comment on the talkpage once they revert an article, in order to encourage discussion. In light of my recent blocking [5] for such, this applies to user:Aynabend who reverted the Shushi article without discussion on the talk page [6]. Not the first time either [7], although he was not even blocked for this reversion. -- Fedayee (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fedayee, I'm sorry you were blocked for failing to discuss one revert. I would have just warned you, since your block log has been clean since April. In this case I'm only going to warn Aynabend, since this is the first reported violation after he was placed on notice. I am also going to warn him in regard to VartanM's noting that Aynabend has appeared after a month absence to revert to Atabek's version, something he did here as well. I will also log the warning in case this behavior continues. Thatcher131 23:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andranikpasha

In accordance with the ruling of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Andranikpasha (talk · contribs) was placed by an admin on a revert parole limiting him to 1 rv per page per week: [8] However, on Shusha article he made 2 rvs in less than 1 week, first by deleting a content from the article [9], which is considered a revert according to WP:3RR (see [10]), and then by reverting the page to a previous version here: [11] This is a clear violation of the revert parole by this user. Grandmaster 10:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a violation here. Grandmaster, you're misinterpreting the WP:3RR, deleting alone is not a revert, it is only in the context of removing what another editor has added. It is very unlikely that Andranik checked contributions of months back(February, 2007) and picked a contributor to revert by specifically reverting his changes without changing other edits made since. Part of what he removed was an unsourced claim and the fact tag was there since February 2007. So this makes one and not two reverts. If this was true, simple copy-editing edits would be considered reverts, since you are undoing someone elses work. VartanM (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, when discussing a revert to an old version, it would help to have a diff that spans the versions, like this, or two diffs that show the reversion, to save time looking for it. The first edit is not a revert; removing content can be a revert but in this case the removed content had been present at least since September, and normal editing it allowed by the probation. The second link is indeed a reversion, there appears to be at least some discussion on the talk page, so as long as Andranikpasha does not revert again before the 21st, there is no violation at this time. Thatcher131 23:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giovanni Giove

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

Blocked for 2 days. Report new violations in a new section. Thatcher131 03:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
Hereby I report that user:Giovanni Giove has breached its one-year edit restriction, as decided by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia.
As You can see from the history of editing of article Jakov Mikalja [[12]], Giovanni Giove has not given any explanation of his actions. All he did was moving of the talkpage to its version. His edit from 18 Oct 2007 [13], in 13:12.
On the article page, he did four edits (these edits are reverts) on 18 Oct 2007 [14] in 13:12 (moving), [15] on 13:15, [16] in 13:16, [17] in 13:24.
He again ignored other users' contributions, repeated his behaviour pattern shown and described in the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence, for which he was "punished".
I don't want to engage in the edit/revert war. I've given a bunch of material on the article talkpage. I don't know what to do anymore.
Please act as Wikipedia policies say (remedies, enforcements and blocks).
Sincerely, Kubura 07:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

User:Giovanni Giove

This matter concerns the final decision of the Dalmatia Arbitration Committee and its final decision (here [18]) wich restricted User:Giovanni Giove and myself to "one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism)", and it is required we discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
With this final decision not one week old, User:Giovanni Giove has already made, not one or two, but a little under two dozen reverts of varying size in the Marco Polo (history page: [19]) and Dalmatian Italians articles (history page [20]).
In the Dalmatian Italians article (besides reverting more than once) he also made no attempt whatsoever to discuss his edits, and the discussion page does not have a single explanation of these numerous reverts and provocative edits ([21]).
In the Marco Polo article he quite flagrantly ignored the instructions of the ARBCOM and reverted on several occasions this week (on the same article).

(To whom it may concern,) I edited as well on a few occasions myself, but (as per instructions) i made only one revert per week per article, along with a thorough discussion each time ([22], [23], [24], [25]).
DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia was up because of continual edit wars and a few unresolved RFC's in several Dalmatia related articles. In all cases User:Giovanni Giove was an iniciator of discussions but concentrated more on his "outistic" editing of the articles and constructively absent in the talk pages. A person totaly blind for sources presented by others. Zenanarh 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin response He made a lot of changes, but so far what I saw was editing, not reverting. If you disagree, you can revert (once per week) and then try to discuss the substance of the changes on the talk page. If you believe he has been reverting to previous versions, please show diffs of the old version and the reverts, because I didn't see his edits as reverts. Thatcher131 13:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Thatcher131, take a look again.

I gave those diffs above, 6 days ago (these deal with article Jakov Mikalja and Talk:Jakov Mikalja). These are from 18 Oct, 13:12 (redirecting; in this sense, it's a kind of revert, because the involved parties had disagreements because of the article name) [26] and reverting 13:15 [27], and upgrading of revert/his original research, 18 Oct, 13:24 [28].

See the lines he removed, his removing of adjective "Croatian", as well as his POV-izing/original research/off-topic (section: "Controversy"). In the latter two he also ignored the sources given previously.

Talking about the talkpage of the article Jakov Mikalja (Giovanni Giove must explain his revert actions according to the RFARB decision), user Giovanni Giove gave no explanation till this very day, 30 Oct (12 days have passed and no admin reaction yet!?). And he was supposed to promptly give the explanation (!?!). All he did was the redirect of the talkpage [29] (see the history of the talkpage changes [30]). In other words, revert warring even on the talkpage.

Other parties substained from edit warring, although Giovanni Giove persisted in his upgrade of his original work (e.g. here [31], on 29 Oct, in which he ignored all previously given sources on the talkpage).

That's what I call "edit-slaughter". We, obedient users are idiots, because we obey the rule and tolerate the propagandist/vandalic/trollic behaviour and stay calm, while at the same time, Giovanni Giove calmly edits "unprotected" article, without any disturbance from opponents that avoid revert actions and edit war and wait the RFARB enforcement/waiting the admins to react.

Have in mind that Giovanni Giove was blocked (on 24 Sep, 15:47; 72 h block) because of 3RR rule violation (!!!) (see his block log [32]), during arbitration case (where he got his current, too mild, punishment), that dealt with him. Neither proposed remedies, given before Giove's blocking haven't changed his behaviour (4 days before his blocking, one arbitrator already voted for proposed remedies and enforcement regarding Giovanni Giove). Kubura 10:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say... Giovanni Giove advises me to be more creative, but I feel this is a simple matter. The fact that he did revert is painfully obvious. The diffs are here, the violation is here, the only problem is that it isn't easy to search out the reverts among the million other edits this guy made. I know its a pain, but someone must take the time to do this. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my third reaction on the admin's noticeboard, after the ones from 24 Oct and 30 Oct.

Director gave reports on 26 and 30 Oct.

Zenanarh gave report on 26 Oct.

Has any of admins ever read what we wrote on RFARB, on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence page ?

Regarding Jakov Mikalja case, as I see, Giovanni Giove is 15 days overdue (today is 02 Nov), more than 2 weeks. And he was supposed to give explanation on the talkpage promptly, according to the explicit and strict order of the Arbitration Committee. We have rules on Wikipedia.

He repeated his behaviour in which he removes all adjectives "Croatian" (replacing it with some amorphous or Frankestein adjectives, despite the scanned original documents, that point exactly to terms Croatian and Croat), and/or when he tries to lessen any connection of Mikalja with Croats. Just compare the history pages between other users and him. His edits weren't the "upgrading edit", that was ordinary revert. Compare the versions. See his previous reverts.

This is not a place to explain why is his contribution full of POV's, original research and misrepresentations, as well as his anti-Croat attitude, I (and others) have given a bunch of explanation on the talkpage of article Jakov Mikalja previously (the same talkpage that Giovanni Giove ignores since for 09 July 2007, that's almost four months, or 116 (one hundred and sixteen) days!).

Honorable admins, Yours task is to act as rules require. Sincerely, Kubura 14:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giove's pre-RFARB behaviour

Probably you need the confirmation that Giove previously, before the RFARB, did same actions and reverted the articles the very same way.
Here're the proofs (just some of examples), that Giove's post-RFARB actions were reverts, not the upgrading edits.
I gave that info on the RFARB:Dalmatia/Evidence, sections Anti-Croat attitude, [[Giove deletes and/or diminuates the "share" of Croats, Giove deleting "Croat--", Italianizing of Croat names, toponyms.
Here they are again:
9 April 2007, 22:43 [33]. Giove removes "Croatian" and replaces it with "Illyric". Also, Giove pushed his POV-original work in front (removing "Croatian", and placing some amorphous "Serbocroatian").
24 May 2007, 11:42: [34]. Giove's comment: "(Illyric is different from Croatian).
26 May 2007, 09:54 [35]. Removing of adjective "Croat" and replacing with undetermined "Illyric".
There's more, but I hope this'll be enough.
Hope this helps, maybe these were the diffs that admins needed for the confirmation of repeated Gioves revert-warring behaviour.
However, Giove got the block for his behaviour on just one article (Ruđer Bošković), but he did it on few articles, and he wasn't punished for bad behaviour and disobeyance of explicit decions of the Arbitration Committee. Kubura 14:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giove's recent vandalistic behaviour on the talkpage

On 6 Nov 2007 in 11:05, user Giovanni Giove has deleted my explanations on the talkpage of Jakov Mikalja [36]. He deleted them the very same day I've posted them (my message was from 10:44).
Giove's comment was "deleted insults and personal attacks)".
This is the text that Giovanni Giove deleted "19 days have passed since Giovanni Giove violated the decisions from the Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia/Proposed_decision). See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia#Remedies and section Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia#Enforcement
- Since then, other users have abstained from editing. Giovanni Giove abused that for his editslaughter.
- Because of repeated ignorant behaviour of user Giovanni Giove (described in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence), I've restored the version before Giove's violation of RFARB decisions. ".
It's a shame that admins allow Giove to pull all other users (including admins) by the nose. Kubura 07:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here're Giove's reverts and undiscussed and unexplained POV (and original work) actions exposed on the talkpage (and described on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence.
Talk:Jakov_Mikalja#Giove.27s_unexplained_reverts.2C_trolling_and_vandalisms_since_RFARB.
To remind you, since his first (undiscussed and unexplained) revert (18 Oct), 20 days have passed, several user reports, no admins reaction yet. Kubura 11:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kubura

There is a lot of text here. What, specifically and consisely, do you want done at this point in time? – Steel 17:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What user Giovanni Giove did:
- he disobeyed ARBCOM decisions and violated the limitations given there
- unimproved behaviour
- he made unexplained reverts on more than one article (punishment should be stronger; otherwise, it seems that it doesn't matter of one vandalizes 1 or 12 articles, punishment is still the same????)
- "edit-slaughter" (see text above)
- he wasn't promptly blocked for his behaviour (despite being reported here)
- many of his actions weren't upgrading edits (ad admin Thatcher thought, see above), but the reverts (the "new" text was inserted by Giove previously, before the RFARB - see "Giove's pre-RFARB behaviour").
- this reinserted text is original research/work and POV
- vandalistic actions on the article talkpage, in which he deleted of opponent's explanation of his revert action [37] - despite being reported on the admin's noticeboard, Giove continued to behave as previously
Sincerely, Kubura 09:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not on solid ground here; ignorant is not a word I would use if I was planning on asking for help and wanted to look like the more reasonable party. Giovanni has been blocked for 2 days for recent editing. I have also asked for expanded authority to deal with Dalmatia-related dsiputes on all sides. Thatcher131 02:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reporting MichaelCPrice for violation of ArbCom restriction

I reported a revert violation by MP today to AN/I along with diffs.

Michael Price has violated an editing restriction imposed by ArbCom for sustained edit-warring Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ebionites#MichaelCPrice_restricted. MP reverted content on the Tachyon article without discussing it on the talk page as required by ArbCom. [38] [39]

The change was not discussed on the talk page per the ArbCom directive. A note was placed on MPs talkpage by the responding admin, Sam Blacketer. I was informed this report should have been filed here instead. My apologies. Ovadyah 21:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus was previously established on the tachyon talk page, and not just with one editor. An anon editor (who to date has taken nothing to the talk page) complained in the edit summary about the lack of citations. This was remedied, and in addition the phrasing of the text was expanded. This has found consensual acceptance. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far, we are seeing a lot of confontation without a hint of contrition. [40] [41] There is also a refusal to acknowledge what is required: to discuss each revert on the talk page as it occurs, not say consensus was reached somewhere on the talk page sometime in the past. Ovadyah 23:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the content has been clarified and referenced it was not a mere revert. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the content was eventually clarified, well after the revert, and a reference was supplied by another editor. The admin that looked into it concluded you made a revert. Please acknowledge that you understand what is required of you. You are to discuss every revert on the talk page at the time you make it. Ovadyah 16:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, doubly wrong. I clarified the phrasing as part of the update and added a ref within one minute[42]. Later the anon editor became abusive and it was a clear case of vandalism. Another editor later supplied another reference, but did no further textual clarification. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see. I see you are still refusing to acknowledge the restrictions that have been placed upon you. Rather than a block, which would have no lasting effect, I propose to the Arbitration Committee that you be assigned a "parole officer" to mentor you and take punitive actions as necessary when you knowingly violate your restrictions. I believe Dbachmann would be an excellent choice, as he is already familiar with the circumstances of your case. Ovadyah 16:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator response: MichaelCPrice is expected to abide fully by the restrictions placed upon him in the arbitration decision. However, reverting an IP edit that was accompanied with the edit summary "you idiot" really is not the type of thing that I believe the arbitrators were concerned about. Under the circumstances, I believe that reminding MichaelCPrice to abide by the restrictions is sufficient, and this has been done. The "parole officer" suggestion is not necessary; in the unhappy event that future violations occur, they can be reported in a new section on this noticeboard. Newyorkbrad 17:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response. Would this include the edit-warring that is happening on Talk:Tachyon unabated, and questioning the mental stability of editors that disagree with his edits on MP's talk page, or is this a matter for AN/I? Ovadyah 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an actual edit-war going on on Talk:Tachyon, or just a discussion (albeit an overly heated discussion) about article content? With regard to "questioning the mental stability," the arbitration decision did not specifically address civility issues, but everyone is reminded to remain civil and avoid personal attacks. Newyorkbrad 17:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue in both cases appears to be a lack of civility and personal attacks in response to questions and objections raised by other editors. The context of the discussion seems to be that the revert was not discussed adequately. Strictly speaking, this is not an actual edit-war, but it does contribute to poisoning the editing environment. Ovadyah 17:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to reduce ArbCom time wasted by responding to Ovadyah's misleading accusations I suggest that my editing restriction be restricted to the Ebionite article only. In return I promise not to edit the Ebionite article at all for the restriction period. That way we can all concentrate on more constructive work. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Arbitration Committee itself can change the scope of the restrictions. The administrators who monitor this board, such as myself, do not have authority to do so. Newyorkbrad 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Where exactly should I make my proposal then? At Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee or somewhere else? --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly opposed to such a proposal, unless it is applied in addition to the current sanctions. I expect a number of other editors will be as well. Ovadyah 13:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, if their only concern is the state of the Ebionite article? Or is this a case of wikistalking and harassment, aside from the waste of admin/arbcom time?--Michael C. Price ^talk 15:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are again putting words in the Arbitration Committee's mouth as well as my own, just as you put words into the mouths of your secondary sources. It has recently been pointed out to me that this conflation / misleading content problem has infected several articles you have touched. By all means, appeal your sentence and let's see what happens. Personally, I became convinced awhile ago that this can only end one way. :0) Ovadyah 16:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool it, both of you. MichaelCPrice is limited to one revert per week per page, it applies to all pages, and only ArbCom can modify the remedy. Contact an Arbitrator by email or post your request in the Request for clarification section of WP:RFAR. Thatcher131 23:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting BKWSU Core IT PR Team for violation of ArbCom restriction

Following on from meatpuppet and WP:OWN findings at a recent Suspected Sockpuppet report; [43]

Suspected meatpuppets acting for the BKWSU Core IT PR Team on the BKWSU Wikipedia page again.

Bksimonb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Appledell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Evidence

Looking through the history of the topic on the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, there seems to be a distinct theme of ownership WP:OWN being exhibited by not just active members of the religious movement but even dedicated organizational IT PR Team members. Over the last few days prior to having the page locked, I attempted to add a number of citations, quotations to citation and make neutral typographic and tagging correction only for them to be identically reverted under the guise of "Vandalism". [44] by the BKWSU team members.

Although I am sure that these are separate individuals, I suggest that this is clear as possible an example of dedicated meatpuppetry. WP:SOCK stated that in such cases, such individuals should be treat the same as sockpuppets.

User:Bksimonb states that he is an official BKWSU IT PR team member [45]. In a previous Arbcom decision, [46] and user page, [47] it was disclosed that User:Riveros11 was also part of the team and confirmed puppeteer [48]. I suspected that single user account User:Appledell is also. Both exhibit a trend of following the leadership of User:Bksimonb. In the arbcom case, it was stated that there was "clear evidence of article ownership".[49]

reverts back to Bksimonb version [57]

Both User:Bksimonb [58], User:Riveros11 and User:IPSOS [59] have filed disproportionate report of vandalism, personal attacks, checkusers, sockpuppetry complaints regarding the BKWSU page, included some while logged out so they do not appear in the contribution history of the named account, apparently to intimdate any user contradiction the organization's position, even those well known not to be socks by other editors.

Even when I have placed extensive documentation and justification of change I see no where else, [60] it is dismissed by IPSOS by a oneliner say it is not "discussion" [61].

With all independent contributors intimidated off, the discuss and article remains virtual fallow, e.g. 3 edits in two months; [62]

(To avoid any counter-accusation, I recently required to change my user name due to a lost password but have reported this).

I have stated clearly that I know these individuals are separate but that I can substantiate in detail a collusion between the BKWSU IT PR Team (currently Bksimonb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Appledell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) over the control of this topic. This is meatpuppetry and it has gone on for too long. Unfortunately, I do not know of where else to report meatpuppets.

I consider that Reneeholle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been brought into this out of goodwill but is aping the main team. It would appear that IPSOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is very skilled in the use of Wikipedia accusation, e.g. aggressive sockpuppet accusations to other known, long term contributors and new editors [63], [64]. and attacks to manipulation. Perhaps he just enjoys provoking other editors to achieve control by way of WP:3RR. Tend to use uncivil language and insults such as "idiot" and "bullshit" by way of intimidating [65] or deliberate nicknames like Wacko for Wachowski [66], vandalism accusation in summaries after good edits [67] and wind up summaries [68].

My own recent edits to page consitently WP:3RR-ed

AWachowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

--AWachowski 01:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do the links provided above actually back up what AWachowski is saying? I have also raised a complaint on AP:ANI regarding the constant discrediting of editors based on affiliation by this user and his previous incarnations. Regards Bksimonb 15:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWachowski has a habit of accusing people of being socks or meatpuppets if they don't agree with his edits. As I told him on the talk page, if he discussed his edits first before making them and made them one at a time instead of whole-sale changing the article, then he would be (a) following Wiki procedures and (b) be likely to see his edits stay in.

Also, there appears to be a COI as AWachowski is an ex-BK (and a particularly vehement one at that) which colors his emotions strongly when he edits (and causes him to file reports like this when clearly he knows that IPSOS and myself have nothing to do with Bksimonb). COI does not prevent one from editing but he should first discuss changes and then gain consensus on the talk page before making edits. Renee 23:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin response Arbcom imposed a rather unusual form of article probation in this case, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Brahma_Kumaris#Article_probation_2. There is no authorization for direct enforcement such as banning certain editors from the article, as is typical of most articles on probation. Rather, editors must appeal directly to Arbcom to consider if further sanctions are required. I suggest you file a Request for Arbitration, or a Request for Clarification on that page, laying out (briefly, with diffs) your request for additional enforcement. Thatcher131 01:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thatcher131. Thanks for the response. I can draft something and post it here as a proposal. I'd appreciate you look over it before I post it for real since our last attempt to increase authorisation for enforcement was rejected. Also, you probably have a better idea than I do as to what you need arbcom to authorise. If we can establish some enforcement of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:CONSENSUS then that would quickly filter out all the disruptive editing the article has been subjected to and the abuse that editors have been subject to since violation of these polices seems to be their calling card. Would the request have to be based solely on the Principles section of the arbcom case or can it also address other behaviour patterns we have seen since the ruling?

Question: Would this take the form of a Request for Arbitration or a Request for Clarification? Thanks & regards Bksimonb 13:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would list it as a clarification. Stifle (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italianization (resolved)

On this article Users GiovanniGiove and Ghepeu are vandalizing the article

[69] [70] [71]

They simply delete the entire paragraph . I remind that Giovanni_Giove has a limit afor editing per week and I believe he broke it with this. [72] [73]

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

Please read up on Wikipedia:Vandalism; removing text disputed by multiple people is not necessarily vandalism. Apparent forum shopping on your part aside for the moment ([74], [75], [76], [77]), Giovanni Giove is restricted to one revert per article per week and appears to have made that revert during his seven successive edits here (most obviously, removing the "Italianization today" section). Where do you feel he violated his 1RR? – Steel 22:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:ARB/Dalmatia: Giovanni Giove is "limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page".
This action that Giove took [78] from 15 Nov, 16:23, got no explanation by him on the talkpage. That's violation of ARBCOM decisions.
Here's the recent history of revert war.:
14 Nov, 23:51 Ghepeu deletes whole section [79], with comment "blatant propaganda".
15 Nov, 00:42 Giove deletes the line he doesn't want to be seen. [80].
After a streak of article upgrades by user Aradic-en (no lines removed, only new ones added), Giove appears.
15 Nov, 16:22 Giovanni Giove deletes the references (!!) [81] with the comment "deleted false sources" (BBC, NY Times, l'Unitá). No explanation on the talkpage.
15 Nov, 16:23 Giovanni Giove deletes whole paragraph (!!) [82] with the comment "DELETED: the present article is about "Fascist Italianization"". No explanation on the talkpage, nor discussion with others.
After that, user Aradic-en restored the deleted paragraphs.
15 Nov, 18:56 User Ghepeu has engaged himself into revert warring (so that Giove can avoid 3RR rule or 1 revert/week limitation; still, Giove didn't discussed his actions). Here [83] he deleted whole paragraph with references. Of course, no explanation.
I'm not giving complaints toward the content, this is not a place for that (that's the matter of talkpages, 3rd opinions, mediations).
I'm reporting the trollish behaviour, behaviour that is supposed to be of admins interest (deletions of whole paragraphs and references, ignoring of discussion, violation of ARBCOM decisions, revert war, actions performed to help trolls to avoid violations of wiki-rules and decisions).
Sincerely, Kubura 08:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello

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

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

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

Enforcement of Arbcome needed for JohnSmiths

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

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

08:47, 16 November 2007

The revision section in question is his removing my footnote, and this section in particular. He reverted this text found in my version: [84]

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

Back to his version: [85]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I agree, and that is what I think JohnSmith did. On Nov. 7th we have this "undoing" of a previous edit in the change from: "Academic opinion on the book was divided, with historians generally giving a negative response…" To his version,: “The book received high sales and was placed on bestsellers' lists, also receiving largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media....”[86]

One week later, on Nov. 14th, he undid this edit by removing the text, and inserted something else--but in a different section. [87]

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

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

Now, John Smith claims even his latest reversion of my edits on Nov.16 do not count as even a revert?! Again, I show that he did exactly this by reverting this text found in my version [88]"

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

Back to his version [89]:

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

Would you agree that, at least, that counts as a reversion? JohnSmiths continues to deny it, which bothers me. Btw, thank you for restoring the footnote and other information that JohnSmiths deleted in his reversion of my edit [90]. As you noted, he failed to discuss this, which is also a violation of the terms of his revert parole.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Violation of revert parole by User:Giovanni33

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Picaroon, and I think you know its not true that there are no references that makes this observation. For example, here is a report on that, which is currently linked to the main article page that makes exactly this same point:[91]Giovanni33 (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Let me try to broker a solution here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confused about user:DIREKTOR

I am confused: why you block Giovanni Giove but don't block flamer user:DIREKTOR who violating his restriction in editing???? Why DIREKTOR edits in Istrian exodus for revert warring???? Regards, LEO 17 nov 2007

I'm confused too. Why are you trying to get me blocked when I clearly didn't violate my restriction? Here's the Istrian exodus History page: [92]. I reverted on 22 October 2007, and then once more on 16 November 2007. (User:Giovanni Giove and myself are restricted to one revert per week, with discussion.)

I also tried to discuss my edit (here: [93]), but recieved no reply from the IP user reporting me, who strangely makes exacty the same grammar mistakes as the blocked User:Giovanni Giove. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators but why DIREKTOR invents sockpuppets? Because he is a flamer!!!! LEO

LoL! I have never used sockpuppets, nor do I intend to do so at any time. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint doesn't make any sense. "LEO", please present some clearer evidence of a parole violation on DIREKTOR's part. Picaroon (t) 19:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"LEO" is a troll who has been evading multiple blocks with a rotating IP. For all intents and purposes he should be considered banned and his edits reverted on sight. While others in this series of disputes are here to at least try to build an encyclopedia (though a POV one at that), LEO isn't here to do anything but stir the pot.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring related to "The Troubles"

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

Relevant links:

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

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

See Also:

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

See also the latest edit war at [94]. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Persistent edit warring under different names at BKSWU

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

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

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

This is getting extremely tiresome. He just changes usernames and comes back as a different person over the different months (and check his userpages, they are full of warnings). Then, he tries to file complaints on his own when really he is the one not discussing changes[95], making wholesale reverts[96], and engaging in the fililng of numerous false reports like this and [ this].

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Bakasuprman / Hkelkar 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

^ Benton, Gregor (2006-01). "The Portrayal of Opportunism, Betrayal, and Manipulation in Mao's Rise to Power". The China Journal (55): 96, 109. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Creek, Timothy (2006-01). "The New Number One Counter-Revolutionary Inside the Party: Academic Biography as Mass Criticism". The China Journal (55): 110, 118. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |coauthors= (help)

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[3] Benton, Gregor (2006-01). "The Portrayal of Opportunism, Betrayal, and Manipulation in Mao's Rise to Power". The China Journal (55): 96, 109. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[4] Creek, Timothy (2006-01). "The New Number One Counter-Revolutionary Inside the Party: Academic Biography as Mass Criticism". The China Journal (55): 110, 118. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |coauthors= (help)

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

Revision as of 07:32, 23 November 2007 edit Akhilleus (talk \| contribs) 13,976 edits →User:Bakasuprman / Hkelkar 2: oh please ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:40, 23 November 2007 edit undo Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled 18,508 edits m →User:Bakasuprman / Hkelkar 2: please explain Next edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 433:		Line 433:

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

			:::Could you explain to me what does the phrase – "Indian trolls" means? Are there trolls and ''Indian trolls'' too? — [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington\|<span style="color:black">Nearly Headless Nick</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington\|<span style="color:black; vertical-align:super; font-size:90%; font-weight:bold" title="Contributions">{C}</span>]] 07:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)