Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Edit this section for new requests

Turkics in Armenia <-> Azerbaijanis in Armenia

---

This issue was originally posted on WP:ANB/I -- Cat ^chi? 01:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

---

• Turkics in Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) <-> Azerbaijanis in Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • User:Grandmaster and User:Atabek seems to want the title "Azerbaijanis in Armenia"
  • User:VartanM and User:Eupator seems to want the title "Turkics in Armenia"
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

A slow paced move war seems to be the case. I do not know the details (did not really looked deep into it) but there seems to be a problem. People may have been violated their revert parole from the linked arbcom case above. In any case an admin review is necesary.

I am particularly bothered by VartanM's conduct on List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia as he is removing reliable (governmental) sources: [1] [2]

-- Cat ^chi? 01:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting and notifying. This is a content dispute, which revolves around what sort of material should go into the article. As for ASALA, Turkish governmental sources can not be considered reliable, and neutral since the Turkish government was the primary target of ASALA. And we all know what Turkish government thinks about Armenians. You are welcome to provide neutral sources. I suggest looking in the TKB. VartanM (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute or not, revet parole maybe at work. I'll let an admin or two decide on the verdict.

This statement adds to the problem. I find it inflammatory. Governmental sources are well within WP:RS. Obviously the Ugandan government will not cover ASALA attacks...

-- Cat ^chi? 00:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I will always welcome mediators and third opinions in Armenia-Azerbaijan disputes. Judging by the month old diff you brought it up, you can't provide neither. I am still waiting for the explanation in the talkpage of ASALA article. If you want a constructive environment, you shouldn't revert the article to your proffered version and then report the other party to ANI. Back to the

Azers/Turkics in Armenia the only outcome I see is having two sapperate articles, one for Azerbaijanis in Armenia, another for Turkics in Armenia. You can not have an article about Turkic tribes, some of whom are distinctly different from Azeris and call the article Azeris in Armenia. If there are any volunteers who are willing to help us divide the article, they can express their views in the talkpage. VartanM (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"And we all know what Turkish government thinks about Armenians." <- That is racist and inflammatory.

It seems like the only problem you have with the Governmental source is that it is Turkish...

-- Cat ^chi? 01:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I consider this edit racist and inflammatory. It was uncalled for! I am beginning to think someone is gaming the system.

Judging by the overwhelming number of Azerbaijan-Armenia posts here, I think a 3rd arbcom case is necesary.

-- Cat ^chi? 01:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Good for you, but you are wrong. This is not a secret, it's common knowledge. The Turkish governments attitude towards Armenians in general is not far from the Third Reichs attitude towards the Jews mildly put. Any publication on the Turkish MFA site for example concerning Armenians is vile and racist:[3]. A growing number of Turkish people in Turkey are sick and tired with their government and their position as a result, like them you should condemn the government instead of supporting their sick and deranged propaganda. Weren't you a party of an arbitration case that dealt with this topic as a matter of fact several years ago that got you banned from the Armenian Genocide article? -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I also think that third arbcom is inevitable. POV push and edit warring by a certain group of editors has to stop. Grandmaster (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I never got banned from any article and even if I had, that still would not justify your conduct here. Who is my government again? I never announced such a thing. You know, I have been accused of being from so many nationalities it ain't even interesting anymore. I do not believe this will be tolerated any longer. -- Cat ^chi? 12:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Eupator, this is not a place for WP:SOAP. Sufficient to say that up to 100,000 Armenians today reside in Turkey, have their own church and functioning patriarchate, while not a single Turkic soul (apart from 100 people you mentioned) is left in Armenia. And about Third Reich and Jews, if I may - Jerusalem Post article about the vandalism against the Holocaust Memorial in Yerevan, Armenia - as recent as yesterday, December 23rd. This is while, Turkey has been a safehaven for Jews fleeing Inquisition in middle ages and Holocaust in 20th century. In any case, what's relevant in Wikipedia are specific comments by Wikipedia contributors, and hope you come up with facts to support your statements next time. Otherwise, please, assume good faith. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It is always convenient for you to soapbox about this issue and claim it is not the place to soapbox. The only person who soapboxed is you; Eupator explained why the statement is not racist. There have been more anti-Jewish actions in Turkey then there will even be in Armenia multiplied by a factor of few thousands. Three part of a series on The Middle East Media Research Institute. [4], [5], [6]. The anti-semitism (not real anti-semitism) in Armenia is directly related to Israel acting as a puppet of Turkey supporting its politics on the Armenian Genocide issue. While the anti-semitism in both Turkey and Azerbaijan are the belief in a Jewish world domination of some sort, the belief of Islamist fanatics. The Ottomans opened their doors to the Jews not to save them but they opened their doors to the Jews to populate them in Greek and Armenian quarters to fight against those minority groups’ economical supremacy. It was also Turkey which installed the Capital Tax against its Jewish, Armenian and Greek population in World War II, near identical to the Reich tax to have them out from Turkey. Had Turkey not been Israel's ally, right now we would have Israeli lawyers or Jewish organizations suing it for the missing worth of hundred of millions of gold which passed by Turkey. Besides, it is scholars like Pierre Vidal-Naquet (Holocaust specialist) who compares the modern Turkish regime position toward the Armenians as the Third Reich and its ambassadors to Himmlers. If notable scholars can make such comparisons, so can Eupator, Vartan etc. - Fedayee (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute. Unless you want an admin to arbitrarily make a decision for you, don't bring these here. Further comparison of Turkey with Nazi Germany is not recommended. Picaroon (t) 19:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

How much more will we good users have to tolerate such nonsense? VartanM, Eupator, Fedayee has such a constant inflammatory tone. The above conduct basically is a test of my patience. You state that such contribution isn't recommended. Shouldn't it be banned? -- Cat ^chi? 01:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM placed on A-A 2's restriction. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 22:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

What is A-A 2 restriction. I would welcome so that ignorant masses (that would be me) know precisely what it means. :) -- Cat ^chi? 01:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Andranikpasha is also removing sourced content [7]. -- Cat ^chi? 01:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Not content, but biased non-reliable, non-governmental source, which you're pushing. VartanM (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Minister of Culture of Turkey is a governmental source unless you do not consider Turkey as a country. Turkish government is QUITE reliable. Terrorism Knowledge Base of Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT), a non-profit organization funded by the United States Department of Homeland Security is also quite reliable. Have you actually checked the diff? -- Cat ^chi? 14:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

White Cat, an admin comment on "reliability" of that Turkish "source" on Armenian Genocide denial and Armenian "terrorism" is added to the article's talk. Pls read it! Andranikpasha (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

White Cat: this is the restriction. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it truly amazing that no one is seeing anything at all. It's really sad. Eupator gave his time in expanding an article and had it sabotaged, Vartan on the other hand has to deal with Atabek’s provocations by having to deal with someone who compares the Armenian regime with NAZI Germany. We have Ehud, who we all know is Adil. Vartan was the one member without a restriction who had to deal with two members, who were using the fact that they had no restriction by simply reverting and only Vartan could have done anything about it.

Here you have Atabek talking about an event which a few hours later, Ehud adds [8] to an article.

Also, I don't see in any way how the summary of Vartan is offending, if they want to have the article on the Azeris in Armenia, then they should cover only those. I don't think the Turkmen, the Turks, the Tartars etc., would like to be called in mass as Azeri. - Fedayee (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The one who really expanded this article was Parishan, and Eupator deleted many of his edits. Then together with Vartan they tried to move the article to a new title without any consensus on talk with other involved editors, and in his last edit Vartan deleted plenty of sourced info again. [9] Also, Fedayee, you presented no compelling evidence that Ehud is somehow related to Adil, and checkuser does not support your claims either. You were advised by the admins not to claim that Ehud is Adil unless it is officially proved that he is, but you keep on baiting this user by your baseless allegations. How long is this gonna continue? Grandmaster (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, pls look on your edits before asking about others. We need common standards here! Im the only person who really expanded to Shusha pogrom (1920) and you deleted many of my edits and moved to Ethnic clashes in Shusha in March 1920 without any consensus. And do you remember, how without marking any facts you wikistalked me saying Im a sock of user Artaxiad until I was blocked and re-opened just because an admin get sure Im not a sock but a newbie who dont know how to self-defence! Had you any facts that I was a sock of Artaxiad then? Andranikpasha (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That article eventually got moved by admins to another provisional title, since the one created by you was POV. And I only filed a cu on you, that does not amount to wikistalking and was quite justified considering the amount of sockpuppetry on this topic. I advised Fedayee many times to do the same with regard to Ehud and follow the established procedures to deal with his suspicions. Grandmaster (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin movings (also called by you a POV) is another case I wrote about your unconsensused info deletions [10] and moving[11]. And why wikistalkings by you are justified considering the amount of sockpuppetry on Armenia-Azerbaijan topic, and when Fedayee disputtes Ehud's sockpuppetry, you represent it as an significant point (problem) here? Andranikpasha (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Parishan’s contribution on Wikipedia overall has been disruptive, we have documented in the previous case that he has edited countless articles to have the term Azerbaijani added when it should not have been done. If another case is opened, we will document how he has created countless articles about individuals which do not pass the test of notability. Parishan’s contribution on Wikipedia look to be centered on adding the term Azerbaijani, and adding as many articles (which otherwise will not pass the test of notability) to have that word there. This is more particularly related to events covering periods where the Azerbaijani identity did not exist. You claim that some group of editors’ POV pushing should be covered and another arbitration is necessary. During the two arbitration cases, you have failed to document any POV pushing; we on the other hand during the second arbitration case have loaded the evidence page with POV pushing which was ignored totally. We have dozens of pages documenting POV pushing and I agree on a next arbitration about POV pushing, this is what I wanted during the last one, and I will oppose any new arbitration which would not be centered on that because a new case which would not deal with this would be a waste of time.

And this time the evidence, which had it been available or known by some of us during the first case, would have probably changed the final decision, particularly on Atabek. So yes, I want a third arbitration too but only if this time it is taken more seriously. And yes Ehud is Adil, and evidence points that Elsanturk is behind this Ehud thing too, all that is needed is a new arbitration case with fresh blood… maybe the arbitration this time will be reading the evidence... - Fedayee (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee, [12] - what an incredible waste of community's time... After it's once more clarified that Ehud Lesar and AdilBaguirov are not the same person, I suggest that you apologize to these and all other contributors, with regards to whom you just keep on assuming bad faith. Atabek (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the inclusion of my name in this report was appropriate. I only moved the article once [13], almost a week ago, for 2 reasons which I clearly explained on the talk page:

• 1. There is no such word as "Turkics" in English vocabulary
• 2. The article content for 99% deals with the eradicated Azerbaijani community in Armenia

I don't know to what extent my single page title change with justification is considered edit warring, in light of Eupator or VartanM revert activity, just check the article history.

In the rest, if someone wants to expand and use Turkic instead of Azeri to describe the unfortunate fate of Turkic-speakers in Armenia in light of the policies of anti-Turkism and ongoing conflicts, then fine. It seems that some contributors think that by purging out or replacing the name "Azeri" or "Azerbaijani" from articles or their titles is going to add anything encyclopedic. Atabek (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

My goodness, now Elsanturk is Ehud too, or the other way around. Perhaps, Atabek and Grandmaster are Adils too. Who else who's not supported Armenian point of view? Parishan, Aynabend, etc. With this logic, we will all "become socks" soon. I agree with Atabek. I hope Fedayee and others who try so hard to relate me to any other names are demanded an apology when everything becomes clear. (Ehud (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

I have blocked Fedayee (talk · contribs) for 24 hours due to the above accusation that Ehud is Adil, and left a note on User talk:Fedayee with more background. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that the so-called "admin" John Vandenberg has turned himself into a meatpuppet for the Azeri users. He completely justified Ehud's insults and AGF violations, in fact he even encouraged them. He insulted Fedayee after Ehud was reported for insulting other users. And now this pseudo-admin is blocking a Fedayee as a final act of service to the Azeri users. He has no job being an administrator. We will make sure that he is stripped of that privilege.

Fedayee has ample evidence that Ehud is a sockpuppet, and he has the right to express it, to prevent a potential sockpuppet from disrupting articles without a restriction.

And by the way, if an administrator starts behaving suspiciously, users have every right to point it out, due to the serious potential of abuse. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a few more facts. WP:AGF is not a policy. It is a guideline which "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." (WP:AGF). Saying that someone is a sockpuppet is not a violation of AGF--someone may engage in sockpuppetry with good faith (i.e. believing that he is making Wikipedia better).

Furthermore, a penalty should be applied after an official warning is placed on a user's talk page, and the user is told that continued violation will result in blocking. It's spelled out in the ArbCom decision: "Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 Poorly worded and vulgar requests (containing phrases such as "shut up", [14]) on other pages do not count.

In sum, Fedayee's block was highly inappropriate and needs to be lifted. I request a neutral admin to do so. Thank you.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This block was not intended to be part of Arb enforcement simply because it occurred on the AN/AE noticeboard, as I have explained on the users talk page. I have requested a review on WP:AN in order to gather wider input. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see the choice of the words by Tigran: so-called "admin" John Vandenberg has turned himself into a meatpuppet for the Azeri users (Tigran got away with "so called Azerbaijanis", now this), "pseudo-admin is blocking a Fedayee as a final act of service to the Azeri users", and goes as far as intimidating: He has no job being an administrator. We will make sure that he is stripped of that privilege. Tigran thinks that sticking to WP:AGF is not obligatory, even despite the recent arbcom specifically mentioning it among its principles: [15], how about WP:Civil? Grandmaster (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, TigranTheGreat is not the only one, I think all the users by Armenian side (off course included me) are sharing Tigran's opinion that Jayvdb's activities on Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles are always pro-Azeri biased and surely Jayvdb knows our common opinion about this (see for example [[16]]). Anyways he's continuing to "arbitrate" Armenia-Azerbaijani questions without leaving this hard responsibility for a less biased admin who can made a real consensus not a basis for future conflicts. The tolerance is what we need in Wikipedia! By all the sides! Andranikpasha (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, as you know two of the people that recently were foaming at the mouth about my involvement in this area were sockpuppets user:Bassenius and user:Verjakette. The only other two people that have voiced their discontent are yourself and TigranTheGreat, which isnt surprising because I have warned you both for being extremely difficult. VartanM has made a snide remark on Talk:Shusha which I think was more directed at the overall quagmire this topical area is (I wasnt mediating the article at the time). As far as I know there is nobody else who has not been banned by someone other than myself; please correct me if I am wrong.

As for having a pro-Azeri bias, perhaps that you forget that I happily transcribe pro-Armenian sources like s:The New York Times/Nurses stuck to post and s:The New York Times/Armenia prepared for a hard fight, of which at least the former you used in an article (Shusha, I think it was).

I have mostly Azeri articles on my watchlist primarily because I came into this topical area as a result of involvement with the Rasulzade article (I dont recall how I arrived there; it was over a year ago, feel free to dig through my contribs); I've yet to spend time working on primarily Armenian articles, but by the same token I have yet to tackle any predominately Iranian or Turkish topics either. To imply that this means I have a pro-anything worldview is bordering on paranoid. I simply have not been in a position to need to defend the Armenian point of view from being trampled on, as nobody has ever asked me to and I am busy enough as it is.

I do not "tolerate" stonewalling and incomplete sourcing and/or research. Perhaps that is the problem. John Vandenberg (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I remember that User:TigranTheGreat was claiming punishment for another third party user, who happened to disagree with Tigran on Khojaly article. [17] Grandmaster (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about this admin but I think blocking someone for accusations of sockpuppetry is hogwash particulalry when there is a mountian of evidence. I'm accusing Ehud of being a sokpuppet as well. Once again that block is of extreme poor judgement and requires immediate review. Also John Vandenberg asked for clarification here User talk:Fedayee/LesarBaguirov Evidence 3 days ago and never responded. If he is so interested and deeply involved in this case to the extent of issuing blocks why on earth did he not bother to take into consideration the response to a question that he put forward? -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Eupator

Eupator (talk · contribs) was a party to both Armenia-Azerbaijan and Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ArbCom cases. According to the remedies imposed on him in these cases, Eupator (talk · contribs) is subject to supervised editing and "is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism". [18]

However on Azerbaijanis in Armenia he moved the page to a new title twice without any consensus on talk: [19] [20], and then deleted large content from the article, which according to WP:3RR#What_is_a_revert.3F is also considered a revert: [21]

Grandmaster (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving the page twice is a violation of revert parole, as far as I can see (though removing the content is not, the policy is just badly phrased) but 3 days after the violation any block would be overly punitive. Eupator can consider himself warned not do so again, if you please. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. Move # 1 was a regular edit. Move number # 2 was a revert. How on earth is this a violation? This is not a violation, the move was a consequence of my edit not the aim. I expanded the article and included data about tribes and more data regarding population movements which was not specific to the Azerbaijani's, had I created one article, the consequences would have been to request the merging because some information covered what is already in the Azeris in Armenia article. Others moved my article by leaving my additions there which made no sense and was illogical because I really expanded the article and with the already included content it could not have been considered as Azeris in Armenia, so I made a revert, ONCE. This makes one revert, not two. I don't understand why Grandmaster is even including the deletion, it included what I added myself and also information not specific to the Azeris, I took them out to create another article about the Turkic people in Armenia throughout history. I don't see how this counts as a revert, as a revert of what, what I added myself? Where is the second revert? I modified the article, expanded it to be more general, I was reverted for the renaming not the rest, then I reverted. I had 1 revert, the first not being one..., since some people started to edit war, I removed what I had added. Kindly retract your warning or elaborate.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Eupator removed large chunks of well-presented, relevant and sourced information from the article and drastically modified its content, along with its title. If he wanted to cover the history of Turkic tribes in Armenia, the Azeris in Armenia article did not have to suffer. He should simply have started a new section within the article, or a new article, rather than disturbing the one that took almost a month of intense discussion to reach consensus on earlier in 2007, and remained in that form for the past 6 months. Not to mention multiple reverts on Eupator's part, which I believe contradict the Arbcom ruling. Eupator claims he made only one revert, when in fact deleting another user's contributions (in this case, mine) is in fact considered a revert. He started the edit war on the article by moving the page twice without any consensus with other editors on talk. Parishan (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There never was any consensus on that article. And the only reason why the article remained that way is because Parishan is acting as if thinks he owns the article. Parishan claims that Eupator has removed large chunks of article… what he does not say is that those were irrelevant. The article is used as a vehicle to rewrite history by claiming an identity which was yet not formed. I and Eupator have agreed on a RFC, now Parishan has yet to agree. - Fedayee (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster

User Grandmaster was a party to both Armenia-Azerbaijan and Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ArbCom cases. According to the remedies imposed on him in these cases, Grandmaster is subject to supervised editing and "is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page."

In the Nagorno-Karabakh_Republic article, Grandmaster made a revert without discussing it on the talk page. Here is his revert: [22]

It's a partial revert of the article introduction to a prior version. The prior version can be seen here: [23]

In his revert, he basically restored the phrase "within the borders of Azerbaijan," which had been previously changed to "entirely surrounded by Azerbaijan" in the following edit by me: [24].

Note that partial restorations of text--i.e. partial reverts, are still considered reverts: "However, in the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article." (Wikipedia:Revert)

Grandmaster failed to accompany his revert on the talk page, as required by the ArbCom decision.

Note that Grandmaster's comment on the talk page ([25]) does not satisfy this requirement, since he made that comment only in response to User:Steelmate's post on the talk page ([26]), after User:Steelmate had already reverted Grandmaster's revert ([27]) and discussed it on the talk page.

Here are the edit histories for the Nagorno-Karabakh_Republic article ([28]) and the relevant talk page ([29]).

--TigranTheGreat (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it is not a revert, second, I left a comment. Frivolous report. Grandmaster (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If that is a revert, if Grandmaster didn't leave a comment exactly as he should - there's too many ifs in there, so I'm not really inclined to block for such a technical infraction, particularly in the context of the article just being split off from another and tempers raging rather high at the moment. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ehud Lesar

Lately user Ehud Lesar has been openly insulting other users, engaging in trolling, and seriously violating the Wikipedia policies requiring Civility and Assumption of Good Faith.

Just in the past 24 hours Ehud Lesar trolled and insulted several times, all on this page. Following are the examples.

Here is an obvious act of trolling against another user (Fedayee):

"Keep talking. Maybe this compensates your anger." [30]

Here is again similar offensive remarks and trolling, this time not only against Fedayee, but all Armenian users (notice the highly provocative "do you guys"):

"Do you guys mass mail each other and decide how to "treat" other users?"

"But please do continue writing. Otherwise it'll get boring." [31]

Once again, Ehud Lesar seriously violating WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF, against Armenian users:

"Or, is it better for you that I am not checked so that you keep repeating the same melody over and over? I think the latter option suits your interests well and that's why you're inactive." [32]

Such behavior is completely unacceptable in Wikipedia, and requires some sanctions to ensure it will not happen again.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You're stating above I am openly insulting other users, engaging in trolling, and seriously violating teh Wikipedia policies And where would be anything indicating OPENLY insulting? Please bring some examples, other than those lines above which are NOT indicative of anything. Please also, copy and paste your own remarks about Azerbaijanis, your remarks on Azeri users, etc. That would be interesting to compare my discussion posts with yours. --Ehud (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So, you admit that you were insulting sneakily. The examples provided above constitute insults and trolling by any reasonable standard.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Tigran, it is written as clear as you can see above that I am asking for some examples which indicate any intention or actual insult against any Armenian, other than your examples which make no sense. It is understandable that you have no other choice, no other card to use against me and out of desperation, you just try to pull out words from me. Keep trying. --Ehud (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Adil, you see why you are banned now? Even under a new username, you just can't stop disrupting. Here I'll add one more: You are so brainwashed by your own ideology, that you don't give yourself a chance to look at the other side of the paper.[33] - Fedayee (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that if there actually is any trolling here, it comes from those users who keep on making baseless accusations of Ehud being a sock of Adil. I would like to specifically draw attention of the admins to the behavior of User:Fedayee, who keeps harassing Ehud, just check his post above mine, where he refers to Ehud as Adil, while he knows perfectly well that those users are unrelated. The comments of Ehud posted here were made in response to such accusations, and he was actually baited to make them and got reported. CU proved that Adil and Ehud are not related: [34], still harassment of Ehud continues. I would like to ask the admins to put an end to this harassment campaign. Grandmaster (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ehud Lesar was baited here, and consequently sunk his teeth in a little. Please stop baiting him; if you believe Ehud Lesar is a banned user, compile your evidence and submit it to be investigated further. Don't make accusations about sock puppetry until it has been proven otherwise you have unclean hands. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Correct accusations of abusive sockpuppetry are normally fairly easy to prove. I suggest collecting evidence at either Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets or Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Until then, please follow John V's advice. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, here you go [35]. I started adding the evidence, I will be adding more depending on how much you request if this is not enough. I am really amazed that no one sees anything in Adil's game. The reason I don't want to add all the evidences at once is that, from experience, I know it won’t even be read. - Fedayee (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job. Thank God. I am personally requesting administrators on this page to pay immediate attention to the above "evidence" of user Fedayee. Moreover, I am specifically requesting admins on this page to track everything related to my account and announce for bothered users that I was not in Baku or any other location the provided by Fedayee user names can be associated with. These groundless accussations and attacks on my personality, my ethnic background, and my contribution to Wikipedia must end. Thank you (Ehud (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

Add all the convincing evidence you can find and then tell us to come look. What I see now is not a definitive establishment of sock puppetry. So far, you've established that:

• Adil has created fake ethnicities for his socks before.
• Adil can evade checkuser detection.

But I want more evidence of behavioral similarity than just making similar reverts. The Geycha and Zangezur stuff does not make sense to me. Picaroon (t) 20:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Take another look at his behavior. I think this is a give away: You're free to be either obsessed with or pretty much obviously impressed by him, but please stop dragging me into "being" someone I am not just NOT. [36]. Geycha does not make sense? It does when only Adil out of every Azerbaijani users here claimed this and when the claim is contradicted by the official Azerbaijani map covering the disputed territories. It makes this claim exclusively Adil's. It was also only Adil turning articles into subjects covering Armenian fictional destructions. Like this: [37], [38]. Or this more recently [39].

Also, I don't think Adil has created fake ethnicities for his socks before is all there is to be. Not ponly did he create different ethnicities, but that in three occasions when Ehud left for a considerable lenght of time other socks reappeared and during those occasions sockpuppetry only ceased when Ehud came back. And didn't you find anything suspicious about the fact that Ehud registered hours after Paul August modified the proposed decision of all the members but him and Artaxiad? This coincides with the confirmation that Adil will be banned.

No other person besides Adil lambasted so much about other members being brainwashed by their ideologies like this : You are so brainwashed by your own ideology, that you don't give yourself a chance to look at the other side of the paper. [40] -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Admins, I will be more than happy to help you with any questions/queries you might have on this case. I have not been editing in Wikipedia for several months due to my busy schedule and as soon as I appeared back, obviously my edits (not even edits but my appearance on talk pages) started irritating the above and other involved Armenian users. I see that all the links they have been posting on this and other admin pages are only targeting to relate me to Adil Bagirov just because he is a banned user: for one simple reason - to get me banned. These same users do not have anything else to use against me (violation of any Wikipedia rules).

All the claims with my "appearance" on the dates related to one or another banning, warning, edits, socks of any other banned or paroled users are groundless for one simple reason: This is called Wikipedia. Any user comes in at any time he's free and available to help expand Wikipedia. I am sure the same can be applied to Armenian users whose timing of appearance, edits, reverts coincide. Go figure now if they are socks or not. Maybe they should provide their timing on Wikipedia as well. Secondly, the issue of Geycha and Zangezur is NOT exclusive to Adil Bagirov. It is the history of Caucasus available in many libraries in many countries. If a previous user (Adil Bagirov in our case) has provided this specific information on Wikipedia first, that doesn't make any of the next Wikipedia users with the same information Adil Bagirovs or anyone related to him. We all read and write and get sources from somewhere. Let's then connect all Armenian users to the first Armenian who claimed Nagorno-Karabakh to be Armenian on Wikipedia, and let's declare the former to be fake users, shall we? Third, it's your own business of being impressed by Adil Bagirov and his trips to other countries, but I have been a Wikipedia user from one computer at one location. Admins can easily check that.

Once again, I am ready to provide the administrators with the requested information so that I am cleared from baseless accussations. (Ehud (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

Mediation by Moreschi on Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles

In thread below, User:Moreschi kindly proposed to mediate and arbitrate in Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles. I think it's better if other contributors present their thoughts here in support or opposition of the proposal. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Atabek's request, and Moreschi's offer (which several users have rejected, considering the existing mediation by Golbez) needs to be considered in its context. The relevant accusations and responses appear on the ANI page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Golbez_and_VartanM), and should be read by those considering Atabek's request. Basically, Golbez has been mediating on the Nagorno-Karabakh article. Following extremely disruptive edits and posts by Atabek, Golbez made it known that Atabek's inputs are not welcome, as they are provocative. As I and other users (such as Steelemate) have stated, fulfilling Atabek's request will be tantamount to rewarding a disruptive editor who tries to push away a mediator with whom he disagrees. Therefore, and given Golbez' current mediation, I and other users have respectfully rejected Moreschi's offer. We may welcome him in the future.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Tigran, what makes you think that you and Steelmate are not disruptive while I am? Just the fact that Golbez and you are on one side of content dispute and I, along with few other contributors, am on the other does not suffice to call me disruptive. So assume good faith. Also, I believe this thread only asked for points explaining the rejection of Moreschi's kind offer (it's not an easy task to mediate and arbitrate this conflict) endorsed by at least 2 administrators at WP:ANI. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Golbez should step down as a mediator on NK and other Armenia - Azerbaijan related articles. So far not a single Azerbaijani contributor agreed to his mediation. I agree that Moreschi or any other third party contributor takes up the role of mediator. Grandmaster (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am dissatisfied with Golbez's mediation. He frequently resorts to spinosity and can get emotional - something mediators should avoid at all costs. I do not have anything against Moreschi taking over as a mediator. Parishan (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Parishan really dissatisfied of Golbez mediation? I wonder when was the last time he was engaged in any mediation to be dissatisfied? His participation on NK was basically reverting to Grandmasters position and sometimes providing a line or two, when he was criticized that he does not comment. Only after Atabek was singled out did he come to contribute there, and his arguments show that he doesn't even understand what the problem was really about.

This mentality of taking sides, Azerbaijani’s on one side and Armenians on the other isn’t helping anyone. If someone has the right to criticize Golbez's mediation, that person has to actually be engaged in the mediation process, those who were there when Francis and Golbez settled the issue before Atabek came and screwed it up. Coming here and claiming that his dissatisfied on a mediation that he wasn't even involved with besides a few comments which were already repeated by another contributor, doesn’t in any way weight in when commenting about Golbez's participation.

The point has been made, so why does Parishan continues pulling Golbez's foot? [41] I think administrators should first understand the rational of Atabek's illogical, irrational requests. It won't be the first nether the last time contributors like Atabek pushed members to the extreme. VartanM (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I found Golbez's answer following my comment [42] inadequate and inappropriate, and I did point it out to him [43]. And my response did correspond to the question posed by him. I think that experience was memorable enough to allow me to draw conclusions from this mediation. In any event, I was actually trying to make a fruitful contribution, rather than attributing "bazaar mentality" to ethnicities, whose representatives happen to disagree with me. Parishan (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with Golbez's mediation. He has solved long running issues and is very well familiar with the conflict and the history of the situation, his neutrality has only been challenged by pov pushers. Switching to another mediator will not be constructive.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 10:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I proposed. I'm also quite happy with Golbez's mediation. I'm more worried about everywhere else - the locus of dispute is not restricted to just this one article. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also be happy with word "mediation" applied in Golbez case, if someone could explain what mediation actually means, other than what is defined in the relevant article: "Mediation, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), aims to assist two (or more) disputants in reaching an agreement.". It's clear from his edits and talk page comments, and the whole "raving maniacs" thing, that, with all due respect, he is more a disputant (within definition given above) than a mediator. Can we bring this to some formal board where a decision can be taken on who should actually mediate the articles? Because as of now, a group of users is refusing to contribute to the articles due to Golbez's activity, and when independent arbitrator like Moreschi offers his services, another group rejects for not quite detailed reasons but that it simply wants to continue "pushing POV". Atabek (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, my comment on Golbeze's page was simply the product of you calling him an pro-Armenian, interested only listening to the Armenians. Same applies to the bazaar comment. I was under the impression that if I really started pushing POV just the way you claim that I do. And if it were anywhere near the level of your own pushed POV maybe then, the mediators would be able to reach a consensus and not be called pro-Armenian. I quickly changed my mind about that theory, for the simple reason that the last thing this project needs is another destructive user. And by destructive, I mean someone who is able to halt any productive discussion [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] by driving the mediator to the point of snapping [54] and then reporting him to ANI [55]. VartanM (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And I never rejected Moreschi's offer. The more neutral eyes we have on AA articles the better. Maybe then the compassions of NK to the Nazis will end. Also I didn't see you complaining about Golbez when he protected the Shushi article on a "right version". That wasn't really a pro-Armenian was it? VartanM (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

When you behave like a raving maniac, a moderator needs to point that out. He is doing you a favor, so you will step away and not sabotage the efforts of your fellow editors. Sometimes I get short breath just by reading your incessant tirades against your opponents. It's good if someone tells you to calm down and stop screaming.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of having any impartial mediator. So far, Golbez has not proven to be one. All of the above clearly indicate quite the opposite. I am for Moreschi's help. --Ehud (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Banned members have no say in this. You are banned so you should learn to face it. - Fedayee (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep talking. Maybe this compensates your anger. --Ehud (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what we say or think, there should be a change or rotation in mediation. One person cannot be mediator for his or her lifetime. If there is a call for change, why not to face it? I think we should follow this simple logic in this given case too. --Aynabend (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, you’ve been OK so far, even thought I disagree with you very strongly on many issues. You have not come to discuss with Golbez, you’ve left Vartan with Atabek, which resulted into this. At least in your case you don’t say anything while Grandmaster pushes any misbehavior of Atabek under the carpet and then switches roles.

Didn’t it cross your mind that when Golbez said that he wanted the Azerbaijani position explained by another person other than Atabek, it could have been you? I think the call for change should be justified, what was the problem really?... it was the removal by Atabek of a word and the emblem. Is it really worth it to have another person go through thousands of texts and countless pages of discussion for two problems, one of which was a non-issue at least by the two sides before Atabek created this artificial problem?

For an artificial problem created and maintained by Atabek, we have not only one article to work on, but three now; the split and the FORK created by Grandmaster. Where does this lead us to? Logically, it should be Atabek that should be prevented from participating in those articles and you to come there and present your position and I am certain that the issue could be resolved without Atabek’s implication. Just try it, and then say if Golbez is what he was pictured here to be. - Fedayee (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez's mediation did not work. It is time to try someone else. I will file a request for mediation soon. Grandmaster (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM

User:VartanM is a party to ArbCom [56] He has recently pushed the limit, by attacking a whole ethnicity again: [57]:

• "Atabek its clear to me that Azeris have a bazar mentality in negotiations. As in you tart with your own ridiculously high price and wait for the Armenian to come up with its own ridiculously low price, go back and forth until a medium is reached then call it a deal. What has happened so far is that Azeris came up with the high price, but we the naive Armenians ask for the medium price right from the start, Azeris get confused and think that the medium is the low price and push for more."

I am not sure how long and how many times will this Arbitration Committee condone VartanM's attacks and the attack by TigranTheGreat like reported below on other contributors along ethnic lines and allow generalizations such as above. These contributors have been warned already at several instances.

No one likes being insulted or attacked for free contributions to free encyclopedia at own time and leisure. I hope Arbitration Committee will take this into consideration. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Chaps, attacking an ethnicity is only indirectly a violation of Wikipedia policy, but it's annoying and not something we want to see too much more of (Wikipedia ain't a soapbox either).

And, yes, Vartan, please don't do that. Nobody should. It's not much of a policy violation but it really does not help with the atmosphere around here, which is quite toxic enough as it is. There'd be no point browbeating an apology out of you, but please restrain from making such similar statements in the future. You're a classier sort of gentleman than that. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement is getting stupidly clogged up with your battles. At the moment it ain't all really working, I think you'll both agree. Perhaps we need a new approach. Here's an idea. I'll be full-time mediator and admin-enforcer to the Armenia-Azeri fights for a fortnight. If you accept, fine. If so, however, we're going to have work out a system whereby I get told where the latest fights are breaking out, because I haven't got every single Armenia-Azeri article listed. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, I think that would be great if you could dedicate some time to Azeri-Armenian articles. I will be more than glad to cooperate in your efforts. Keep me informed, and I can provide you with a list of all disputed articles.

But for this particular case, I also want to request that VartanM be demanded an apology for insulting an entire ethnicity. It's really inappropriate and every time he makes a violation and is given a green light, just because it's reported by opposite side, he continues similar attacks next time. Atabek (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to report this also, but VartanM engaged in another attack along ethnic and personal lines [58] against User:Ehud Lesar. Perhaps, he needs to be explained to calm down. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to calm down. Just today you have already alienated one admin (Golbez) with your hyperventilating style of argumentation. Going around and accusing all your opponents in "attacking along national lines" is disruptive and annoying. Vartan made a simple point--User Ehud's behavior strongly suggests that he is a sock of Adil, and as such, he is impersonating someone having a Jewish name. Unless Ehud wants to bring up the issue himself and subject himself to checkuser, you need to move on and stop your disruptive behavior. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Tigran, if VartanM is not "attacking along national lines", why is User:Ehud Lesar's ethnic background is even a subject of discussion in Wikipedia? Does any Wikipedia rule proclaim that the user must state his ethnicity or be claimed as a sock otherwise? There is a simple method for proving a contributor is a sock of another - filing a checkuser. Is it really so much harder than assuming so much bad faith? Atabek (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• The diffs of VartanM cited by Atabek are not actionable. Thatcher131 02:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's more, a personal attack on Atabek, accusations of trolling, etc. Quote: Atabek is clearly trolling and baiting you to say things that you wouldn't normally say. My advise is to ignore him, but if it continues you can report him to the administrators at WP:ANI. [59] Also, constant accusations of User:Ehud Lesar being a sock of banned user Adil is another personal attack. VartanM knows very well that checkuser proved that Ehud and Adil are not related, but keeps attacking Ehud on any occasion. How many warnings can one person be given? I think it is time Vartan stops attacking other users, whom he happened to disagree with. Grandmaster (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, you're also a part of ArbCom and how many times you attacked Armenian side with the words like "separatists", "ethnic cleansings" etc (last time 2 days ago at Talk:Shusha)? and your last "editions" at Baku: after the Black January pogroms when the whole Armenian population fled the city its even very hard for you to see the word Armenian there in the article- when a prominent person from Baku was really an Armenian and in some cases was pressed to leave Baku like Armenian-Jewish Kasparov and his family? What about tolerance? Pls try to be more tolerant before asking about other users! Andranikpasha (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, since when the words "separatist" and "ethnic cleansing", with listed facts and references in historical debate, are considered an attack? And Kasparov is a prominent person, not because he is from Baku and not because he is Armenian-Jewish, but because he became a chess grandmaster. And by the way, before Black January pogroms, Kasparov received education in Baku, elevated and paid for all his chess tournaments up to championship by no one other than the leader of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev. And by the way, when Armenians were leaving on ships or trains prior to Black January, Kasparov was chartering a comfortable plain for his family to leave to Moscow, safely, escorted from Baku airport. And by the way, if you look at my edits at Baku, I removed most Azerbaijani ethnic classification from prominent people listings as well. The article is about the city of Baku and prominent people from the city, not about their ethnic backgrounds. So WP:AGF. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, may I remind you about few comments for which I was blocked before, links listed here: [60], [61]. Perhaps, you could look at both links and since you don't find anything actionable in VartanM's "Azeris have a bazar mentality in negotiations" and "Atabek is clearly trolling and baiting you to say things that you wouldn't normally say", explain me what was "actionable" in what I said then? Atabek (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Different admins have different standards. It is obvious in context that VartanM meant bazaar, not bizzare, and it was a comment on negotiation tactics. I could adopt the view that every talk page comment that said "the [blank] people all do this" is a personal attack and ban the whole damn lot of you. Certainly a more aggressive enforcement approach would fall on you as well. Thatcher131 14:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that I don't remember a single instance of any Azerbaijani user making generalizing comments about the Armenian people. I don't remember any Azerbaijani user ever saying "you Armenians are this and that". Previous report was dealing with comments of TigranTheGreat about the modern Azerbaijani people, to whom he referred as "so called Azerbaijanis" "with fictional ethnic identity", etc. It was not a matter of historical dispute, into which some users managed to change the discussion. If such remarks about the whole people are acceptable here, then everyone should feel free to make similar comments without the risk of being sanctioned. It is not even a matter of enforcing the arbcom decisions, it is more about the general atmosphere in talk pages, which keeps on deteriorating. I believe some sort of a general warning should be given to make users refrain from such inflammatory statements. Grandmaster (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Grandmaster. Such statements on a certain ethnicity indicate ethnic harted. I think VartanM should apologize for his unfair remarks about Azerbaijanis. Ethnic hatred should not be tolerated by admins in Wikipedia. Furthermore, Tigran should file a checkuser on my account along with people who think alike, if that makes him this worried that I am Adil Bagirov. So, Tigran and others, just stop talking and use your time to file a checkuser instead. Or, is it better for you that I am not checked so that you keep repeating the same melody over and over? I think the latter option suits your interests well and that's why you're inactive. --Ehud (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been already demonstrated that your persona is a fake one. We will all treat you as Adil because you are Adil. It was already pointed out that Lesar is Sephardic not Ashkenazi. It is unlikely that any Jew will ever support the claim that a few deaths amount to genocide and even to reply to an objection to the ridiculous comparison between Auschwitz and Khojaly by supporting the one who made such a ridiculous, plain and pathetic comparison.

No Jew will have any interest at calling Sevan (in the republic of Armenia) by its "Azerbaijani" name, or it being Azerbaijani land... all of which are claims exclusively made by Adil Baguirov.

We know now that Azizbekov was not a sock of a banned member... he has been banned by the ridiculous accusations brought forward by Grandmaster. But of course, here we have an obvious case of sock puppetry and administrators unsurprisingly remain silent. All the editors implicated (Armenian as much Azeri) have the knowledge to invade checkusers, particularly Adil, and on various occasions it was obvious it was him behind the sock puppetry, even without checkuser confirmation. It is no secret that there is an Atabek and Adil connection, so there should not be any surprise as to why Ehud always appears to give a hand to Atabek, just like when Adil was raining in with sockpuppets to come to Atabek’s defense. - Fedayee (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you sound like you have very short memory. It wasn’t until recently that there were such comments and this happening because there are no consequences for what Atabek has been saying and doing for a very long time. And I witness that again you use the “Armenian and Azerbaijani” editors’ card. I don’t get it, why don’t you stick to reporting and start making less offending comments? You compared Armenia with Saddam’s Iraq, which, unlike the claim of a weak Azerbaijani national identity, is not substantiated. Tell me, how was your comparison any less offending when it was those same analogies, which have grown to become comparisons with the NAZIs, which have finally pushed Tigran into making those comments. If you don’t want others to make comments which you find offending, maybe you should also listen to other editors when they find your comments offending. I have not seen you doing anything when Atabek added his stuff in his user page offending Armenian users, he knew they were offending and only removed them when he wanted to comment in the request for arbitration page because he was probably scared to have his recent contributions analysed. - Fedayee (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been already demonstrated that your persona is a fake one. We will all treat you as Adil because you are Adil Demonstrated? By what? By repetitive sounds of nonsense? And who are you to treat me as Adil or any other user? Who is we? Do you guys mass mail each other and decide how to "treat" other users?

Really impressed about your knowledge on Jewish roots and even their views. Really astounding to see how you speak so well on behalf of Jews. It's up to the Admins to decide who's a sock and who's not. I think they are smart enough to determine who's who. But please do continue writing. Otherwise it'll get boring. --Ehud (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee, before accusing me of having a short memory you may wish to recall that “Armenian and Azerbaijani” editors’ card has already been played by Vartan (remember his "bazaar mentality" speech?). And I never compared Armenia with anyone, the discussion was about whether or not we can present as official an emblem of the city, introduced by occupational forces, and I reminded of a similar situation in another region of the world. And please stop attacking Ehud, it has never been demonstrated that his persona is fake, on the contrary, it has officially been proven that he has nothing to do with Adil. See this checkuser once again. I recommend Ehud to take this to WP:ANI next time anyone repeats this baseless sockpuppetry accusation, it is harassment and should be dealt with as such. Grandmaster (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You know checkusers will not show anything and you know nothing has been demonstrated of that sort. Ehud is Adil, we already confirmed this, so please for your own sake stop claiming it was demonstrated, I will start believing that you know it and defend him.

It isn’t difficult at all to confirm it, here are the same myths which were said by Adil [62] who calls Sevan, Geycha (and the theory about it being Azerbaijani land)… here is the near identical claim again by Adil.[63].

When you search in the talkpages, all the hits excluding one, point either to Adil and Ehud, for Geycha for the way Adil calls it by its “Azerbaijani” name. If you read Adil’s claim, you will see those claims put forward by Adil are identical to the ones put forward by Ehud. Neither you, nor even Atabek have ever made those claims about Sevan, they were exclusively Adil’s thing.

There can be no reasonable doubt that it is Adil, the ancestry of that family is Sephardic while Ehud claims otherwise… he calls Sevan, and which is in the republic of Armenia, by an Azerbaijani name, again Adil’s baseless claims, no one brought it up, at least not this way, Atabek calls its “Azerbaijani” name Gokcha not Geycha.

The sarcasm too is 100% Adil. Adil has been known to impersonate, Jewish, Armenian and various other ethnicities already and we know he can escape checkusers. So I doubt that you buy the claim that it was demonstrated that it was not Adil, when it is 100% sure that this guy is Adil. As for your comment about short memory, you ignore again all the things which were done for months by Atabek, aimed at provoking members with offending comments and you merely put your finger on a recent event, no comment is even needed for that. - Fedayee (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It is OK to read these theories for me. They bring laughter. I am just kind of puzzled. By being an Armenian, and supposedly not speaking Azeri, what are you trying to prove by stating that one user calls the region Gokcha and the other one calls it Geycha? For your information, if you open the doors to Azerbaijani articles and try to consider the other side of the story, you would come to know that Gokcha is transliteration from Russian, and Geycha from Azerbaijani. If two users are using different transliterations, why would one think the rest of the people belong to one category or another? If you did some real research instead of your "investigation", you would come to come that resources compiled/written based on Azeri sources or transliteration would state the name as "Geycha"; if Russian - then "Gokcha", etc. It's a matter of choice, Mr. fedayee. Atabek chose to use "Gokcha", Adil chose "Geycha". For your information, one of your friends [64] got the name from Russian transliteration, while in Azeri sources it is Azizbayov or Azizbeyov. I see now that, according to your logic, in the few days, weeks, years, you'll be calling the rest of the Azeris, Jews, Georgians, Americans who use one or another way of calling the region, "Adils", "Atabeks" from now on.

Same applies to Adil Bagirov's posts on Zangezur and Geycha you provided links of, which he must have learned from websites, books, articles, and what others haven't learned much about. I, in my turn, have learned the history of both Armenia and Azerbaijan, and am mentioning what I had learned. Geycha and Zangezur, which are the present day Sevan and Syunik, have been a part of Azerbaijan up until they were transferred to Armenia in the beginning of the 20th century. I am not saying they weren't once a part of Armenian Empire. They belonged to both of the nations in various periods of time. The bottom line is that they are a part of independent Republic of Armenia and were recognized as part of Armenia by international community when it got its independence, as much as Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijan Republic and were recognized as part of Azerbaijan by international community; however was a subject to occupation by Armenian armed forced. You may call it a "myth" as much as you like, but it's a recorded history. You are so brainwashed by your own ideology, that you don't give yourself a chance to look at the other side of the paper. --Ehud (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing you do with your answers is to confirm more and more that you are Adil. I have accumulated evidence that shows that even your intimidations and accusations are identical to Adil Baguirov. I will provide the evidence on ANI. It is also known why it would not have been logical that Adil Baguirov’s IP could have matched with yours, since Adil left for his postdoctoral only after he was banned, you forced me to say why the IP could not match even if he was not to use an open proxy. I will not say anything more on why your justifications are bogus, we'll see it on ANI and you will be free to reply. I will not be filling an Arbitration request, because my trust for the arbitration has reached an all-time low, I will only hope some administrators will use some of their time to go through the evidence. - Fedayee (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee, I strongly encourage you to file a report to ANI, because your harassment of Ehud has to stop. It is about the time admins put an end to this. Let them check all the evidence and results of cu and pass their own judgement. Grandmaster (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite clear above, in my posts, that there are no posts involving any sort of intimidation. I am not sure why you choose that kind of words if you understand that it'll be clear to any English speaking person that there are no intimidations on my part, only your continuous harrassment, baseless accusations, negative attitude. I must say that it's rather positive that you're so impressed by Adil Bagirov; so impressed that you happen to follow his life cycle, but I think you should free your mind from the name Ehud Lesar. File a checkuser, provide any kind of evidence on ANI, so that the administrators see, assess and evaluate, and clear out for you once and for all that I am not and never have been another user. Maybe then you'll stop your never ending harrassment. --Ehud (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

VartanM's choice of words was full of flavour. In light of the prior Arbcom cases this is not ideal, but among the reams of talk on these pages it isn't surprising that we all get frustrated from time to time and wax a bit lyrical about the tactics of others. The correct response at these times is to AGF, which in this case would mean assuming VartanM meant bazaar :- a jovial call for clarification would have been more effective then bringing this to AN/AE.

Fedayee, this thread is about VartanM, not Ehud Lesar. If you have enough proof that Ehud Lesar is someone else, "put up or shut up" until such time as you are ready to put your cards on the table. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

TigranTheGreat

Asgardian

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

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

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

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

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

Rosencomet and Starwood related articles

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

The caution is not enforceable. Make a new request to ArbCom to create an enforceable remedy. Thatcher131 02:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

---

User:Rosencomet has been violating the terms of the Starwood Arbitration. The Starwood Arbitration had this proposed remedy: "Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages."

This has actually been an ongoing problem since the end of the arbitration in March 2007. The central articles affected are:

• Starwood Festival
• Association for Consciousness Exploration
• Winterstar Symposium
• Jeff Rosenbaum Autobiography concerns, see here.

Rosencomet has used the phrase "as executive director of ACE" so he has a conflict of interest in editing all three of the non-autobio articles.

Winterstar Symposium: A section is marked with a laundry list tag [79]. Rosencomet reverts without addressing the issue.[80] On the talk page, Rosencomet is combatative and aggressively argumentative in his approach to the discussion. [81] (This diff covers several consecutive edits by Rosencomet)

Starwood Festival: When asked for inline citations and integration of references into the body of the article [82], Rosencomet responds by adding a link to the Starwood website [83] and removes the citation needed tag.[84] Rosencomet's response on the talk page is again aggressively combatative [85] I'd also like to note that Rosencomet has apparently been using Google's book search to add references to the article. In other words, if a book mentions Starwood in passing, he will put it in the references section. Many of these are clearly trivial mentions and add nothing of substance to the references beyond increasing the numbers. I believe this kind of empty bloating of references should be avoided in favour of refs primarily about the subject of the article.

Jeff Rosenbaum: WP:COI issues are blatantly apparent here since, as noted above, Rosencomet is undoubtedly Mr. Rosenbaum. A look at the history will show he has extensively edited this page. Most recently is this series of edits [86]. Note, among other problems, his insertion of the Starwood website as a reference for information. On the talk page, Rosencomet refers to himself as "the subject" in an attempt to deflect the COI issues. [87]

All of this shows that, despite Arbcom admonitions, he still behaves as if WP core policies are only a matter of opinion and the normal Wikipedia rules don't apply to him. Over a year after these issues were brought to his attention in the strongest possible way and he still responds with hostility when policies are pointed out to him. (I also believe he is still creating articles that astroturf for his festivals and group but this was not specifically ruled on in the Arbcom case.)

I tried to be brief with this but have obviously failed. Because I was the person who brought the arbitration against Rosencomet, I feel my judgment and ability to enforce the arbcom decision is limited. Even bringing the issue here caused me some hesitation but I think my concerns stand independent of my involvement in the Arbcom case. Pigman☿ 00:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, he's getting aggressive. I checked in on some of the articles that were mentioned in the Arb, and his contribs, and attempted to address some of the problems. This is some of what Rosencomet (talk · contribs) did in response: Reversions, insertions of more rosencomet.com links, insertions in his autobio of links to forum posts he's made (calling them "articles") and reverting when they are removed, screaming edit summaries, accusations of stalking and attempts to find another contributor to edit on his behalf: [88] [89] [90] Looking further back, we also see that since the Arbitration he has continued to add mentions of himself and his products (usually tapes he sells) to articles: [91] [92] [93] [94] [95]. I think it is clear that, even after having it explained to him by Arbcom and numerous editors, Rosencomet does not seem to think that WP guidelines apply to him, or to the articles he works on (and he still seems to have trouble telling the difference between the two). After all this time on WP, he still responds to the efforts of other editors to apply basic standards to these articles as some sort of personal attack. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I decided to look into Pigman (talk · contribs)'s mention of Rosencomet (talk · contribs), continuing to create "articles that astroturf for his festivals and group." On his user page, Rosencomet has recently added a list of articles he's created, and which he appears to still be editing. Looking through them I found that Matthew Abelson, Armor & Sturtevant, John Bassette, Steve Blamires, Brushwood Folklore Center, Baba Raul Canizares, Miriam Chamani, Ian Corrigan, Phyllis Curott, Jim Donovan (musician), Sally Eaton, Robert Lee "Skip" Ellison, Philip H. Farber, LaSara FireFox, Laurence Galian, Victoria Ganger, Jesse Wolf Hardin, George R. Harker, Richard Kaczynski, Lehto and Wright, List of Neo-Pagan festivals and events, Louis Martinie', Patricia Monaghan, Christopher Moore (author), M. Macha Nightmare, Owain Phyfe, Lauren Raine, Nicki Scully, Chas Smith, Patricia Telesco, Trance Mission, and Harvey Wasserman all include links to Starwood or Winterstar (the festivals Rosencomet runs), sometimes to his autobio, and usually also to rosencomet.com (which is often the only source cited in these generally unsourced articles). While ArbCom did not rule on the appropriateness of the links, those familiar with the festival, the artists, and the Neopagan milieu did, in this RfC: Talk:Starwood Festival#Request for Comment: Inserting references to Starwood Festival in articles. Of the editors weighing in, the consensus was clearly that the internal and external links to Starwood, Winterstar, and other projects run by Jeff Rosenbaum were "a clear case of linkspam to a commercial site, and that the internal linkspam is as inappropriate as the external linkspam." Looking back over it, it looks like while a couple people were somewhat neutral, the only voice of clear support for Rosencomet's extensive linking to his projects belonged to the Ekajati/999/Hanuman Das/etc sock drawer, now indef-blocked by Arbcom. I think we have a definite problem here. And note, I did not go through his complete contribs, which, skimming the list, I know also includes articles with Starwood links. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this was precisely the problem that got him to arbitration in the first place, I don't see how we can overlook it. Perhaps we need to go back to ArbCom and ask for a restriction, since his entire purpose for being on Wikipedia appears to be boosting his own interests. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration case was really about disruption and sockpuppetry on the part of a supporter and an opponent of Rosencomet. Rosencomet's own behavior (at the time) was mostly reasonable. Of course, his editing often involves conflicts of interest, but COI editing is not prohibited; editors are warned that COI editing can lead to bad behavior and are advised to listen to the advice of more experienced wikipedians on things like notability, linkspam, and the like. The question I have is, how has Rosencomet behaved when confronted with these points (and hopefully by editors other than Kathryn and Pigman, who have past issues with him)? Does he react abusively to removal of links or deletion nominations? has he attacked other editors who have pointed out problems with his edits? If this is largely a content dispute over the notability of topics he edits that he has an interest in, it seems that the normal content processes should be followed (Third opinion, request for comment, mediation) and only approach arbitration if his behavior in defense of his edits crosses the usual boundaries (incivility, edit warring, etc). Thatcher131 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, I take your point about the central issues of the arb case. However I note that, except for three very minor edits by others, Rosencomet has been the sole maintainer of the Starwood Festival article since the end of the Arbcom case. I think this is in no small part because people are adverse to enter the situation. The article has a number of obvious problems, from OR to "references" that merely mention Starwood briefly to rather blatant POV/puffery. It irks me to see obvious problems and feel I can't edit the article without being accused of attacking Rosencomet and/or Starwood. Similarly, the Jeff Rosenbaum article is almost entirely maintained by Rosencomet, the subject of the article. I believe much of the reason he has not had conflicts is because he is mostly editing in Wikipedia backwaters, where his COI editing passes without notice. If you think that the situation warrants only normal editing and talk page exchanges unless or until a dispute comes up, I'm willing to do that.

On his civility, if you look at one of the diffs Kathryn provided above, Rosencomet said Kathryn was "stalking" him. [96] Near the end he says "...nor have I EVER touched anything you have written..." which shows he still has not progressed beyond an attitude of ownership of one's contributions to Wikipedia. At the end, he says "Please AGF, and find something better to do than to stalk my work and place unconstructive tags." I may be wrong but I don't think Kathryn has been editing any of "his" articles since the arbitration until these very recent few edits. Hardly "stalking" behaviour. Still, perhaps it was premature to bring this here. Anyway, thank you for your input. It does help to gain some perspective. Cheers, Pigman☿ 20:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am virtually the sole editor of Coal Torpedo and Thomas Edgeworth Courtenay but that does not mean I am abusive toward other people who try to edit, it means no one else cares much. The scenario that I am concerned with is that (a) you or Kathryn or some other editor has concerns about the article and edits it to address those concerns, (b) Rosencomet disputes the edits, (c) discussion on the talk page, (d) request for comment or third opinion, (e) Rosencomet edit wars to maintain his version despite consensus of multiple outside editors and/or become uncivil and abusive in defending his preferred version. If you and Kathryn seem to be the only other people interested in Starwood and Rosenbaum, try to engage Rosencomet in discussion on the talk page about your concerns and proposed changes, and use the third opinion or request for comment processes to bring in outside views, and see how it goes from there. Thatcher131 20:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: sole editorship: precisely. Good faith editing of articles should always be welcomed. Many Wikipedians shepherd and watch articles we are personally interested in but that doesn't mean we attack or are abusive to others who attempt to improve the articles in some way. I think part of the reason I brought this issue here was I envisioned exactly the scenario you outlined above. My frustration is that these articles have all been through this exact process already leading up to the arbitration. I find it rather a pain to think it needs to be repeated since I see little change in Rosencomet's attitude toward "his" articles. It's clear (to me at least) he sees any substantive change or tags to improve certain sections or aspects of the articles as attacks rather than a desire to improve them. I also believe other editors observe how pugnaciously he responds and they back away slowly from the situation as more trouble than it's worth. As I've said in the past, these are only event and organization articles, not issues around Israel-Palestine or abortion; it shouldn't be a massive struggle simply to shape them into good articles with solid sources. Cheers, Pigman☿ 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs above there do appear to be problems with reference padding, self-sourcing, and adding links to lecture taps published by his own organization, as well as a failure to assume good faith on the part of his fellow editors (although he has not really been uncivil as such things go; I've seen much worse). As the prior decision was a non-binding "caution", you will need to bring this to the committee again. I suggest beginning with a user conduct RFC, discussing the issues of reference padding, self-sourcing, and adding links to tapes that he may profit from, as the most pressing of the current issues. Let it run for a couple of weeks and try to get more outside input, then once the new members of the Arbitration committee have been installed, you can try bringing a case if the RFC has not been satisfactory. (With the elections over but the new members not appointed, and no prior RFC in place, I do not think a case would be accepted at this time.) Thatcher131 04:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen worse, too, but I don't think calling another editor a "stalker" for daring to edit "his" articles is particularly civil. As for RfCs, the issues are essentially the same (or worse) as when these two were done. I referred to the second one above (Talk:Starwood Festival#Request for Comment: Inserting references to Starwood Festival in articles) The first one, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse#Outside view) showed even stronger consensus that he is astroturfing and spamming for his projects. The outside statement in particular, endorsed by fourteen established editors, seven of whom are admins, stated: "2. All the articles in question have links to Starwood Festival and its website. Many of these links fall outside of WP:NPOV Undue Weight, overstating the importance of a performer apperance at the starwood festival. As such these links can be considered a case of WP:SPAM. The links have all been added by User:Rosencomet who is connect to the event so WP:VAIN also applies." ^{RfC outside view, point #2} I don't think it gets much clearer than that.

I'd also note that, while there is no evidence to support sockpuppetry on the part of Rosencomet himself, suddenly today after Rosencomet reverted Guy's removal of uncited lists,[97] and I reinstated Guy's edit, another Ekajati sock showed up to start reverting. [98] Rosencomet has never stopped defending the sockdrawer's actions, and I find it interesting that shortly after he started posting on talk pages calling me a stalker for editing an article in a normal manner, and suggesting Guy was "just looking for fights" and should also stay a away from the articles,[99] the sockpuppets returned. Personally, I don't think it's a coincidence.

In this diff, Rosencomet states his understanding of the ArbCom decision: "This is obviously not about the data, but a problem she has with me about such issues as POV and COI, issues that were put to bed long ago (I thought) with the assurance that I was free to edit as long as I did not do so "aggressivly" or edit war".[100] So, it looks to me like he truly believes the COI issues do not apply to him as long as he doesn't violate 3RR. Or something. I have to wonder if he's ever read any of the policies we have repeatedly pointed out to him. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. The caution from the previous case is unenforceable. Thatcher131 05:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Well. I see your point. The caution is relatively nonspecific and doesn't provide penalties. However, I admit disappointment that you're essentially saying the Arbitration was pointless in the end. Sadly, Pigman☿ 06:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I can not find any User conduct requests for comment. The difference between an article RFC and a user RFC is that an article RFC is used to attract wider attention to a contentious issue, while a User conduct RFC is used to attract wider attention to a users' behavior. Giving several examples of problematic behavior as noted here, and asking for comments from uninvolved editors, may be able to demonstrate to Rosencomet how his editing is sometimes not acceptable; alternatively it may demonstrate to Arbcom that his conduct as a use falls outside Wikipedia norms. Thatcher131 19:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The article RfCs all focused on Rosencomet's self-promotion toa large extent; it may be moot since he's admitted allowing others to use his account. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Very specific COI violations

I filed a slightly different version of the paragraph below over on WP:COI/N here when it seemed unlikely that this discussion would bear fruit. User:MER-C suggested keeping discussion together here so I'm reposting it. Please look at the links, particularly the two showing identical pictures of Jeff Rosenbaum, who personally sells items from the Starwood Store over the phone. This is a succinct and clear statement on the COI issues. There are several new links but I apologize in advance for any redundancies to the discussion here.

• Jeff Rosenbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Association for Consciousness Exploration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Starwood Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WinterStar Symposium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It is reasonably certain that Rosencomet (talk · contribs) is Jeff Rosenbaum (see Arbcom finding here), the Executive Director of the Association for Consciousness Exploration, LLC (ACE). Despite an Arbcom caution (here), he has extensively edited these articles (please see the histories of the articles.) I interpret these extensive revisions as "aggressive" editing as well as an autobio violation on the Jeff Rosenbaum article. Additionally, his editing and lack of posting of a COI notice on his user page mean that many more articles besides these four are affected. See this version of his userpage for a sizable (but possibly incomplete) listing. If any doubt exists about his COI, see this book excerpt with Mr. Rosenbaum's photo and compare it to this ACE CyberCatalog page. Note the caption saying Mr. Rosenbaum sells the items personally. (As an aside, I found the Rosencomet Classic Thong offered on Starwood's Cafe Press store to be very attractive. And comfortable too.) As to why this hasn't been brought here before: This noticeboard (WP:COI/N) didn't exist when I first brought the Arbcom case against Rosencomet in Dec. 2006 and I was burned out in the aftermath of the relatively toothless "caution" of Rosencomet by Arbcom in March, 2007. These issues have been discussed with Rosencomet extensively over the last 16 months. Read his talk page for a sampling of efforts by a large number of Wikipedians. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC) (Addendum: I've just noticed Rosencomet's talk page has been archived so that is a better example of discussions with him. Pigman☿ 19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

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.

Ferrylodge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heh. Sorry, should have been clearer and expanded my wording to include the evidence in arbcom. I mentioned CSN because that was the initial place that your conduct was brought up in a manner that requested some sort of "punishment". It should also be pointed out that the evidence that the arbcom chose to use in their Finding of Fact about you having a history of disruptive editing in pregnancy and abortion articles, but productive editing in other areas[101] includes your conduct on the talk pages.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

To answer the question posed by Ali'i: Yes. On the article Roe v. Wade, Ferrylodge inserted commentary on a particular opinion poll,[102] which he had previously done on several abortion-related articles beginning in January 2007.[103][104][105][106][107] The recent pursuit of a fetal illustration at Talk:Abortion,[108] while not an example of an edit made to an article itself, shows further that Ferrylodge has not let old matters drop with regard to articles on abortion. Ferrylodge added just such an image to the article Abortion in September,[109] resulting in a lot of complication, as documented here. The point is that there are a 2 million articles to edit on Wikipedia and just as many edits which could be pursued on those articles related to pregnancy and abortion. But, even after the ArbCom decision, Ferrylodge is still opting to concentrate on the same narrow range of things as before (the Harris poll on Roe and fetus pictures). It's this fact which I consider worthy of examination. -Severa (!!!) 20:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anthony, your notice says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MartinPhi poisoning the well

Is it appropriate for MartinPhi to come into a conflict with which he admits he is not involved and poison the well against me? Here is the relevant diff: [110]. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPA and ArbCom

This user is an SPA [111] for an article which was subject to ArbCom (whose resultant decision prohibited SPA's) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher#Single-purpose accounts ChampionHero (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts may be banned for making disruptive edits. Please provide diffs of such edits. (There appears to be no restriction on SPAs unless they are disruptive. Thatcher131 17:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Some whitewashing, not a good sign, and frankly I've yet to see an SPA there that was not disruptive. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

None of my edits have been disruptive, feel free to check my history with regard to that article. I have actually recently restored sourced and valid information to the page that was removed by another user in an attempt to whitewash the article (with that user violating the 1RR they were placed under by another admin. for edit waring on that particular article with another editor). Anyway, there is something terribly suspicious regarding the original editor that lodged the request here. They have one edit to their name and it is to this board to complain about other editors? Smells like a sock to me. StrongPassword (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's also necessary to discuss inappropriate actions that appear to have been taken against editors listed at the bottom of that arbitration page under "Logs of Blocks and Bans". Nearly all of the editors had general, indefinite bans placed on them for being SPA's, while the "Remedies" and "Enforcement" sections of the Request for Arbitration do not allow for that. According to the enforcement section "Page bans shall be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week for repeated violations. After five such blocks, the maximum block length increases to a year." Clearly neither the Remedies (which only discussed bans from the article in question and it's related content NOT all of Wikipedia as what happens with an indefinite, general block) nor the Enforcement criteria were followed in sanctioning those editors. Something really needs to be done about that. StrongPassword (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I consider your edits disruptive - in fact, I consider virtually all edits to that article by people with no significant history outside that article to be disruptive. It has been nothing but a battleground for as long as I can remember, and the very last thing we need is more people joining the battle without actually contributing to the encyclopaedia. I don't think much of your calling my edits "vandalism" either. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't call your edits vandalism, I considered those of the editor that removed sourced and valid information from the article "vandalism" (which can easily been seen in the articles edit history). Your assertion that my edits are "disruptive" is meaningless as I doubt any rational administrator will agree with you. StrongPassword (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am troubled by your edits. Pretty much the most notable thing about that college, the source of most of its UK coverage and the whole source of its discussion in numerous venues, is the fact that the GMC specifically cites it as a cause of their removal of registration from a doctor, and setting up a list of unrecognised institutions. Causing the General Medical Council to strike a doctor off and change its practices is a pretty big deal, to the point that it belongs in the lead of this article on the UK entity. Your reaction to this was to revert, and your reaction to edits by another editor is also to revert - you are demonstrating WP:OWN problems, and I would say that your edits to that article are therefore disruptive. The solution is pretty simple: leave it alone and edit some other articles. The restriction only applies to single purpose accounts. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I am troubled by your edits as well. Your edits show you are obviously trying to push your POV on this article and are refusing to hash it out on the talk page. Just because you feel something is notable does not mean it is so. If you read the article from the GMC closely you will see that the GMC never said they setup the list in response to St. Christopher's, there is your own synthesis and extrapolation of the information in the article. I did no revert the non-redundant information that you included, it was moved to the media section where it belongs. Your decision that my edits are disruptive is inappropriate when you are involved in editing the article yourself and are pushing a particular agenda. A neutral administrator needs to determine if my edits are disruptive. I will not accept your decision in this matter because you have a pre-existing conflict of interest. StrongPassword (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:StrongPassword has been blocked for 24hrs for disruptive behaviour on St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. Note that Arbcom didnt just say disruptive edits - even good edits by an SPA, when done in a disruptive fashion, are sufficient to result in a block and banning if required. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that; as a result I have finally managed to get an unconflicted edit to more fully reference the content. It's not every medical college that can claim to have changed GMC policy, after all. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Clarification for User:John Gohde

This user, who was known as User:Mr-Natural-Health was subject to this arbitration ruling. Although that ruling is old (2004), it has relevance to his current behavior at Complementary and alternative medicine and Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine. Here are some specific behavior issues:

• Identifying edit by a long-time editor as vandalism
• Implying an editor is a liar
• Rude edit summary
• Major reversion against NPOV
• Personal attack #1
• Nominating an article for GA that has significant issues with NPOV
• Identifying pseudoscience as nonsense
• False accusation of personal attack and intentional misrepresentation of comments
• Personal attack #2
• Personal attack #3
• Personal attack #4

OK, I could go on, and this is a holiday, so I'd rather not be spending hours finding everything just to make a point. What are our choices? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the remedies in the earlier arbitration case expired three years ago (although it may still be relevant as background). Therefore, any problems with this editor should be pursued through usual dispute resolution methods, culminating if necessary in a new request for arbitration. You can also take the situation to WP:ANI if you believe there is an issue warranting administrator attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume that you know more about the process than I. However, several admins, in private discussions with them, recommended this route, since the ruling does not go "sour" after a certain amount of time. Gohde/Mr. Natural Health, being one in the same person, is returning to their old ways. Does that not mean something? And so we're supposed to waste the community's time in going through the whole long process of ANI, RfC, RfArb, etc. etc. etc. Meanwhile, this vile editor continues along his merry way, screwing up the project. I personally don't get it. We spend more time protecting POV warriors than building the project. People like this game the system, using pseudo-legal methods to stay their executions. It's making me less and less and less and less civil about these types of editors. But thanks for your opinion. I know you mean well, but the bureaucracy of this project is no fun. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this was one of the first (if not the very first) arbitration cases ever. Most arbitration remedies nowadays are more open-ended. Leaving this here for other thoughts and comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That's telling. Gohde was involved with the very first ruling. It figures. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

An additional issue is whether John Gohde is even allowed to edit at all at the present time. A condition for him to return may remain unfulfilled, IOW he shouldn't have been unbanned in the first place and should be rebanned.

A condition of his ArbCom was this:

• 4.1) User:John Gohde must read and acknowledge he has read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:No personal attacks and write 200 words each on the implications of having custodians on Wikipedia and on the implications of allowing personal attacks on Wikipedia before being allowed to edit Wikipedia again. [112]

I have politely requested that he provide proof for fulfillment of this condition, but he has refused and deleted my request. This is not a good faith action, and definitely not collaborative.

Unless he provides proof of fulfillment, he should immediately be returned to limbo. -- Fyslee / talk 19:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a second case that I was not aware of when I wrote my comments above (it is not cited in the original comment from OrangeMarlin). Based on the second case, the "personal attack parole" remains in place at this time. Any alleged violations should be reported to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. On the other hand, speaking solely for myself, I don't think I would have much of an appetite for enforcing a "write 200 words" type of remedy if I were the administrator at AE. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish it were easier to find these things. Thank you Fyslee for bringing up the next RfAr. Are there more? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests should be a list of all the cases ever decided, and one can do a search for the name of an editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is his block log. Finding things on him isn't always easy since he constantly engages in revisionism of his editing, and his user page contains hidden comments for his own use. This revisionism even includes improperly changing his article talk page edits, personal attacks, demands, and ownership comments. He simply changes them and thus makes others users' replies seem improper. Instead he should strike them and add a comment so there is no question about what has happened, who did it, and when. Now that he has again been getting in hot water he has begun deleting incriminating and aggressive comments (one example) he has made.

I have had almost no edit contact with User:Orangemarlin. So, I am at a total lost as to what motivated Orangemarlin to revert two of my edits and file this request for a clarafication on Christmas day. I suspect it has something to do with his partisian point of view on CAM. But, I can point out several instances of a behavior issue with this editor:

1. 12:03, 25 December 2007--Said he was reverting and reporting to ArbCom this prefectly valid, uncontested edit becuase of a 2004 ruling. Why?
2. 11:43, 25 December 2007-Said he was reverting and reporting to ArbCom this prefectly valid, uncontested edit becuase of a 2004 ruling. Why?
3. 18:02, 15 December 2007--Personal Attack, Goading, and bashing CAM with a fringe and dated position.
   

-- John Gohde (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Response Edit warring and incivility at Complementary and alternative medicine. [113] [114] [115] Technically, even if the one-year attack parole at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde only took effect after the one year ban expired, the parole expired on 30 April 2007. And John only has one recent block. However, as a matter of common sense, if an editor is sanctioned for poor behavior twice and continues, taking new action should not require clearing an impossibly high bar. Blocked for 48 hours and recommend filing a new Request for Arbitration if the behavior continues. Thatcher 22:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Excellent action. Hopefully, he gets the point, but I don't believe that will happen. I'm preparing the RfAr as we speak. Let me respond to the above attack on me, just in case someone actually reads this in the future. I watch numerous Alternative Medicine articles, so I would invariably run across Gohde. I asked for clarification on christmas, since it's a non-holiday to Jews like myself. But what is completely laughable is his accusation of a personal attack on the third diff above. He asked for why I wanted the tags, and I stated so. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to review this request. He has been using "vandalism" in reference to good faith edits,[116] together with numerous personal attacks etc. I'm afraid John has shown no insight into his block, compares it to being raped and receiving lashes, and is repeating much of his behaviour from 2004 that got him a ban. His main bête noire from that time (RK) has left Wikipedia, but in the few weeks John has been back he's managed to make a whole string of enemies. I have not engaged with him at all, but I am merely observing that a 48-hour block may not reform this editor into healthy editing. JFW | T@lk 07:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to find good examples of John Gohde's personal attacks and other parole violations, just use the links he posts as examples of personal attacks by other users. They inevitably show that he is the attacking party. His own talk page's history makes an interesting study in the deletion of warnings and good advice, even ridiculing admins when they warn him. This is entirely consistent with his stated opinion of admins as "mentally ill individual[s]": "The only picture that I get of an Admin at Wikipedia is that of a mentally ill individual. In my humble opinion, you cannot have a rational conversation or any kind of a rational exchange of ideas with the mentally ill."[117]

Anyone who is in doubt about his purpose here can read his website description of Wikipedia here: "Try to promote any subject matter on Wikipedia and you will quickly get the attention of at least one of these mentally ill admins. I promoted Alternative Medicine all too well." "I actually accomplished what I had originally intended to do at Wikipedia, on day one, before I even set up a user name. But, I was so quickly attacked by hordes of Wikipedians so bent on destroying what I had edited that I decided to stick around a whole lot longer. One thing lead to another, and I ended up promoting alternative medicine in general." He isn't here to write in an NPOV manner, but to "promote alternative medicine." Advocacy is forbidden here. It's rather odd that he accuses others of being "partisan", when he himself is probably one of the most "partisan" editors at Wikipedia and repeatedly reveals ownership sentiments as part of his attacks on other editors. Needless to say an awful lot of diffs will be forthcoming if this ends up in an ArbCom.

Speaking of an ArbCom, I believe it is unnecessary in this case as there are enough issues already on the table to justify a community ban. An ArbCom will only provide him with an even larger soapbox and will defeat the purpose of dispute resolution, which is to avoid disruption of Wikipedia. If this were a doubtful situation, then an ArbCom would be in order, but it's not doubtful at all. It would be an enormous disruption of Wikipedia and waste of time to go there. Please just be courageous, act on the evidence, and end this miserable situation in an expeditious manner, IOW short and quick. No one but those who deserve a similar fate will complain. -- Fyslee / talk 08:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, comparing himself to a woman who was raped and received lashes is just disgusting. This editor needs to be banned permanently along with his numerous socks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speaking as one of the few (I am guessing) admins who is actually provably mentally ill, at least in as much as depression is classifiable as such, I believe that John Gohde has by now painted himself so far into the corner that there is no hope for him. His edits, his comments and his website all make it pretty clear that he is one of those individuals for whom The Truth™ is of paramount importance, and anything that stands in the way of The Truth™ is necessarily evil. Sadly, The Truth™ in this case equates to a minority point of view, which makes the tension between Gohde and Wikipedia essentially unfixable. Whether he is blocked, banned or sent to ArbCom, I think the outcome will probably be the same. ArbCom would have the merit of probably only banning him from one topic area, but that does seem to be the only area in which he's interested. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As someone who was brought to this article and user page accidentally by an editor asking me if I used CAM, I had to find out what it meant first. I asked another editor and got responses by a few editors and links to the article [118] and to the talk page [119]. I found that the talk page was totally uncivil and that user [[User_talk:John_Gohde] was telling editors not to listen to other editors and bringing up unnecessary cases that did nothing useful except to inflame situations going on. Reverts seem to be aimed at editors that were trying for balance with notations that the editor being reverted either was a vandal or worse. I have only watched what is going on the past week or so and I have not edited at these sites at all. When I came across this [120]I asked why this kind of page was allowed as it was a list that appeared to be set up for attacks of a few editors. For the record, this last notes page was recently deleted by its owner. I find that this article in general is just a repeat of current articles just trying to get a point a view from the alternate side and not a balanced view in total. I also questioned why the whole article wasn't set up for a speedy delete. Deleting this article I think would help prevent the smoldering of sides that this article is receiving. Of course this is just my opinion as an outside view of things. I think this editor needs to be polite and let all sides post without feeling intimidated. I also think this article should be considered for a speedy delete. This of course is just how I saw things. I could post diffs but I think there is enough posted above to show the problems that are stated. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Clarification for User:Ferrylodge

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge, the following decision was made by the Arbitration committee:

2.1) Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing.

Passed 6 to 1 at 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If I might interpret broadly, Ferrylodge is violating this agreement on the article Fetus, which definitely relates to pregnancy and abortion. Here are some of the most abusive edits:

• Adding in POV images. These images are not medically oriented, and are used by Pro-Lifers to show the fetus as something more than a collection of cells. (Note well, of all of my edits, you will find no indication of my POV on abortion, since I keep my viewpoint very private.)
• POV edit
• POV edit
• 3RR warning for Fetus
• POV-pushing

He should be blocked again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I see a pretty basic discussion about the inclusion of images that is progressing in the correct manner. Yes, the edit war would have best been avoided but I wouldn't class this as "disrupt[ion] by inappropriate editing" and therefore wouldn't agree with a block. violet/riga (t) 18:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Go with the wording, "interpreted broadly". He was disruptive even without interpretation. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The "interpreted broadly" clause refers to whether an article "relates to pregnancy or abortion", not to the disruption. violet/riga (t) 20:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Valid point, but it doesn't mean he should get away with disruptions of articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• The onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Ferrylodge, who has an extremely strong POV, long-standing issues with POV-pushing and edit-warring, is aggressively pushing for disputed content that supports his POV. I would say this is pretty unambiguous. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy, if I may ask: where was I pushing to "include disputed content"? I thought I was seeking to restore longstanding content that was removed without consensus, and which has since been restored by another editor. As far as I know, I was not seeking to include any new content at all.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

In the diffs cited you were edit-warring over disputed content. You are not allowed to do that, per the arbitration restriction. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the images have been in the article for many months. Since when is the "onus" on an editor who is seeking to restore stable, well-sourced, longstanding content that was removed without discussion or consensus?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

IronAngelAlice (talk · contribs) has a history of POV pushing of her own, for example see [121] and is virtually a SPA on feminist topics. I see no reason why Alice should be able to remove those images with an entirely spurious reason (These images are not medically oriented, and are used by Pro-Lifers to show the fetus as something more than a collection of cells.) but FL should be restricted from replacing images which had sat comfortably in the article for 4 months. Thatcher 23:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I agreed with IronAgeAlice. I said, "If these drawings are not medically accurate then they should be removed." But she produced no evidence of inaccuracy at all.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who restored the images to the article. I don't know a whole lot about the background on this Ferrylodge business, but the images at the Fetus article were medically accurate. I checked with other medical sites and with sonograms to make sure. When I found that they were conclusively accurate and brought a greater dimension to the article, I restored them. Like Ferrylodge stated these pictures were in the article for months, and were deleted by an editor that I warned for repeated POV edits and vandalism. If you take a look at this list of edits made by IronAngelAlice you will see a consistent pattern. I don't throw the vandal and POV warning out a lot. I work hard to develop consensus in my contributions. I am currently doing so on another page. In this instance, I don't see destructive POV from Ferrylodge as it relates to those images. The images were not from an anti-abortion site, nor were they placed there to invoke anti-abortion sentiments. Instead, they help illustrate the development of a Fetus. My biology textbook from college had very similar drawings and photographs. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

• I have a problem with the characterization of FerryLodge's conduct as disruptive. A lot of that depends on context and on the point of view of the other editors. Taking a look at the cited examples:

[122] characterized as "These images are not medically oriented, and are used by Pro-Lifers to show the fetus as something more than a collection of cells." This comment strikes me as odd. Isn't it essentially correct that the embryo is defined as a fetus when it has developed to a certain point? (NIH Web site) These drawings do not come from a partisan pro-life web site but from a commercial site for expectant mothers that seels advertising. (As such, the links should perhaps be removed, however). Is there a question about there accuracy, and in that case, has anyone tried to find images from medical or scientific sources? The rationale for complaining about these images seems extremely suspect, and the idea that an article on fetus will describe but not illustrate the stages of fetal development seems to be an extreme point of view of its own.

[123] Described as a POV edit; without a citation it appears to be original research (a conclusion drawn from other facts) but it appears a statement reasonably founded in the text of the article itself (NIH web site). As a conclusion, it should be sourced to reliable non-partisan source (medical textbook, etc) but calling it a "POV edit" only applies I think if you have a very different POV.

Another "POV" edit Again, why is it POV to cite factual information about the various stages of fetal development? It would be better to cite the relevant mainstream medical literature, and not a controversial figure such as Peter Singer, but if the relevant medical literature supports this statement, why not include it in a list of fetal milestones?

Regarding this edit, also labeled "POV pushing", talk page discussion by partisans on both sides of an issue is part of the process of arriving at NPOV middle ground and consensus. Talk page disruption is behavior that prevents other editors from working together; that does not seem to be the case here, and the point FL raised (abortion is a procedure performed on a mother and a fetus) seems as least reasonable to raise for discussion.

With respect to Guy, FerryLodge may be aggressively seeking to include disputed content (the brainstem activity, drawings of different stages of fetal development) to serve an agenda, but it seems to me that aggressively seeking to remove such content serves the opposite agenda, and if one is not to be tolerated than neither is the other. Again, I can not see how the article on fetus can not have drawings of different stages of development (assuming they are accurate) and I do not understand why is is not objectionable to state "At nine weeks, the fetus is able to bend fingers around an object; in response to a touch on the foot, the fetus will bend the legs or curl the toes to move away from the object." but it is objectionable to state "Brain stem activity has been detected as early as 54 days after conception."

Regarding the enforcement request, I do not see sufficient evidence of disruptive behavior to emplace an article ban at this time. Thatcher 23:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Sounds like it says he may be banned from an article, which discussion should be held here. It says nothing about blocking. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocking is used to enforce article bans. The specific enforcement clause seems to have been left out of this case, but that is the usual practice and there is no reason to ignore it here on a technicality. Thatcher 23:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not a technicality. Should we agree that this is necessary, we say "Ferrylodge, stop editing the article". Simple as that. Of course, blocks are used to enforce bans; but no ban is put in place. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You should read up on some other Arbitration cases. In many many cases, admins are authorized to place discretionary topic bans. Violation of such bans are enforced by blocking. In this case, FL may be banned from any abortion-related article he disrupts by any uninvolved administrator, for a set period of time or indefinitely. If a ban is posted to his talk page and logged appropriately, and he then continues to edit in violation of the ban, he may be blocked. Usually, the blocking language says something like "Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year." In this case, Arbcom neglected to pass such an enforcement clause, but I would have no hesitation in issuing blocks if necessary, because otherwise the ban is meaningless. At this time, no article bans have been imposed, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Thatcher 00:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, I'm sorry to bother you with this on Xmas, but are you saying that I will be completely banned from Wikipedia if it is decided that I should be banned from a particular article related to abortion or pregnancy? My impression was that I would simply stop editing that particular article, rather than being completely banned from Wikipedia. I was unblocked for the entire, miserable ArbCom proceeding in my case, and yet I did not edit a single article, because I was instructed not to do so. If I'm authoritatively ordered in the future to not edit a particular article, then of course I wouldn't edit that article, even if I think the order is rubbish.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, see above. Thatcher 00:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thx. Incidentally, I stumbled on this discussion by accident. Isn't there some rule or custom that the subject of the discussion ought to be made aware of it?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

When the original complaint was made at WP:RFAR, you should have been notified of the discussion, ideally by the complaintant. I later moved it here, and by the time I had finished looking it over you had responded. For any editor named in an Arbitration remedy, this is probably a page you should watchlist. Thatcher 01:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, I don't disagree in respect of content, but in respect of Ferrylodge, it is clearly the case that a militant promoter of an agenda, under an arbitration restriction, is absolutely the wrong person to be fighting that particular battle. He needs to take it to talk, not edit war. That is, to my reading, the whole point. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy, if you're going to characterize me as a "militant promoter of an agenda" then I would appreciate if you would cite a diff, preferably a recent one. I deny it. Restoring longstanding, sourced images of a fetus in an article titled "fetus" is militant promotion of an agenda? Come on. That was not the least bit "inappropriate" on my part.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, guys. I have a proposal. It is not radical, it makes sense, I would hope that people would be willing to abide by it. I worry, however, that people will be more interested in simply blocking Ferrylodge than agreeing to a solution. Ferrylodge is limited to one revert per day at Fetus for a period of 12 months. Ferrylodge may not make any more reverts on Fetus for a period of one week from now. Any admin who wishes to enforce this may. Unfortunately, as I said, I worry people will not think this is enough. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd rather just be banned from the article. I did nothing wrong there. I restored material that had been there for many months and that was properly sourced. I didn't violate 3RR. I tried to engage in discussion at the talk page. After I was unsuccessful at restoring the images, I let it go, rather than be disruptive. Another user restored the images, not me.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Understandably. You made some changes and let it go, and the same people whose own views are as extreme as your own on the opposite end of the spectrum are hounding to see you blocked. So is it official then? Would an admin just pronounce the words "Ferrylodge is banned from the article fetus for a period of (6 months|1 year|indefinitely)" so we can close this thread and get it over with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Evil Spartan (talk • contribs) 00:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher and Violetriga already indicated above that I have done nothing to warrant a ban here. Why do you disagree, Evil Spartan? All of the stuff I did at fetus recently was restoring longstanding, well-sourced material that was being deleted without consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. This was not at all "disrupt[ion] by inappropriate editing", as arbcom said must happen. It is simply one user's frustration that Ferrylodge is editing the same article as himself. Restoring content is not disruptive, except to people who want to see it removed in the first place. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• In response to both Guy and Evil Spartan, yes there will likely be problems whenever FerryLodge gets involved in situations like this. It would be better for FerryLodge to find someone who does not carry the same baggage to deal with situations such as the removal of the fetus illustrations, either be contacting a friend or through a content RFC or request for third opinion. However, that was not required by the decision. It would be a good idea for FerryLodge to observe a voluntary 1 revert limit on all the articles he edits, and look for assistance if more than one revert is needed to deal with the dispute. However, that was also not mandated. What is left is that FerryLodge is free to edit until an uninvolved admin decides he has been disruptive and lodges an article ban. Bear in mind that admins have different standards of "disruption", so it would be an excellent defense to be able to point out that one had observed a voluntary 1RR limit and it was the other editor who was disruptive. Thatcher 01:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, are you volunteering as "someone who does not carry the same baggage"?  :-)

No. Thatcher 01:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I would like nothing better than to dump these contentious situations in someone else's lap. The main obstacle, I suppose, is the Wikipedia policy against canvassing; I'm not supposed to go looking for people to back me up, right? I certainly would not be inclined to do a voluntary 1RR on articles that are not even pertinent to my ArbCom restriction. Regarding articles that are pertinent to the ArbCom restriction, I'm kind of ambivalent. This particular thread, for example, seems kind of frivolous, and yet there does not seem to be any penalty or other drawback for people who seek to bring frivolous complaints against me. If there were such a penalty or drawback, then I doubt there would be any reason for us to even be talking about a voluntary 1RR.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference (sometimes subtle) between asking people for help and canvassing. Thatcher 01:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your bold font is noted. I don't want to create another mess here, that leads to people accusing me of disruptive and inapproriate canvassing. As you say, the distinction between canvassing and asking for help is sometimes subtle. In contrast, there is no subtlety about the propriety of restoring longstanding and well-sourced material that has been deleted without consensus, and yet look at the hot water I'm in right now. Sheesh. Does every frivolous complaint against me have to result in some "compromise" that further whittles away what I can do at Wikipedia? I'd be glad to make some good-faith inquiries regarding "someone who does not carry the same baggage" as I do, but I do not expect the inquiries to be met with any enthusiasm, given the spectre of canvassing. Isn't it enough that you can permanently ban me from any abortion/pregnancy article if I violate 3RR, and even if I don't violate 3RR but edit in an inappropriately disruptive way?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The bold font was merely a personal expression. I strongly dislike editing articles that are targets of partisan bickering on any side. As to your situation, it is one that many editors find themselves in after Arbitration. Some do well enough that they are able to successfully petition for early release, so to speak. Others do not. The Arbitration case is intended to put a damper on your previous behavior, but not to make you a target for baseless complaints. Ultimately how you edit and how you respond to these situations is up to you. Eventually, stronger action could be taken against a serial bad faith complaintant, but it is much too early for that here. Thatcher 02:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope to continue Wikipeding appropriately, and the prospect of early release is certainly an incentive. I'm sorry if using all the tools legitimately available to me results in more complaints against me. Even if I never reverted anyone, I'm sure the complaints would continue. (Believe it or not, I too don't much like editing articles that are targets of partisan bickering.) ANYhow, Happy Holidays and New Year.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, I absolutely agree. A voluntary 1RR restriction would be a big step forward, and Ferrylodge should recognise that simply by being the person making the edit he is going to cause a certain amount of friction at the moment, so if the edit is as uncontentious as he clearly believes it to be then he really should take it to talk where I am sure it will achieve consensus one way or the other almost immediately, given the number of interested editors, thus removing the problem. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why Ferrylodge should have to limit himself to 1RR after doing nothing wrong for common sense reverts simply because a user who is even more POV-pushy and uncivil than he makes a report in order to get a one-up in an edit dispute. I'm not sure we shouldn't just shut the thread and ask OrangeMarlin to stop asking for a block every time Ferrylodge has the chutzpah to undo one of his edits. The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. Ferrylodge is on probation. Not me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, a little more here. I know you're capable of reading, so maybe you should take a look at the ArbCom conversation about Ferrylodge. Or how about his nice little RfC about Bishonen which got the support of one person, and the antagonism of probably 50 other editors, although we did enjoy the food commentary. Or how bout the 20 people wrote against him. And as for your personal attack, thanks. I always like saving personal attacks for future reference when necessary. You see, I use the system to stop POV-warriors. Oh, BTW, Ferrylodge, being a christian pov-pusher, would never have Chutzpah. I, being a good Jew, get to use that word. No more anti-semitism from you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, your accusations of anti-semitism against Evil Spartan are completely baseless, but nevertheless are typical fare for you.[124] Moreover, I am not a Christian, and I am not pro-life. Of course, I'll probably be thrown in solitary confinement for daring to correct you.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't have to. However, multiple reverting is not an accepted method of editing (see bold, revert, discuss), and a voluntary 1RR would make it less likely that FerryLodge would get caught up in future enforcement action. Thatcher 15:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a prudent piece of self-discipline for an editor under a restriction of this sort. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So, if IronAngelAlice reverts longstanding, well-sourced content against consensus, and refuses to provide any plausible explanation, then you are suggesting that I not revert more than once, and when she reverts me back, I should do nothing. I do not have time to go through infinite dispute resolution procedures. Can't anyone say, "Thank you Ferrylodge, for restoring longstanding sourced content that was reverted without consensus by an editor who refused to provide a plausible explanation?" I was standing up to a bully here, without violating any Wikipedia policies.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, IronAngelAlice hasn't been put on probation for edit-warring, personal attacks, and whatever else you've done (including attacking admins like Bishonen). So I guess you're going to have to live with your dirty deeds. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

IronAngelAlice does have a note on his/her user page that notes that the account is a sockpuppet and that the user has used one or more accounts abusively. Doesn't that count for something? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Then haver the user blocked. My point was that IAA is not the subject of this enforcement, only Ferrylodge. So no, it has no value. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a frivolous request, OrangeMarlin.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So there we go, we're in agreement. But you on the other hand, should be blocked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Could someone point to diffs showing where FL violated even a 1RR much less came close to a 3RR? I've looked through the revision history of Fetus in the last month. I see a total of 5 edits (single edits or a consecutive group of edits) by FL. The first was to restore images that (by all accounts) had long been part of the article. Then he restored a sentence while adding a reference. He restored a completely different sentence that was already sourced. He inserted a comment in a different place. And finally he added a ref and fixed a missing ref in yet a different paragraph. Sorry, I just don't see the beef. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Could someone point to diffs showing where FL violated even a 1RR

I see a total of 5 edits...the first was to restore images..."Restore" = "revert"...Then he restored a sentence...Two reverts, by your own admission...He restored a completely different sentence...The 3RR applies to any three reverts. You have documented three reverts. That's a lot of edit warring for someone who is under arbcomm restriction. Guettarda (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"I see" said the blind man (to his deaf wife). What I saw was single reverts in totally different areas. I (mis)understood that 3RR was reverting the same material more than three times. In most WP:AN3RR complaints this is what I see - as many as eight reverts to the identical material. I did not realize that 3RR meant any three reverts in the same article even if in different places. If I (a moderately experienced editor) made that mistake then probably other editors also misunderstand the policy. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Look the point here is that FL is showing bad judgement. If I was on probation for editing, say, alien abduction articles in a contentious way and getting into huge fights and driving off other editors and all kinds of other trouble, then I think I would stay away from those articles. I do not care if it is 1RR. I do not care if it is 0RR. It is a very very bad idea for FL to show himself around those articles. It is likely to lead to trouble. And I personally am unfit to judge whether those images constitute disruptive editing or not; I would rely on someone who is a longstanding editor of those articles and consensus. But even if they are not WP:DE, it is a bad bad idea. And it really smells bad from here. It looks like the camel's nose under the tent.--Filll (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I started a thread at ANI an hour or so ago, regarding OrangeMarlin.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the Fetus article has been fully protected by an admin, and the admin explained here.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Part III

I believe FL again has made uncivil comments on talk pages. And this is particularly notable because they occurred while similar concerns were being brought up here. FL is not trying hard to avoid the personal attacks, even when there is this scrutiny over his editing. I bring up two cases: [125] and [126]. The first, FL says "I'm sure if Romney robbed banks with his father, then Qworty would be supporting as much detail as possible." There is no reason to speculate on what another editor would or would not support, especially when it is a hypothetical situation that involves disparaging a public figure. The comment would have been fine if that entire sentence was simply not there. Again, there is no reason to make accusatory statements about other editors on talk pages. The second example should be read completely (or even in context). He links to an inflamatory statement another user said about Odd nature 3 months ago. This is similar to when FL brought up another editor's political party affiliation by linking to off-site content ([127]). These are all uncivil things, and should never have occurred on article talk pages. I'm writing this because I know FL will read it, and hopefully he will take it to heart and attempt to change. As I've said over and over this past month. Comment on content, not on users. I apologize that this isn't exactly related to the ArbCom enforcement (I will also note that the comments to Odd nature that happened today were in relation to Roe v. Wade, which is clearly related to abortion, although the article itself is Mitt Romney), but incivility is still a blockable offense, that I ask to be considered by an uninvolved admin. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I object to Andrew c bringing up these insubstantial matters. Already on December 20 at this page, Andrew c asked “an uninvolved admin to review this case and possibly ban him from Roe v. Wade.” That request was rejected. Now Andrew c is back on December 26 with more.

Andrew c now raises three cases, which all occurred at the talk page of the article about Mitt Romney, and two of which have absolutely nothing whatseoever to do with abortion or pregnancy (which is the only type of issue addressed by the ArbCom decision in my case)....

First, this December 21 talk page comment was completely unrelated to abortion or pregnancy. Andrew c also takes that comment out of context. I said, “I'm sure if Romney robbed banks with his father, then Qworty would be supporting as much detail as possible. :-)” Note the smiley face at the end. No one complained or objected about this humorous comment then, nor during the time period from then until now. The person who I made the comment to (Qworty) had announced --- with no prompting from me --- that he is not a Republican, and Qworty had also argued at great length that we should insert detail into the Mitt Romney article about Romney's alleged Mormon underwear.[128] My brief comment about robbing banks ought to be viewed in that context. It was a humorous remark completely unrelated to abortion or pregnancy, and so I do not understand why Andrew c is bringing it up here.

Second, Andrew c brings up this December 26 talk page comment which was tangentially related to abortion and pregnancy. Here is the comment in context. Andrew c objects to the fact that I linked “to an inflamatory statement another user said about Odd nature 3 months ago.” The comment to which I linked was an appropriate warning to Odd nature for having harassed me. I do not know why Odd nature showed up at the Mitt Romney article today to revert me, but I felt it would be appropriate to mention to Odd nature that “I hope we can have an unusually productive discussion here” in view of our past difficulties. There was nothing uncivil at all. It is ironic that one of the people accusing me here today can make wild accusations of antisemitism without the slightest repercussion,[129] and yet Andrew c objects to me even suggesting the possibility that a user (Odd nature) may have previously behaved inappropriately toward me, which he most certainly did.

Third, Andrew c brings up this December 17 edit in which I referred to another editor's political party affiliation by linking to off-site content. And again, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with pregnancy or abortion, so Andrew c has no reason to bring it up here, unless his purpose is to rewrite the ArbCom decision. Please note that the other editor’s user page prominently has a link to the off-site content in question, calling it “my brush with fame.”[130] So, I was not revealing any secrets. All I did was mention parenthetically to Qworty that the other editor is not a Republican, because I thought Qworty might find that interesting, seeing as how Qworty hadalready mentioned that he himself is not a Republican. There was nothing uncivil, and I explained the same thing when I was warned about it before.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I will address the last item as it involved me: I do not accept this explanation. There were 3 days and over 160 edits to that talk page in between Qworty's comment about himself that he is not a Republican, and Ferrylodge's comment about what the Washington Post article (that he was also featured in) said about my being a Democrat. It is hardly believable that he thought at that point in time out of the blue that it would be "interesting" to mention my nominal political affiliation (the article also said that I had not decided who I am supporting in this election) in a comment in which he also characterized my editing. I was not a party to the discussion in that section of the talk page, and Qworty wasn't talking about not being a Republican then or there, yet Ferrylodge brought me into it saying this:

"If we're going to keep this religion section, it ought to go at the end. Other candidates don't have such a section, and this material is not the most important stuff about him. But Tvoz insisted that it be up front, and accused me of trying to bury it (Tvoz is a Democrat by the way)."

In what universe is it believable that this was said just to provide an interesting side comment about my voter registration status? I believe it was a personal attack - it seems clear that it was an insinuation that my so-called "insisting" and "accusation" about the location of this material was politically motivated. The point was incorrect to boot - I was only one of the people who thought that placement made the most sense in the context of the article - indeed, it was a compromise solution that I helped create and which we reached consensus on to have the religious background section appear as the second section of the article, which broke the logjam and allowed the full protection of the page to be lifted. This is explained at the end of the section. This is not the first time that Ferrylodge has made irrelevant and gratuitous personal comments about me, and it is disturbing that this also went on during and now after the arbitration proceeding. Despite the fact that ArbCom chose to focus only on his tendentious editing of reproduction-related articles rather than also cautioning him about his similarly tendentious editing of political articles, I think it is impossible that they were giving him carte blanche to behave in an uncivil manner on any article or talk page, and personal attacks, no matter how one tries to backpedal from them, are uncivil. Tvoz |talk 03:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, no one is supposed to have carte blanche to make uncivil attacks. I deny that I have been uncivil to you, but if you wish to lodge a complaint in that regard, this is not the correct place. The incident you mention had nothing whatsoever to do with abortion or pregnancy, as specified in the ArbCom decision.

Moreover, I hardly think that parenthetically mentioning your party affiliation is a heinous insult. I did not mean to imply that you have any conflict of interest, and I'm sorry that you took offense.

Please keep in mind also that you have used the Mitt Romney discussion thread to insinuate that I am engaging in a "campaign" for Romney, and to accuse me of attempting to "bury" material about Romney. Hardly AGF.

And it's also ironic that the person who started this section (OrangeMarlin) has a nasty habit of viciously attacking anyone who says a word in my defense, without penalty. He told User B that he couldn't wait to watch User B being fucked,[131] and more recently accused User Evil Spartan of antisemitism. [132] In what universe is it believable that parenthetically mentioning your party affiliation is even remotely comparable to the type of language used by OrangeMarlin (who incidentally also falsely accused me of being a Christian).

I am growing weary of these frivolous requests for ArbCom enforcement. Can we start the new year in a more cordial manner, please?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Clarification for User:Fyslee