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

Edit this section for new requests

Contrivance, BLP, and 9/11 conspiracy theories

User:Contrivance's editing of the William Rodriguez article, along with the Kevin Barrett and others BLP articles relating to 9/11 conspiracy theories, has been problematic for quite some time. His edits are tendentious, along with extensive edit warring (with User:Wtcsurvivor and socks) and BLP violations. Note that Wtcsurvivor has already been banned for sockpuppetry and other abusive editing, though he keeps coming back as long as Contrivance is still editing. Dealing with only Wtcsuvivor does not completely resolve the problems with the William Rodriguez article, but rather any solution also needs to look at Contrivance's editing.

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

Contrivance's userpage even alludes to the fact that he is not here to improve the encyclopedia, but rather has another agenda and is fixated on the William Rodriguez article.

“

My current ambition is to make a factual, even-handed narrative of the William Rodriguez story. Willie is a larger-than-life personality, and I find his story fascinating, and also an interesting window into the maturing 9/11 Truth movement. — User:Contrivance

”

From the time he started editing in May 2008 to December 2008, he edited pretty much solely the William Rodriguez, Kevin Barrett, and Carol Brouillet articles. Recently (since early January) Contrivance, has started editing various other pages. I have evidence (though it contains personal information) that Contrivance is doing these other minor edits on other topics to increase his credibility on Wikipedia, but his purpose remains to influence these 9/11 BLP pages. Because the evidence contains personal information, I can't divulge it onwiki, but could provide more details via e-mail with an admin handling this case.

I have additional evidence that Contrivance (along with Wtcsurvivor) is using Wikipedia as a battleground (see WP:NOT) for an offwiki dispute. (I am willing to discuss this further via e-mail)

[1] (example BLP problem on the Kevin Barrett article, adding assertion that Kevin Barrett is a Holocaust denier with no source)

After that edit, I explicitly warned him about BLP. [2] So, anything after that point (in mid-September), he was informed of the policies and disregarding them.

From late September - October

[3] - repeatedly inserted, sourced to video, about Willie's story becoming "more dramatic"

[4] - inserts "After a self-styled internet "debunker" wrote a point by point analysis of Rodriguez' show, Truth movement forums such as 911blogger and DemocraticUnderground and TruthAction saw discussion of Rodriguez' failure to provide corroborating detail for his claims and the implausibility of many of his claims." - no source

[5] - reinserts unsourced

[6] - makes null edit, to use edit summary to continue edit warring with Wtcsurvivor - "You're missing the point. The Herald raised the question. It was discussed in the Truth movement, WR felt attacked, and he quit" - both editors have used null edits numerous times to edit war and argue with the edit summaries.

[7] - added " This fact was also noticed by Truth movement "debunkers" and among Truthers as well." - unsourced

[8] - Willie's account became much more dramatic - source: YouTube

[9] - added "Rodriguez' website had featured language from the lawsuit stating his claim that he had single-handedly rescued fifteen (15) persons. In the fall of 2008, Rodriguez changed this language say that it said he helped fifteen persons from the building, thus in effect admitting after four years that the rescue claim was not true." - no source

More recent, from January

[10] - added "in close proximity to a PayPal donations button", "These claims have never been corroborated." , "Neither the alleged CNN tape nor the Spanish media tapes have ever been provided by Rodriguez or anyone else." - unsourced, not relevant

[11] - added "an introspective essay inspired by William's presentation--and a view much different from the analysis in "; also added "See the wiki article charismatic authority." to the William Rodriguez article.

I'm stopping here with the diffs, but almost any examination of Contrivance's edits show he's editing contrary to the BLP and other policies, even though he has been informed about them.

Arbcom notice and enforcement request

In October, I added the arbcom notice to the article talk page. [12] I know that Contrivance saw the notice, but given my involvement in 9/11 articles and as a party to the arbcom case, I cannot carry out any arbcom enforcement in this case. Yet, I have had enough of his editing, which constantly violates Wikipedia policies. I am seeking another admin to consider this case and request either (1) a 9/11 topic ban under scope of WP:ARB911 and/or (2) a BLP ban or (3) complete ban for Contrivance. --Aude (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AA2 and new wave of disruption

I really have difficulty with VartanM’s block; he did not act anywhere near as bad as Parishan has. Since when should someone be blocked for reverting an obvious revert material, and given the circumstances, vandalism? Did any administrator check what the content of the revert was? This user (Parishan) has no use of other users comment to even engage in debating. The article for which he was reported shows Parishan engaging in fringe theory pushing. This is what Parishan was inserting: Azeri served as a lingua franca throughout most parts of Transcaucasia (except the Black Sea coast), in Southern Dagestan[8][9][10], Turkish Armenia, Kurdistan and Northern Persia from the sixteenth century to the early twentieth century.[11][12] It is unlikelly that Parishan could not have known that the material he was inserting was bogus. Let’s see the two sources he has used, first source: Nasledie Chingiskhana by Nikolai Trubetzkoy. Agraf, 1999; p. 478. In those pages you will also find Armenians being called: parasite and slave. Parishan’s cherry picking and twisting of sources is again at the center of the problem. See under which context it was said: However, it is far from unimportant, what languages to precisely select for this purpose. The author has a policy of instoring one language in that region. He claims Azeri being a good choice because, from his words: larger part of Transcaucasia (besides the Black Sea coast) and, furthermore, in Turkish Armenia, Kurdistan and in northern [Persia]. Parishan’s version which reads: from the sixteenth century to the early twentieth century is supposed to be sourced with this. But the work was published in 1925, and was speaking about a period when there were no Armenians left in Turkish Armenia. So how can his wording even be justifiable, how do you debate with someone who will bring you in a circular discussion about an obvious revert material? More is that the writer, while a credible linguist is not credible here for two reasons, first because the work, which support his theories about the Muscovite princes (he was one such prince) claims them to be the heirs of the Chinggisid rulers. (see here). The second reason is that it was the interest of Russian authors during his period to associate Turkish people with Azeri, because Russia was still laying claims against Turkey. But the author also says that Azeri is a Turkish language. In any case, Turkish Armenia refers to pre modern Eastern Turkey and on top of that, Parishan added a date range which was not supported by that source, adding the date range shows that he knew to what period Turkish Armenia referred too. The second source used by Parishan, J. N. Postgate. Languages of Iraq. British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 2007; ISBN 090347221X; p. 164, does not even require an address to, as it does not support his wording... worst, is that Parishan quoted of it in the talkpage, left down junk of text, replaced by three dots. Problem is that without retrieving what is in those three dots, the source which already does not support his claim, becomes totally useless. Adding insult to the injury, the author himself place the term Azerbaijani in quotation marks. We are supposed to debate with a user, who time and again misuses sources, and when revert has no problem reverting. I or any other users would have reverted Parishan, I don't see why under those circumstances VartanM should be punished for it.

More about the reverts, it's hard to accept the fact that, Brandmeister could go on to disturb articles' integrity by renaming them. He even claimed that it is per talk, when even Grandmaster admitted not having a problem with the name of the article. Brandmeister’s revert was indeed completely unacceptable. Reverting his action, should be in fact considered as vandalism. How can a user comes out of the blue and rename an article, which both side have agreed to the name of, and then the revert of this revert be used to block another user? Even the chargé d'affair of the republic of Azerbaijan, Farid Shafiyev has used that term to refer to the incident, so reasonably there should be no problem to call it that, when the very large majority of sources call it that. How in the world should any user accept Brandmeister’s actions, and leave it at that, because of a 1RR. Mind that the AA2 does not restrict only to 1RR, in fact it was amended because it had to include other forms of disruptions.

About said map of the Azerbaijani republic from 1918-20, I think the disruption going on there can not be left unanswered, I am referring to this. See from where the source comes from, it is a recently prepared map which was placed recently in the websites of the republic of Azerbaijan. Not one user has provided any sources with those frontiers. Will any good faithed user caring for accuracy vote “keep” for something which he can't substantiate? See here Grandmaster who voted keeps saying that a part which is included in that republic was independent as another republic. What's more is that that map is against the majority position. The National Georgraphic visited Armenia twice, it did draw a map of the republic of Armenia from 1918-1920, here is a copy of that map.

About Nakhichevan, the article contains the Armenian word in the lead, Grandmaster or other users did not have a problem with it for a long time, problems only started with Brandmeister’s revert, from then on, Parishan, Baku87, Grandmaster and the revert had all a problem with. Azeri, English or all foreign names derives from the Armenian word for the place. It is of course logical to include the source of that name and is even common usage. Half the article includes its history, where Nakhichevan has been in Armenia since the 6th century. VartanM argument was never addressed; he did not even receive a reply for it. How can anyone revert without even bothering to answer him, not even with an edit summary.

All those incidents happened all together, seems there is a disastrous effect on Wikipedia when Moreschi is away. In brief, if VartanM should be punished, others should too. Thank you. Fedayee (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely seems like there has been a campaign by certain editors to try to bait user:VartanM into breaking one of the arbitration rules regarding AA articles. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM

VartanM (talk · contribs) has been placed on editing restriction back in December 2007: [13], which limited him to 1rv per week. That restriction was indefinite, as per comment of Seraphimblade here: [14] If there's no time limit set for such a restriction, then it is indefinite. In case of VartanM, he was on unlimited restriction. Recently he was blocked for violation of 1 rv per week restriction, [15], and also placed again on indefinite 1RR: [16] But he continues to violate his parole, this time on the article Lingua franca, where he made 3 rvs withing the last week, of them 2 yesterday: [17] [18] [19] Also note that while civility supervision was part of his original parole, the first 2 reverts have extremely incivil edit summaries. Grandmaster 06:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here he goes again with another incivil comment [20]. Parishan (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you don't have any balls. Thanks for the confirmation. VartanM (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always knew you were a chick. VartanM (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring 'vandalism' and 'puppet' labels are not the best ways as well. Brand спойт 11:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One should stop acting like a puppet, if one doesn't want to be called a puppet. You want to try moving the article again puppet boy? VartanM (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to spare you I will not write much, but you failed to address my last post on talk. Hope you know where the edit war leads. Brand спойт 11:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted a reply, you got one. I wouldn't speak of edit wars if I were you. History of Nakhichevan shows that it was you who started the current edit war. VartanM (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another revert by VartanM on Nakhchivan: [21] This needs urgent attention of the admins. Grandmaster 12:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 72 hours for multiple violations of the 1RR and civility parole. Shell ^babelfish 14:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parishan

Parishan (talk · contribs)

How many reverts did Parishan make? Lets count those. VartanM (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And another 2 rvs by VartanM in the article Nakhchivan: [22] [23], second one after VartanM responded to this report above. Please check his recent contribs, plenty of edit warring on various articles. Grandmaster 08:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be an idiot to see, that Brandmaister was baiting me, and I gladly took that bait. Intelligent admins are required to see whats going on. VartanM (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more...One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight reverts in the same article starting from January by Parishan, against three different established users. That's a lot of revert's don't you think? VartanM (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not "different established users", it was you and your meatpuppets, MarshallBagramyan and Fedayee, who did not contribute a word to the article or to the discussion regarding the said revert, but began reverting it right after you got considered for an indefinite one-revert restriction. The issue was raised here. Parishan (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parishan is just about edit-warring, but he is not on restriction as far as I can see. Vartan is on restriction, and has violated the restriction several times since his last block, with added incivility — as when he told Parishan to Stop acting retarded. I think we're looking at a 48 to 72 hour block for Vartan (standard 48 + more for incivility, multiple violations, and recentness of re-offending). We can considered whether or not to add Parishan to the restriction. After a quick review I haven't see anything he's done recently that would necessitate adding him, though as there is a clear pattern of conflict here it might only be considered fair and thus the best thing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that after the first four reverts, I did try to draw the administrators' attention to the edit war taking place in the article but no measure was taken. In my edit summaries, I constantly urged VartanM to leave a comment on the long-awaiting information from a number of academic sources I had provided on the talkpage. However he largely ceased all his activity on the discussion page on December 24 and since then kept reverting the page under dubious and insulting pretexts, which qualifies as disruptive editing. In addition, the instances of meatpuppetry on VartanM's part were addressed in my earlier comment. Parishan (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped talking to you, because discussions with you are are like talking with a wall. As you know walls are made of rock who have no intelligence nor ears. VartanM (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you cannot come on Wikipedia and expect everyone to agree with you 100%. Parishan (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't even produce one reliable source to back up your claim. You misquted, mislead and twisted authors words to fit your POV. And you want others to agree with you? VartanM (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to look at the WP:BAIT here.

P.S since you bastards aren't doing anything about clear vandalism and organized POV pushing, I decided that I'm going to Ignore all rules. So go ahead and block me, it won't be the first time a blocked user evaded his block[24]. This kangaroo court of yours, didn't do anything about it. VartanM (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a big question who is baiting who here. You revert the pages without discussion, with incivil and insulting edit summaries, claim that by undoing edits of other established users you revert vandalism, etc. Why do you think that you are not the one who baits, but the one who is being baited? Grandmaster 10:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note another 2 page move reverts by VartanM with incivil summaries here: [25] Grandmaster 10:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that Brand's pagemove timing was coincidence? Do you think we eat grass here? VartanM (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brand's pagemove was the result of your blind-and-deaf attempts. But we don't discuss content disputes here, so this thread ends. Brand спойт 11:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again you should read the entire talkpage before you decide to move the page again. Anybody with half a brain can tell you that Roman is not equal to Italian, just like Tatar is not equal to Azerbaijani. VartanM (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now who's being incivil? Referring to me and Fedayee as meatpuppets somehow justifies your edits? Parishan has had a long history of ignoring what others write, the article on the Church of Caucasian Albania being clear evidence of that. When it becomes a waste of time, he will ignore it. But in the case where he calls me a meatpuppet, no explanation is needed. He obviously manipulated the sources.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:NoCal100 WP:WARing and WP:HOUNDing over several articles

Admin note: This report is not signed. Please sign it and remove this note. If the report remains unsigned, it may be closed without action. Sandstein 23:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who: NoCal100 (talk · contribs)
What: WP:HOUNDing, following editors around and trying to engage them in WP:WARing and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, taking a lost argument to other pages.
ArbCom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, User:NoCal100 has been notified of the editing restrictions here.
Diffs: [26], [27], [28],

Background: A while ago, a discussion started on Talk:Israeli settlement regarding the use of "Judea" and "Samaria" to describe the northern and southern West Bank. Without getting into the specifics, proponents of the terms, to whom User:NoCal100 belongs, have produced several sources using the term whereas the opponents, to which I belong, have produced several sources stating that the terms are politically motivated and used only inside Israel. The discussion at Talk:Israeli settlement ended with the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" being moved to a separate section labeled "Terminology" where they are presented as terms preferred by annexationists.

What's going on now: Yesterday I did a search for articles using "Samaria" as a gographical toponym and replaced several instances with the term "northern West Bank" (I left all instances of "Samaria hills" and "Samaria mountains" as the hills and mountains are indeed known only by those names). Today, User:NoCal100 shows up on three of these articles, Aryeh Eldad, Ya'akov Katz and Elkana, to revert me.

Why do I have a problem with this: There are several reasons why I am absolutely not OK with this:

User:NoCal100 has been accused and warned of WP:HOUNDing and WP:WARing before. The three above-mentioned articles had never been touched by him and I'm guessing he would be hard-pressed to show how he got there if not by following my contributions.
User:NoCal100 argues as if there had never been a larger discussion on the subject, or just doesn't argue at all (e.g. the edit summary "more precise"). This argument had already been lost and User:NoCal100 is trying to start it up elsewhere.
The same behavious by User:NoCal100 on exactly the same subject recently caused User:Nickhh to blow his top, subsequently getting him blocked. This kind of WP:WARing is not helping the project in generally and not helping the state of the IP-articles specifically.

Suggested measures: User:NoCal100 should get at least a stern and final warning not to follow other editors around and WP:WAR against them or preferably a ban on edits regarding the use of "Judea" or "Samaria".

I'm pretty sympathetic to victims of wikihounding -- funny you should mention Nickhh in that regard, as he certainly did that to me, and I can think of about 4 or 5 other editors who had similar problems with him. Nothing was done about it -- and it'd be pretty amazing if Nick could complain he was driven off the project (and forced to emit a stream of filthy abuse), by the same tactics he himself employed. I wish the culture were different on this point, but it isn't. As for edit-warring, I took a look at some of those articles, and it seems as though you're edit-warring as well, no? IronDuke 16:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me? No. When I went through the list of Samaria-using articles I explicitly avoided those on which discussions/WP:WARs were under way. I re-reverted on one of them and started a thread on the talk-page. Is that the WP:WAR you are referring to? If not, you're going to have to be a bit more specific.

Oh, and this is not about User:Nickhh, I only used him as an example of User:NoCal100 WP:HOUNDing somebody else too.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 18.02.2009 16:14

You're quite right, this isn't about Nick -- I was merely pointing out a small irony there (and word to the wise, he might not be the best example to use). As for edit-warring, perhaps I made a mistake. Here I see NoCal making two reverts and you making two reverts. Here I see you making two reverts again, and NoCal making only one (is one revert an edit-war?). Here I see one revert apiece. Do I have that right? Cheers. IronDuke 16:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. What you see is User:NoCal100 running to three pages he's never edited before to pick an edit-war he's already lost elsewhere. That's what this is about.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 18.02.2009 16:37

Which brings me back to my initial point: it taks two to edit-war, and by my count you've done it (slightly) more than NoCal in the articles you link to. Did you want some sort of remedy for the both of you? IronDuke 16:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a remedy for the WP:HOUNDing and the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which is what I suggested farther up (see Suggested measures:). What you left out was the chronology of User:NoCal100 reverting me first, but that's not a WP:WAR quite yet, but User:NoCal100 looking for one, yet again.

Cheers and hope that cleared it up, pedrito - talk - 18.02.2009 16:44

Your above statement does not appear to be factually correct. Looking at this diff, it appears that the first action in this series of reverts and counter-reverts was YOU reverting NoCal100, on an article you had never before edited, which would seem to me like you stalked him there. So, if you are looking for a remedy for the WP:HOUNDing, I assume you would accept that any remedy applied to NoCal100 would apply equally to you? Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "cleared it up." I addressed the hound allegations already (the sad reality of no one caring). And you really think action is going to be taken on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Can I bet you five bucks it won't, now or on any issue? IronDuke 22:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hearty cheers to everyone, but this is really a much ado about nothing. WP:HOUND is not intended for situations in which the same exact fundamental disagreement applies to multiple articles. There's nothing to indicate that NoCal is intending to "creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor", per WP:HOUND. Indeed, such allegations would not be in good faith. It's merely the same disagreement that extends to other articles. If we're going to worry about "following", we might want to look into a number of editros who seem to have an unhealthy obsession with the edits of User:Jayjg.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second this. I think a lot of people on all sides of the IP issues get... followed... to some extent by others, but Jay seems to have the biggest fan club of stalkers. I wonder if people who are, or can be reasonably characterized as, pro-Palestinian would "police their own" and tell their fellow editors to stop? IronDuke 22:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all those described as "pro-Israel" have atleast one stalker. Which leads to my complaint - why am I the only one without a stalker? I want a stalker!

--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, jeez... I'll stalk you, if you really want. What edit of yours should I revert first? ;) IronDuke 23:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my advice Brewcrewer. Become an extremely prolific and influential editor; get admin and checkuser powers; keep your edits fiercely nationalistic; keep your policy rationales variable, specious, ad hoc, and contradictory; work on developing a more peremptory, imperious, and papal tone toward editors who disagree with you; make hair-trigger edit-warring as basic to your idiom of self-expression as iambic pentameter was to Alexander Pope's; and most importantly, make a 100+ edits a day to dozens of articles on all aspects of the Middle East conflict. Make yourself ubiquitous in that area, and take up any partisan angle you can find within it, no matter how silly. Then, if in your ceaseless, vigilantly ideological patrol of that extensive beat, you find yourself having a number of arguments with the same editors, you'll be in a position to accuse those editors of "stalking" you; with any luck, a fool or two might even believe it.--G-Dett (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be WP policy - all diatribes/rants must be funny. I made the mistake of eating ices while reading your comment and parts of the ices went up into my nose. Disgusting. But getting serious for a second - are you really suggesting that anyone who believes User:Pedrito's stalking claim is a "fool"? That's a bit much I think.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about your nose! Is NoCal100 accused of stalking an extremely prolific and influential admin making hundreds of edits daily across dozens of Middle-East-related articles?--G-Dett (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it sounds like you think you're being accused.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--G-Dett (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your posiiton, then, that Jayjg has never been stalked by any IP editor? IronDuke 00:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, that's not my position at all. I haven't seen enough to say, but I'm sure he has been stalked by IPs. He's accused me of stalking him, and others (including admins) have implied that they take it seriously. If you were talking about random IPs, please forgive me, I misunderstood.--G-Dett (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I guess my point is, if even Jay can't get the behavior to stop when it's serious, there's not much hope for, say, Pedrito, complaining about a much less serious issue (about which he appears to be guilty as well). IronDuke 01:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, IronDuke; sorry if I was unduly defensive.--G-Dett (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all, no worries. And BC is correct, your posts are often funny, though it's just possible you might be being a teensy weensy little bit hard on Jay. IronDuke 01:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's more troubling is the fact that editors who can't get their hip cool neologisms shoved into Judea and Samaria, Israeli Settlement, etc., go to these little stubs and bios and try to do the very same consensus-violative edits that they were unable to do at the parent article. If there's a consensus or lack of consensus at one article it should clearly apply to other sub-articles with the same exact issues. Editors should not edit violate a consensus or non-consensus and then cry WP:HOUND when they are reverted. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "hip cool neologism" Brewcrewer is referring to is the term "West Bank," when accompanied by the adjective "northern." When the New York Times, Haaretz, CNN, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and scores of other sources say that "Samaria is the biblical name for the northern West Bank," he thinks they are introducing a hip cool neologism; and when editors rely on the overwhelming terminological consensus among top-notch mainstream reliable sources, they too are employing a hip cool neologism.

And Brewcrewer's screwball misunderstanding of the term "neologism" isn't even the most desperate or bankrupt piece of wikilawyering being peddled by teamplayers in the current Judea-and-Samaria-are-standard-accepted-current-geographic-terms hoax. For connoisseurs of BS, really, this hoax is not to be missed.--G-Dett (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D-Gett: This is not the forum for you to call my points a "bankrupt piece of wikilawyering" or "screwbally" and for me to point out that the reliable sources don't really support your POV and that your psuedo-complex grammar antilogarithms can't change the plain meaning of a daily newspaper article. What has to be figured out at this forum is who should be sanctioned? The editor that unilaterally changes articles knowing that there is no consensus for these changes or the editor that reverts to the original version.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Judea-and-Samaria-are-standard-accepted-current-geographic-terms hoax has reached such proportions that the AN/I board is indeed an appropriate place to address it.

Your endlessly repeated mischaracterization of "northern West Bank" as a "neologism" is a good example of the sort of systematic, Orwellian abuse of ordinary language that is at the very heart of the hoax.--G-Dett (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the AN/I board. IronDuke 22:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, this same stalking/hounding by the same user came up less than a month ago. We're beginning to see a pattern here. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase User:Pedrito is looking for is Chutzpah. Having hounded me to an article which kicked off his recent spree of edits - [29], and to several others ([30], [31]), having edit warred with numerous other editor over his recent changes [32], [33] - he somehow finds it possible to come here and complain about edit warring and hounding. Anyway: WP:HOUND is pretty explicit on this matter: 'Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles' - which is exactly what I have been doing. NoCal100 (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What "errors or violations of Wikipedia policy" have you been correcting? Because, as a completely uninvolved admin, all I see is you changing commonly-used geographical names to little-used ones - which would, ironically, be against Wikipedia policy... Black Kite 21:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy violation is WP:CONSENSUS. See Talk:Israeli settlement. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

....where there is clearly no consensus whatsoever. Black Kite 21:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Pedrito changed the articles despite the lack of consensus for the changes. Nocal reverted to the original version.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would one need consensus to alter geographical place names to their most commonly known forms? (Yeah, sounds like a naive question on an IP article I know, but ...). Alternatively, why not use "Northern West Bank/Samaria" or suchlike? Black Kite 22:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite a reasonable suggestion, but please note that it is exactly this "Northern West Bank/Samaria" terminology that Pedrito has been removing from multiple articles: [34], [35],[36] Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While "Westbank" is quite commonly used, "northern West Bank" is not as commonly used as "Samaria" and "southern West Bank" is not as commonly used as "Judea." I don't know where you're from so forgive me for using New York as an analogy, but it's like calling the area of northeast Manhattan "northeast Manhattan" instead of Harlem. As for your suggestion, I actually did make such a proposal at the Israeli Settlement talk page but it was shot down with the same insults I got here at this talkpage.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the term Harlem were (a) an intensely controversial designation, with strong religious-nationalist overtones, for northeast Manhattan, hence a term (b) almost entirely avoided by mainstream reliable sources, who for their part (c) tended to accompany even their very rare uses of the term with an explanation that "Harlem is a [insert hypothetical religious/nationalist adjective] name for northeast Manhattan," then Brewcrewer would have a relevant and serious point here. But it's not, and he doesn't.--G-Dett (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though the main policy-related points have already been covered by previous editors, it is worthwhile to review them:

Pedrito claims to be a victim of hounding. However, WP:HOUND states that it is quite appropriate to track a user’s contribution history in order to correct related problems on multiple articles. Specifically, it says “Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended". As Pedrito’s edit history clearly shows, as well as by his own admission here, he has been systematically removing the term “Samaria” from multiple articles. Thus, to use his contribution history in order to restore the term “Samaria” to those articles is perfectly acceptable under WP:HOUND. There is no policy issue here whatsoever.
Pedrito himself appears to have WP:HOUNDed NoCal100 to several articles he had never edited before [37], [38], [39]), and reverted him or otherwise opposed him on Talk pages. So, to the extent that NoCall100’s behavior runs afoul of WP:HOUND, so does Pedrito’s.
Pedrito further complains of edit warring, but even a cursory glance at the relevant edit histories shows he has been a far more active edit warrior than NoCal – At Elkana, he reverted 3 times, against 2 different editors, while NoCal reverted once. At [Ya'akov Katz]], he reverted twice to Nocal’s one revert, and at Aryeh Eldad they both reverted twice. None of these mini edit wars seems to be worthy of any sanction, but to the extent that NoCal is edit warring there, clearly Pedrito is as well, and to a broader extent.
At least one of the participants in this discussion, User:G-Dett, has made a wikipedia editing career out of compulsive and habitual WP:HOUNDing of User:Jayjg. One would be hard pressed to find even a dozen article she has edited which were NOT articles that she had followed Jayjg to, in order to revert him. It takes some gall for her to complain of someone else’s alleged hounding, as it does for Pedrito. It is also more than a tad ironic for Pedrito to bring up the case of User:Nickhh in this context – a WP:HOUNDer whose own hounding has been discussed (and casually dismissed) on WP:ANI not too long ago

In summary: Perhaps a reminder to ALL involved to attempt dispute resolution before running to WP:AE with ill-founded accusations of misbehavior, but seriously, nothing to see here. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any long-running I-P editor chanting "nothing to see here" really shouldn't be a part of this discussion, as their objectivity in the matter is, shall we say, suspect. Pedrito brought a matter to AE, Nocal certainly has a right to defend himself, but most of the rest of this is just continuations of grudges from elsewhere. Let the matter be looked into by the appropriate powers, and let's cut the rest of the eDrama, eh? Tarc (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that process involve deleting your own posts? IronDuke 00:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was adding valid evidence of similar past actions by this same user, um, no, it would not. Nice try though. Tarc (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. So you are in the category of editors whose "objectivity" is above suspicion then? (I'll give you a barnstar if you can say "yes" with a straight face). IronDuke 00:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like there's anything actionable here - there's a content dispute over naming that's now apparently spreading rapidly through a number of articles. Both of you were (kind of) edit warring and it looks like the appearing at articles together is more about the naming dispute than someone being followed. This particular dispute could really use some dispute resolution like RfCs or even an informal mediation - these two aren't the only ones edit warring over it. Shell ^babelfish 04:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just got in this morning to read all this, and it looks like there are some things that need clearing up. First and foremost, User:NoCal100's (and User:Canadian Monkey's) accusation that I stalked him. The three edits in question are

12:28, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Barkan ‎ (Undid revision 271261947 by NoCal100 (talk) why take this fight here? get a grip...)
15:03, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Rimonim ‎ (→"West Bank region of Samaria"?: nope)
16:27, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ma'ale Shomron ‎ (→Terminology: reply)

The first edit was the first instance of "Samaria" I had found using Wikipedia's own search engine and is closely followed by a series of similar edits. These edits all occur in the order in which the results showed up in the search. The fact that the first edit landed on User:NoCal100 is a coincidence, yet not such a surprising one since he seems somewhat obsessed with all things Samarian.

The other two accusations are laughable considering

12:43, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Rimonim ‎ (remove uncommon geographical location) (top)

i.e. I had edited the page myself a few hours ago and put it on my Watchlist. Ma'ale Shomron was added to my Watchlist after I saw that User:Nickhh got blocked. I had followed the link from his talk page. I answered on both pages after, apparently, User:NoCal100 had followed User:MeteorMaker there (and to about 20 other pages), to engage him. Here's a short excerpt from his Contributions:

15:08, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mevo Dotan ‎ (→"The northern Samarian part of the West Bank")
15:07, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ma'ale Shomron ‎ (→Terminology)
15:05, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Barkan ‎ (→"West Bank region of Samaria"?)
15:04, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Karnei Shomron ‎ (→"Western Samaria region of the West Bank"?)
15:04, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Kiryat Netafim ‎ (top)
15:04, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Alfei Menashe ‎
15:03, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Immanuel (town) ‎
15:03, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Alon, Mateh Binyamin ‎
15:03, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Nofim ‎
15:02, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Einav ‎
15:02, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Hinanit ‎
15:01, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Rechelim ‎
15:01, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Peduel ‎
15:01, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Sahl Arraba ‎
15:00, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Rimonim ‎
15:00, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Givat Harel ‎
15:00, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Pisgat Ya'acov ‎
14:59, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Migdalim ‎

Compare these to User:MeteorMaker's Contributions

10:19, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Migdalim ‎ (→"Samarian part of the West Bank"?: new section)
10:18, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Pisgat Ya'acov ‎ (→"Samaria"?: new section)
10:17, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Givat Harel ‎ (→"The Samarian part of the West Bank"?: new section)
10:17, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) N Talk:Rimonim ‎ ("West Bank region of Samaria"?)
10:16, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Sahl Arraba ‎ (→"Northern Samaria"?: new section)
10:15, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Peduel ‎ (→"Samarian region of the West Bank"?: new section)
10:15, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Rechelim ‎ (→"Samarian part of the West Bank"?: new section)
10:14, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Hinanit ‎ (→"Northern Samaria"?: new section)
10:14, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Einav ‎ (→"Samarian region of the West Bank"?: new section)
10:13, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) N Talk:Nofim ‎ ("Samaria"?)
10:12, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Alon, Mateh Binyamin ‎ (→"Samaria"?: new section)
10:11, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Immanuel (town) ‎ (→"Samaria, West Bank"?: new section)
10:10, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Alfei Menashe ‎ (→"Samaria in the central West Bank"?: new section)
10:10, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Kiryat Netafim ‎ (→"West Bank region of Samaria"?: new section)
10:09, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Karnei Shomron ‎ (→"Western Samaria region of the West Bank"?: new section)
10:04, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Barkan ‎ (→"West Bank region of Samaria"?: new section)
10:01, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ma'ale Shomron ‎ (→Terminology)
09:59, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mevo Dotan ‎ (→"The northern Samarian part of the West Bank": new section)

Notice the exact reverse order? That's User:NoCal100 clicking himself through User:MeteorMaker's contributions list.

In summary, while User:NoCal100 was WP:HOUNDing User:MeteorMaker, he popped up on my Watchlist, amongst others on pages I had recently edited. Sorry, no stalking on my part, but more proof of User:NoCal100 doing so.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 19.02.2009 07:59

Point 1 - there is no doubt that NoCal100 followed Meteormaker to all those talk pages, to reply to a comment which he had made. Now, if (for example) NoCal100 had followed round Meteormaker to 20 article pages to revert a good-faith change he made, that would fairly clearly be against WP:HOUND and would probably be block-worthy. However, replying to talk page comments probably isn't, regardless of the (shaky in my opinion - there must be more than one map or RS available) rationale that NoCal100 uses to justify the use of the term "Samaria". This isn't blockable.

Point 2, made above - As Pedrito’s edit history clearly shows ... he has been systematically removing the term “Samaria” from multiple articles. Thus, to use his contribution history in order to restore the term “Samaria” to those articles is perfectly acceptable under WP:HOUND. No - no, it isn't. That part of WP:HOUND exists to allow editors to use contrib histories to revert clear breaches of policy on multiple articles - it does not exist to allow people to edit-war, which is what is happening here. If evidence is shown here of that type of edit-history re-occurring, regardless of which "side" is doing it, I would certainly be inclined to issue block(s) for it, as I know many other admins would. Black Kite 13:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not quoting what WP:HOUND actually says, which is simply: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles" - There is nothing there about clear breaches of policy. You may think my rational is "shaky", but that is a content dispute, and WP:HOUND explicitly allows to do this. NoCal100 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. "Fixing errors" means fixing obvious errors, such as spelling, hoaxes, or obvious misinformation, not information that is contentious. In other words, if you think it's an error, but others don't, then it isn't an "obvious error". It's edit-warring. Don't do it. (And that applies to all "sides", clearly). Yes, the rationale is a content dispute, and irrelevant here. Black Kite 15:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm wrong, and I note that your personal interpretation - that we're talking about 'obvious' errors such a spelling errors is not actually found in the the text. Perhaps the powers that be should clarify what is meant, for future reference. I agree with you that this is edit warring, on a small scale, - edit warring that Pedrito is just as guilty of. NoCal100 (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not an obvious error, then clearly it must be edit-warring, and yes, more than one person has been guilty of this. I am saying to everyone - don't do this. Black Kite 15:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

with this I agree. I have disengaged from the related content dispute. NoCal100 (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my complaint is the re-occurrence. As User:Tarc pointed out, this already happened before (see here).

Even just recently, User:NoCal100 chased User:Nickhh and User:MeteorMaker to Ma'ale Shomron, Mevo Dotan and Barkan (as the edit histories show, those were his first edits there, in rapid sequence, after User:Nickhh's reverts).

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 19.02.2009 14:03

Yes, and I'm saying that the following round to talkpages to leave a reply to someone else's similar comments isn't disruptive. A repetition of the behaviour you mention above would be, but this isn't it. Black Kite 15:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I probably wasn't clear enough in my last post -- in the above recent examples, User:NoCal100 followed User:Tarc, User:MeteorMaker and User:Nickhh to article pages and reverted them. I had gotten you point that following people to talk pages is in no way evil, but this was never about talk pages, the longer list above was just demonstrative.

Cheers and sorry for the confusion, pedrito - talk - 19.02.2009 15:07

Yes - see my point to NoCal100 above. I think this conversation is enough to establish to everyone here that if any further edit warring and/or disruption occurs which can be linked to following contrib histories, then we can safely assume that such behaviour will be blockable. If other admins believe that the above is blockable now then so be it, but personally I am happy to draw a line here and say that any further issues of the same sort will be sanctionable. Black Kite 15:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, although I don't really believe that this will be the final "final" warning, I guess I'll have to live with it. Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 19.02.2009 15:24

Ohconfucius has resumed date delinking in violation of the injunction

The following discussion 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.

See these edits to the Edger Christopher Cookson article and these edits to the William Harold Coltman article. This is not the first time he has violated the injunction. Tennis expert (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be limited to a handful of articles, usually in combination with edits that make other changes. These actions seem clearly outside of the injunction against mass/automated (de)linking. Vassyana (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles that he has date delinked in the last couple of days: Joseph Henry Collin, John Stanhope Collings-Wells, George William Burdett Clare, William Clamp, Geoffrey Cather, George Edward Cates, List of Cabinets of Iceland, and Nelson Victor Carter. Tennis expert (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC) He was blocked for 48 hours earlier this month for violating the injunction in precisely this way. And see this apology from him, where he explicitly acknowledged that manual delinking was covered by the injunction. Tennis expert (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will alert other arbs to this evidence and solicit their opinions. Vassyana (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two more: John Henry Carless and Marjorie Yang. Tennis expert (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Two more: Frederick William Campbell and John Fitzhardinge Paul Butler. Tennis expert (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Just a few more (I've looked back to his edits of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising article but no further): John Crawford Buchan, William Buckingham, Walter Ernest Brown, Harry Brown (VC), Jean Brillant, Roland Boys Bradford, George Nicholson Bradford, and Stanley Henry Parry Boughey. Tennis expert (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC) And another he just did: Gabriel Coury. Tennis expert (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC) It appears he started the date delinking only a few days after his previous blocked ended: David McAllister (politician). Tennis expert (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucius has advised me that he audits dates in not more than one article a day. Please note that it has been established (?here) that it is only mass delinking that is covered by the injunction. FA and FL nominees, who regularly delink, would rebel if suddenly they were not allowed to use a script to adhere to the guideline. Ah, those editors, BTW, who are among our most serious and professional contributors to articles, seem to be very happy with the guide lines in this respect. Tony (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another article he just date delinked: John Bernard Croak. By my count, that's at least 10 articles in the last 24 hours. Tennis expert (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Make that 11: Victor Crutchley. Tennis expert (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His alternative account, Date delinker, also has been blocked for violating the injunction since January 30, 2009. Tennis expert (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC) See this on the arbitration workshop subpage and this on the arbitration enforcement page. Tennis expert (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before the usual vultures start to descend, it would be as well to look closely at the articles TE has identified, not just take his word for it. If you do, you'll find (from the sample I've looked at) that the small number of dates in each article were delinked there as part of an extensive revision and expansion of those articles, which has improved them immeasurably. We should thank OC for continung to do such fine work in the face of such implacable hostility. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, I wonder how you would rationalize these edits. Tennis expert (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the last several edits Ohconfucius has made to article space. He seems to be significantly improving and revising articles, and not linking the dates when he rewrites. That is not in violation of the date delinking injunction. Colonies Chris is correct. He has not edited frequently enough to be considered carrying out mass delinking. Risker (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the plaintiff has not heard what Vassyana has said, and keeps hammering on about it as if shouting louder will get his voice heard and get me blocked once again. I would take the opportunity to remind ARBCOM that this climbing of the Reichstag is EXACTLY the kind of sorry and pedantic behaviour that I (and many other) have been subjected to since the beginning of this saga in August. Just because I previously violated the injunction does not mean I am doing it again now - I have learned my lesson, and have no wish to waste any more time on this case (did I ever mention that I have lost all confidence in it?). I am doing some serious editing by expanding articles, and delinking articles in compliance with WP:MOSNUM, and it would appear that the plaintiff is attempting to stop me working on WP altogether. I am just sick and tired of his endless stalking and harassment. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, just to clarify the extent of the injunction, you're saying it's OK to mass delink one article like Ohconfucius did here so long as you're not doing, say, two articles? It appears that you're saying the scope of the injunction has changed since Ohconfucius and Date delinker were last blocked even though the wording of the injunction itself has not. Notice that Ohconfucius has just admitted that one of his goals is to delink articles in accordance with the Manual of Style even though this arbitration is still pending. Tennis expert (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just give it a break?? Have you no life to get on with? Ohconfucius (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example barely 10 minutes old of Ohconfucius's date delinking an article for no significant purpose other than the delinking. Tennis expert (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... the purpose was to use Australian date styles. --NE2 10:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was what his misleading edit summary said. Notice, for example, in his edit the delinking of "November 2008" without changing anything else. And he was certainly capable of adjusting the dates to Australian order without delinking them. Tennis expert (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delinking is fine if other constructive edits are made, you know... --NE2 10:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know that. What is your source? I suppose date linking would be fine, too, if "other constructive edits are made", whatever that means. Tennis expert (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Question about date delinking injunction do? --NE2 10:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the benefits of those who may not realise, this discussion thread was moved from WT:ARBCOM, so it has been underneath their noses and around all the houses. Vassyana and Risker are both members of ARBCOM. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at this edit made to List of Cabinets of Iceland by Ohconfucius on February 17, 2009. I counted 93 dates that he delinked without making even one other kind of edit. No date order change. No other "constructive" or unconstructive edit of any kind. How does that not violate the injunction? How is that any different than the edits made earlier this year that earned blocks for both of his accounts, one of which is continuing until the end of the arbitration? Tennis expert (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason this hasn't been closed, please? Tony (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, indeed. I have already drawn the clerk's attention to it. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohconfucious violating date delinking injunction (again)

Ohconfucius has continued to make edits delinking dates using his main account, Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (see contribution history; a random example is provided at the Arbitration talk page), in contravention of the temporary injunction issued against such activities by the arbitrators. Ohconfucious' alternative account Date delinker is indefinitely blocked for this activity and his main account was also recently blocked for this activity. AKAF (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be an on-going discussion on this issue already: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Ohconfucius_has_resumed_date_delinking_in_violation_of_the_injunction Shell ^babelfish 09:22, 18 February 2009 (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.

Digwuren request

The following discussion 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.

Per Arbcom ruling in Digwuren:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions Courtesy

"2) 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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

As I am engaged in discussion regarding Wehrmacht and its war crimes in Central and Eastern Europe I would like to request and admin on intervention in what looks like increasing emotional outbursts that have started to include personal attacks by user Dapi89:
Your behaving in an extremely dense way. This is why you cannot be trusted(...)Grow up and use your brain.

I would request and admin warning in accordance with Arbcom ruling so that the discussion can focus on essential topics and be clear of personal attacks and insults. Thank you. --Molobo (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a belittling statement. Are there other recent examples of snideness? Durova^Charge! 23:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Dapi89 of the discretionary sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cheek of this editor is unbelievable. He and user:Peterlewis have accussed me of biased editing, to my mind this is a personal attack is it not? He can't win an argument be arguing sensibly (as you can see his comments of the Wehrmacht talk page are far from that), he runs off and complains because the dubious sources he uses are rightly ridiculed. I can quite legitimately use language like "rubbish" when he makes unsubstantiated claims about me or any anon user. So I'll delete the "warning" as a nonsense. And if I don't trust him to edit appropriately, I am within my rights to say "I don't trust you". Dapi89 (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have no intention of communicating with this editor again. Naturally if he makes edits to an article which are questionable, or unsourced (and much of it is), then I will delete it or request citations as an when needed. But appart from that I will not waste any more of my time with him or this issue. However, I will not allow anyone to walk all over me. Dapi89 (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo appears to have engaged in polite provocation with his prior remark. Dapi89 responded in apparent frustration. WP:WQA is the best place to resolve civility concerns, and obviously civility complaints are not going to be taken seriously if the complainer has engaged in baiting. If there is a pattern of tendentious editing in East European articles, this is the correct page to report it. Jehochman ^Talk 14:40, 16 February 2009 (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.

Notice of BLP Special Enforcement Deletion

Hello all, as a note of general interest I am letting you all know that I have just deleted the article Dudley O'Neill under CSD G3 and WP:BLPSE as a blatant hoax containing unreferenced and potentially libelous information about a living person. This article was listed at Articles for Deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudley O'Neill. As you can see in that discussion, several editors noted the poor referencing and extreme difficulty in being able to find references; a Google search conducted by me for "Dudley O'Neill" -wikipedia turns up less than 100 hits (the exact number keeps fluctuating for some reason), and most of the links provided in the article had nothing to do with the subject, either referring to another NFL player in the most relevant case, to www.russiatoday.com in the least. This is open to review, but per WP:BLPSE I would ask that administrators not overturn this deletion unless there is a clear consensus here to do so. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are conducting the delete under WP:BLPSE then you need to log it at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log. I have to ask though why it was necessary to use WP:BLPSE, it looks like a very clear delete decision in the AFD and a blatant hoax (that was speediable under G3 anyway) that I cannot see any reason or chance that any admin would reverse the decision. Davewild (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed as though this was a little more severe than the average thing we get at AfD, partially because it appeared referenced at first glance. If you feel BLPSE doesn't really apply, I can leave a note in the deletion log (without actually restoring the article) to note that it was mainly a G3 deletion and not Special Enforcement. I'll hold off on the logging until later this evening to give someone a chance to reply. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the note in the deletion log referencing the AFD is fine personally as the discussion there is clear why the article was deleted so personally would not bother adding any other notes there. Again personally I would leave it as is, don't log at BLPSE but perhaps adding an extra note to your closing statement on the AFD, deletion mainly as a G3 blatant hoax referenced by the discussion on the AFD which established the grounds for the deletion without needing to refer to BLPSE. (however I admit I could be biased here as I am not a fan of BLPSE anyway) Davewild (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I realize it's probably more fun to swing a bigger hammer but if the article appears to be a blatant hoax about a fictitious person—well you can never be too sure, so let's say if you have no evidence that anyone named Dudley O'Neill matches even the most basic description and plenty against it, and that you can't establish that it is anything other than a randomly chosen name to accompany the bogus information—there is no need to drop the BLPBOMB. Anyone interested in undeleting the article (probably nobody) already has a significant burden of proving they know something everyone else has missed. — CharlotteWebb 03:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ARBMAC and User:Jingiby

I need a re-instatement of the revert parole under WP:ARBMAC currently still in force (since August) for Jingiby (talk · contribs), which he has been systematically ignoring despite warnings (here and here). Latest reversion spree on Military history of Bulgaria during World War II. I've made the mistake of closing an eye on his infractions from time to time recently, which has evidently emboldened him, and right now I'm involved in the dispute with him, so I'd be grateful if somebody else could take action. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked for a week. That will expire close to the end of the revert parole, at which point it should be reviewed, given the lack of success of the sanctions applied so far. Kevin (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sarah777 and myself on Talk:Dunmanway Massacre - Troubles related article

Who: Sarah777 (talk · contribs)
Who: blowdart (talk · contribs)
What: 1RR breach on a talk page, relating to a change of the WikiProject Ireland importance rating of the article.

Background: Sarah777 objects to the Mid rating of the article on the Wikiproject Ireland scale and set it to low without consensus. Since then we (and others) have been setting it back and forth and back and forth. Sarah has now used what I perceive as the threat of an ArbCom ruling to keep the rating at her preferred choice. She says there is no consensus to change it back to mid, however there is no consensus to put it to low either, and there has been no discussion on the WikiProject Ireland talk page to get one either.

This is both for a request from myself for clarity (are project ratings covered by the Troubles 1RR rating?) and as a good example of why 1RR doesn't work well when it can be used to stop edits by timing rather than consensus. --Blowdart | ^talk 22:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss to understand how threat of an ArbCom ruling relates in any way to my actions. I'm also puzzled how and article about Dunmanway in 1921 can be considered "Troubles (1968 - 1997) related". Just get Blowdart to stop edit warring. Sarah777 (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This report does not provide all the information required per the "Using this page" section above. If the information is not added soon, the report may be closed without action. Sandstein 23:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reported what I regarded as his edit warring to an Admin, BrownHairedGirl; Blowdart appears to have thought I was threatening him with an Arbcom ruling (as if I could!) Sarah777 (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself is within the purview of The Troubles. However, edit-warring - even on a talk page about something as trivial as a project rating - falls under WP:EW anyway. To answer the question - yes, 1RR should also apply to talk pages. However, frankly this one also falls under WP:LAME. Just give it a rest, please. Black Kite 00:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kite; facts - I didn't refer this to Arbcom; I didn't invoke 1RR - I complained to an Admin to warn an editor against what I reckoned was common non-Arb related edit warring. I'm not making any case here. I made a complaint to the police that Blowdart mistook for a Criminal Prosecution. Sarah777 (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2009 (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]