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

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Edit this section for new requests

TigranTheGreat

User:TigranTheGreat, a party to two ArbCom cases [1], [2], has been placed under supervised editing per most recent ArbCom. He has recently violated the remedy [3] by editing the talk page of Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907 in an offensive manner directed:

a) against a nationality - [4] with remarks like: "...Italians and Germans. These two nationalities were well developed ethnic groups..." and "The loss of Nagorno-Karabakh alone presents a very real fear to so called "Azerbaijanis" about losing their own identity"
b) against another contributor - [5].

Thanks. Atabek (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure that saying Azeris weren't a well-developed ethnic group at a certain time is a violation. El_C 16:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El C, ethnic groups cannot be well or underdeveloped, saying so maybe considered a racist generalization remark. This is especially emphasized by the subsequent reported sentence calling "so called Azerbaijanis". The nations and countries can be well or underdeveloped but not ethnic groups. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But how about referring to modern day Azerbaijanis as "so called Azerbaijanis"? Is it Ok to make such comments about other ethnic groups in Wikipedia? Grandmaster (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, it's okay.~~ By which I mean, that would be a problem. El_C 17:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a bit impatient about (seemingly) rhetorical questions. I should not have been the one to respond to this. I'll go do something else now. El_C 17:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At any case, I dropped the user a note. El_C 17:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope this will resolve the problem. Grandmaster (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that "Azerbaijanis" have underdeveloped national identity is well supported in literature and is quite relevant to the topic. It's an artificial term of purely political origin applied to a non-existent nationality. Now, again, if Grandmaster can refer to the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as "separatists," "non-existent state," or "illegal entity," we need to be able to state the relevant opinions on "Azerbaijanis."--TigranTheGreat (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the admins will pay attention to the above inflammatory and nationalistic comment (and the one below on the thread about Atabek) by TigranTheGreat. This is not the first instance of him making such comments, but so far he received nothing but a warning. Grandmaster (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And any parallels with my statements about NK are out of place, they are not directed against the Armenian people, and are merely the repetition of the position of the international community, which cannot be anti-Armenian, see these: [6] [7] [8] This is just an attempt to distract attention from his unacceptable remarks about other ethnic groups. Grandmaster (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I merely repeat what other scholars, including well-respected ones in the West, have said about the "Azerbaijanis." Here is, for example, Patricia Carley of the United States Institute of Peace:

The knowledge that they essentially lost that war has led the Azeris to be fearful of the possibility that their nation could disintegrate, beginning with the loss of Karabakh. They thus believe the future of their integrity as a people lies in the favorable resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. This feeling is intensified by the Azeris’ relatively underdeveloped sense of nationhood. Armenians very likely do not appreciate the extent to which Azeris believe their very existence to be threatened by the notion of independence for Nagorno-Karabakh. http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks25/keypts25.html

The fact that what we refer to as "Azeris" is a group with underdeveloped identity is well known. In fact, it's been suggested that the only thing holding them together as a coherent group is their defeat in the Nagorno-Karabakh war. These statements are quite relevant to the discussion on the "Armenian-Tatar Massacres" article. The discussion is on whether we should call the culprits of massacres "Azeris" or Tatars." Just because Grandmaster disagrees with this opinion and agrees with his own views on Nagorno-Karabakh is irrelevant here--it's a content dispute.

If on the other hand, we are to exclude opinions (whether we agree or disagree with them) that some may find offensive, then Grandmaster has to stop making his comments about Nagorno-Karabakh. Some Armenians find such comments offensive, and have requested Grandmaster to stop making them (recently, on the Shusha Talk page [9]), which he has ignored. If, on the other hand, he wants to continue expressing such opinions, then he cannot complain about others stating the truth that he finds unpleasant.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said that Azerbaijanis are "non-existent nationality". Is this a scholarly accepted fact or your personal belief? Grandmaster (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as you believe that Nagorno-Karabakh is a non-existent state, I believe that "Azerbaijanis" are a non-existent nationality. It's based on scholarly literature. As I have explained before, "Azerbaijani" is a fictional identity concocted by pan-Turkic and later Soviet ideologists for political reasons. The fact that this particular group has a weak sense of identity, as stated by Western analysts, is a further evidence of this. The real Azerbaijanis are those living in Iran--in fact, they are part of the Iranian cultural environment quite unconnected with the so-called "Azerbaijanis" north of Arax (for example, they are quite friendly with the Armenians, helping NKR overcome the effects of the blockade). My belief is that nationalists and ideologists should leave these people alone and let them determine their own identity.

Now, if you want us to be sensitive to your feelings, then you need to stop making comments about Nagorno-Karabakh that some find offensive. You can't have it both ways.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that the opinion of Carley is merely a repetition of the opinion of the Armenian scholar Ronald Suny, which she openly admits: A factor involved in this fierce determination to preserve their territorial integrity, suggested Suny, is the weak or underdeveloped sense of nationhood among Azeris. [10] De-jure non-existence of NK as an independent state is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the international community, while your personal perception of Azerbaijani people as non-existent or whatever is purely a racist remark. Grandmaster (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The international community does not say NK is non-existent or illegal, just that it's unrecognized. Your statements on its "non-existence" and "illegality" are your own POV conclusions. Now, whether opinions are supported by international community or individual scholars is irrelevant here--it's a content dispute. If you can state your POV in a discussion, then so can others, even if you find the truth uncomfortable.

I am not saying the people of Azerbijan are individually underdeveloped or genetically inferior. I am just saying they, as a whole, are underdeveloped as a national group--a statement which is supported by Patricia Carley. So, it's not racist, it's just the truth. And I wouldn't bring it up unless you didn't claim that "Azerbaijanis and Tatars are the same people." When you make a false claim, I have to be able to challenge it.

By the way, Patricia Carley does not quote Suny (an American scholar, who merely happens to be ethnically Armenian) when stating her opinions on the "Azerbaijani" identity. She makes perfectly clear when she quotes Suny.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The international community does say that NK authorities are illegitimate and refers to them as separatists, see these statements by EU and PACE. [11] [12] In particular, PACE says: “Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are still occupied by Armenian forces, and separatist forces are still in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region”. Whether you like that or not, that’s not my personal opinion, and it is not offensive to the Armenian people in general, and I never heard of either organization being ever accused of anti-Armenian sentiment. Your references to Azerbaijani people in general as “so called” and “non-existent”, etc cannot be compared with the references to separatist movements. They are inflammatory and repeated in defiance of the request by the admin. Grandmaster (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"does not recognize the legitimacy of elections" doesn't mean "NK is an illegal and non-existent entity." As for "separatists," when you use the term outside quoted texts, then you adopt it. Armenian users have pointed to you that they find your use of the term offensive. You are free to refer to NKR simply as "Nagorno-Karabakh" or "unrecognized state." You chose to use the terms mentioned earlier, which is in defiance of requests made to you.

Discussions on talk pages are meant to contain opinions of the parties. Whether an opinion is supported by the "international community" does not make it any less inflammatory. Nor is such support relevant here--this is not a forum to discuss content disputes. The only issue is whether members find some opinions offensive. If you don't want to read opinions offensive to you, then you either agree to refrain from opinions offensive to others, or you avoid bringing the subject matter into discussion.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, referring to separatist authorities as such is not a racial slur, whether someone likes it or not, unlike your comments, which are directed against all people of certain ethnicity. Grandmaster (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tigran, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, in which you're under supervision not to edit in a manner offensive to other contributors (in this case of Azeri nationality) and in good faith. And it does not matter if you cite Armenian Ronald Grigor Suny to justify your offensive claims, because such citations of yours would be similar to citing Vasili Velichko to judge the genetic makeup and claim the underdevelopment of Armenians, or Adolph Hitler in justifying anti-Semitic views in abstract case. Please, assume good faith. Atabek (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and Grandmaster are under the same supervision as well. If you express inflammatory opinions about Nagorno-Karabakh, then others are free to express their opinions on the underdeveloped nature of so-called "Azerbaijanis" in a discussion. The discussion is on whether the Tatars can be called Azerbaijanis, and the artificial nature of the Azerbaijani identity is crucial to the debate. It is by no means racist--I am not saying each individual "Azerbaijani" is inferiour--only that the group as a whole is lacking a well-developed identity. This is a well known and quoted fact. The modern descendants of Tatars cannot even decide whether they are Iranian or Turkic, obviously they cannot be assumed to possess a clear national identity. If you find this offensive, then you need to agree not to express opinions offensive to others. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I highly doubt that Patricia Carley, a modern Western analyst working for the United States Institute of Peace, can be compared to Adolf Hitler. Please refrain from making misleading comments, and assume good faith.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, lets to not compare Armenian-American prominent historian with... Hitler. Pls assume good fight and more tolerance to Armenian side! I just want to remind how many times you deleted quotes by foreign scolars and added an Armenian-American historian (Hovhannisian) as a source for Armenian-Azerbaijani topics at Shusha, just cuz it seems to be biased pro-Azeri. Was it ok? Andranikpasha (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point it is better to wait for an admin assessment of Tigran's comments. Grandmaster (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could also wait for assessment of your continued inflammatory comments. And your defiance of requests made to you to stop them.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember any admin asking me about that. Grandmaster (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked by Armenian users. You showed disregard for fellow Wikipedians. And you continue to do so.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Separatists" was not the right term from the beginning. "Irredentists" should have been the one. Anyway, but saying that "there is no Nagorno-Karabakh nation" is not the same as saying "there is no such a nation as Azerbaijanis". Current population of Nagorno-Karabakh are ethnically the same Armenians as those in Glendale or Marselle, Yerevan or Beyrut. "Azerbaijanis" often referred by Armenians as "Turks", are not exactly same as those in Turkey. There is a formed nation from 16th century onwards, which had many names throughout the centuries and got the name "Azerbaijanis" or "Azeris" in 20th century. Whether you like it or not, whether you believe in that or not, this is the reality and you have to accept it. They may be divided, half living in the Caucasus, half in Iran, but ethnically they are the same people. I may understand pro-Kasravis and pro-Pahlavis saying "there is no Azerbaijanis", but I really do not understand the logic of Armenians who say "there is no Azerbaijanis" or refer to them as "so called Azerbaijanis" If you deny the existence of force that fought with your people over Nagorno-Karabakh, then whom did you fight with? I am not asking you to write here what you think about them, but you have to accept how they name themselves. It is your business how you call them among yourselves, in your own language, but this is the name how we're "registered" at the U.N., CoE, libraries and univesities, encyclopedias and textbooks, known in English language. You have to use this name to approach us or call us. If I am asked to identify a nation living next to my borders in the English language, I have to say "Armenian", not "ermeni" as I do in my own language. There are Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. There are no "Nagorno-Karabakhis" in Nagorno-Karabakh. May be in 100 years from now, there will be a new ethnicity formed which will be different from the Armenians living in Yerevan, but until it is accepted by the academic world, I cannot claim or do so - I have to refer to recognised literature for that. --Aynabend (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we have no obligation to follow the opinion of the UN, at least not in the discussion pages. We don't require you to use the term Armenian Genocide, as we realize it can be uncomfortable for you. As for the "Azerbaijanis," I hope you know that the so called "Azerbaijani literature," at least prior to 1919, was purely Turkmen in origin. I therefore don't see how we can talk about a "formed nation of Azerbaijanis," especially in the 16th century. The modern remnants of Tatars living in the Republic of Azerbaijan are a conglomerate of Turkic speaking groups with little national identity, and have been so for centuries. Imposing the fictional label "Azerbaijani" doesn't change this fact. And I am not sure what you mean by Nagorno-Karabakh fighting a "force"--NKR merely crushed the Republic of Azerbaijan, so any mention of a "force" here is meaningless and irrelevant. Plus, just because the Baku regime made these unfortunate people go into a disastous war doesn't mean they actually share a single clear national identity.

As for the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, you cannot say that your offenses are better and therefore allowed. NK is an Armenian state, it's part of the Armenian homeland, and Armenians hold it dear to heart. Any derogatory comments about that state can be deemed offensive by Armenian users.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not "Turkmen", but "Turkman" or "Turkoman" is what you mean. There were other names, such Kizilbash, Qaraqoyunlu, Akkoyunlu. These were the names that this people used to name themselves throughout these centuries. The last name used by this people prior to 19th century was "Moslem". "Tatar" or "Tartar" was the name used by outsiders. It was used simultaneously along with "Azerbaijani Tatars" or just "Azerbaijanis" already in 19th century by the Russian ethnographers, such as M.N. Makarov. There are many nations in the world who have been named differently throughout the centuries and today if you tell a German that the Prussians were not Germans, they will laugh at you. "Armenian Genocide" unlike "Azerbaijanis" is not used or recognized by the U.N. or CoE, OSCE. If it was ever used in their official documents, then we would probably refer to it in this list and recognize it. What I meanby "force" is that the war is not over and there is still a danger that it would start again, according to ICG. NK Army, or Armenian forces, unlike us who had a more promising support from the Russians, was not the winner in the battles. There were times in winter of 1993 and spring of 1994, when NK Army was retreating and leaving behind significant territories. There was a time in 1992, when Azerbaijani Army was standing only 5 kms of Khankendi or Stepanakert. You never know how this situation can change. Therefore, it is always a good tactic in wars to know and respect the enemy, and not use a denial. You perfectly know that in 1905 both sides gave victims and it was a senseless clash, according to the same Armenian sources invoked by the Czarist Russia (See James Henry book from 1905). By saying that the people who fought with Armenians in Baku in 1905 were the descendants of Tatars you are only deceiving yourself. You perfectly know who they were. --Aynabend (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The abundance of names used for the nomadic Turkic tribes in Caucasus is a further indication that these tribes and their modern Tatar descendants in Azerbaijan have lacked a national identity. I understand that this may be difficult to admit by the "Azerbaijanis," given the fictional theories fed to them by the Baku regime, but we need to call things by their names. As for your account of Azerbaijan's defeat, it's a well known fairy tale invented by the Azerbaijani propaganda machine to cover the country's humiliation. It still does not change the fact that Azerbaijan suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of Nagorno-Karabakh. Russia equally helped both Armenians and the Azeris. In fact, it's a well known fact that the only reason Armenians retreated in 1992 is that they were faced with an overwhelming number of Russian merceneries. Western sources describe the Armenian advances as "armed tourism"--they followed the usual pattern of Armenians advancing and the Azeri army escaping the battlefield. The only reason the Azeris lost is that they were forced to fight for a land that was not their own, coupled with their underdeveloped national identity and unity. So, your attempt to prove the existence of a fictional "Azerbaijani" identity by their "fight" against Armenians is incorrect.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aynabend, there's no need to turn this into ethnographic dispute. The problem here is with Tigran's comments, and those comments being a problem was acknowledged by the admin above. They are clearly based on ethnic prejudice and are offensive to the entire Azerbaijani people. Wikipedia is not a place where such behavior is appreciated. I'm still waiting for the admin take on the situation. Grandmaster (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the problem is that you, Atabek, and now Aynaberd continue making comments that you have been told to be problemating, and that you continue to disregard the concerns of your fellow Wikipedians. Certainly that's not a behavior appreciated in Wikipedia. I generally wouldn't bring up the delicate issues surrouding the "Azerbaijani" identity and the NK War, but when you make false claims on talk pages and here regarding Tatars and the war, then I have to point out why they are inaccurate. If you and your fellow Azeri members do not like the subject matter, then you need to stop pursuing them.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, calling another user "ethnically prejudiced," as Grandmaster did above, is a blatant personal attack against another user, which is a grave violation of Wikipedia policies. It seems Grandmaster's behavior has progressed from making comments offensive to Armenians, to downright attacks against the person of another Wikipedia user.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't distort my words. I did not call you ethnically prejudiced. I said that your comments are based on ethnic prejudice. That's a different thing. Grandmaster (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then again, Tigran, you just said that the Azerbaijani ethnic identity is "fictional". Do you think that it is OK to make such comments about the entire people? Grandmaster (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say nothing that academic sources haven't already said about Azerbaijan's population. Even western sources consider "Azeris" to have an "underdeveloped national identity," which is in a very real danger of disintegration due to loss of Nagorno-Karabakh.[13]. As much as you may find the truth uncomfortable, we can't deny it. And the only reason I have brought it up is to refute your claims about the identity and naming of Tatars in the "Armenian-Tatar conflict" article.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Azerbaijanis being a "fictional identity" supported by academic sources? Even Suny does not say that. Grandmaster (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as identities go, it's a weak and unclear one. Scholars agree. Here are a few more, in addition to Patricia Carley:

"Azerbaijani fear of Armenians was further inflated, ironically, by the relative weakness of Azerbaijani identity as compared to Armenian One" (S.Kaufmann, Modern hatred, Cornell University Press, 2001. See page 58.)

"In the case of the third major ethnic group of South Caucus, the Azerbaijanis, the path towards nationhood was strewn with obstacles. First, there was uncertainty about Azerbaijani ethnic identity, which was a result of the influence of Azerbaijani’s many varied Russian conquerers"(B. Fowkes, "Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World," Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. See page 68)

"Despite these myths, the historical and cultural elements of which the ex-Soviet Azerbaijanis are most proud, such as being the land of Zoroaster and the poet Nizami, have distinctly Iranian origins and character. Ironically the realization of this fact, rather than bringing the ex-Soviet Azerbaijanis closer to Iran, has had the opposite effect. This is because Azerbaijanis feel that the Iranian connection would hamper the development of an independent Azerbaijani identity – and , as far as some are concerned, a purely Turkic identity."(David Menashri, "Central Asia Meets the Middle East," Routledge, 1998. See page 107)

"In Contrast with the Armenians, the Azerbaijani national identity is very recent. In fact, the very name "Azerbaijani" was not widely used until the 1930s; before that, Azerbaijani intellectuals were unsure whether they should call themselves Caucasian Turks, Muslims, Tatars or something else." (S.Kaufmann, Modern hatred, Cornell University Press, 2001. See page 56.)

--TigranTheGreat (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the last quote and the subject we discuss (who were these Tatars who clashed Armenians in 1905?), there is no direct correlation between the changing names of an ethnicity throughout the centuries and existence or non-existence of national identity. National identity in the same time does not have a unique and standard formula. Modern Azerbaijanis' identity started to shape in 13 century with Heterodox Shia Islam, was strengthened in 16th century by a state religion and unified state and started to disappear with the wars of 19th century wars and annexation by Russian Empire. In the Soviet era it changed its form or died for 70 years. Current status I agree is unclear. But this does not change the fact that the Turkoman in 13-15 centuries, Tatars in 1905, Caucasian Turks in 20's, or Azerbaijanis in the 20th century were/are the same people, same ethnicity. I think there is no need for further discussions. I am ready to give my consent to link this article to the articles related to modern Tatars of Kazan and Crimea. Let them solve their “old problems”. --Aynabend (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tigran, there is a poem of the greatest and perhaps the most renowned Russian poet of XIXth century, Alexander Pushkin, associating in his words the Armenians with thieves and cowards ("Поди ты прочь - ты мне не сын. Ты не чеченец - ты старуха. Ты трус, ты раб, ты армянин."), in fact, here is the link to Roland Grigor Suny's book reciting that same quote [14]. While this is a referenced source, it's still an insult against an ethnicity, and it does not establish basis for any Wikipedia contributor to use these words as evidence in articles about Armenians or even further, like yourself, argue for their justification. So, as you have been explained above, assume good faith and stop insulting people's ethnic identity by spending time to look for such sources. Atabek (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, tell that to Parishan who used a sole source to claim that Azerbaijani is a Langua franca, by an Armenophobe author who calls Armenians parasites in the same article. Don't use double standards and delete the Parishan addition yourself. Beside, are you comparing some deluded poet with a position which holds consensus in the academia? VartanM (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Dan inflaming Eastern European topics

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

User:Dr. Dan has been notified of the general restriction on Eastern European topics per the procedures outlined in said restriction. If the user's edits continue to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, file a new enforcement request at WP:AE and/or alert me for further action to be taken. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask for help regarding a single extremely ucivil editor active in discussions related to various Eastern European topics, an area which has been subject to a series of recent ArbCom rulings which noted the tendency for discussions and articles involving those subjects to deteriorate into wiki-battles, and the resulting need for civility enforcement. To be more specific: in the Piotrus case (closed on 19 August 2007), editors were reminded of the need to edit courteously and cooperatively in the future under the treat of further sanctions. In Digwuren's case (closed on 21 October 2007), several editors were banned, and the rest were warned not to use Wikipedia as the battleground and placed under general restriction ("should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below").

I believe that Dr. Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has constantly - for well over a year - crossed boundaries we expect our editors to keep. Below I will present a sample of his uncivil and disruptive edits that occurred since the last ArbCom ruling (Digwuren's case); please note that this is just a proof of the trend that continued for well over a year. For an evidence of a long pattern of disruption - dating to 2006, with dozens of diffs - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence#Piotrus_evidence_against_Dr._Dan; please note that the user was warned about incivility multiplie times and was blocked for incivility once alraedy (in January 2007 following this RFI).

October 5: inserts POVed essays into existing wikipedia namespace pages
October 6: accusation of stalking, usage of nicknames and editor's images
October 11: insists on using pictures on editors in discussion, objects to their removal, calls its censorsphip
October 14: using the name of an editor he often is in conflict with in thread and restoring it even when asked not to abuse his name
October 16: edit summary calling other editor (Piotrus) with a nickname and accusing him of abuse and vandalism
October 17: linking editor's images, annoying nicknames, off topic issues
October 18: "you have mentioned on innumerable occaisions that you are a Jew" - very relevant...
October 18: false claim that Piotrus has invented a name for the article: "This is another "special creation" of the Prokonsul's"
October 18: again; section heading linking to editor's image, usage of nicknames, accusing editors of "play(ing) more mind games with this outrageous anti-Lithuanian bias", "Do back off of this one"
October 21: average "helpful" comment by Dr. Dan
October 26: yet more sarcasm
October 27: after I explicitly asked him not to invent nicknames for me and not to use my photo ([15]) he uses them (October 27, 2007) (October 28), also claming that "he (Piotrus) has personally insulted me many times, has sought to censor me, and has demanded that I be "punished"
October 28: Using full name of an editor who asked him not to in an edit summary
October 31: implying the editors who disagree with him are trolls; referring to - "maybe now you can better understand Pilsudski's quote about what he was dealing with" - the offensive quote being "Poles are morons"
November 1: uses nickname in edit summary despite being asked not to
November 4: a 'discuss editor' topic on how bad certain editor is and implying bad faith on the part of Polish editors: Talk:Karolina_Proniewska#Slightly_Off_topic
November 6: using a REAL name of an editor despite requests not to do so and despite that editor NOT using his real name on Wikipedia (stalking and privacy concerns - possible oversight action may be needed here)
November 6: sarcastic bad faith comments continue
November 6: uses editor nickname despite requests not to; revert warring over WP:POINT issue
November 7: warned over POINTed edits does not express remorse
November 12 using nicknames, revert warring ([16], [17])
November 15 using editor's nickname
November 15 " calls an article "a lot of irrelevant claptrap bordering on an ultra-Nationalistic rant" and "a portion of the plethora of imbecilities presented to us as an excuse for another "article"", note the sarcastic tone and various snide remarks
November 16 the above long comment copied to FAC discussion
November 16 revert warring, using editor's real name in edit summary)
November 17 "This corraling of the same old group of Polish Wikipedians (and non-Poles too) to "vote" in support of its present format is an insult to the Wikipedia Project. The chorus of "well written, well referenced" blather must be either scripted or written by people who have a poor grasp of English, its grammar, and syntax, or giving us more proof that the non-existant Cabal, does in fact exist."
November 19 usage of nicknames in edit summary
November 19 equate important Polish historical figure to Hitler
November 21 - accusing other editor of double standards and referring to him by a nickname - "The "prokonsul" has repeatedly used their efforts when it suits his purposes, yet relegates their efforts aside when he finds them to be objectionable or "offensive" to him"
November 21 "As for WP:CITE and WP:NEUTRALITY you have violated both the spirit and letter of the rules on both with your edits"
November 25 and following few days: flaming on FAC page combined with cabal accusations: "I have seem better term papers come out of a third-rate Community College... ...the majority of all of the votes on this page stem from individuals with "an axe to grind", who are presenting a one-sided picture of a cult of personality propaganda piece...a Support vote.... strikes me as oxymoronic, like so many passages in the current article... - do note the reaction neutral editors: [18], [19]
December 3: reverts and accuses an editor of "rv due to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, regardless of your expertise on the subject of WP:OR"
December 6: ...stop playing games... you are hell-bent in creating more dissension and ill will between editors, by more non-neutral and biased editing...I have to deal with enough of this kind of "thought" processes and behavior at the clinic where I work. And in a follow-up edit, makes fun of editor's nickname at the same time as accusing them of arrogance: "why you didn't choose, "Pontifex Maximus", for your sobriquet instead of "Prokonsul"" - do note the reaction of a neutral editor to this: [20]
December 7: in an edit summary, Dr. Dan makes fun of another editor's username, connecting it with nihilism

About half of that editor's 500 edits (since June that year) are in discussion spaces (Article talk: 36.6% (183); User talk: 11.6% (58); Wikipedia talk: 1% (5)). As can be seen from the above sample, a very high percenatage of those constitute uncivil flaming.

User's contribution to mainspace are less disruptive but contain a high percentage of problematic edits. For example, in addition to edits with uncivil edit summaries linked above, consider the inflammatory potential of edits like those:

November 22: removes a Polish name variant in contradiction of WP:NCGN guideline
December 6: moves an article to a non-neutral and not recommended by MoS name with "" marks
December 7: moves a stable article to a (mispelled) title already rejected in a past RM

Based on the above, and assuming that the above edits fall into "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith" edits as defined in Digwuren's ArbCom linked above, I'd like to ask whether it is possible deal with this user, at the very least restricting his access by topic with regard to Poland-related discussions, discussions involving Poland-related users, and Poland-related articles.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion about user's right to collect evidence

Question: Is collecting and maintaining laundry lists of grievances as shown here waiting for the best time to unload them at the opportune time considered "civil", "assumption of good faith" or even decent? Does such approach fall under the radar of WP:STALK and WP:BATTLE policies? Obviously, following the discovery in the past ArbCom, the list moved but, as evidenced above, the maintenance is as meticulous as ever. Why should we wait for a later time the to see the diffs compiled on M.K., Lokyz, Irpen, Ghirlandajo and others? Let's consider everything at once. I don't condone Dr Dan's comments, but we have seen enough of the undercover detective agencies? Now, I expect a response, like why are you unhappy when I back it up with the diffs. My answer is I am unhappy with continued long-term project to expunge opponents. Piotrus, doing so is worse than Dr Dan's sins. Why are you still doing it despite being told how this is perceived by other editors? Again, I repeat, my question is narrow. Why are you still doing it, Piotrus? --Irpen 10:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As that ArbCom proved, collecting evidence is expected. And as then I find it hard to understand why you are more critical of complaining about people's right to present comprehensive evidence than of maldoers who are the reason for the complain. Unless... it is because I am the one complaining? Or because you have been found to engage in similar actions? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collecting evidence suggests that one has concerns already. If such is the case, then those concerns either need to be voiced and resolved, or they need to be dismissed. For example, if I think that Irpen is being hostile, then I have to address that. I should address it with him. If that is unsatisfactory, then I should bring in other people to work it out. If that does not work, and if things remain ongoing problems, then I have dispute resolution means. What I should not be doing is saying, "This isn't strong enough to convict, but I can get lots of instances together." If the behavior in the past is not something that rises to the level of causing disruption, then they should be let be. Collecting as you go suggests a plan to "get" someone. Having a file like that does show bad intent. This is not to say anything about the current case. Geogre (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that shows a longitudinal pattern of disruption requires that you either spend a several hours at one time digging through somebody's contributions 'looking for dirt' or you document it as it occurs. Neither of them is how I prefer to spend my time on this project, but sometimes somebody needs to gather and present such evidence, and I don't believe either of those ways is better or worse. How one collects such evidence should not be regulated; neither should users be forced to gather evidence for DR if they don't wish. I hate wasting my time on DR; I came to this project to write encyclopedic content, not to document trolling - but if I believe trolling is disruptive enough, I should be allow to prepare evidence for DR in a format and timeframe that I believe is right. In any case, since we are not discussing Irpen here, I don't see how his comments about me are relevant here; I do appreciate him saying that he doesn't "condone Dr Dan's comments" but I consider his comments about "detective agencies" and collecting evidence on trolling being worse than trolling itself rather improper, particularly given the ArbCom ruling that neither of us is likely to be neutral in looking at behavior of the other one. I don't stalk Irpen questioning his actions and judgment in DR procedures that don't involve me, and I'd expect the same courtesy from him.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalk? Piotrus, this page is on my watchlist. And I explained to you multiple times that I NEVER click on your contributions and I even explained why! --Irpen 21:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, the core of the problem here is not Piotrus but Dan's behaviour. Dan is a great copyeditor. However, most of us know him as a troll, who spends most of his time here trying to turn all content disputes into OT chatter. Ad personam arguments are a daily bread for him. I learnt to ignore the guy and pretend he's not there, but that doesn't mean his behaviour is ok. It is not. From my point of view most of Dan's talk page comments are disruptive. What's more, I have yet to see Dan add some source to an article. Most of the time he spends on chatter, discussing the virtues of the wikipedians who take part in the disputes and such. Something should be done about it. //Halibu tt 10:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you are wrong, Halibutt. If we have more than one problem, the core problem is the one which is more fundamental: vindictive attitude expressed in this stalking your "enemies" with the goal to meticulously "document" the alleged misconduct as the aim of this activity cannot be dispute resolution but expungement.

I can't say it better than Geogre. If you come here to "write content" (as Piotrus says) you've got to work with those who disagree with your content. If you have problems with them, talk to them. If you are dissatisfied, ask others to get involved. Deal with problems as they appear. If, instead, you "document" and wait until you collected enough or the moment is right, you show that your goal is not to have problems addressed but expunge your opponents. Ghirla's departure(s) was not the result of honest "DR". I was forced to leave for a couple of months being unable to overcome the disgust once I accidentally discovered Piotrus' "documenting" of mine and Ghirla's edits at the secret online page. Especially revealing were diffs to pages to which he even had no relation thus having to indeed stalk to find them. And that went on for months and started when there were neither an RfC or ArbCom in sight even.

DR never supposed to include "winning" disputes through elimination of opponents and what is going on here looks more like the attempt of elimination rather than of DR. Acting upon such "evidence" would only legitimize Piotrus' conduct. :::--Irpen 21:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generaly Irpen has always been against enforcing civility rules from what I remember so I don't think it is worth trying to convice him otherwise.

As to the claim, yes Dan is very disruptive and hostile editor that taunts Polish users quite frequently. It's a part of a wider problem in Wikipedia that is the lowering of standards of discussion here. Instead of encyclopedia we find shouting games and flames. Sadly relevant boards that tried to keep this under control were closed.--Molobo (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Irpen, do us all a favor, and stop changing the topic. This is not about Piotrus, this is about Dr. Dan. You admitted yourself that you do not condone Dr. Dan's comments, yet I have quite a different impression. Anyway, feel free to support whoever you like, but stick to the subject please. Tymek (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, if you have a problem with me, file a separate DR and please stop commenting on my person here. This is not the place to repaste your arguments from ArbCom/Piotrus on how you think we should or shouldn't collect evidence, arguments that in any case were discarded by ArbCom few months back. We are discussing Dr. Dan, not me, not you. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing the problems that plague the EE topics and the worst problems and the one that need to be addressed, is strenuous relations between editors and distrust that breeds animosity. Vicious activity aimed at clearing the field of the content opponents fuels this animosity much more than any individual slip from anyone's tongue. You should try to work out the disagreement, including through DR methods when the rest fails, as soon as anything goes wrong rather than "document" them for months until you think you have "enough". Your conduct breeds the worst climate and should not be legitimized in any way by being allowed in the ArbCom proceedings. I am willing to talk to Dan and ask him to cut on the innuendo but I request that you unload everything yet hidden that you "documented" on myself, Ghirla, MK and whoever now so that we work it out or just discard that and in the future always work things out seeking consensus and harmonious editing rather than victories in content disputes through clearing the field. --Irpen 03:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the major problems is tolerance of severe incivility and rude comments. Rigorous discipline in that matter should be made and all violations of civility punished. It would well to clear up the atmosphere. I remember to this day h when one editor threw obscene words at me, and nothing was done about it. Incidents like that downgrade Wikipedia's prestige and the atmosphere of cooperation between editors.--Molobo (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not me who launched a series of DR including an ArbCom against editors involved in our subject areas; it was your friends (Ghirla and M.K.) who forced me to compile evidence to defend myself. When the list was kept online for the very reason that it could be referenced to and editors mentioned in it asked to review their behavior, you have complained about it in the ArbCom, going as far as to say that the very existence of evidence against have offended you so much that you have withdrawn from this project for a month or so. Despite that the ArbCom failed to endorse your proposals to condemn my method of evidence gathering, I have blanked the list so that editors like you don't have to stumble upon it and be offended again. And now you want me to recreate it and advertise it? I am sorry, Irpen, but I will exercise my right as a free editor to collect (or not) the evidence when and how I like, and present it where and when I like for DR proceeding, as recommended by our DR policies. If you are afraid that I may gather evidence on you and your friends, may I suggest, simply, that you act within our guidelines and give others no opportunity to find any diffs where you have broken them. As the ArvCom involving me has shown - by not finding me guilty of any infringements (despite you and your friends proposing dozens in the workshop) - one can edit Wikipedia for years and yet respect our policies. I am sure you and your friends could do it, too.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO both Piotrus and Dan are guilty in violation of the arbcom ruling. Piotrus is guilty in maintaining the black lists on his opponents, Dan is guilty in unprovoked personal attacks on Piotrus. I would think that warning would be sufficient in the both cases because violations were relatively mild, but I would understand if an uninvolved administrator will use blocks on both participants to show that the arbcom decision has teeth Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are proposing to ban a person because he is being attacked and gave examples of those attacks. Logical ? Also it is interesting to see how the discussion was turned from Dan issue and his constant harassment of several editors into proposal to ban Piotrus.Welcome to Wiki, sigh.--Molobo (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not get it. The topic is Dr. Dan, and here we have another user trying to meander and blame Piotrus for somebody else's wrongdoings. Please, Alex, this is not about Piotrus. Tymek (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom has never criticized my method of evidence gathering, hence I am not guilty of any infraction; by ignoring Irpen's workshop proposals to condemn this method in fact ArbCom has shown that my method was acceptable. Further, we are not discussing how I collected evidence months ago but how Dr. Dan is behaving now.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Dan was a party to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus, he was well aware of the need to edit courteously. Given that there is a general restriction applicable for all editors of EE articles, I am surprised that the admins here have not acted in regard to Dr Dan's long list of poor behaviour, while User_talk:Sander_Säde was recently given a 24 hour block for this single infraction [21]. Martintg (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point, Marting.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Piotrus maintaining a blacklist. Keeping track of bad things you run across isn't problematic. This is covered by WP:STALKING#Wikistalking. What Piotrus has done isn't, and is entirely beside the point. We should be looking at the contributions of User:Dr. Dan, not a meta page that at a minimum works to ensure compliance with our best practices here. --Hammersoft 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE:I find it rather tasteless that the discussion about Dr. Dan is littered with accusations against the reporter. How is it possible to sensibly understand, comment and resolve the matter when most of the discussion is totally off topic? Irpen is welcome to start his own enforcement request about Piotrus, who is subject to the same restriction, if he can prove that Piotrus's actions have been in violation with the conditions, I belive. A clerk would be useful to clean out the irrelevant accusations.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not uncommon in disputes for one or both sides to attack the messenger. I don't mean to pin blame on any one party, but just want to note that this sort of thing is common. We should work to eliminate it, but recognize that it is as common as it is, and handle it thus appropriately. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell all this fuss is about? It is a sacred right of every user to collect evidence on inproper behaviour of other users. Above discussion is just absurd, off-topic and trying to confuse readers. No single post about reporter's concerns were reported, therefore I propose some admin should lock this evidence talk up. - Darwinek (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Atabek

Atabek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He 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.[22] After reverting Shusha article[23], he leaves the following comment in the talkpage:

"Andranikpasha, back at removing referenced material after the lifting of his parole. Please, stop doing that, follow WP:NPOV and achieve consensus. On a side note, why the article does not mention the fact that Shusha was founded as a capital of Karabakh khanate?" [24]

The above comment is a clear violation of his parole, instead of discussing the content of his revert, he is commenting on another user. Also, his call for Andranikpasha to reach consensus makes no sense. Andranikpasha has and is actively discussing all of his edits, while the last time Atabek participated in any discussion was on November 16th and before that September 7th. VartanM 00:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, actually the same ArbCom requested you and all others involved in editing Turkey-Iran-Azerbaijan-Armenia related pages to do so in a constructive manner and in good faith. So please, assume one. I merely indicated a fact that lifting of Andranikpasha's parole only raised the number of his reverts per day per page. And he does continue to remove sourced material from pages without completely discussing them or achieving consensus. Thanks. Atabek 06:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Shusha we had a whole bunch of socks reverting the article in favor of a certain POV, i.e. Bassenius, Verjakette and Hnarakert, which was established by a checkuser here: [25] And Andranikpasha clearly took an advantage of being relieved of his parole, he made at least 3 rvs on Shusha within the last week: [26] [27] [28] The latest arbcom ruling specifically mentioned among its principles that edit warring was harmful. Now that the article is protected and the socks are blocked the involved editors can discuss the problems and reach a consensus. Grandmaster 12:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of which is irrelevant to this page and doesn't require discussion here. This is to point that Atabek violated the Arbcom restrictions.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How? He left a comment. Whether someone likes it or not is a different issue. Grandmaster (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was supposed to explain the rational of a revert not commenting on a contributor. He clearly violated the terms. Andranik was discussion and explaining his changes in the talkpage, while Atabek came and meatpuppeted with his revert. He commented on the editor not the edit, same applies to the edit summary. VartanM (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek provided rationale for his rv. He explained Andranikpasha that he should not remove referenced material from the article. It is not a comment on the contributor, but rather on how the article should not be edited. Grandmaster (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, you know Atabek removed references and justified it by accusing Andranikpasha of doing just that. Where did Atabek justify his revert to that version? Where has he justified the deletion of the material? Show me where? On the other hand, Andranik has discussed every bit of his changes in the talkpage. I am expecting that Atabek will get away, again. Fedayee was blocked for a revert for an article which had nothing to do with Armenian-Azerbaijan subject a revert which was even if obvious with a summary enough even for ignorants, and Atabek not only commented the contributor by removing materials rather than justify his edit but did it in one of the main articles having to do with Armenian-Azerbaijan.

The next time I am not going to report here but elsewhere, no administrator even bothered to read or comment. Some members don't even need to be reported to be blocked(e.g. Fedayee), while others are given a green light. VartanM (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think you can refer to Fedayee’s block as a precedent here. He was blocked for not leaving any comment, while Atabek commented. Whether you agree with his comment or not, Atabek did not violate the arbcom ruling. Grandmaster (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second Grandmaster's take on the situation. He left a comment; disagreeing with the content of the comment or thinking its not a good enough explanation does not make the action blockable. Please assume good faith and work with other editors. Shell ^babelfish 08:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Shell. No block, please move along. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also concur. Nothing doing here. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!!! Ignored for 6 days and then boom! 3 comments in a row, must be a record. So you are saying that it doesn't matter what you write in the talkpage, as long as we type words in there, we will be ok. We can comment on the weather outside, sing our favorite song(not all of it, we don't want to break the WP:C). Hell, why not even comment on another editor. Revert the article for not reaching CONSENSUS, but the last time you posted anything in the talkpage was a month ago and you didn't reach consensus either. We can just say something completely unrelated to what we did on the main article,

If AA1 wasn't enough lets take a look at the AA2 principles (remember those?)

Negotiation: Willingness to negotiate in a more or less civil way with the other editors of an article is a condition of editing the article.

Removing references material without reaching consensus and accusing another editor of doing the same is not a good way to negotiate.

Edit warring considered harmful: Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Reverting to the version you prefer and accusing another user of not reaching consensus while the last time you posted anything in the talkpage was month ago

Consensus: Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Accusing another user of not reaching consensus while he didn't reach one either.

Wikipedia is not a battleground: Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable.

Commenting on another user while you just reverted the article turns Wikipedia into a battleground. Andranikpasha was wise enough to ignore his comments.

Disruptive editing: Users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site.

Reverting the article and not discussing the revert is disruptive and this report here is a testament to that disruption.

Courtesy: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Words that are spelled out in CAPS letters and targeted toward another user are not intimidating and create hostile enviorment.

Assume good faith: Users are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those whom they had conflicts with in the past.

No comment.

Diplomacy: It is when there are serious disagreements that courteous negotiation is most necessary.

He wasn't negotiating nor was he courteous.

Provocation When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate. Provocation of a new or inexperienced user by an experienced and sophisticated user is especially inappropriate.

Hostile comments toward another user are provocative and escalate the already heated argument.

When was the last time anyone minded those? When was the last time anyone read or enforced those? Was the AA2 a big waste of time? Thank you for your time, I'll be moving along now. VartanM (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, why don't you assume good faith, stop targeting me, and please, check the disruptions of User:Andranikpasha instead, whom you're supposed to actually mentor.

On Shusha pogrom (1920) - 3 reverts within 2 days removing POV tag without consensus achieved on talk page - [29], [30], [31]
On Shusha - 3 reverts within a week - [32], [33], [34] joined by his assigned mentor, that is yourself - [35] in between.

So VartanM, it's clear that the lifting of User:Andranikpasha's parole did not serve the lessening of edit warring, just the opposite, it fueled it further by increasing the number of his reverts without complete discussion and consensus across several pages. And I hope arbitrators and administrators will pay attention to such disruptive editing as well as mentorship. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith? Did you assume good faith? Was the above comment an assumption of good faith? Were you assuming good faith when for two days(Nov 20-22) your only stalked and harassed me. When was the last time you assumed good faith with me or any other Armenian user. Not a single diff exist where you assume good faith with another Armenia and lets not even mention Iranians.

Is this your defense? You didn't even bother explaining or justifying your revert. You point fingers at others and try to shift the attention away from you and blame others. Please be advised that your comment above constitutes to WP:SOAP. I am very proud of Anranikpasha, he hasn't been blocked, he discusses each and every of his edits and ignores the negative personal comments, thus avoids creating hostile environment. He knows all the rules and isn't afraid to point out the mistakes in the articles. Again I will kindly ask you to stop soapboxing about Andranikpasha's mentorship. VartanM (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Atabek’s diffs, I need to also mention a page move war in which Andranikpasha (talk · contribs) has recently been engaged and which was discussed here: [36] I also mentioned above a strange coordination of reverting activity of Andranikpasha with banned User:Verjakette and his socks. Now there’s another strange contributor, User:Hakob, who rvd Shusha pogrom (1920) (to which he never ever contributed) in support of Andranikpasha [37] and who turns up only to rv controversial articles, to which he never actually contributes, such as Paytakaran: [38] [39] [40], Movses Kaghankatvatsi: [41] and others. It is enough to take a look at his contribs. This has to stop, otherwise I see no end to edit wars. And I don’t see the mentorship of Andranikpasha yielding any positive results so far. Grandmaster (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster how is this relevant to Atabek? VartanM (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vartan, Atabek is not going to get blocked. You might as well not waste more of your (valuable) time here. I am also concerned about Andranikpasha's edits - there's stuff there that needs looking into. The edit-warring is a valid concern. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we already established that. I was going to move along, just as I noted, if it wasn't for Atabek and Grandmaster soapboxing about Andranikpasha. Atabek presents 3 diffs of "reverts" where only one is a revert. What happened to assume good faith that Atabek was preaching minutes ago? How can an administrator tolerate such misinformation? And you were so quick to jump into the conclusion that Andranik was edit warring. I guess its easy for you to just ignore the problems and hope that they go away, I would go away if you did something to stop the disruption that Atabek is causing. This actually proves my point about the AA2 being big waste of time and arbitrators not reading the evidence presented or enforcing the sanctions they passed. I really hope that you get elected into this arbcom for the simple reason that you comment, even if its 6 days late. I'll take your advise and not waste your time anymore. VartanM (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here is more evidence of User:Andranikpasha's edit warring:

At Tzitzernavank Monastery - 3 reverts within 3 days, pushing the same unsourced and absolutely non-neutral information - [42], [43], [44].

Also, User:TigranTheGreat just moved the article Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907 - [45] without any comment on talk page. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Atabek's arbcom restrictions violation was conveniantly ignored by several admins and in addition turned into a discussion of Andranikpasha's edits might as well point out that it's becoming more and more clear that the edits of Grandmaster and Atabek as well as several other users are becoming more and more in unison ergo Andranikpasha's reverts on one article as so generously provided by user Grandmaster on a topic regarding user Atabek. I wonder if there is some behind the scenes coordination going on? -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one revert there, and Tigran left a rather lengthy comment in the talkpage and he actually explained why he was doing it. So now its Tigrans fault that you didn't explain your revert? Whos next? MarshallBagramyan? Euprator? Fedayee? VartanM (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, I did explain my revert on the relevant talk page, this has been repeated to you a few times already by administrators responding to the thread. Please, assume good faith, and be concerned about the disruptive edit warring of the contributor whom you were mentoring as well as those you deliberately listed in your comment above. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you falsely accuse users of not commenting on the talk page, you can't ask others to assume good faith before you do so yourself. Being a generous contributor, though, I am still going to assume good faith on your part, and give you a friendly warning not to lie again on this page. False statements are violation of the ArbCom decision itself.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is about the time admins pay attention to the offensive comments Tigran leaves on talk pages. This is the recent example: [46] Referring to Azerbaijani people as "so called "Azerbaijanis" does not help building consensus and may result in baiting other contributors and further escalation of the dispute. Tigran's attempt to move the page without any consensus on talk was not helpful either. This has to stop. Grandmaster (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the fourth rv by User:Andranikpasha on Shusha pogrom (1920) within the last week, ironically marked as "compromise": [47] This user was just relieved of his parole (along with a few others), and I don't see that he changed his behavior in the least. Grandmaster (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmasters here attempts to make out-of-context accusations. The correctness of the term "Azerbaijani" is crucial to the discussion, going on on the Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907 article. The discussion is on whether we should use the term Tatar or Azerbaijani. As demonstrated by several contributors, the term "Azerbaijani" has been applied to a group with little or no national identity. This is a content dispute and it's not appropriate to bring it in here.

Now, if Grandmaster finds content-based opinions offensive, then he needs to reconsider using statements such as "Nagorno-Karabakh is a non-existent state" or "Nagorno-Karabakh is an illegal entity," which he has made on the Shusha talk page and elsewhere. Such terms could be construed as offensive by Armenians. If Grandmaster can express such potentially offensive opinions on the talk page, then he is in no position to complain about "offensiveness" of relevant opinions with which he disagrees.

As for renaming the article, AndranikPasha correctly renamed the article before me, only to be reverted by Grandmaster. I don't see why Grandmaster can revert the article with no consensus and still complain that others revert as well.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I never made any offensive comments about Armenian or any other people. I’m sure no one would like to be referred as “so called”, considering that Tigran was talking about Azerbaijani people in the modern context (His exact words: The loss of Nagorno-Karabakh alone presents a very real fear to so called "Azerbaijanis" about losing their own identity). Second, independence of NK is not recognized by any state, therefore it does not exist de-jure, and any elections there are considered illegitimate until the conflict is resolved, see the article on the region. I don’t think mentioning this fact could be offensive to the Armenian people. And third, there’s an ongoing discussion on talk of the article, which so far have not resulted in consensus. Moving the page in support of Andranikpasha is not helpful at all in current situation. Grandmaster (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and "Azerbaijanis" is an artificial term refering to a group of people with underdeveloped national identity and little ethnic unity. This is supported in literature. If you see no problem in stating your opinions on Nagorno-Karabakh, I see no problem in stating the obvious about the "Azerbaijanis."--TigranTheGreat (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tigran's comment is addressed above, and here's 5th rv by Andranikpasha on Shusha pogrom (1920): [48] I see that the arbcom failed to address the problems with disruptive edit warriors, giving them carte blanche to do whatever they want as long as they don't make incivil comments. Grandmaster (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Parishan has been reverting quite frequently on that article as well ([49], [50], [51]). Unfortunately, he is still not placed under supervised editing. If he can do that, I don't see why can't AndranikPasha, especially that Andranik always goes the extra mile to discuss disputes.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, what else can I do at Shusha pogrom (1920) while you, Atabek and Parishan never answered to my suggestion at talk to start a discussion but all of you just reverting to a POV and undiscussed version without any explanations. I hadnt any other way than to ask for an admin mediation to know why you're putting the same dubious text directly to the article's lead. Anyway I prefer to discuss article's content not here but at the talk! Andranikpasha (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Shusha pogrom you persistently delete the info from Thomas de Waal, a critically acclaimed British author, who wrote the best book on the history of NK conflict. This is clearly a POV push, and you were explained many times that you cannot do that. Still you do that in defiance of wiki rules and go as far as reverting the Wikipedia admin, who tried to stop your disruption: [52] 5 reverts within a week is clearly edit warring and needs urgent admin intervention, otherwise this article will get protected the same way as the other articles on which you edit warred. Grandmaster (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the same article User:Parishan has reverted 3 times in a week. There is no rule that says 3 reverts are not disruptive while 5 is. If the page gets protected, it could very well be due to Parishan's reverts. You and Atabek have recently reverted an admin (User:Golbez) on the Shusha page--so you have engaged in disruptive editing as well. Whether Thomas de Waal's quote should be in the article or not is a content dispute and irrelevant here.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert # 6 by Andranikpasha on Shusha pogrom (1920): [53] It was admitted here that edit warring by this user is a valid concern, but sadly nothing is done so far to stop it. Keeps on removing de Waal from the article, despite it is being a reliable source. Grandmaster (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, pls stop to Wikistalking me everywhere- you're using my name here, in the section "TigranTheGreat" and in the "ArbCom" board at the same time! Pls read what is about this notice! Its not only me who reverted your unexplained editwarrings at Shusha pogrom (1920). You were asked many times to discuss your adding and deletions at talk, you never done it! Lets to not support the political propagand on massacres denial and be more tolerant to each other. Andranikpasha (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that Grandmaster reverts only to report that someone else reverted him. At this point, his latest revert seems like an attempt to bait Andranikpasha, which of course is a violation of Wiki rules.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martinphi engaging in disruptive editing

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

This user is subject to a restriction on disruptive editing and yet has now engaged in willful disruption at ghost light directed against myself. He reverted the merge of ghost light to will-o'-the-wisp using the dubious argument that merge was itself a disruptive edit being a "disruptive and nonconsensus redirect by ScienceApologist. Wikipedia works by consensus, and you do not have consensus for this merger". Nevertheless, he admits that I was "right about the sources, and... probably right to merge". So it seems like he reverted simply to make a point. As was pointed out by another editor, there was in fact a consensus in favor of a merger. Nevertheless, Martin has decided to place a warning box at my talkpage claiming that I'm acting against consensus. I see this as a clear violation of the terms of his restriction. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been informed that Martin has also filed in a tendentious 3RR report that the closing administrator pointed out documented no violation. According to Wikipedia's own definition of disruptive editing, Marinphi in this incident has fulfilled all the criteria by being tendentious, failing to cite sources in favor of his revert, rejecting community input, and attempting to get me blocked. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have bannned Martinphi from Ghost light, Will-o'-the-wisp and their associated talk pages. I believe his conduct on Talk:Ghost light, the warning and the 3RR report clearly indicate an intent to disrupt and harass ScienceApologist. Shell ^babelfish 19:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC) After considerable discussion, it appears Martinphi is unlikely to continue disruptive actions. Shell ^babelfish 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kherli

I don't have the time to look a this right now, so it would be nice if someone else could check it out. I am copying a message I received on my talk page below:

You were a member of the arb committee for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli. Recent anon edits appear to be likely edits by the user formerly known as Kherli (Likely a sock thereof). The general ban (finding #1) has expired. Some of these edits if they are in fact Kherli are violating finding #2 "Kehrli is prohibited for two years from changing the notation m/z, wherever found, to any other notation." E.g. [54], [55]. In addition these edits are generally disruptive (as we determined with very challenging arb com case) and should therefore be prevented based solely on the broad basis of preventing disruption. I also believe that it was not the intention of the arb com to allow unmitigated disruption after the ban had passed but to give Kherli the opportunity to cool down and choose to become a productive editor. A new ban should be put in place if Kherli has not decided to change his/her ways as we have established an intention to disrupt wikipedia, however subtle the disruption may be. Subtle disruptions are in fact the hardest to catch and pose the greatest threat to the project through propagation of false or misleading but seemingly reasonable information. I request that you warn the anon user about disruptive behavior, investigate their identity and if disruption continues after a warning of the user is found to be Kherli then enforce an immediate ban either based on violating arb com findings or based on disruptive behavior after being warned.--Nick Y. 21:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dmcdevit·t 00:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rosencomet and Starwood related articles

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 [56]. Rosencomet reverts without addressing the issue.[57] On the talk page, Rosencomet is combatative and aggressively argumentative in his approach to the discussion. [58] (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 [59], Rosencomet responds by adding a link to the Starwood website [60] and removes the citation needed tag.[61] Rosencomet's response on the talk page is again aggressively combatative [62] 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 [63]. 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. [64]

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)[reply]

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: [65] [66] [67] Looking further back, we also see that since the Arbitration he has continued to add mentions of himself and his products to articles: [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]. 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)[reply]

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: 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 overdone and inappropriate. 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)[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.

[a]

[b]