Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:00, 25 February 2009

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Edit this section for new requests

Breach of sanctions

Arbcom case: The Troubles.

Falls Orangeman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For over a week this editor has made the same repeated, inflammatory, point-of-view edits to Falls Road, Belfast. They were notified of the sanctions here, yet proceeded to make virtually the same edit again here. To show how biased the edit is, even Mooretwin has taken exception to the edit, which to any admins familiar with Troubles articles should be unusual, as it is not often Mooretwin, Domer48, BigDunc and myself are all in agreement. In his latest edit he has chosen not to claim that "Catholic militants" were killed in the Falls Curfew instead of the sourced "Catholic civilians", and has instead labelled them "Catholic terrorists". This is a disgusting attack on the dead, see 3 and 4 July for online confirmation those killed were civilians, not members of any paramilitary organsation. Request action to be taken against this editor please. O Fenian (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a 48 hour block for disruptive editing could be justified. PhilKnight (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:MeteorMaker violating terms of ban placed by User:Elonka pursuant to ARBPIA

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.

Enforcement required pursuant to Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.

On or about April of last year, User:MeteorMaker began a campaign to remove any mention of the terms "Judea" and/or "Samaria" from any article on Wikipedia. This behavior was found objectionable from the get-go, and several editors and administrators have repeatedly asked him to stop (see this as one very early request).

User:MeteorMaker did not cease the behavior, but rather escalated it and expanded it to multiple articles, edit warring on many of them. This resulted first in his being formally notified of the editing restrictions authorized by the aforementioned ArbComm case here, and then subsequently with a short block for violating 3RR with those same reverts.

The behavior did not stop even after this, and after several additional warnings ([1], [2]) he was placed by User:Elonka on a formal ban, that prohibits him from "Making Samaria-related reverts to any article in the Israel/Palestine topic area", as well as from 'Removing reliable citations from any article in the topic area'.

Immediately after the ban was invoked, he violated it by removing a reliably sourced quote from Zionist entity, and then proceeded to wikilawyer over the specifics of the ban, claiming that because the restriction was on "Removing reliable citations", it is ok for him to remove the material for which the citations are given, as long as the citations themselves (which now do not refer to anything) are left in the article.

Apparently emboldened by the lack of action taken after that violation, he has today proceed to violate the letter of the first restriction, with this edit, which removes 'Samaria' and replaced it with "west bank" - precisely the edit that was explicitly prohibited by the ban placed by Elonka. As Elonka is apparently on a wikibreak, another administrator should act to enforce the ban using some stricter measures. Given the duration and scope of this disruption, a topic ban from I-P articles is probably in order. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in this dispute, but would it not be more sensible for editors to work out where and how the alternative names "Samaria" and "West Bank" should be used? This reminds me of the trouble we have had in the past with Balkans editors disputing placenames in Kosovo, Macedonia, Greece and other countries - a problem for which Wikipedia:Naming conflict (which I largely wrote) was devised to solve. Rather than fighting over terminology in individual articles, I'd suggest that you seek a global solution, perhaps something along the lines of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles). I'm happy to offer my assistance, if needed. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

MeteorMaker has rejected 'Samaria' related sources as well as fellow editorial input, refusing attampts at compromise and consensus building.
There's no difference here between a topic ban and an actual block. MeteorMaker is a single purpose account for I-P articles.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if ChrisO's offer were taken at face value (which it shouldn't be, for reasons I won't get into, lest all his admin cronies start showing up on my talk page bearing warnings), it is beside the point in this discussion. The dispute presented here is expressly not about a particular article, but it does not necessarily require an immediate "global" solution. It is about one user's conduct. Meteor Maker acted in a disruptive manner, an admin imposed a ban, no other admin (as far as I can see) has objected to the ban, and now MM has violated the ban. This should be simple. It doesn't require a manual of style which could take months or years to achieve consensus on. It takes the enforcement of an appropriate ban, which requires one admin taking appropriate enforcement action. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am not sure if this is the right place, but I noticed that user:Pedrito has been doing a similar thing in Alon Shvut [3], Beth-zur [4], Nadia Matar [5], Baraka [6], Ma'on [7], Gush Etzion [8], Beit Horon [9], and the list continues. I tried to revert him, or at least to mention both terminologies, but to no avail. Can some administrator please step in and stop this behavior? I do not think edit warring is the right way to go. My personal view is that both terminologies can be mentioned as both are used (sometimes by the same people). Best. Tkalisky (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed an ongoing issue. The battle was fought principally on Talk:Israeli settlement (see also archives thereof) and in that article the proponents of "Judea" and "Samaria" lost -- the biblical terminology is no longer in the lead and only used in a section labelled "Terminology" and is refered to as annexationist language and in the section "Historical timeline", buried in a statement on the 2005 withdrawal.

I don't see how User:Canadian Monkey and User:Jaakobou manage to interpret this as an acceptance of the biblical terminology.

I have pondered many times over taking this issue to WP:RfArb, but previous experiences on that page lead me to believe that it will be lost time and bits, leading to no decision in neither direction. However, if anybody believes otherwise and is willing to take up the issue, I will participate and, most importantly, abide by any binding decision.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 24.02.2009 07:56

P.S.: Oh, and per this edit, User:Tkalisky is wrong and should do his homework (and notify whoever he's complaining about) before posting here. pedrito - talk - 24.02.2009 07:56

Thanks indeed my friend - in your second reversion you changed Nadia Matar to include both terminologies. Surely you will not have any objection to do so for all the other articles. Love. Tkalisky (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I object. I used the compromise terminology when I saw that too many editors were getting involved and that it would lead to an edit-war, which would not be helpful to the encyclopaedia. Adding "Judea" and "Samaria" to every mention of the West Bank would be like adding "Palestine" or "Zionist Entity" to every mention of "Israel", something which I'm sure you would find offensive.

This is a problem of perception and perspective and what may seem like a good terminology to one person may be offensive to another. West Bank is not only what is used by 99% of the world, it is also non-offensive.

Hope that clears it up, pedrito - talk - 24.02.2009 09:07

Sensitive indeed. Back to square one. Love. Tkalisky (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see this discussion has escalated to AE now. In order to not waste everybody's time even more, I'll keep this short:
1) The ban User:Canadian Monkey is talking about was based on what has been confirmed by the admin to be a misunderstanding. She promised to lift it, but forgot to do so before she went on vacation.
2) That ban (that explicitly, if somewhat arbitrarily, says I'm not allowed to remove citations) does not apply to non-citations.
3) The ban further says I'm temporarily banned from: "Making Samaria-related reverts to any article in the Israel/Palestine topic area". I'm still allowed to make Samaria-related edits and non-Samaria-related reverts.
4) The edits I and other editors have made, while "objectionable" to USER:Canadian Monkey, are entirely in accordance with every policy and guideline, and nobody disputes the validity of the dozens of excellent sources they are based on. The version USER:Canadian Monkey and a few other pro-Israeli editors have tried to promote through edit warring, wikilawyering and stonewalling has issues with multiple policies, notably WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:NCGN [10], and not one single source has been presented that supports it. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If a diff where Elonka notes that the ban is indeed lifted exists, it should be added to MeteorMaker's statement. 6SJ7 makes a clear point about the issue most relevant for this forum.

p.s. a number of sources that support it have been presented (see my first comment). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC) clarify 11:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me qualify User:Jaakobou's last statement a bit for those unfamiliar with the debate: a number of sources were given that use the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" (along with "West Bank"), yet no sources were given stating that these were indeed commonly used terms. On the other hand, a number of sources were given stating explicitly that "Judea" and "Samaria" are non-standard, politicised and annexationist terms. The sources are all here.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 24.02.2009 12:18

What matters is if MeteorMaker was recused of his sanction or not. My personal review of Elonka's recent User talk page contributions relevant to MeteorMaker[11][12][13] suggest that not only was the ban not withdrawn but that it was seen as "extremely lenient".

p.s. The sources are not all there. Checking the history, it's Ashley kennedy3's list as copied by Elonka into a sub-page and discussed sources are missing from it. Anyways, content discussions are not germane to the purpose of this forum.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all there, Jaakobou, but you need to scroll down.

Regarding the issue at hand, this is what Elonka wrote on 15 February:

"You are correct about the citation thing. I saw the edit summary, and that citations had been removed, but missed the part about you moving the citations to a different part of the article. I am amending my statement accordingly, and apologize for my error.[...] In terms of the ban, I'm open to reducing it, but let's see how things go for a week, and then we can re-examine the situation and see about reducing (or even lifting) the ban."

That was 9 days ago, and yesterday she announced she's taking a wikibreak [14].

Interestingly, the infraction cited in the topic ban was not the one in Jayjg's original request to Elonka [15], nor the one Elonka stated before she became aware of her error [16], but one I had never received one single warning about beforehand (my "recent pattern of reverts"), which seems to be somewhat shaky grounds to base a 90-day topic ban on, especially since that "pattern of reverts" was never specified.

To summarize: Elonka imposed a topic ban ("no removal of citations, no Samaria-related reverts") on 14 February. The justification for the ban changed on 15 February after it was shown that the original infraction was non-existent, which Elonka confirmed. She promised to review the ban not later than 22 February, then apparently forgot about the whole thing and went on a wikibreak on 23 February. The next day, Canadian Monkey starts this section and accuses me of having breached the ban. None of his (pretty lame) accusations hold any water, as nothing I've done violates the two conditions above by any stretch of the imagination. This whole affair appears to be a continuation of the lost "Samaria" debate with other means. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me put on my admin hat and review the situation:

Elonka has placed MeteorMaker on a 90-day ban from "Making Samaria-related reverts to any article in the Israel/Palestine topic area." It is not a total ban on editing Samaria-related articles: "You are not banned from editing the articles, and you are still welcome to change information to try and find a compromise wording, as long as you are not engaging in reverts" (emphasis added). [17]

Canadian Monkey charges that MeteorMaker violated the ban with this edit. A review of the article history indicates that no reversion was performed - MeteorMaker's edits were the first since the article was created April 2008. He made a change to the article, replacing one name with another, but did not revert to a previous version of the text. MeteorMaker was thus not in violation of Elonka's ban.

There is therefore nothing actionable here in terms of arbitration enforcement.

However, it is clear that there is a problem with the geographical naming in this area, where there are different names in use by the conflicting sides. As stated earlier, I recommend that editors work on creating a new Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Israeli-Palestinian articles) along a similar style to manuals of style for other disputed placenames, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles). I suggest that it be done under the auspices of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. As I wrote the original Wikipedia:Naming conflict guidelines to address conflicts of this sort, I'm happy to contribute to such a discussion.

Subject to a review of these findings by an uninvolved administrator, I recommend closing this discussion without further action. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment Elonka is on wikibreak, otherwise I would be inclined to wait for her interpretation of events. Although this edit was Samaria-related, it wasn't a revert, so technically there wasn't a violation. Obviously, if these sort of edits become a problem than MeteorMaker's ban could be extended and modified, but at the moment, I agree with Chris that we can probably close this report without further action. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 24 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.

Baku87

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.

Baku87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked in the past for 48 hours under WP:ARBAA2. Under WP:ARBAA2 editors are limited to 1 revert per week, editors must maintain civility, and editors must discuss their reverts. Recently Baku87 has revert warred exceeding the 1 rv per week restriction at article Shusha and has been uncivil in the edit summaries of his reverts at the articles Stepanakert and Shusha or has not provided edit summaries.

Reverts at Shusha

1st - 12:10, 22 February 2009
2nd - 22:45, 22 February 2009

Incivility or no edit summaries at articles Shusha and Stepanakert

I believe that this type of behavior does the project harm as constructive edits are reverted without discussion. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo.. slowdown.. Incivility? Please provide sources for your harsh scandalizations towards me were I have been uncivil and not accounted for it. And how on earth is it possible to call these [18] [19] [20] constructive edits? This is just vandalism, IP user 216.165.12.158 has been putting his own map in those articles without any discussion and you call these constructive? If there is anything incivil here it is you who scandilizes me and calls spam-reverts "constructive". Baku87 (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already did above, you called the ip's constructive edits that would have improved the map at Stepanakert vandalism. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"... has been putting his own map in those articles without any discussion and you call these constructive?" And you're the one writing that? Sardur (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baku87 is not on revert parole, thus he is not violating anything. Edits at Shusha were reverts of vandalism by anonymous IP 216.165.12.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who has been edit warring on a very large number of articles and who is reported just below. Grandmaster 05:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs edits are not vandalism, as far as I can see they are very constructive. Also, Baku87 has already been blocked under ARBAA2 so he is under the restrictions of ARBAA2. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How edit warring across dozens of pages can be constructive? And if the IP was constructive, why did the admin warn such a constructive user? Grandmaster 05:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map that the IP was replacing at Shusha and Stepanakert would have been an improvement to the article if Baku87 didn't revert it multiple times breaking the restrictions under ARBAA2. Also, he reverted it as vandalism which is uncivil and WP:BITEy. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course edit warring across dozens of articles by the anon was not improvement, it was a clear vandalism, reverting of which does not even count as rv. And Baku87 is not under any editing restriction, so 1 rv per week parole does not apply to him. Frivolous report. Grandmaster 05:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More revert waring by Baku87

14:06, 23 February 2009

14:41, 23 February 2009

Don't forget to mention Sardur (talk · contribs), who started the edit war, despite the fact that FfD decided to keep the map that Sardur is trying to delete. Grandmaster 05:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget to mention that Baku87 refuses any dialogue. Sardur (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there was no consensus to delete it, it does not mean there was consensus to use it. The question to delete or keep this map is still discussed by admins here. --Vacio (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why Sardur is deleting the map from the articles, instead of waiting for the outcome of that discussion? Grandmaster 06:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because as you are aware, this map is facing strong accusations. Precautionary principle. I could return the question: why is this map again and again reinserted while it's still under discussion? Sardur (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worrisome are the recent edits of Baku87: in the ADR article he made 4 identical reverts by replacing his self-made map ([21][22][23][24]), three of which were made in the last 2 days. Also this massive reverts of him ([25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] [33][34]) regarding the name Shushi/Shusha notwithstanding my duly warning that no massive changes should be made without consensus. --Vacio (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even counting how many reverts the IP 216.165.12.158 made, the number is huge, and Baku87 reverted vandalism by the anon. As for the ADR article, you can see that Sardur made 3 rvs on the same article: [35] [36] [37], and the anon 216.165.12.158 another 2: [38] [39] Grandmaster 06:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This report looks meritless. The first two edits complained about appear to be helpful rather than harmful. Jehochman ^Talk 17:00, 25 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.

216.165.12.158

And yet another edit warrior, reverting multiple pages at once. Just today 216.165.12.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) reverted a large number of pages, mostly replacing Shusha with Shushi, Russian empire with Nagorno-Karabakh. As one can see, he reverts in tandem with User:Vacio. This should be stopped. Grandmaster 07:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just take a look at the reverts by 216.165.12.158 here so is it really this easy for just a random IP user to revert everything just like this and expect no consequences at all?? Baku87 (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vacio

Vacio (talk · contribs) has been twice placed on editing restrictions, but both times the sanctions were lifted, first time because the admin was given incorrect information that Vacio had no prior warning, [40] [41] [42] and second time after Vacio promised not to edit war. [43] [44] However he continues edit warring on a big number of articles. Today he mass reverted pages without any consensus on using the place name that he prefers. He made 9 reverts at once: [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52], replacing Russian empire with Nagorno-Karabakh, and the city name of Shusha with Shushi, despite the fact that when the city was a part of the Russian empire, it was officially called Shusha, and no such state as Nagorno-Karabakh ever existed. In addition, he made another controversial revert on Nakhchivan: [53], which is his second revert on that article during this week: [54] As one can see, an official warning, and imposition of editing restrictions twice had no effect, and the lifting of editing restrictions was a mistake. According to the ruling of the arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. I believe it is time to place Vacio on editing restrictions once again, and this time permanently. Grandmaster 16:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of your diffs show that Vacio has done anything wrong. You are showing one edit for separate articles. If you have a dispute with Vacio then use WP:DR. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring across multiple pages is disruption. Grandmaster 07:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My recent reverts which Grandmaster calles edit warring can be understandable for admins if they see how some users repeatedly refuse to first reach consensus then make changes and even neglect what was/is discussed in the relevant talkpage.

First about the name Shushi (Shushi and Shusha are equivalent forms of the name of a city in the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh). Some time ago, I notices that Parishan (talk · contribs) is engaged in endless edit warring as a result of repeatedly replacing Shushi with Shusha in certain WP articles. How terrible such an edit warring can be, admins can observe in the Gabriel Kafian or Arakel Babakhanian articles (there seem to be more reverts in the history of these articles than normal edits!). Then, as far as I familiarized myself with WP rules, when we WP users have differances, we should first reach consensus, then make changes. That is what I more than once noticed in Talk:Arakel Babakhanian, but Grandmaster and Parishan seemed not to see anything wrong in their actions. When I provided enough sources that, unlike Parishan and Grandmaster claim, the city at the time in question was equally called Shushi in English language sources, and when it seemed that their changes were not based on WP rules, I replaced the form Shushi in some of the articles, where they were moved by Parishan, not because I wanted to reach something by means of edit warring, but because I think that it is wrong to make massive changes without having reached consensus, not even having discussed it on the right place (which in this case would be Talk:Shusha). Btw. I would ask the attention of admins on the fact theat Baku87 (talk · contribs) and Baki66 (talk · contribs) nevertheless continued edit warring in the articles in question making reverts without even an edit summary.
As for my edits in Nakhchivan article, in fact Grandmaster himself reverted my edit [55] which were explained in the talkpage and were based on WP:NC and WP:NCGN. Second time, I only restored the unexplained reverts by Baki66 who never participated in the ongoing discussion and not even left an edit summary. I acknowledge that in this case I should be more patient, but sometimes it is difficult to be so, when other users permit themselves to make reverts as much as they want.

At the time when I was twice briefly placed under AA restrictions, I was not familiarized with WP rules and I was not always aware that I was edit warring. Also, I ask admins to note that the last time I was involved in edit warring was because user Grandmaster and Parishan again and again neglected the discussion in the relevant talkpage, a fact about which I informed Rlevse and the reason why he lifted these restriciones, one can read in my talkpage. --Vacio (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why you were placed on editing restrictions was you edit warring across multiple pages. You promised to refrain from such behavior, and that's why you were given another chance. Yet once again you started an edit war across multiple pages, on which you were suspiciously joined by 216.165.12.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who never previously edited, and his contributions are identical to yours, replacing the name of Shusha with Shushi and Russian empire with Nagorno-Karabakh in dozens of articles about the Armenia - Azerbaijan topics. Your POV pushing in this issue is clear and obvious, Shusha is the only official name this city had, be that in the Russian empire or USSR, see Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary: [56] or Great Soviet Encyclopedia: [57], or even Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 edition: [58] If you insist on using a name for the town that is different from the name of the article about that town (the article about the town is called Shusha), and using it outside of any historical context, you should have taken it to the dispute resolution, and not start a massive edit war with the support of anonymous users. Such behavior is extremely disruptive and should not be tolerated. Grandmaster 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be proper for you to wait first for the results of these case, then accuse me being connected with 216.165.12.158? Your aggressive way of accusing me for "edit warring across multiple pages" just shows very good how you understand WP:WAR, you claim that your version is the only right one and my version is POV pushing. This place is however not the proper place to discuss who is right who is wrong. It is quite possible that your version is the right one, the problem is that you need to discuss it and reach a consensus before making changes. What you and Parishan did was the very opposite and the result of such an behavior itself was the very reason of edit-warrs, something I tried to stop. I am sure it is not your accusations that admins will take into account by making decisions. --Vacio (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that you and IP were the same person, so what's the point in CU? I did discuss it, and you started an edit war across multiple pages, in which you were joined by the IP. Grandmaster 13:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask admins to take notice of the fact that user Grandmaster accuses me for things himself is chargeable for.

According to Grandmaster I am guilty for 1) replacing Russian empire with Karabakh and Shusha with Shushi, 2) POV pushing 3) massive edit war.
However in Ahmad Agdamski, Latif Karimov, Yusif Vazir Chamanzaminli and several other articles Grandmaster was involved in a long edit warring in the same context of Shushi/Shusha. Note especially these last 3 reverts of him ([59][60][61]) which result in the statement as if Shushi has been part of Azerbaijan in the period between 1884 and 1906, when Azerbaijan did not exist at all. Well, those edits are evident "POV pushing" and Grandmaster knows very well that they do not solve the issue, but are rather a cause of a new continued edit war.
Grandmaster is involved in an edit war in which a dubious map is 10 times removed and replaced from the ADR article within 3 days.

I am worried about that a user who just made flagrant POV edits and has engaged in edit war demands that I am placed under permantent edit restircions. He accuses me of massive edit war when I actually tried to stop it and to urge other users to reach consensus before massive chenges. I ask admins that they do not leave this case without a proper response because then he uses arbcom cases to threaten me if we have differences. --Vacio (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never reverted any article more than once a week, unlike yourself. And reverting massive vandalism by anon IP is not edit warring, edit warring are all those undiscussed POV changes and reverts in dozens of articles that the IP made within the last couple of days. Grandmaster 06:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrivance, BLP, and 9/11 conspiracy theories

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.

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

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)

[62] (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. [63] So, anything after that point (in mid-September), he was informed of the policies and disregarding them.

From late September - October

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

[65] - 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

[66] - reinserts unsourced

[67] - 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.

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

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

[70] - 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

[71] - 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

[72] - 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. [73] 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]

I have notified User:Contrivance of this thread. Kevin (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started editing at Wikipedia because I was fascinated by Willie Rodriguez's larger-than-life story. I immediately ran into opposition from people who were obviously dead set on keeping certain important information out, including the testimony of John Schroeder, the story of Kenny Johanneman, Mr. Rodriguez's grandiose claims, Mr. Rodriguez' ties to Jimmy Walter and Christopher Bollyn. The other editors tried to intimidate by pretending they know who I am. They don't. They successfully intimidated the editor Jazz2006 and he no longer edits the William Rodriguez page.

It seems that new ref inserts upset the number scheme. Add four to the numbers below for the appropriate ref.

Re: 16--The charge that Barrett showed support for holocaust denial was not unsourced. It was sourced three times in refs 19, 20, and 10 (as of 06:30, 15 September 2008).

It's not fair to complain of minor tone mis-steps I made during a time when wiki was tolerating edit warring and attempted intimidation by outing being done by someone who is suspected of being the subject of the article. Please note I have done exactly one very minor edit on the William Rodriguez page in the last month.

Re: 18--The video I sourced came from C-Span itself. How much more authoritative can you get? What is wrong with a transition sentence that described the 8-17-07 "BOOM!" story as more dramatic than the 9-11-01 "we hear a rumble" story?

Re: 19--Those unsourced claims can be easily sourced. I imagine I was out getting the sources when the paragraph was speedily deleted by the ever-vigilant Combatant.

Re: 21--I used the edit summary as a comment field in an attempt to start a dialog because the sock editors' ongoing efforts to keep out the Glasgow Herald article was very frustrating, and the socks were refusing to engage in discussion about it. The Herald article was important because it was from a prestigious source, and it made the important point that William provides no evidence for his claims outside of his own testimony. The socks were frantic to keep that article out, and when they couldn't, they arranged to bury it by linking every puff piece published in the UK. That's why the "Press Coverage" section is such a mess, too. Because they wanted to hide that article.

Re:25--"In close proximity to a PayPal button" was important because it suggested a motivation for removing the claim to the 15 single-handed rescues. It seems to me that when Mr. Rodriguez claims that media tapes show he has been telling the same story all along since 9/11, the fact that these tapes have never been produced is significant. I was hoping I might inspire some of his friends to produce the tapes.

Re:26--I thought the descriptor "an introspective essay" was objective. The socks had introduced that article in an attempt to "balance" the Glasgow Herald article. I thought it was worth pointing out the great contrast between the two articles--one of them commenting on logical failings of Mr. Rodriguez's story, and the other an impressionistic tale of how inspired the writer felt.

Contrivance (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need activists using Wikipedia as a publishing platform. We don't need single purpose accounts editing in the 9/11 articles. I propose a one year topic ban from all 9/11-related articles. Jehochman ^Talk 21:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. WP:BLP issues, coatracking etc. Let's see if Contrivance can contribute usefully elsewhere. Kevin (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. Never mind the conspiracy theory angle, this user does not seem to understand - or want to understand - WP:BLP and its sourcing requirements. Sandstein 22:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally I disagree. I started with William Rodriguez because his was a colorful, larger-than-life, and ultimately tragic story. Certainly I overstepped the limitations of BLP policies--in the interests of making a better, more truthful article, and because it seemed that pretty much all rules were off on the William Rodriguez page. It was the wild west! We had multiple sockpuppets of previously banned sockpuppets suspected of being the subject of the article being permitted to engage in intimidation by attempted outing--successfully intimidating the editor Jazz2006. Note these socks were narrowly focused. Unfortunately, much of the information about William is available only on the internet. I branched out into Barrett because he has been intimately connected to William--they toured together twice. Barrett led me to his buddy Fetzer, also a very colorful guy. I'd like to do some clarification of his five levels of disinformation when I get time. And then when Barrett got the endorsement of Griffin, Brouillet, and Bowman I found that interesting (and baffling) enough that I thought to note that in their articles. Combatant's blatant wikilawyering was hurting the article. It was pretty obvious that Rodriguez was trying to reinvent himself as a disaster management consultant after having washed out of the Truth movement, and that he was trying to make the page an advertising brochure for his new career. When he wasn't able to keep the truth out (like when I found the C-Span tape of his program at the C-Span archives) he had to try to obfuscate. And that's why the article now looks like a wall with a couple of pounds of spaghetti on it. Contrivance (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your disagreement, the consensus here is clear, and so you are banned from 9/11 articles and talk pages for a period of 1 year. Noted here and here. Kevin (talk) 23:31, 24 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.

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]

Vartan has faced reasonable arguments regarding his edits, instead he proceeded with not only bold actions, but mudslinging as well. The content of his reverts, especially the last ones, is quite obvious.

Regarding me, I don't 'disturb articles' integrity'. The talk page contents are open to everyone and yes, it is per talk. The sentence is quite obscure, reverting whose action 'should be in fact considered as vandalism'? Grandmaster's? Being in Wiki since 2005 I don't consider myself 'coming out of the blue', if this is what Fedayee meant. I don't know which word Farid Shafiyev or other scholars apply, the only thing is that Plato is my friend, but my best friend is truth. As such I consider that issue quite worthy of renaming. That's all since this is not the best venue to solve content disputes.

Now, I think my keep vote in the map nomination was substantiated enough, anyway I can ground further if necessary. Nakhichevan's issue is in progress so far, so, again, no need to roll out another content dispute. Fedayee's fallacious logic if VartanM should be punished, others should too is just demagogical conclusion.

And Pocopocopocopoco, there was no alleged baiting campaign at all. The one who breached the normal editorial process is known. Your claim tends to be a part of Vartan's conspiracy theories. Brand спойт 11:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now, Azerbaijani the lingua franca for the entire Transcaucasus? The editors putting that in must've known the reaction it would have caused. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a place to bring disputes over content, as indicated atop. Brand спойт 20:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about content its about baiting editors. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the fact that VartanM was blocked for reverting content in which the source of the content had referred to Armenians as 'parasite and slave' and it does look like he was baited I believe VartanM's block should be overturned. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No he did not face 'any' arguments, in fact he was reverted without prior argumentation. Your renaming was absolutely unacceptable and you continue misleading by claiming per talk. There was no per talk, this is what Grandmaster wrote in the talk: The title can remain,..., and this was the issue which was debated, as you can see from the sources provided by Grandmaster, the article’s title was not what was debated, but rather the intro, as even his sources call it Armenian-Tatar... (and Grandmaster never attempted to deny that) You came up there and moved the article, not knowing what the conflict was all about. Here is a sample of Grandmaster's revert, which shows indeed that the problem and what was debated about was the intro and not the lead. So yes, you did indeed jump in by moving the article twice [74] by refering to the talk, when the debate was not even about the article’s title. Had Moreschi been here, you would have surely ended up with at the very least a strong warning for this. How can such a disruption be even allowed?

Here is more evidence that you did not even read Vartan, had you read the link to his reply which you totally ignored, you will see that it was even not referring to his 'other Roman' example, but rather on the use of foreign name in the lead of articles, he provided Alpenglow as example, and if you check the article Rome, you will see the Latin origin of the word. You did not even bother reading what he was providing, in fact, you just reverted him. This makes Vartan’s revert justified in the talkpage, yours not, but he ended up being the editor who was blocked.

And your claim that there is no baiting campaign falls short, if we check the recent contributions by some users, we see that is what happened. Baki66, for instance. Baki66 reverts VartanM in Nakhichevan article, removing the Armenian term, without ever having written a word in the talkpage, Vartan was even not worthy of a comment in the edit summary. After doing this, he will be adding the Azeri term on Kars article, he will reinsert the disputed map, then revert Zlerman, then go on with a series of reverts [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82]. Finishing it all this and this.

Vartan’s block was not fair, and is the result of ignorance, from an administrator who did not bother viewing and checking what was happening. See here for instance, when reports become a little too much complex, we are even not worthy of being answered, or our request given consideration. Only when it is about 1RR or incivility can we get any reply. Vartan discussed and justified, he was reverted by members who did not even bother justifying. In Parishan's case, he was punished for reverting a fringe theory, something which Parishan has been pushing on several articles for years. It's not that this was never documented, it was. - Fedayee (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see how Vartan 'justified' his edits, bypassing the talk: rv vandalism by Grandmaster's puppet (1st), rv vandalism by Grandmaster's puppet (2nd), rv vandalism by Grandmaster's puppet (3rd), rv vandalism by Grandmaster's puppet (4th), rv vandalism by Grandmaster's puppet (5th), rv vandalism by Grandmaster's puppet (6th). The issue is now at the naming conventions talk. Finally, patently baiting over Nagorno-Karabakh, Vartan added the 'fact' tag to his short-living claim: you should be the one waiting... waiting and waiting some more. This is just some part of his activity, so he was fairly cooled down. brand спойт 09:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you ignored, justifications are made in he talkpage, and justification does not mean some irrelevant comments like you have done. You totally ignored comments made in the talkpage and now you are not even addressing what I have written documenting the fact that you totally ignored the talkpage. We are dealing again with incivility vs article disruption. Incivility being the result of the latter. The fact that you find nothing wrong in the renaming of the article and claiming per talk when the debate was not even about that shows your total disregard of what others write. Vartan's "disruption" is nothing compared to yours. But you are right, incivil comments shine for administrators, easier to see, in comparison to content disruption. And of course like I mentioned, when we expect something more complex by administrators they run away and do not even bother answering. So I will not be surprised if this is archived without proper answer. - Fedayee (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too since you are actually requesting an unblock. brand спойт 05:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The empty room is full of people who care. :) Meowy 23:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, seriously, maybe the good-faith party should concentrate on editing the articles, allowing the truth to speak for itself, rather than expending energy on this stuff which few admins bother reading. Meowy 00:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Baki66

Someone oughta take a look at this user. Over a dozen reverts today. Some sort of a revert warrior that just popped up of nowhere sans any useful contributions, ever.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it would also be good if someone took a look at severe violation of WP:Civil by Eupator. Comments like Your map is just fascist regurgitation are not really helpful. Grandmaster 07:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Baki66 should at the very least be CUed with Baku87 and AdilBaguirov. He appears to be closely involved with fishy POV pushing Cross-Wiki. As can be seen from other language Wikipedias, the recent POV pushing which VartanM fell victim to is the tip of the iceberg. See here the POV pushing with the same map and the same claim. Baki66 does not appear to be a new user, Parishan's POV pushing on adding Azeri terms on Kars has been practiced by Baki66, see here also. He also added in the genocide article Xojali (claim prepared by Adil). See the rename here and battled on the rename on the Polish Wikipedia too. There is enough ground to checkuser him. - Fedayee (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To hell with checkusering him. Ban him! Meowy 23:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One should look at the edit history of this user, his recent 50 edits are almost all reverts without even an edit summary! The persistent and unexplained reverts of this user match in many cases with that of Baku87, in particular when he reverted the ADR article in favour of Baku87's map (2 reverts in 1 day: [83][84]), removed Shushi from numerous articles ([85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92] etc.) just after I had replaced them and called on to reach consensus before such massive changes, unexplained reverted the Nakhchivan article([93]), as well as recent reverts in the Stepanakert and Shusha articles. --Vacio (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM

VartanM (talk · contribs) has been placed on editing restriction back in December 2007: [94], which limited him to 1rv per week. That restriction was indefinite, as per comment of Seraphimblade here: [95] 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, [96], and also placed again on indefinite 1RR: [97] 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: [98] [99] [100] 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 [101]. 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: [102] 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: [103] [104], 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[105]. 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: [106] 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]

And what's wrong with the Church of Caucasian Albania? It is a nicely written article, featured in DYK. Your argumentation was rejected by the third party users as well. If no one agrees with you, it does not mean that all those people are wrong, and you are right. I really see no point in you constantly bringing up that particular article as an example of some sort of a disruption. Btw, this thread needs to be archived, otherwise it will grow longer and longer. Grandmaster 13:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This, for a lack of better word, is a lie. What third party user, the only third party user there, and who disagreed with anything, was that the History of Caucasian Albania was a primary source. But the reality is that it actually qualifies as a primary source. The Church of Caucasian Albania article is the pushing of a fringe theory maintained and cooked by the Azeri government in Baku. The theory sustained by Parishan was debunked by Shnirelman. Most of the sources Parishan provides are Movses work (which Shnirelman calls very doubtful and expose propagandizes of basing themselves exclusively on Movses, just as Parishan does), the rest have used Movses as a source. Then to finish it all, two out of the three pictures are documented Armenian AND Russian Church, the third has been vandalized by the Azeri government. That 'particular' article, if coming to the scrutiny of uninvolved users will get Parishan in a lot of trouble. This criticism and this one have never been addressed by Parishan, the only reply Parishan gave in the talkpage was this showing that he did not even read the criticism before removing the tag. Parishan like I mentioned above, has no use of what others say. - Fedayee (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is very simple. Parishan wrote a very nice article, if you do not like it, there's nothing anyone on this board can do about it. There are ways for resolving content disputes. VartanM was on parole, he violated it, and got blocked. He was also extremely incivil, and civility supervision is also a part of his limitations. This is all there's to it. Grandmaster 08:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lie next time claiming that third party users addressed it. The diff shows Parishan not even answering or bothering reading the concerns about the article. Also interesting is that everything Shnirelman considers fabrication originating from Baku is exactly what Parishan has incorporated there (so much for the 'nice' article, which is a near replica of the kind of material published in Baku). But do continue with blind ears, you have in the last days proven that you do not care about accuracy and more interested in pushing propaganda when you voted to keep a map, which you have not provided a single source to substantiate, and even going as far as admitting the map was inaccurate but yet wanting to keep it. Vartan's incivility was minimum compared to the level of disruption going on those articles. But you Grandmaster have only accusations of incivility to stand on, and bogus 1RR restrictions. It is futile to expect anything more from administrators, history has shown. Moreschi-types who care about content are the exceptions rather than the rule. Had his type been the rule here, you know that most of you would have ended with topic bans. - Fedayee (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, third party users did address it, see the comments by User:Johnbod, who removed the POV tag you tried to attach to the article. I see no point in further discussion on this thread. It needs to be archived. Grandmaster 13:07, 23 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]

@@ Line 102: / Line 102: @@
 == Baku87 ==
+{{archive top}}
 {{Userlinks|Baku87}} has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FArmenia-Azerbaijan_2&diff=241840558&oldid=239853426 blocked in the past for 48 hours] under [[WP:ARBAA2]]. Under [[WP:ARBAA2]] editors are limited to 1 revert per week, editors must maintain civility, and editors must discuss their reverts. Recently Baku87 has revert warred exceeding the 1 rv per week restriction at article [[Shusha]] and has been uncivil in the edit summaries of his reverts at the articles [[Stepanakert]] and [[Shusha]] or has not provided edit summaries.
@@ Line 143: / Line 143: @@
 :::I'm not even counting how many reverts the IP 216.165.12.158 made, the number is huge, and Baku87 reverted vandalism by the anon. As for the ADR article, you can see that Sardur made 3 rvs on the same article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic&diff=272721196&oldid=272721005] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic&diff=272723803&oldid=272722993] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic&diff=273062031&oldid=273055809], and the anon 216.165.12.158 another 2: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic&diff=272859169&oldid=272749269] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic&diff=272961431&oldid=272935080] [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 06:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
+* This report looks meritless. The first two edits complained about appear to be helpful rather than harmful. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 17:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
+{{archive bottom}}
 == 216.165.12.158 ==