Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:01, 23 May 2007

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Edit this section for new requests

add new reports to the top of the section

User:Pigsonthewing

Arbcom parole violation on Sutton Coldfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting simple vandalism. However he reverted edits of other users to Sutton Coldfield four times in 10 minutes.

Previous version reverted to: 15:59, 21 May 2007
1st revert: 09:52, 22 May 2007
2nd revert: 09:57, 22 May 2007
3rd revert: 09:59, 22 May 2007
4th revert: 10:02, 22 May 2007

The admin who dealt with the AIV report did not class the edits as simple vandalism, as can be seen here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, rather. "POV vandalism" is not a concept that really makes sense, especially not here, which is clearly a content dispute between differing points of view. I scarcely count as uninvolved with this editor, however, and am reluctant to take any action myself. Moreschi ^Talk 12:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The revert parole expired after one year, see here. However, this looks like it could be reported as a standard 3RR violation. In addition, I recently banned Andy from adding or removing infoboxes or editing infobox templates for a month [1]. I am extending this to a month from today and expanding it to ban editing of infoboxes and their contents as well. The ban may be enforced by blocking if necessary. Thatcher131 13:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eupator

Arbcom parole violation on Paytakaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Eupator (talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Eupator_placed_on_revert_parole. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. However he reverted legitimate edits of other users to Paytakaran twice in less than 7 days.

Previous version reverted to: 13:39, 27 April 2007

1st revert: 20:11, 18 May 2007
2nd revert: 17:48, 22 May 2007

Reported by: Grandmaster 07:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, see: [2] Grandmaster 10:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:ScienceApologist 2

In addition to my statement below following our ArbCom case, I feel that User:ScienceApologist is now not constructively building consensus by cooperating with other editors.

11 May, removes my disputed tag (and request for citations) without discussion, nor consensus being reached.[3]
22 May, removes my dispiuted tag (and request for citations) after discussion, but no consensus on new text,[4]
22 May, Tells me that "I will ignore any more lines of inquiry coming from you",[5]
22 May, removes my disputed tag (and request for citations) for a third time,[6] even though I expressed dissatisfaction with the text, no citation was forthcoming, and my indicating to provide more details.[7]
22 May, another editor disputes the text,[8], again.[9]
23 May, removes disputed tag, (and request for citations) without discussion, nor consensus being reached, for the fifth time.[10]

While I appreciate that ScienceApologist wishes to improve the article, it is not for one editor to decided that text is no longer disputed, nor that consensus is not require, and that they solely decided the version of text for an article. --Iantresman 18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aivazovsky

Per ArbCom decision, User:Aivazovsky is under a revert parole and is required to leave comments on the talk page for the edits he makes. However, User:Aivazovsky has recently moved [11] the category Turkophobia to category Anti-Turkism without any discussion on the talk pages. I would like remind here that Turkophobia is an accepted scholarly term. Moreover, User:Aivazovsky has also recently edited [12] the article Varoujan Garabedian, removing the new Anti-Turkism (old Turkophobia) category from the page about a person convicted of terrorist attacks against civilians, again without any discussion on the talk page. He has done the same at ASALA, [13], again without any comments on talk page. And a 3rd one, at Askeran clash here [14], again no comments. That's 3 pages! Please, enforce the decisions of ArbCom with regards to User:Aivazovsky as the earlier leniency, such as here [15] did not help to solve the problem of editing or reverting without discussion. Atabek 04:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kkrystian

Closely related complaint Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Andries. Vassyana's complaint about me reg. my edit on 6 May was based on the unsourced information that Kkrystian added to the article Shirdi Sai Baba on 17 May. Andries 20:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

diff 17 May 2007 Adds unsourced positive information about Sathya Sai Baba in the article Shirdi Sai Baba which violates. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Kkrystian_reminded

The information about Sathya Sai Baba that Kkrystian added that is unsourced and on which Vassyana bases his complaint about me is as follows

"One of his devotees - Sharada Devi - says that before his death he told her secretly that in eight years he would reincarnate in Andhra Pradesh, under the name of Sathya (what means 'truth'), what is in accordance with the birth of Sathya Sai Baba in 1926, in Puttaparthi, Andhra Pradesh who claims to be the next reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba."

Notification of Kkrystian and more details [16]

See http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/shortnews/Mumbai%20Mirror.htm

Andries 20:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see that fragment - I have already supplied a citaion. Andries by adding this link in his complaint is spreading his anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba propaganda. This website contains unsourced info & orgiginal research Kkrystian 10:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation that you provided [17] is from a pro-Sathya Sai Baba website http://saionline.org/shirdi/shirdi-sathya.html and it is not a copy of a reputable source. The Mumbai Mirror article is a reputable source that was copied to the website exbaba. I have seen the original. Why is Kkrystian allowed to continue making edits with his lack of understanding of reputable sources? He does not seem to understand WP:RS. Andries 10:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it's a speech of Sharada Devi what prooves that she said it. Kkrystian 11:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot know. A website of followers of Sathya Sai Baba is not a reputable source for Wikipedia, except may be for the articles Sathya Sai Baba, Sathya Sai Baba movement or in this case Sharada Devi. Andries 11:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was something that was said by Sharada Devi. Kkrystian 12:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue editing at Citizendium where users are, until now, better versed in recognizing reputable sources than in Wikipedia. And hopefully there, my edits based on the expensive mainstream reputable sources on the subject that I have at home will be more appreciated. Andries 14:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:ScienceApologist

User:ScienceApologist has just called me "a complete dick"[18], again.[19], contrary to No personal attacks and WP:CIVIL.

A previous ArbCom case found that "ScienceApologist is uncivil" and "has strongly and repeated criticized Iantresman with ad hominem attacks"[20]

Despite the ArbCom caution,[21] ScienceApologist subsequently:

Call me a "bean-counter, not a researcher"[22], that I "lied",[23], and that I "lied" again,[24] (reported previously)[25]
Called me the "the Ian peacock"[26] which was noted by another Admin [27]

And just recently:

I am "a confirmed POV-pusher"[28]
Having "professed your devotion to this particular guru"[29] (not a tone of writing I'd use)

I was wondering how many personal attacks, incivility, cautions and warnings, need be reached before some positive action is taken? --Iantresman 17:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since announcing that he's leaving Wikipedia, Ian has been acting like a complete dick, inserting himself into conversations that have nothing to do with him explaining that he's doing it simply to enforce just desserts. Previous to this, Ian was acting in a very disruptive manner at Talk:Plasma cosmology, in violation of his probation, insisting on the insertion of an unreliable source. He had archived a deleted article in his user space in violation of the spirit and practice of WP:DRV and WP:USER. Now he has decided to escalate his abuse to the level of noticeboard. --ScienceApologist 13:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in all this time, I've never been derogatory to you, reverted to calling you names, nor used your qualifications, education or affiliations, to question your editing. And while we may often disagree on content, that is hardly justification for being uncivil. --Iantresman 21:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to report such claims. Please calm down. Sr 13 04:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they violate a previous ArbCom ruling? [30][31]

User:Aivazovsky

Aivazovsky (talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Aivazovsky_placed_on_revert_parole. He has to discuss every single revert that he makes on the talk page.

However, User:Aivazovsky blatantly continues to violate his revert parole, and keeps making reverts without any discussion. Here is his latest revert without any discussion whatsoever on the Demographics of Armenia article:

[32] (revert to the version [33]).

(the history of edits for the article is here:[34])

He made the revert just 23 minutes after he was warned on his talk page by an administrator about his continuous violations of his revert parole ([35]). Such behaviour shows complete disregard of his parole, of administrators, and of the Wiki community in general.

The user has been blocked repeatedly for violating his revert parole. The number of his blocks is astounding (at least 6 violations of his revert parole: [36]). Clearly, short-term blocks do not work to change this user's disruptive behavior. Therefore, I suggest that User:Aivazovsky be blocked indefinitely.--TigranTheGreat 21:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andries

Closely related complaint Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Kkrystian. Andries 20:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andries (talk · contribs) was topic banned by ArbCom from "editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages". Andries edited Sai Baba of Shirdi on 6 May 2007.[37] It can explicitly be seen that this is a related article. Additionally, Andries has been endorsing edit wars as a solution to content disputes on a guru article.[38][39] Thank you for your time. Vassyana 13:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:It appears that the Arbcom ban went into effect on 6 May 2007, only a short time before this edit. If Andries hasn't edited since and continues not to, I would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt on this one and assume Andries wasn't aware of the ban at the time. "Endorsing edit wars" is a separate matter. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the ban went into effect on 6 March, not 6 May.[40] Easy enough mistake to make a glance. :) Vassyana 20:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is unrelated. Only because Sathya Sai Baba claims to be a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba does not make the article related. Sathya Sai Baba also claims to be a reincarnation of Jesus, Vishnu, Shiva, God, Dattatreya, etc. What is next? That I am banned from Einstein only because Sathya Sai Baba claims to be reincarnation of Einstein? Sathya Sai Baba lives in India and is a Hindu guru. Does that mean that I cannot edit the article India, Hinduism and guru because these article are also related to Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 18:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Vassyana misinteprets my comments about edits wars. [41]

Basic courtesy demands that Vassyana should have informed me about this complaint here which s/he did not do. I think Vassyana's behavior is shameless. I found this complaint here by coincidence. Andries

I will make a request for clarification, because I think that Vassyana is greatly mistaken in his complaint about me. I admit that the similarity in names may look suspicious to outsiders, but if Sathya Sai Baba now starts to claim that he is a reincarnation of Albert Einstein and starts to call himself Einstein then I think that there is still no relationship between Einstein and Sathya Sai Baba and that I am still free to edit the article Albert Einstein. Andries 19:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification_from_user:Andries_reg._Sathya_Sai_Baba Andries 19:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I will try to keep this brief to avoid further cluttering this request. I apologized to Andries, as my lapse was unintentional.[42] One of Shirdi Sai Baba's main disciples claimed Sathya Sai Baba was foretold by Shirdi Sai Baba, and accepted Sathya's claims of reincarnation. Andries comparisons to broad topics and Jesus, etc are inappropriate and misleading. Báb and Bahá'u'lláh would be more apt comparisons. Please note that Andries called this rebuttal "mere propaganda by the Sathya Sai Baba movement".[43] Vassyana 19:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can also mention some followers of Jesus who say that Sathya Sai Baba was prophesized in the Bible. This was my own view 10 years ago when I was still a follower of Sathya Sai Baba. Of course the claims of Sathya Sai Baba and his followers are not enough to establish a relationship. Why should I believe this propaganda from the Sathya Sai Baba movement? The Sathya Sai Baba movement may claim anything they like. Andries 19:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of Vassyana claim otherwise which he does not back up with reputable sources, I think the claim of Sathya Sai Baba to be a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba is generally not accepted by followers of the latter. Hence there is no relationship between the two gurus. Andries 19:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this false propaganda unsourced story from Shirdi Sai Baba that was added by user:Kkrystian on 17 May 2007 diff 17 May 2007 Kkrystian adding the relationship between Shirdi Sai Baba and Sathya Sai Baba after I had edited the article for the last time on 6 May 2007 diff by Andries on 6 May 2007 his last edit on Shirdi Sai Baba

"One of his devotees - Sharada Devi - says that before his death he told her secretly that in eight years he would reincarnate in Andhra Pradesh, under the name of Sathya (what means 'truth'), what is in accordance with the birth of Sathya Sai Baba in 1926, in Puttaparthi, Andhra Pradesh who claims to be the next reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba. Later Sharada Devi became a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba believing that he was the next incarnation of Sai Baba of Shirdi."

Andries 20:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [44] Andries 20:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/shortnews/Mumbai%20Mirror.htm Andries 08:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atabek

Atabek (talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee: [45]

He can only make one revert per week per article, and he has to explain his revert. It is suspected that he was using suckpuppets to edit war on the fallowing articles Monte Melkonian, Drastamat Kanayan, Nagorno-Karabakh and House of Hasan-Jalalyan. The following suck account were used

Earthdream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Drastamat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Shantinorashkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Zipirtich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

the following is his IP address, which he accidentally used couple of days ago. [46]

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

Compare edits made by Atabek [47] with edits made by User:Zipirtich [48], User:Earthdream [49], and User:Drastamat [50]. --VartanM 05:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser established that it was not Atabek: [51] So the accusation is groundless. Grandmaster 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Dmcdevit's checkuser finding (see Grandmaster's link), no apparent violation. Newyorkbrad 23:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dacy69

Dacy69 (talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee: [52]

He can only make one revert per week per article, and he has to explain his revert. He reverted the Safavids article, and in his edit summary he said that he was reverting vandalism, however, what he removed was not vandalism at all. Furthermore, he did not explain his revert on the talk page as required by the arbitration parole: [53]Azerbaijani 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

82.83.142.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been edit warring on that article for quite a while, disturbing the balance and making edits in violation of compromise achieved by the parties on talk after many months of discussions. The anon ignored the talk page and made no effort to get a consensus for his edits. He was reverted by many other users, including those representing the same side of the dispute. I don't think that the actions of anon can be classified anything else other than vandalism. Grandmaster 05:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What he was adding was not vandalism. This anon was adding sourced information from a source everyone agrees is reliable and scholarly, including you. His edits were not vandalism. Ali made a comment on the talk page, Grandmaster made a comment on the talk page, and even this anon made a comment on the talk page, but Dacy did not, he simply reverted and called the edits vandalism.Azerbaijani 13:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The manner in which this anon user edited page - numerous edit reverts is obvious vandalism. Moreover, I suspect this anon user is sockpuppet. My parole allows to revert anon vandalism without explanation. I made report on all these anon users replacing one another and vandalising page [54]--Dacy69 14:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how many times you say it, sourced edits from reliable sources is not considered vandalism.

I quote Wikipedia: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.

Dacy, the fact that you dont even bother to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and still insist that you are correct really doesnt help your case. You violated your parole.Azerbaijani 15:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those anon Ips are replacing each other. They know what they are doing. It is obvious vandalism. if it were edit of one, as you said, misguided anon, then you are right. But the case is different. Moreover, I believe that these anons are your socks.--Dacy69 15:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop saying its vandalism, its not, no matter who is doing it, those edits are not considered vandalism, as they are legitimate edits which the anon thinks are improving Wikipedia's coverage of that subject. Familiarize yourself with the rules. Saying that the edits are vandalism is not going to make it so, and no matter how many times you say it, Wikipedia's policies arent going to change.

Let see, Atabek, Grandmaster, Pejman, and Ali all also reverted the Anon, NONE of them called the anon's edits vandalism, and all the ones on revert parole left a comment. You were the only one. You clearly violated your parole.Azerbaijani 15:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was waiting for the final admin decision in checkuser case, the fact that this IP should be considered a vandal was stated quite clearly now [55]. So Azerbaijani, please, assume a good faith with regards to Dacy69.Atabek 16:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did this decision come a day after Dacy69 violated his parole (therefore it doesnt apply, as Dacy committed the violation prior to any decision), but the only reason this decision even happened was because Atabek misinformed an administrator about this users actions, and I have commented on the Admins talk page: [56]

Is it not peculiar that both Grandmaster and Atabek have run to Dacy69's defense so quickly? Also, note that once again Atabek made a false report against me (here you can also see the false accusations made against the anon): [57]

Interestingly, these users contend that the Safavids article is a sensitive issue and that the anon is messing up the consensus version of the article, but these users themselves have violated a consensus agreement which they themselves agreed to on the History of the name Azerbaijan article and have traded reverts so that they wouldnt break parole.Azerbaijani 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully trust to Arbcom members to judge on this case. Just fyi - On that page Mammed Said Ordubadi user:Azerbaijani insulted me and called me a liar - then and I came up with important document on page History of the name Azerbaijan to prove my case which was accepted and inserted in the article. You, Azerbaijani, should change attitude to other editors' opinion and not try to revenge, and moreover, use sockpuppets to evade restrictions. I made also checkuser request and wait for final desicion.--Dacy69 16:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More lies, now you are clearly making false accusations. Show me the diffs where I called you a liar. I'm sick and tired of all of these lies and false reports against me. Here is every single diff of every comment I made on that talk page: [58] [59] [60] [61]

[62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]

Where did I personally attack you? Nowhere! Infact, you reported me for those very comments before: [68] Seem familiar? Dacy, this is hilarious, you guys can try all you want, but the fact of the matter is I have the diff's to prove every single false comment you guys make against me. I'm sick of these personal attacks. Its getting tiring.

Also, I have explained undo-weight to you before, I can take action against that source as per Wikipedia's policies but I have chosen not to out of good faith, but so far, all you guys have done is break compromises, break Wikipedia's policies, trade reverts, and make false accusations.Azerbaijani 16:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 times you said I lied [69]. Speaking frankly I am done with that. Write and accuse me of anything you want.--Dacy69 16:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said I called you a lier, which I never did. I said you lied, which is a comment on your post, but I never called you a lier. Its funny how you prove yourself wrong! I'm only accusing you of what you did (violating parole), not what I want. ;)

Again, it should be pointed out that Dacy broke is parole prior to any decision being made regarding the anon.Azerbaijani 17:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The anon IP belonged to Tajik, who used it to evade his parole. Tajik has been blocked indefinitely. [70] I think this closes the issue. Grandmaster 07:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Freedom skies

Freedom skies (talk · contribs) has been placed on standard revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Freedom_skies.

In particular he is required to discuss content reversion (excepting obvious vandalism) on talk pages of articles. This has been violated in two cases.

He performed a revert here: [71] which was against consensus among the other editors.
He undid a merge: [72] [73]. There was merge notice for more than two weeks and objections were invited on talk page.

In both cases, he failed to discuss it on talk pages, calling it reversion of vandalism.

Reported by: --Knverma 20:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The decision ruled that Freedom skies is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism.

"Knverma" asked for redirect on 07:48, 8 May 2007 and went ahead on 07:49, 8 May 2007. It took him less than two mins to blank a well sourced article. Arrow740 said that "We should delete and merge into Buddhism and Hinduism." Knverma blanked the excellently sourced article and did not merge it; I merged it today.

"Knverma" blanked Patriarch (Buddhism) and redirected it to Lineage (Buddhism), a completely different conept. He blanked content elsewhere.

Those actions amount to vandalism.

_{Freedom skies| talk} 20:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For further reference, here is the discussion regarding merging/deleting/redirecting: [74] and some discussion on Freedomskies' talk page: [75] --Knverma 21:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Sorry to have ignored this, but I was mostly off line over the weekend, and I seem to be one of the few admins who deals with issues on this page. I'm not going to hold Freedom Skies responsible for reverting the blanking of Yoga_and_Buddhism; it is not unreasonable to be surprised at that kind of large scale change that was apparently only proposed one minute before and endorsed after the fact by one other editor. Editors who make bold changes should not be surprised when others object and should be prepared to discuss the matter calmly (as I learned my first week here). I also note that the merge and redirect is now done, so Skies' objections were apparently dealt with without further disruption or edit warring. The reversion of the merge of Patriarch (Buddhism) and Lineage (Buddhism) was done without discussion, which is a technical violation, and it would certainly be a good idea for Freedom Skies to explain on the talk pages why the two concepts are different enough to deserve separate articles. It is also inappropriate to describe good faith edits as vandalism, and his continued insistence that it was vandalism shows a worrisome inflexibility. Consider this a final warning. Thatcher131 00:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually sir,

I have good reasons to assume that "Knverma" is vandalizing those articles.

Kindly take a look into the past actions of the user:-

That material was from peer reviewed journals. I'll provide numerous more examples such as these in which the user has shown the tendency to simply blank mateial in the past.

Knverma is an editor who would like to have every mention of Bodhidharma removed from this encyclopedia for his own reasons.

He removed the neutral narrative as mentioned below from here; he could have requested expansion and I, for one, would have responded. Removing an entire concept with such scope for expansion is improper.:-

A patriarch in Buddhism refers to high members of the sangha who were not only succesors to the historical Gautama Buddha, but were also leaders of their respectful sect. Bodhidharma, for example, was considered the first Zen (Ch'an) patriarch, and the twenty-eighth successor to the Buddha. In Jodo Shinshu it refers to seven Indian, Chinese and Japanese masters before its founder Shinran. In Theravada the term is used for the Sangharaja.

He completely blanked Yoga and Buddhism and did not merge it. I had to perform the merge myself.

~~At least don't present links which contradict your statements. The above two links show that I deleted Bodhidharma from the Patriarch article and added it to the Lineage article.~~ (deleted, following update by Freedomskies.) Have a speedy recovery from your accident. --Knverma 11:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A patriarch is the one to whom the founding principles of a religious school are attributed to, in this case the Buddha (in India) and Bodhidharma (in China)^[1] and Lineage refers to the concept of Dharma transmission which traces it's origin to the one patriarch.

I'm sorry for the delay in the reply; If you'll take a look here you'll see that I have not worked since 21:00, 12 May 2007. I was involved in a minor accident and may not be able to contribute in the near future as well.

The patriarch article should be expanded using Kūkai and Hōnen Shōnin. I'll try do it myself using only the best sources available. This merge was proposed only by Knverma and carried on only by Knverma.

You'll notice that only Knverma carried out the blanking of Bodhidharma from this discussion.

Any objections to the merge? --Knverma 08:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Merged. --Knverma 11:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Regards,

^ Bodhidharma (6th century CE), legendary Indian monk who is credited with the establishment of the Chan (Zen) school of Buddhism that flourished in East Asia. Considered the 28th Indian successor in a direct line from the Buddha Gotama, Bodhidharma is recognized by the Chinese Chan schools as their first patriarch. - Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions By Wendy Doniger, Merriam-Webster

_{Freedom skies| talk} 09:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[3] Bodhidharma (6th century CE), legendary Indian monk who is credited with the establishment of the Chan (Zen) school of Buddhism that flourished in East Asia. Considered the 28th Indian successor in a direct line from the Buddha Gotama, Bodhidharma is recognized by the Chinese Chan schools as their first patriarch. - Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions By Wendy Doniger, Merriam-Webster

[a]

[b]

[1]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 The admin who dealt with the AIV report did not class the edits as simple vandalism, as can be seen [[User talk:Pigsonthewing#Your AIV report|here]]. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">One Night In Hackney</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:One Night In Hackney|<span style="color:#006600">303</span>]]''</sub></font> 12:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 :Agreed, rather. "POV vandalism" is not a concept that really makes sense, especially not here, which is clearly a content dispute between differing points of view. I scarcely count as uninvolved with this editor, however, and am reluctant to take any action myself. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 12:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
+::The revert parole expired after one year, see [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Pigsonthewing_revert_limitation|here]].  However, this looks like it could be reported as a standard 3RR violation.  In addition, I recently banned Andy from adding or removing infoboxes or editing infobox templates for a month [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FPigsonthewing&diff=130963412&oldid=130962802].  I am extending this to a month from today and expanding it to ban editing of infoboxes and their contents as well. The ban may be enforced by blocking if necessary. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 13:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 ==[[User:Eupator]]==