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
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
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;
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.
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
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;
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.
Add new requests to the top of the page. Old requests will be automatically archived off the bottom three days after the last time stamp.
Edit-warring under article probation
This relates again to the COFS arb. I am sorry to have multiple issues going here but I need some help with Olberon(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). I made a much-needed edit to the WP:EL at Scientology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). On 9 Jan, I announced my intention to make these edits on the talk page [1] and received only a little discussion but agreement that some work was needed on the links. Two days later, on 11 Jan, I made the edit [2]. The edit stood and for the next two days a number of regular editors had a bit of discussion on the talk page about one link or another but no major objections to what I had did. Now comes Olberon and edit-wars with me over the inclusion. He has gone 2RR and I went 1RR so now my edit stands undone. I will not go 2RR on a page under article probation so I am at a disadvantage. Will someone please ask Olberon to self-revert and warn him about edit-warring under article probation. He ignored my warning. Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of the above comments, it seems that JustaHulk was justified in his actions, while Olberon's "disapproval" is entirely his own opinion. Note Olberon has not indicated he has subsequently himself reverted those deletions without specific justification for their inclusion. On that basis, I have requested on the talk page that the specific reasons for the inclusion of each individual link be presented. If they are not presented, or if they prove to be unconvincing, then I believe I may be justified to remove them again myself, as their inclusion has been more than questioned and, at that point, no reason for their specific inclusion given. I believe the burden of proof, as always, lies with the person seeking to include information, including external links. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
As this report was filed by Skyelark as an IP against Tenebrae and no enforceable behavior was found, closed. Some issues have been raised about Skyelark's conduct, but there is not much in the way of specifics and the thread is getting tangled. To report concern's with Skyelark's behavior please make a new report showing what part of the ruling he breached and include some appropriate diffs. Thatcher02:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the article's talk page by this party involved in the dispute contain several uncivil remarks that could be considered inflammatory to the situation and would contravene Principles 1 (Editorial Process) and 3 (Assume Good Faith) and would go against Remedy No. 3 - Disruptive Editing (which extends to any related article or page).
First ruling:The arb enforcement ruling allows talk entries and the remedy specifically applies to violating the page ban. I don't see this as an arb enforcement case, but a case of generic incivility and disruption, so I'm warning him in this case. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was reopened at Tenebrae's request. He states he was not notified. I apologize for missing that when I first handled this. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC
Comments on the article's talk page by this party involved in the dispute contain several uncivil assumption of bad faith remarks that could be considered inflammatory to the situation and would contravene Principles 1 (Editorial Process) and 3 (Assume Good Faith) and would go against Remedy No. 3 - Disruptive Editing (which extends to any related article or page).
The offending remark, all referring to the other party of the ArbCom ruling :
' ... I made corrections to such things as an unfounded claim you attributed to that book. '
'Please, I ask you again, as I have numerous times: Do not say things you know are untrue. It's neither reasonable nor fair to make another editor frequently have to point out untruths.'
Comment At this point both editors need to be warned off. It's looking more and more like a case of intentional goading between this complain and the previous one. And if, if mind you, there is any truth in the assertion that an editor subject to the ArbCom ruling is deliberately twisting comments or miss-representing facts, that editor should back off and re-think his attachment to the article. - J Greb (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the corrections that I'm suggesting are basic and necessary and, I thought, uncontentious - I don't enjoy making these enforcement notices - but am doing them diligently early on so as to ensure a future civil discussion atmosphere - If you feel that I've been disruptive, you're welcome to report it, no hard feelings - if it improves the level of civility on the page, then all the better.
The problem is both of you have been biting each other for months. On the talk, with the RfCs, with the abortive mediation, and with the ArbCom. It escalated to the point where it looks like knee jerk reactions.
Was there a bad reaction from Tenebrae which got you to post the first call for enforcement? Yes. But, you trimmed the material and left out that 1) he was called on lack of civility on the talk page itself and that portions of the material were from him explaining himself, why he went off and how he perceives things.
This situation is close to the same. He's calling what he sees as dishonest claims as such. And this is where it's getting annoying watching.
You are coming here complaining about Tenebrae, at worst, not changing or, at best, holding you to account, but you aren't changing your tone or attitude. You need to be as aware that the ArbCom sanctions are against you and your actions as much as his. Re-think how you are presenting things on the article talk and be aware of the ill feeling that do exist between you two. That means presenting the information you have for verification, not as universal truth. For example, the source material you two are arguing over, a neutral start would have been:
"The edition I've been using as a source is John Buscema Sketchbook by Spurlock and Buscema. It lists a pub date of 2001 by Vanguard Productions in New Jersey. Is this the same book you're using?"
Asking, not dictating. And then allowing others to check and confirm, not goad. Tenebrae commented that he needs time to physically check the edition he has. That didn't need your defensive, and slightly possessive response. That didn't need any response beyond "Fair enough, we can compare when you've been able to get to the book." Simple and neutral.
Cool, but at this point I just feel that if Tenebrae, yourself, or anyone has the concerns about my conduct that both of you are expressing, it's probably better to just go with the ArbCom remedy process and make an enforcement notice - that way objective proof is provided and a qualified administrator will look into it and it will get properly handled and documented. A friendly suggestion - look, I'm even smiling :)
--Skyelarke (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Skyelark and Tenebrae, the Wikipedia editing process is very simple. If you can not resolve a dispute by amicable discussion, you involved additional outside editors. In this case, for example, that may mean asking someone neutral at Wikiproject:Comics to get a copy of the same book and double-check your interpretations. If you can not learn to resolve your disputes amicably and through discussion and consensus, the ban on editing the article will be extended. Thatcher12:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is, I did ask for additional editors, and when the RfC didn't go Skyelarke's way, he went ahead and made the non-consensus changes and made baseless accusations about canvassing that are demonstrably untrue. See, among other places, this posting by an outside editor.
One of the balder examples of Skyelarke's misstatements, to use a polite term, is his false statement here that "he [Tenebrae] doesn't seem to be contesting the inherent correctness of the [biographical article] information." Not only did I, but so did several other editors at Talk:John Buscema#Request for Comment: NPOV and images.
Lastly, and thank you for noticing, Skyelarke has until now not been called to task for a pattern of deliberate goading — for which I can find no more concrete an example than his insistence, during part of the mediation, on writing everything in hard-to-read italics despite my and the mediator's repeated requests for him not to do so. His continued goading eventually got me so frustrated I finally wrote three sentences in boldface capital letters to try to get him to empathize with how unnecessarily more difficult it is to try reading non-standard fonts, as one can judge for oneself.
All I can add at this point is to ask you go to User:Tenebrae, see my contributions, my long and generally non-controversial experience, and the compliments, at bottom of page, from some of my peers. I'm not sure Skyelarke's single-article hero-worshipping has contributed similarly. And I will be glad to have the ban extended indefinitely so long as Skyelarke and any sock-puppets or surrogates do the same — that's how strongly I feel about the sheer impropriety of his hagiographic content. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Thatcher - At this point the situation is all but intractable. The posts by both Skyelarke and Tenebrae on the Buscema talk page started out exactly the same way they had been before the ArbCom closed. Tenebrae has started to change his tone since Hiding called him on it on the Buscema talk. Skyelarke has not, and things like this only add to the problem since it comes across as defensive and goading. (Note: Skye seems to be having trouble remembering to log in before posting.) I pointed this out to him above and got back what reads to me as "Make it a formal complaint and if an admin warns me I'll change, but not until then."
And you may want to note that neither has made a run at the article itself. And that there has been little chance given for any attempt at dialogue since the ArbCom. The kick-off post from Skyelarke was brusk, propriatory, and self-promoting, not a post of "I see a problem with this or that. Shouldn't it be this way?" When Tenebrae reacted in a predictable manner, Skyelark's response was not to try to modify the discussion or remind Tenebrae about the ArbCom sanction on the talk page, but to immediately report him here. Frankly, I find that worse than Tenebrae's not stopping and double-thinking before hitting the "Save page" button. We haven't started with a clean slate, we haven't started a process of getting better, we've started a game that is going to turn this page into a tit-for-tat harangue that will just make things worse.
Tenebrae - Even with as much history as there is between you and Skyelarke on the Buscema article, this isn't the place to dredge up an overly detailed re-hash. The ArbCom itself was the place for that, and the net result was both of you were told to clean up your acts. This is supposed to be the place where serious breaches of the ArbCom sanctions made by either of you are to be noted for further remedy.
Further note to my closing statement above, Skyelark's contribution history is indeed illuminating. It is difficult in cases like this to determine with clarity that one editor has been baiting or goading another who is completely (or mostly) innocent, but we will do our best with any new reports. Thatcher02:13, 14 January 2008 (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.
Friendly reminder requested
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS
Since I don't want it to appear as though I've been seeking this editor out, I just want to get it noted that I'm not. Bearing in mind that the committee ruled that this editor and myself should limit our interactions, he has begun editing pages I have been active on and posting on my talk page, I'll include these in roughly chronological order;
I don't mind dealing with this person, however I'm concerned that it could be interpreted that I'm flouting the ruling. Moreover since it was found that I had harassed him without actually seeking him out, I don't want that to happen again. Anynobody01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AN, I apologize if I have been making you uncomfortable as regards the arb ruling, that was not my intent. You are right that I have originated or joined ongoing discussion with you on some issues of mutual interest. I thought we were being collegial about it and I, for one, certainly do not feel harassed, and I felt that our exchanges were within the boundaries of the ruling (and unlikely to exceed those boundaries), but if you prefer that I not communicate directly with you at all then just say the word and I will honor your request. --JustaHulk (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your apology, but it's not that you're making me uncomfortable so much as this is exactly the way we came to the previous disagreement. You may or may not remember that I was editing Barbara Schwarz when BabyDweezil asked for your assistance. From there my attempt at coming to a mutual understanding with you over a minor issue as well as concerns you expressed about my understanding of guidelines was rebuffed. So another user, also experiencing difficulty with you, and I attempted to seek dispute resolution, long story made short it ended with you saying I was harassing you in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS case.
Here we are disagreeing again, if it continues we'll have to seek WP:DR again as well. We're essentially going down the same road, and you're driving. (That's all I want to make sure is noted to address any concerns of harassment on my part.) Anynobody21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, without getting into your self-serving abridged version of our history, I do not think it likely that I will not take an interest in Schwarz. You are right about one thing, since BabyDweezil turned me on to that article I have maintained an interest in it and in her presentation in this project by those that may or may not have an ax to grind and/or those that may or may not know when to let things go. How that relates to you and I seems to be that some interaction between us is unavoidable so long as you continue your interest in the subject, also. I think that so long as you do not go from disagreeing with me to trying to have me sanctioned then things should be alright. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Anynobody is prohibited from harassing JustaHulk, enforceable by blocks, while JustaHulk is urged to avoid Anynobody. It would be wise for JustaHulk to heed the urging of Arbcom but there is no enforceable means to prevent JustaHulk from editing the same articles as Anynobody. This does create the potential for an inequitable situation, but that can avoided as long as Anynobody keeps a cool head and does not resume harassing JustaHulk. If it appears to Anynobody that JustaHulk is harassing him, or baiting him into resuming the previous behavior, Anynobody can report here (*if the article is under probation JustaHulk could be blocked or topic-banned for baiting), or at WP:ANI (*if the baiting is so outrageous that it is sanctionable under the general harassment and NPA rules). If neither of those two conditions is met, then Anynobody will have to go back to Arbcom for a modification of the original ruling placing them on more equal footing. Obviously, pleasant, productive and collaborative interactions between editors are always encouraged, especially if those editors can put past disputes behind them. Thatcher16:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the whole reason for the unequal treatment in the arb is that I was deemed the "victim" (or perhaps "harassee" is a better term). It is entirely fair that I edit any article I care to. I am not interested in baiting AN and I am not a "crybaby" - I don't mind a bit (or more than a bit) of spirited debate. The warning that User:Rlevse gave me was not in keeping with the arb. It was inappropriate for Rlevse to give an equal warning in an inherently unequal situation. I will write more later but I have a meeting at this hour. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To continue, I am not intentionally baiting AN to start harassing me so that I can then complain. I don't do "bait and bitch", a term I coined to describe the on-Wiki activities of one of our Scientology-critics toward Scientologists that attempt to edit here. So no, so long as AN does not engage in the type of activity that got him in trouble before then we should not have any problems. And the key is for AN to realize that people can disagree. It ain't the end of the world if AN and I disagree. This line is problematic "Here we are disagreeing again, if it continues we'll have to seek WP:DR again as well." What do you mean? What is the big deal for you that we disagree. We are two small fish in a very huge sea of small fish. If by WP:DR you mean that we get a WP:3O or a regular RfC on our issue, then fine and that is what I urged you to do all along before the arbitration. What got you in trouble is making it about ME as an editor with your claims of WP:COI and User RfCs and the like. AN, you can use any WP:DR you like so long as it is about the article and not about me. That's easy to understand and follow, isn't it? --JustaHulk (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding mainly to Anynobody. He seems to be concerned that you are editing the same articles. For the reasons you point out, the remedy is one-sided. In order for him to edit successfully and not trigger any harassment blocks, he needs to not harass you. That means finding more appropriate ways to deal with disagreements. The top of this page points out that it is not acceptable to game the system or try and bait editors who are under restriction, and I was simply pointing that out, not that I think you would do that. And regarding Rlevse, I would tend to agree with you that the remedies in the case were one-sided for a reason, and that a "warning" was not the best language to use. Thatcher23:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not presenting any assumptions about Justanother, however since
the ruling was pretty emphatic about keeping distance
this is how things started
and
I still have no clue what I did before to be found a harasser,
I just want to get it on record that as before contact was initiated by him, so at least it could be questioned why one would go back for "more punishment" should the subject come up again. Anynobody02:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AN,I am sorry that you are having difficulty understanding what exactly got you in trouble. That is an uncomfortable situation, I am sure. Please reread my previous post as I pretty well sum it up there. Here it is again in a nutshell. It is entirely appropriate for you to ask for community input on any issues of disagreement - on the issues. The issues. It is not appropriate for you to target the editor that you disagree with and repeatedly hold that editor up to community scrutiny. The issues not the editor. Can it be made any clearer than that? --JustaHulk (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I did indeed read your post, and I guess it's difficult reconciling that with what actually happened. You'll find that any time I held you up to community scrutiny it was done citing a concern for a policy/guideline and was much less, shall we say "public" than how you held me or others up to the same scrutiny (These are all threads started by you on WP:ANI, minus templates like {{userlinks}} etc.):
Another weird one User:Anynobody using Editor Review as a back-door User RfC on me (Honestly I still can't think of a better way to get an outside opinion of what I did right/wrong in our conflict than by asking someone to review it. Your name was bound to come up, but as I've always said the focus was on what I did. Maybe I should have set up a RfC on myself vis a vis the situation. )
And this constitutes exactly the behavior that got you in trouble and here you are doing it on the Arbitration Enforcement page itself!!!
Seriously, you did this crap in the arb also and you were cautioned there. One thing I have noticed about you, AN, is that you refuse to "get it" and you will prove that you refuse to "get it" every chance you get. --JustaHulk (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide a diff from the arbcom where I pulled "this crap" and was told why what I did was like/unlike this? (Seriously, I'm not holding a grudge I just can't remember doing anything like what I've identified as harassment. Would you please just show where/when I did the same thing?) Anynobody06:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of "no harassment" ruling
Anynobody is violating the "no harassment ruling" right here, right now. See above. I was trying in good faith to explain to him the difference between acceptable behavior and prohibited behavior as he continually says that he doesn't know what he is supposed to do under the arb ruling and he grossly breaks it right here. Please someone help him! --JustaHulk (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved in this case. Anynobody has a long history of trolling and goading. He is now bringing up pre-arbitration grievances. There is no reason to open old disputes. This is harassment and baiting by Anynobody. JehochmanTalk06:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if one has never really done anything wrong, it seems like one shouldn't mind their actions being discussed. I don't mind any mistakes I've made being talked about. I view what I cited as behavior consistent with what the arbcom meant by harassment, is it and if not what was the difference? (Bear in mind I'm not asking for any punishment if it is, given the amount of time that has passed. However a simple answer to guide future efforts would be helpful.)Anynobody06:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, you do realize these are things about me and others that you identified as cause for concern. Don't you still stand by the validity of those concerns? Anynobody07:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, am I really the only person who thinks it's unfair for me to be called a "harasser" for pursuing WP:DR which put the actions of another editor up for scrutiny when that same editor has not only done more or less the same thing before and has started doing so again, User:Anyeverybody (AKA User:Anynobody) and Barbara Schwarz. If you look at the tone of the examples I cited from before and of this recent one, nothing has changed, so why isn't it harassment for him to hold my actions up to scrutiny? Anynobody07:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You had your chance for a hearing at arbitration. The findings speak for themselves. If you cannot understand how to act properly, maybe you should just take a wikibreak until you feel like you can edit without placing unwanted attention on Justanother. JehochmanTalk14:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AN constantly claims that he does not understand the ruling but when it is clearly explained to him, he ignores the explanation and grossly violates it by trotting out his collections of old, out-of-context diffs regarding me. Regarding AN's request that I prove my statement, sure I will waste some more time showing him what he likely already knows - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Workshop#Disclosure of report to WP:3RR regarding Justanother. AN's activity during the arb itself garnered these responses from an arbitrator and an experienced admin:
FYI, this is exactly the sort of thing that will get you blocked if the remedies regarding your behavior toward Justanother pass. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Unbefuckinglievable. "I'm just using [Justanother] as an example." Again and again and again: Justanother the eternal example. Jpgordon, the proposed harassment remedy and its enforcement by blocks are clearly going to pass. May we have a temporary harassment injunction right now to cover the time up to when they formally pass? Bishonen | talk 20:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC).
Well, the remedies did pass and AN's egregious violation above calls for their application. I, for one, am kinda out of WP:AGF as regards this cat. The above was the last straw for me. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of how Anynobody masterfully uses the trolling tactics of pestering and misuse of process to create disruption. Its the same "I am not complaining about you, just using you as an example" ploy that Bishonen found "unbefuckinglievable". Anynobody had no issues with me until I came to the defense of Justanother. (Since Bishonen is away, I feel obligated, and Anynobody's timing in filing this complaint is not lost on me.) The COFS dispute has lingered for a very long time. I think it's time for strict enforcement of the remedies against Anynobody. JehochmanTalk18:47, 13 January 2008 (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.
Pocopocopocopoco
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
Is he the subject of any arbitration ruling? I can't see that he is. This is for enforcing arbitration decisions only, not dealing with disputes. Contact him via his talk page and if necessary go the administrators' board.
No, leaving this for now. I've left a warning against making future mass reverts. He's not an ultra-regular participant in the Armenia-Azeri conflicts and edits regularly in other areas, nor is he subject to any of the AA2 restrictions: moreoever, his recent block for edit-warring was related to another topic altogether. MoreschiIf you've written a quality article...22:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well shouldn't User:Parishan be placed under AA2 restrictions then? Since he mass reverted and is an ultra-regular participant in the Armenia-Azeri conflicts and all his blocks are related to the conflict.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!23:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted them before the warning was issued. I've only been blocked three times and my most recent block was not related to the conflict, and was carried out almost 10 months ago. Parishan (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I want to state that I wasn't aware of any of this drama when I reverted back in the wikiproject template to the articles and I apologize if it's caused grief to anyone. The reason for the revert was summarized in the edit summary of my first revert.[27] I felt (and still feel) that adding this wikiproject would facilitate greater collaboration and participation to the articles and hence facilitate the improvement of the articles and the project. One of the areas that I edit are unrecognized countries and hence I joined this wikiproject and I find it useful to collaborate with other editors interested in Nagorno-Karabakh. I am neither a participant in WikiProject Armenia or WikiProject Azeri (although they are probably both interesting topics). My understanding is that Atabek's (and other peoples) concerns are with the image in the template. Could we lift the moratorium on this project if we change the template to a neutral template? Please see the template in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abkhazia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only. Provided that this POV project is currently forwarded to Wikiproject Armenia, it's sufficient to add Wikiproject Armenia along with Wikiproject Azeri on disputed topics. Atabek (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The concern is that this is an ethnic POV project about a region which has diverse ethnic and historical identity. Nagorno-Karabakh is a conflict between Azeris and Armenians, between Azerbaijan and Armenia, not between Azeris and some non-existent ethnic group Karabakhis. History of Karabakh does not exist outside and independent of Azeri or Armenian domain. Atabek (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. Wikiproject Azerbaijan is an ethnic POV project about a region which has diverse ethnic identity. There are group of members who are feeling there is a need to collaborate in a common project and no real life conflict or dispute can not stand on their way. We are here to build an encyclopedia and no one has the right to stop us from doing that. Moreschi censored the project simply because it was hurting some users feelings. Expect to see those project tags to go back up once the project is re-opened. Maybe then you'll come to terms that Nagorno-Karabakh Republic exists. VartanM (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only said the opposite of what Atabek said, where is the warning to Atabek for calling Nagorno-Karabak people non-existent? Or was that non inflammatory? It was the direct cause of my suicidal comment. VartanM (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh is the source of almost all the conflict between Armenian and Azeri editors. This conflict has reached fever pitch over the past few weeks, as anybody can tell from looking at this very Arbitration Enforcement page. We should be looking to cool things down not inflame them. Promoting Project:Karabakh right now is definitely not going to help matters. The only reason we have projects in the first place is to help build Wikipedia. They are not there to demonstrate editors' allegiance to a particular stance, although inevitably this is a big temptation with "national" projects. Nobody needs a project to edit a topic area anyway and people have worked on NK articles long before the existence of Project:Karabakh, which was virtually dormant until a couple of days ago. As I've said, we should be looking to turn the heat down on the current Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute on Wikipedia, otherwise I can see another ArbCom coming round the corner - and that will benefit nobody. --Folantin (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds right to me. I think somebody needs to patiently explain that, while we appreciate and understand their national pride and historic grievances, Wikipedia is not the place to refight old battles, but to document them in terms on which both sides can agree. I'm guessing most of them don't have English as a first language, which often makes nuance conversation more difficult. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joining the project would go against their belief of Nagarno-Karabakh being non-existent[28], [29]. Other then that, they are welcome to join, the same way some of them joined project Armenia and versa. VartanM (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start with this: none of you should want to go down the route of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. The arbitrators will lose their patience and ban the lot of you, which would be sad, really. The conflicts over Nagorno-Karabakh have got to stop, or at the least slow down, because I know this could so easily be the blue touchpaper that gets everyone kicked out. Trust me: I spend a lot of time hanging around ArbCom-related stuff and know quite well the limits of the arbitrator's patience.
Another point is this: nobody needs a WikiProject to edit, and if it's collaboration needed or some such concept, use the talk page or existing projects - Wikipedia:WikiProject Armenia or WP:AZERI. Don't use this ghastly creation that's only going to aggravate one side of the conflict, is only ever going to push a POV, and as Vartan's "Maybe then you'll come to terms that Nagorno-Karabakh Republic exists" gives away, is only ever going to a statement of intent along the lines of "We believe in the NKR. Amen.".
That's pointless. It's got nothing to do with the encyclopaedia. You don't need to this WikiProject to do this. At the moment, both sides here are potentially staring at the abyss over the edge of the proverbial cliff edge - I urge you all to step back before you pull each other over. ArbCom is the whirlpool waiting at the bottom. MoreschiIf you've written a quality article...19:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not doing anything deliberately, if you're gonna enforce any policies, then you have to assume good faith on me the same way you seem to always assume good faith for the other side, who just recently created and mass voted against the deletion of a FORK of 4 or even 5 articles. I haven't seen you say anything about it. Or their opposition to the renaming of a category which claims Azerbaijani Khanates, when most of the results on google book call them Persian or Iranian Khanates (how is this not provocation, and how is this not a deliberate attempt to fan the flame war against Iranian users?). The category on Artsakh, call it what you want should exist, and only the fact that various articles can be included in it is strong evidence. Other similar categories about other non de jure republics exist, I haven't seen you say anything about for instance this category. Also, I'd like Thatcher to clarify on what he means by welcomed? Why should they not, is Thatcher insinuating that they won't? When anything prevented Grandmaster or Atabek contributing before? I am surprised that Administrators are still consistent and systematic on taking one sided position on this issue.
If you wanted to help, you would have brought the two side to discussion to know what to do to satisfy both, but instead, you removed the category and excused a user who again massively reverted (Parishan). And for your information, the reason why I have chosen Artsakh and not Karabakh, is because both are not the same, Artsakh encompassed a larger territory and has a history in the BCs. But that could have been debated. It is sad that Golbez got pushed out from mediation, when he was known to revert both sides, he was replaced by administrators, who under the guise of arbitration enforcement systematically make one sided decisions. It is also fishy that I am included in the probation for something as ridiculous as an edit summary which has everything to do with the content of the article, but that Parishan who has a much longer edit warring history than me and who can make such remarks: ...you deleted it just because you personally disagreed with it.[30] systematically gets away from such a probation.
And Thatcher, before claiming that Eupator action of renaming an article could have warranted a block, you should have understood the rational behind it. The talkpage was full of justification and Eupator had to deal with users who claimed Turkmen (aka Turkoman) as Azeri (eg. [31], and ironically seen in this diff., he's only recently accepted Turkic in the article, but it's still inaccurate) to dump all Turks or Turkic people as Azeris (from Moreschi's logic, should this not be to fan a flame war, after all Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan have some problems in terms of their relations these days). This was all I had to say. VartanM (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why User:VartanM decided to include issues regarding the Azeris in Armenia discussion here, and I could not help but notice that he has presented facts one-sidedly which is why I thought I should leave a quick comment. I apologize if I am going offtopic. Eupator's rationale (which participants of the discussion had no chance to review, since the user renamed the article from the very moment he presented his arguments) was challenged by me presenting a number of neutral sources equating the terms for Turkic-speakers of pre-Soviet Armenia to Azeris [32]. All Eupator said in responce could be classified as original research, i.e. inventing terms ("proto-Azeris") and facts ("Turkic population living there were not identified by one group", "Turkic population there could have been identified as Turkmen, Turkish, Tatars"), restating his disproved rationale and ultimately failing to prove that the subject of the discussion had anything to do with Turkey, or Tatarstan, or Turkmenistan, similar to VartanM's claims above. Original research is also defined by Wikipedia as unsourced information obtained from personal experience, so I don't believe there was anything incivil in saying "you personally disagreed".
As for my reverts, I removed a link to a non-existing project, one time per page, before the discussion over WP:Karabakh was in progess. I was not edit-warring, nor proving a point, nor making incivil comments. Parishan (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, the discussion was started here on the arbitration enforcement, most users implicated did engage. Eupator continued the discussion on that article, you knew that Eupators claim was sourced and you accused him of original research even though couple of sources were already provided. Several of the administrators were witness of the discussion which was if I remember correctly closed by Thatcher. Also, I don't see why you bring proto-Azeris, where did anyone requested this to be added in the article? Also, it's funny, now recently you just agreed with Eupator rational in your reply to Ulvi just here, if you knew this and agreed with this why did you continue the flame the war then? But this is still not accurate, because those people were as Turkish, Turkmen etc., and if you are going to cover them you can not restrict them in an article about Azerbaijani's, when that section was taking a very significant portion of the article.
As for the removal of the WPNK project tag, you actually removed it when you knew I was going to appeal for the removal of the project itself. It is not the first time you mass reverted, we brought this during the last arbitration, and you did it again afterwards when you retaliated and made a POINT by adding Azerbaijani terms in 21 articles about Armenia. Anyway, we're off topic and I agree that I have my share of responsibility. VartanM (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreschi, the problems with collaborating with regard to Karabakh stuff within the two wikiprojects you mentioned is that could take up a lot of space within WP:Armenia or WP:Azeri and this might not be ideal. Please have a look at these articles that were to be created. I was planning to add a whole bunch more related to companies operating and based in Karabakh. I think this could potentially swamp WP:Armenia or Azeri. Perhaps some Armenian and Azeri wikipedians are not all that interested in Karabakh (I believe user:Aramgutang was one of them) and they join there respective wikiprojects in order to collaborate on Armenian or Azeri culture. Another option would be to create a sub-project within the respective wikiprojects similar to how WP:MILITARY has many task forces we could set up a task force within one of the wikiprojects. This would be the worst option IMHO because setting up a Karabakh task force within one wikiproject would make it tempting for the editors of the other wikiproject to also set up a Karabakh task force within their wikiproject. Hence editors that aren't of either ethnic background (such as myself) would be left having to pick a side and offending the other side and it would further cause strife between the two groups of wikipedians. Hence I feel a Wikiproject Karabakh that is inclusive to all editors regardless of ethnic background and is independent of the two wikiprojects is the best option. I fully understand if the consensus is to wait a little while to let things cool off so I will take your sugestion and put the relevant pieces in my user space as I feel this project was gaining momentum and I would like that to continue. Please see User:Pocopocopocopoco/Karabakh_collaboration and let me know if this is OK for a temporary collaboration until the moratorium is lifted on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Karabakh. Once it is lifted, I will update the project from this my user space. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's imagine that I and other Azerbaijani users signed up for Karabakh wikiproject, will you be for instance willing to remove all the "NKR" emblems from wikiproject userboxes and tags? Since the region is de-jure part of Azerbaijan, I believe that Azerbaijani colors should be included there. From what I see, this wikiproject is intended for Armenian users only, and participation of people not sharing pro-separatist POV will lead to conflicts over every minor detail. That's why I said that this wikiproject is divisive, which wikiprojects should not be, as they are intended to help editors to actually collaborate on creating a good encyclopedia. I don't see how this wikiproject is any useful and if there's anything this wikiproject could do that cannot be done in Wikiproject Armenia. Btw, Vartan's claim that "Wikiproject Azerbaijan is an ethnic POV project" is clearly bad faith. See how many people of various ethnic and national affiliations signed up for it and how good we cooperate on creating articles covering various Azerbaijan related topics. This wikiproject could be an example for others. I always welcomed Armenian users singing up for Azerbaijani wikiproject, see the talk of Azeri Wikiproject. If anyone needs more than one wikiproject to cover the NK issue, you are welcome to sign up to more than one well-established wikiproject. Grandmaster (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I envision that WikiProject Karabakh will be run similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palestine in terms of emblems and tags. If you notice that WP:PALESTINE has both Israeli and Palestine participants and they have two user boxes. One userbox has the palestinian flag and the other is a non-political userbox. WP:KARABAKH can also have two sets of user boxes, one with the flag and the other say with image of the region. For participants that don't want a userbox with the flag they can use the one with the region. For participants who don't like userboxes they don't need to use userboxes. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I AGF, I'd say that you don't get it. NKR has a government, has schools, has libraries, has many other municipal infrastructures, has elections, has TV stations, newspapers etc., where, oh god where do those go? Project about Armenia?, project about Azerbaijan? Of course not. The Turkish republic of Northern Cyprus has its category, and has its flag on it, has all those emblems and logos which doesn't seem to bother the Greeks. And unlike what you claim, NK is not de-jure part of Azerbaijan, it is only officially part of Azerbaijan, NK used the Soviet law (legal) to separate itself, and declared its independence according to the law at about the same time as Azerbaijan. NK has a legal ground as a republic to exist, it is just that since Azerbaijan has oil, that NK is not recognized.
Are you telling me that you are willing to work for example in an article about the Armenian schools in NK? Armenian libraries, Armenian presidents in NK, ministers in NK etc.? Where have you ever contributed in those articles? You're making this as if you are prevented to contribute as if anything has ever prevented you to contribute before.
And we all know what happened when the Azerbaijan category was incorporated, users started removing Armenia and replace it with Caucasian Albania, removing Armenian and replacing it with Caucasian Albanians, adding Azerbaijani terms, for historic places, which were never called that way. By having one Wiki project about NK and replacing both Armenia and Azerbaijan is the only reasonable thing to do, all the other disputed territories have them, why shouldn't NK have one? VartanM (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If NK had had any right to secession by the Soviet laws, it would have been recognized as a state long ago, no matter if Azerbaijan had oil or not. It does not happen and is not gonna happen, because it is not so. There's not a single authoritative source that supports such legal claims, and obscure law schools are definitely not such. I am not aware of any other similar wikiproject. You just acknowledged that this wikiproejct is intended for Armenian users only, which is not the way Wikipedia works. I don't understand why you need this particular wikiproject to contribute to all the topics you have just mentioned, if all the Armenian users are already members of another wikiproject (Armenia), which helps them to coordinate their activities? And yes, you can use Azerbaijan wikiproject to cover this particular topic, I see no real problem with that. Wikiproject Azerbaijan is not intended for Azerbaijani users only, and considering that NK is legally part of Azerbaijan, why not? Alternatively you can use the Armenian wikiproject, which aims to cover the Armenian people all over the world, as you do now. And your claims about Caucasian Albania is another bad faith accusation, I never added it to any topic not related to this ancient state. And the place names issue is another long standing dispute, that has not been resolved by now. I don't think divisive wikiprojects is something that we need now, considering that we have plenty of other unresolved disputes. Grandmaster (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption is original research, Artsakh declared independence before the Red Army invaded it, de jure is a legal concept, legally NK was never part of Azerbaijan, Nariman Narimanov who was the head the Soviet Azerbaijan threatened the Soviet Union to block its oil if NK was incorporated into Armenia. Since then, oil was an issue which passed before any laws (they already declared independence then), it is your original research to assume that oil which runs the politics on the region is not a factor. The Soviet Union does not exist anymore, and NK has used legal means to declare its independence. And the New England Center for International Law and Policy is not an obscure law school, the research here clearly say that NK has used legal means to declare its independence according to the Soviet Law, if we are not going to respect Soviet Law, then the pre-Soviet NK also declared its independence.
NK is only officially part of Azerbaijan, not De Jure, according to law NK should be independent, Azerbaijan is aware of this, thats why they boycotted every conflict resolution where NK is represented, because NK unlike Armenia has bases to apply to Hague according to the specific article on territorial claims which requires the two party to be present, Armenia is not considered to be a party according to Hague article on disputed territories while NK is. Various other articles also claim that the legal process was followed under which NK declared independence, like this. [ Here from a history course, it doesn't even say de facto or officially.
For decades NK has used legal Soviet means to gain independence from Azerbaijan, which were almost always granted and then reversed because Soviet Azerbaijan used its oil resources to threaten and have what it wanted even if the requests were made according to law. If Azerbaijan didn't have oil, NK would have never been granted to it in the first place. CIA declassified files show that US government underground is very well aware that NK has for centuries been semi-autonomous under the rule of Armenian princes and was as an Armenia's cultural and religious center[33], [34]. Even during the Soviet era, the CIA recognized the legitimacy of NK requests when it was again brought to the table (in 1978): the inhabitants of another turbulent area in the Caucasus, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, are able to make a better argument that their oblast should be transferred from one republic to another. The Karabakh Oblast is part of Azerbaydzhan, yet over 80 percent of its population is Armenian and it lies close to the border of the Armenian Republic. In 1975, according to the Azerbaydzhan Republic newspaper, virtually the entire leadership of the Karabakh Oblast was ousted for supporting a movement to detach the oblast from Azerbaydzhan and join it to Armenia.[35]
Given that Artsakh has a history of over 2 thousand years, which had kingdoms, principalities etc., and which is now currently an unrecognized republic, which has a VERY OLD history OLDER than Azerbaijan, it is legitimate to have such a wikiproject. It is not part of Azerbaijani history, nor the article is about Azerbaijan, and it's not part of current Armenia and not its Wikiproject, you can do this as the way you want, but it is obvious that a wikiproject of this entity should exist. As for your request to assume good faith, I wasn't specifically refering to you, but the general thrend to turn Armenian churchs as Albanian, the Armenian scholars as Albanians, the Armenian population as Albanian, Armenian princes as Albanian, Armenian principalities as Albanian and to make matter worst dump them as part of Azerbaijani history. The only legitimate move would be that Artsakh has its category with its own separate wikiproject. VartanM (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to turn this page into the dispute about the legal side of "NKR", this one is for different issues. It is enough to refer you to the International Status section of the article about "NKR", it is pretty obvious that NK is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan and “NKR” is considered illegitimate by the international community. This is the position of UNO, PACE, EU, USA, etc. Since NK is de-jure, i.e. in accordance with the international laws part of Azerbaijan, I don't see why it should be considered a separate entity. And since the region was in ancient times part of Armenia and Caucasian Albania, it could be pretty well covered by the Azerbaijan and Armenia wikiprojects, which cover those ancient states. You still have not answered my question if you would be willing to remove “NKR” symbols from Karabakh Wikiproject tags if I signed up for it. And as the admins notified you, [36] the category and stub for NK were deleted as result of voting, obviously there’s no need to recreate them due to reasons cited by the admin. Grandmaster (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats wrong, NK is not de-jure part of Azerbaijan, it is only officially part of Azerbaijan. I have already explained above that NK has used existing Soviet laws to acquire its independence, during the independence movement it was shortly accepted before being denied illegally by the Soviet because of Azerbaijan SSR threats. De Jure means according to law, according to law NK is independent, but is not recognized as such, for the obvious reason of oil.
It's a Separate entity, because before the 20's, back from BC, that region was Artsakh, and for centuries at different times it was autonomous. It was the Armenian Cultural and Religious center on various occasions as the declassified CIA files say. Artsakh existed way before Azerbaijan, its population was and still is not Azeri Turks but Armenians, and plus it is an unrecognized republic. We have three legitimate arguments to have a wikiproject.
And it is not Karabakh Wikiproject, Karabakh and Artsakh have different delimitations, the current republic while in English is considered to represent the Soviet NK, it does not, it is not the same as Artsakh the republic, one contains Lachin for exemple, but the geographic NK excludes it. Many regions while not part of NK are included in historic Artsakh or the current NKR.
And it is also not exactly true that Artsakh is not recognized by Armenia, since Armenia officially calls it the Artsakh province, which means while not public it recognizes it as a province of Armenia. Both Armenia and Georgia have border disputes with Azerbaijan and according to international law, since neighbors dispute the borders its borders are not internationally recognized. So by citing names of organizations which consider NKR as illegitimate, you are not showing that the republic is illegal under international law, until Azerbaijan accepts NKR as a party and NKR bring this to international court, any claim that it is de-jure part of Azerbaijan as a statement of fact would be POV.
In short, the Wikiproject should exist, and I don't see why I should answer your question when you don't recognize the legitimity of such a Wikiproject. When other break away republics have such Wikiprojects. VartanM (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grandmaster, we have WikiProject: Kurdistan, which is not separated from Iraq or Turkey. Do you think all the Iraqi and Turkish users are welcoming it? Andranikpasha (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I explained you that Soviet laws did not allow autonomies to secede, contrary to what some law schools may think. Officially = de-jure. International community does not recognize "NKR" and considers its government and president illegitimate. See declarations of CoE, EU and others about this: [37][38][39] A state that does not have international recognition does not exist as a subject of international law, i.e. de-jure. I think this issue has been discussed enough, I see no point in existence of another regional wikiproject of a clearly divisive nature, while we have the ones on Armenia and Azerbaijan. Grandmaster (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject:Kurdistan supports another practics! And no need to explain Soviet laws, USSR wasnt even a democratic state, and not Stalin's decision over Karabakh/Artsakh, nor tragic events as Sumgait Pogrom or Black January give any chances to Soviet laws. We have also a de-facto side: hundred thousands of peoples who dont want to live under the Azerbaijani rule and according to all the int'l reccomendations for people's self-determination formed a republic in 1991. De-jure recognitions is not the all, I can say we even cant compare it with the existed fact, the factual truth.Andranikpasha (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not going to happen; there is no possible comparison between Kosovo and NK. Artsakh had formed principalities, Kingdoms, was at least named from Urartu period. Kosovo's Albanian heritage didn’t appear until the middle or late 19nth century, when the Albanian population moved northward as a result of the Ottoman expansionist policies.
Artsakh's Armenian heritage extends to BC, and for millennium was culturally exclusively Armenian, Shushi being an exception which was already dealt with. We have categories such as Sumer [40] and Urartu [41], you guys have created a category on so-called Azerbaijani Khanates which was only recently renamed. An Artsakh category has more reason to exist than most others. It has existed since BC, at different periods it formed kingdoms, principalities, and now is a self declared republic. I don’t see how The Turkish republic of Northern Cyprus gets a category, when not only it is not recognized, but also a modern creation. An Artsakh category would have been justified had there been no self declared republic. VartanM (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not possible VartanM? I can find you more than a dozen Albanians who will claim that Kosovo was their ancient land too. And unlike all of the voters during renaming of Khanates category, I did provide at least two neutral book references naming khanates as Azerbaijani/Azeri. And I don't see why you even cite TRNC for me, did I ever say that TRNC is different than NK or Kosovo? Atabek (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Atabek, what exactly is your point with regard to the fact that WikiProject Kosovo is redirected to WikiProject Serbia? The members of that WikiProject decided that the scope of WikiProject Kosovo was the same as WikiProject Serbia so they redirected it. See here. It's not a protected redirect and if they change there mind they can recreate WikiProject Kosovo. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison to WP:Kosovo seems to be biased. Surely in any other situation youre not going to compare these problems, Atabek. And what about WP:Kurdistan? Noone can deny that we have commonly accepted incidents. More: Karabakh is a significant region/country, which have its independent predecessors like Khachen. Kosovo never was an independent unit. Andranikpasha (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2008 (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.
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
ruling not enforceable, see requests for clarifiation
The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
The article is about a conservative Internet forum. User:Eschoir is a former member of that forum who was permanently banned in 1998 for creating nearly 100 sockpuppet accounts for purposes of disruption. Despite the obvious WP:COI issue, there was AGF with User:Fred Bauder (as evidenced on Eschoir's Talk page). Since that time, Eschoir was effectively left to edit the article by himself and he gradually brought it more and more out of compliance with WP:NPOV.
At one point, he added an edit containing the word "penis" describing an alleged event involving two real people: Kristinn Taylor, a prominent participant at Free Republic, and another participant using the alias "Dr. Raoul." Since the article isn't about a topic dealing with sexuality or medicine, this immediately attracted my attention regarding a possible BLP violation. (Since then, Eschoir has admitted that the alleged event never occurred.)
I placed a final warning for vandalism on Eschoir's Talk page and started actively editing the article to bring it into NPOV compliance, and ever since that moment, he has been making false WP:SOCK accusations, and occupied territory that's best described as a continuous violation of WP:NPOV, WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:AGF and WP:DBAD. This is a perfect example of why COI editors need to be watched closely. Please take the necessary action. 68.31.123.238 (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The probation is not enforceable at this time. It states that upon application for review, Arbcom will review the situation and consider further sanctions at that time. Please post in the Requests for clarification section of WP:RFAR. Thatcher22:48, 8 January 2008 (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.
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
No violation
User:ScienceApologist appears to have violated WP:CANVASS by leaving non-neutral notices on user talk pages, a Wikiproject page and a noticeboard, as well as violating his ArbCom editing restrictions by making uncivil comments and assumptions of bad faith.
"Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered "friendly notices" if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion " "Always keep the message neutral"
The non-neutral and bad faith statements made by ScienceApologist:
Wikiproject:Physics statement: "We meed people willing to push back against New Age psuedoscience pushers at Talk:Consciousness causes collapse. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)"
Posted on several user talkpages: "Consciousness causes collapse has a number of pseudoscience promoters trying to argue that general consensus is not seen for the fact that this idea is pseudoscientific. ScienceApologist 20:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)" [42][43][44][45]
ScienceApologist also posted a bad-faith, uncivil personal comment on another editor's talk page, saying "I'm sorry that you are ignorant of physics and haven't been able to understand the sources I cited."
[46].
ScienceApologist has also assumed bad faith and made uncivil accusations in edit summaries,
In response to this edit, ScienceApologist accused the editor in his edit summary of “(rv BLATANT pseudoscientific POV-pushing.)" [47]
This accusation was made after ScienceApologist made a previous, similar accusation: “(rv -- those edits look like POV-pushing...)" [48]
Also, opinions are welcome on ScienceApologist's use of WP:SPADE regarding the contents of an article: [49].
I recognize that my comment to User:Wndl42 regarding the person's so-called "ignorance of physics" can easily be misconstrued as uncivil. I have struckthrough that comment. However, my analysis that there is some serious POV-pushing going on by a group of editors committed to New Age pseudoscience promotion stands. Also, I'll point out that the so-called "canvassing" was done as a direct consequence of my last block where User:FT2 counseled me to get outside help when conflicts arise. That's why I have a section on my talkpage called User:ScienceApologist#Administrative helpmates. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the "strike-through" and consider that a good first step. Perhaps even erasing the stricken comment with a nice, friendly note in the Edit Summary would be a good follow-up. That would clear up the "personal remarks" aspect of this.
It's difficult to separate personalities from principles, especially when it comes to pseudoscience. Let's assume good faith, give S.A. the benefit of the doubt, and try to consider objectively whether anyone is POV-pushing here. The goal is to create a neutral article, right? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that everyone, including ScienceApologist should AGF in this situation. Pseudoscience is a delicate matter, and we should tread carefully to achieve our end—a fair, unbiased encyclopedia. Just my 2 cents. Regards, Keilanatalk(recall)00:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm sorry that you are ignorant of physics" can not be construed as anything but a personal attack. Any native speaker of English engaging in civil discourse would most certainly not use the word "ignorant" to describe the person to whom they are speaking. Moreover, this appears to be a generalization from an alleged inability to understand a few sources to ignorance of an entire topic, which is unfounded. If this is a problem so severe that ArbCom has had to place restrictions, I don't see how a strikeout is going to help. MigFP (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, it is perfectly acceptable to apply the term to oneself. Are you being facetious, or do you really think that calling someone else ignorant is not an insult? MigFP (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't mischaracterize this as something other than what was said. Not "ignorant," but "ignorant of physics." Many intelligent people are quite ignorant of physics. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asserting that someone has pushed a POV is not an assumption of bad faith. Every day, with completely innocent intent, thousands of editors add POV statements to articles. There is no judgment about intent inherent in saying that someone has pushed a POV, only a judgment about outcome. If SA's rv -- those edits look like POV pushing is an assumption of bad faith, Dreadstar, what are we to make of an edit summary you left yesterday (rvt pov and non-consensus changes[50])? It strikes me as a mild case of "the pot calling the kettle black." Personally, I don't think your or SA's edit summaries fail to AGF. Antelantalk01:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Antelan, there is an enormous difference between accusing someone of Wikipedia:POV-PUSH#POV_pushing and "innocent intent" edits that add a pov, or an edit summary that says 'rvt pov'. The accusations of POV-pushing can clearly be viewed as uncivil. Accusing someone of pushing a POV, without having convincing evidence of such intent, is clearly a bad faith, uncivl accusation. Dreadstar†01:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how stating that someone is "ignorant of physics" is a personal attack. Most of my family members and friends would agree that they can be fairly characterized as such. This looks like yet another "let's poke SA with a stick and see if we can get him to blow up" thread. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That this "ignorant" comments comes from a post which SA entitled "Take some physics classes" seems to support the idea that this was indeed a personal attack. At the very least, one could describe these kinds of posts as "snide". I also don't think it is helpful or all that civil of SA to characterize editors as "New Age pseudoscience pushers" as he does so above or even as "pseudoscience promoters" as he had done during his canvassing efforts. What he deems to be pseudoscience is his POV and by calling others pushers or promoters constitutes incivility. -- Levine2112discuss01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly a comment on the contributor, not the content. It is also a derogatory comment. How would you feel if someone said you were ignorant of the norms of civil discourse? Your comments here lead me to suspect that might be true. A better way to have but it might be "I am sorry that your statments reflect a lack of understanding of (specific topic, not physics as a whole)." As it stands, it is clearly a personal attack per WP:NPA. MigFP (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal attack, it's not particularly civil but neither is it particularly problematic. The option always exists of working with SA rather than simply removing statements people don't like. New age pseudoscientific concepts can be documented, but we should be very clear what their status is in the scientific mainstream. So, rather than shooting the messenger, why not help out with the process of persuading those who resist including the well-documented mainstream interpretation? That would be more productive, since it is a better result for the encyclopaedia than badgering the editor working for NPOV. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that ScienceApologist's last block came as the result of calling other editors POV pushers, regardless of how astute that observation may really have been, he's toeing the line in a few of the diffs Dreadstar provided. However, many of those diffs aren't particularly relevant to his ArbCom restrictions in the first place. I don't see anything wrong with the WP:SPADE edit. And while calling someone "ignorant of physics" might be worded a little sharply (even though the person in question may very well be ignorant of physics), I don't see how we can simply assume it was done out of bad faith. And as far as WP:CANVASS goes, it's merely a behavioral guideline. Correct me if I missed something, but it was four edits, and you could've just left him a note on his talk page about it. I don't see any blatant attacks on other editors, so I see no clear and pressing need for arbitration enforcement. ScienceApologist should be more careful about calling out others for POV pushing, given the way civility guidelines are enforced, but a block would be overkill. -- RG211:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with RG2. A block would be overkill, and he certainly wasn't canvassing. The administrative helpers (of whom I am one) is an informal arrangement meant to help avoid this sort of thing. We're supposed to be neutral outsiders who SA can ask to wade in and evaluate a situation - if he's right, and there's POV-pushing, we can correct it; if he's wrong and being hasty or rude, we can correct that too. It's not meant to be a canvass for support. ♠PMC♠ 17:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have to remember that pseudoscience is not science. We should try to make Wikipedia an unbiased encyclopedia. However, we cannot afford to be 'nice' to pseudoscientific theories. That's just not acceptable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree. But consensus at the moment is to be nice to pseudoscientific garbage, and unfortunately, we have to learn to work within that framework to get things done. We're getting off topic, though, as this discussion should solely be focused on the merits of Dreadstar's accusation that ScienceApologist has violated ArbCom restrictions. -- RG203:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be much consensus that he did to a degree that anything other than has been said is necessary, reviewing the comments of 4 different admins above. There's nothing left to do here, case is closed. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2008 (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.
![[33]](https://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000499607/0000499607_0004.gif){kind=link}
![[34]](https://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000499607/0000499607_0009.gif){kind=link}
![[35]](https://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000518375/0000518375_0001.gif){kind=link}