Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive10

User:Giovanni Giove
Hi. Hereby I report that user:Giovanni Giove has breached its one-year edit restriction, as decided by Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia. As You can see from the history of editing of article Jakov Mikalja [], Giovanni Giove  has not given  any explanation of his actions. All he did was moving of the talkpage to its version. His edit from 18 Oct 2007, in 13:12. On the article page, he did four edits (these edits are reverts) on 18 Oct 2007 in 13:12 (moving),  on 13:15,  in 13:16,  in 13:24. He  again ignored other users' contributions, repeated his behaviour pattern shown and described in the Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence, for which he was "punished". I don't want to engage in the edit/revert war. I've given a bunch of material on the article talkpage. I don't know what to do anymore. Please act as Wikipedia policies say (remedies, enforcements and blocks). Sincerely, Kubura 07:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note

User:Giovanni Giove
This matter concerns the final decision of the Dalmatia Arbitration Committee and its final decision (here ) wich restricted User:Giovanni Giove and myself to "one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism)", and it is required we discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. With this final decision not one week old, User:Giovanni Giove has already made, not one or two, but a little under two dozen reverts of varying size in the Marco Polo (history page: ) and Dalmatian Italians articles (history page ). In the Dalmatian Italians article (besides reverting more than once) he also made no attempt whatsoever to discuss his edits, and the discussion page does not have a single explanation of these numerous reverts and provocative edits. In the Marco Polo article he quite flagrantly ignored the instructions of the ARBCOM and reverted on several occasions this week (on the same article).

(To whom it may concern,) I edited as well on a few occasions myself, but (as per instructions) i made only one revert per week per article, along with a thorough discussion each time. DIREKTOR (TALK ) 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia was up because of continual edit wars and a few unresolved RFC's in several Dalmatia related articles. In all cases User:Giovanni Giove was an iniciator of discussions but concentrated more on his "outistic" editing of the articles and constructively absent in the talk pages. A person totaly blind for sources presented by others. Zenanarh 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin response He made a lot of changes, but so far what I saw was editing, not reverting. If you disagree, you can revert (once per week) and then try to discuss the substance of the changes on the talk page. If you believe he has been reverting to previous versions, please show diffs of the old version and the reverts, because I didn't see his edits as reverts. Thatcher131 13:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, Thatcher131, take a look again.
 * I gave those diffs above, 6 days ago (these deal with article Jakov Mikalja and Talk:Jakov Mikalja). These are from 18 Oct, 13:12 (redirecting; in this sense, it's a kind of revert, because the involved parties had disagreements because of the article name) and  reverting 13:15, and upgrading of revert/his original research, 18 Oct, 13:24.
 * See the lines he removed, his removing of adjective "Croatian", as well as his POV-izing/ original research /off-topic (section: "Controversy"). In the latter two he also ignored the sources given previously.
 * Talking about the talkpage of the article Jakov Mikalja (Giovanni Giove must explain his revert actions according to the RFARB decision), user Giovanni Giove gave no explanation till this very day, 30 Oct ( 12 days have passed and no admin reaction yet !?). And he was supposed to promptly give the explanation (!?!). All he did was the redirect of the talkpage (see the history of the talkpage changes ). In other words, revert warring even on the talkpage.
 * Other parties substained from edit warring, although Giovanni Giove persisted in his upgrade of his original work (e.g. here, on 29 Oct, in which he ignored all previously given sources on the talkpage).
 * That's what I call " edit-slaughter ". We, obedient users are idiots, because we obey the rule and tolerate the propagandist/vandalic/trollic behaviour and stay calm, while at the same time, Giovanni Giove calmly edits "unprotected" article, without any disturbance from opponents that avoid revert actions and edit war and wait the RFARB enforcement/waiting the admins to react.
 * Have in mind that Giovanni Giove was blocked (on 24 Sep, 15:47; 72 h block) because of 3RR rule violation (!!!) (see his block log ), during arbitration case (where he got his current, too mild, punishment), that dealt with him. Neither proposed remedies, given before Giove's blocking haven't changed his behaviour (4 days before his blocking, one arbitrator already voted for proposed remedies and enforcement regarding Giovanni Giove). Kubura 10:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to say... Giovanni Giove advises me to be more creative, but I feel this is a simple matter. The fact that he did revert is painfully obvious. The diffs are here, the violation is here, the only problem is that it isn't easy to search out the reverts among the million other edits this guy made. I know its a pain, but someone must take the time to do this. DIREKTOR (TALK ) 14:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's my third reaction on the admin's noticeboard, after the ones from 24 Oct and 30 Oct.
 * Director gave reports on 26 and 30 Oct.
 * Zenanarh gave report on 26 Oct.
 * Has any of admins ever read what we wrote on RFARB, on the Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence page ?
 * Regarding Jakov Mikalja case, as I see, Giovanni Giove is 15 days overdue (today is 02 Nov), more than 2 weeks. And he was supposed to give explanation on the talkpage promptly, according to the explicit and strict order of the Arbitration Committee. We have rules on Wikipedia.
 * He repeated his behaviour in which he removes all adjectives "Croatian" (replacing it with some amorphous or Frankestein adjectives, despite the scanned original documents, that point exactly to terms Croatian and Croat), and/or when he tries to lessen any connection of Mikalja with Croats. Just compare the history pages between other users and him. His edits weren't the "upgrading edit", that was ordinary revert. Compare the versions. See his previous reverts.
 * This is not a place to explain why is his contribution full of POV's, original research and misrepresentations, as well as his anti-Croat attitude, I (and others) have given a bunch of explanation on the talkpage of article Jakov Mikalja previously (the same talkpage that Giovanni Giove  ignores  since for 09 July 2007, that's almost  four months , or  116 (one hundred and sixteen) days !).
 * Honorable admins, Yours task is to act as rules require. Sincerely, Kubura 14:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Giove's pre-RFARB behaviour
Probably you need the confirmation that Giove previously, before the RFARB, did same actions and reverted the articles the very same way. Here're the proofs (just some of examples), that Giove's post-RFARB actions were reverts, not the upgrading edits. I gave that info on the RFARB:Dalmatia/Evidence, sections Anti-Croat attitude, Giove deletes and/or diminuates the "share" of Croats, Giove deleting "Croat--", Italianizing of Croat names, toponyms. Here they are again: 9 April 2007, 22:43 . Giove removes "Croatian" and replaces it with "Illyric". Also, Giove pushed his POV-original work in front (removing "Croatian", and placing some amorphous "Serbocroatian").  24 May 2007, 11:42 : . Giove's comment: "(Illyric is different from Croatian)''.  26 May 2007, 09:54 . Removing of adjective "Croat" and replacing with undetermined "Illyric". There's more, but I hope this'll be enough. Hope this helps, maybe these were the diffs that admins needed for the confirmation of repeated Gioves revert-warring behaviour. However, Giove got the block for his behaviour on just one article (Ruđer Bošković), but he did it on few articles, and he wasn't punished for bad behaviour and disobeyance of explicit decions of the Arbitration Committee. Kubura 14:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Giove's recent vandalistic behaviour on the talkpage
On 6 Nov 2007 in 11:05, user Giovanni Giove has deleted my explanations on the talkpage of Jakov Mikalja. He deleted them the very same day I've posted them (my message was from 10:44). Giove's comment was "deleted insults and personal attacks)". This is the text that Giovanni Giove deleted "19 days have passed since Giovanni Giove violated the decisions from the Arbitration Committee (Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia/Proposed_decision). See also Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia and section Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia  - Since then, other users have abstained from editing. Giovanni Giove abused that for his editslaughter.   - Because of repeated ignorant behaviour of user Giovanni Giove (described in Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence), I've restored the version before Giove's violation of RFARB decisions.  ". It's a shame that admins allow Giove to pull all other users (including admins) by the nose. Kubura 07:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Here're Giove's reverts and undiscussed and unexplained POV (and original work) actions exposed on the talkpage (and described on the Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence. Talk:Jakov_Mikalja. To remind you, since his first (undiscussed and unexplained) revert (18 Oct), 20 days have passed, several user reports, no admins reaction yet. Kubura 11:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Kubura
There is a lot of text here. What, specifically and consisely, do you want done at this point in time? – Steel 17:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What user Giovanni Giove did: - he disobeyed ARBCOM decisions and violated the limitations given there - unimproved behaviour - he made unexplained reverts on more than one article (punishment should be stronger; otherwise, it seems that it doesn't matter of one vandalizes 1 or 12 articles, punishment is still the same????) - "edit-slaughter" (see text above) - he wasn't promptly blocked for his behaviour (despite being reported here) - many of his actions weren't upgrading edits (ad admin Thatcher thought, see above), but the reverts (the "new" text was inserted by Giove previously, before the RFARB - see "Giove's pre-RFARB behaviour"). - this reinserted text is original research/work and POV - vandalistic actions on the article talkpage, in which he deleted of opponent's explanation of his revert action - despite being reported on the admin's noticeboard, Giove continued to behave as previously Sincerely, Kubura 09:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not on solid ground here; ignorant is not a word I would use if I was planning on asking for help and wanted to look like the more reasonable party. Giovanni has been blocked for 2 days for recent editing.  I have also asked for expanded authority to deal with Dalmatia-related dsiputes on all sides. Thatcher131 02:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Italianization (resolved)
On this article Users GiovanniGiove and Ghepeu are vandalizing the article

  

They simply delete the entire paragraph. I remind that Giovanni_Giove has a limit afor editing per week and I believe he broke it with this.  

Regards! --Anto 22:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read up on Vandalism; removing text disputed by multiple people is not necessarily vandalism. Apparent forum shopping on your part aside for the moment, Giovanni Giove is restricted to one revert per article per week and appears to have made that revert during his seven successive edits here (most obviously, removing the "Italianization today" section). Where do you feel he violated his 1RR? – Steel 22:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:ARB/Dalmatia: Giovanni Giove is "limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page". This action that Giove took from 15 Nov, 16:23, got no explanation by him on the talkpage. That's violation of ARBCOM decisions. Here's the recent history of revert war.: 14 Nov, 23:51 Ghepeu deletes whole section, with comment "blatant propaganda". 15 Nov, 00:42 Giove deletes the line he doesn't want to be seen. . After a streak of article upgrades by user Aradic-en (no lines removed, only new ones added), Giove appears. 15 Nov, 16:22 Giovanni Giove deletes the references (!!) with the comment "deleted false sources" (BBC, NY Times, l'Unitá). No explanation on the talkpage. 15 Nov, 16:23 Giovanni Giove deletes whole paragraph (!!) with the comment "DELETED: the present article is about "Fascist Italianization"". No explanation on the talkpage, nor discussion with others. After that, user Aradic-en restored the deleted paragraphs. 15 Nov, 18:56 User Ghepeu has engaged himself into revert warring (so that Giove can avoid 3RR rule or 1 revert/week limitation; still, Giove didn't discussed his actions). Here he deleted whole paragraph with references. Of course, no explanation. I'm not giving complaints toward the content, this is not a place for that (that's the matter of talkpages, 3rd opinions, mediations). I'm reporting the trollish behaviour, behaviour that is supposed to be of admins interest (deletions of whole paragraphs and references, ignoring of discussion, violation of ARBCOM decisions, revert war, actions performed to help trolls to avoid violations of wiki-rules and decisions). Sincerely, Kubura 08:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What needs an explanation is the shameful behaviour of a group of Croatian user (Kubura,Anto, Direktor, you can easily find the others) who regularly team up to push their rabidly nationalist pro-Croatian POV in all the article which are more or less related to the coasts of the Adriatic Sea. This group of user constantly tries to add blatant nationalist anti-Italian, anti-Venetian, anti-Serbian propaganda to the articles and engages in coordinated actions too ensure that their biased POV prevail, reverting alternatively their edits, producing false references and biased interpretations until the other editors are "defeated". GhePeU 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I have contacted a few administrators because I was not sure who exactly was in charge for this issue. Acts of Giove might not be breaking the 1RR but they certanly are vandalism. I will try to give more sorces for that. REGARDS! --Anto 09:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is more and more evidence that you act as a Meatball, toghether [User:Kubura|Kubura]],Anto, DIREKTOR, user:Raguseo, and the others...--Giovanni Giove 16:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced there are unexplained reverts here, but I've protectec Fascist Italianization for a week. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Giovanni Giove did make a couple of edits that would qualify as reverts, and he was not participating in the discussion of the issue he was disputing, so a block is warranted. However, the behavior of  (Anto) is concerning; it is not vandalism to remove a section that you disagree with.  Aradic-en inserted material that is controversial and not entirely supported he references he cited; the correct behavior for all parties is to discuss the issue.  Also,  has used sockpuppets to edit war (on another topic), and I am generally concerned with both Raguseo and Aradic-en who, although checkuser says "unlikely" to be sockpuppets, joined at about the same time and only edit this topic area.  I will be requesting expanded enforcement authority from ArbCom. Thatcher131 01:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement of Arbcome needed for JohnSmiths
I believe has violated the restriction placed on him at Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's. He has previously violated it but I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he did not understand that partial reverts count. He has done it again, and I have let him know, nicely, giving him a chance to self revert. He responded only by assuming bad faith and name calling.

He is restricted to only one revert per article per week. He gamed that by reverting once on Nov 7th, and then Nov.14, a few hours after the one week limit for another editor. I'm ok with that. But then he reverted my edits today. He mixed this is with other changes, which he thinks excuses it.


 * 12:08, 7 November 2007
 * 19:40, 14 November 2007


 * 08:47, 16 November 2007

The revision section in question is his removing my footnote, and this section in particular. He reverted this text found in my version:

"The book received high sales and was placed on bestsellers' lists, also receiving largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media. The reaction to the book in academic journals from Sinologists was far more critical, generally viewing the work as fundamentally flawed."

Back to his version:

"In addition to achieving high sales and being placed on bestsellers' lists, Mao: The Unknown Story received largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media. The reaction to the book from Sinologists was more critical."

He also removed the footnote, I added. These are clearly undoing another editors work, and he did so more than once within a week. I don't want to report him but he is not being reasonable, just argumentative and combative. He also denies this counts as a revert. I leave it to the wisdom of those who enforce Arbcom decisions to give the proper instruction. Thank you.Giovanni33 11:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained that my edit on the 14th November was not a reversion at all - it was a clarification. User:Cripipper had made a point on 7th November about a supposed abscence of any public response to criticism of the book. I provided fresh material that updated it to what was correct. If Cripipper had objected and changed it further, another edit by myself would have counted as a revert. But he agreed with it. Revert parole is designed to stop edit warring, not working out problems between users. Giovanni is implying that if I had made a revert and then wanted to make the change that I did on the 14th, I would have had to wait a whole week before putting it in even though the other user I had been discussing it with accepted the point. If you uphold Giovanni's complaint then that would discourage positive, consentual editing by people under a revert parole. As I have said before more than once, if we hold to Giovanni's logic then every edit on wikipedia is a revert because it undoes the actions of other editors. That is complete nonsense, so this report does not hold any water.

I'd ask that you take Giovanni in hand and stop him from making warnings like this. I see them as a means of intimidating and controlling the actions of other users. I don't even think my edit today was a revert, as I was merely updating the section to conform with that on the main article. How is that a revert? Giovanni tries to bully people to get his way. Clearly that is very much against the spirit of Wikipedia and a poor way to interact with other users. John Smith&#39;s 11:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a violation by John Smith's here. But both Giovanni and John Smith's have basically kept up with their edit warring within the limits of their 1RR/article/week restrictions - modifying each other's edits without concensus with each other first, making sure that any reverts are done outside 1RR/week, etc, etc. To the best of my knowledge, most of this is happening at Mao: The Unknown Story‎ and Jung Chang, the same articles that got them on their current restrictions in the first place. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for agreeing that there has been no violation. As for "edit-warring" between the two of us, I think what's worse is Giovanni's harrassment in making a report like this. He's trying to stop me from editing articles he's interested in, essentially, by making threats of reports like this. -- John Smith&#39;s (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually this is my first edit here, and I see John Smith's edit right after mine as a clear reversion as it reverts to his previous version, in part. My understanding is that partial reversions count. Otherwise, all one has to do is to add several other changes (as he does) within a revert, for it not to count? That makes no sense. JohnSmiths knows very well what he is doing. The previous edits also count for the same reason. If its true that the other editor agreed, then JohnSmith should have let the other editor make the change--not himself. If he makes it himself--it counts. I also noticed he waited exactly one week (nov. 14) for him to make the edit, suggesting that he knew it would count as a revert. The 3RR page clearly explains that "undoing the edits of another editor"---even if just partial---count as a revert.-- Giovanni33 (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I waited a week because I didn't have the time and also I knew you probably would try to hold it against me as a revert. If you weren't around twisting the rules I might have made it much earlier. You've also clearly ignored the point I made that I was updating incorrect information with some facts. I'll say it again - if Cripipper has objected or some such I wouldn't have made the change. As it was, he agreed with it.
 * If you want to wikilawyer that much, then any edit to existing content is a reversion. Clearly that is not the case - the guidelines are there to prevent edit-wars, not stop people making consensus changes! The more you persist with this obviously illogical line of reasoning it can only support my assertion that you are making a bad-faith report to get me in trouble - throwing lots of mud at the wall in the hope some it will stick. -- John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni - A reversion is when an edit undoes a previous edit. Which means if you added A, it would count as a reversion whether or not John Smith's removed it, changed it to B, or C or anything else, as long as his edit stands to take out A, which you added. I don't see how the second and third link you provided here are undoing the same thing. And the first edit you linked up here falls outside the 1RR/week/article restriction. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree, and that is what I think JohnSmith did. On Nov. 7th we have this "undoing" of a previous edit in the change from: "Academic opinion on the book was divided, with historians generally giving a negative response…" To his version,: “The book received high sales and was placed on bestsellers' lists, also receiving largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media....”


 * One week later, on Nov. 14th, he undid this edit by removing the text, and inserted something else--but in a different section.


 * "They have as of yet to publicly respond to specific criticisms of the book, such as examples of them deliberately misreading sources, using them selectively, or out of context (see main article). "


 * To me that counts as undoing another's edit. If JohnSmiths said that the other party agreed to remove it, then he should have let the other party remove it. I don't see that the other party agreed. JohnSmiths just assumes so because he did not edit war over it with him. But it still counts as "undoing" the other guys edit, the same way he reverted the editor a week earlier.


 * Now, John Smith claims even his latest reversion of my edits on Nov.16 do not count as even a revert?! Again, I show that he did exactly this by reverting this text found in my version "


 * "The book received high sales and was placed on bestsellers' lists, also receiving largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media. The reaction to the book in academic journals from Sinologists was far more critical, generally viewing the work as fundamentally flawed."


 * Back to his version :
 * "In addition to achieving high sales and being placed on bestsellers' lists, Mao: The Unknown Story received largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media. The reaction to the book from Sinologists was more critical."


 * Would you agree that, at least, that counts as a reversion? JohnSmiths continues to deny it, which bothers me. Btw, thank you for restoring the footnote and other information that JohnSmiths deleted in his reversion of my edit . As you noted, he failed to discuss this, which is also a violation of the terms of his revert parole.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Giovanni, give it up - you're clutching at straws now. I gave a reason for my large edit, which was to stay in conformity with the book's article but to keep things brief. Originally you tried to claim I had made two reverts. Now you're trying to claim I didn't discuss the latter so that's a violation. If you want to state I didn't discuss it "enough" then you're guilty of the same thing - my posts on the talk page following edits were about as long as yours.
 * To me that counts as undoing another's edit. If JohnSmiths said that the other party agreed to remove it, then he should have let the other party remove it. I don't see that the other party agreed. I can't make other people edit, and I certainly didn't want to rub his face in it by asking him. The fact he conceded the point was enough when he said since you have correctly unearthed a reply (of sorts) from the LRB to qualify the statement further with regard to journals would, I admit, involve an unnecessary degree of specificity. The fact I made the edit and he didn't raise even an iota of complaint, though he did take the time to write back afterwards, goes to show he agreed it was a fair replacement.
 * What I find troubling is that to you rules appear to be a means of neutralising people you disagree with. You keep ignoring the simple point that according to your logic any edit that changes existing text is a revert. Clearly the regs don't want that to be the case, so why do you persist with this non-logic? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's what I see so far. These edits at 23:11, November 6, 2007 appears to be a revert. His edit at 12:08, November 7, 2007 does not seem to be a revert - was it? I can't tell if his edit at edit at 19:40, November 14, 2007, the important one here, was a revert. If it was, what content did it revert? And his edit at 08:47, November 16, 2007 is a revert of Giovanni's earlier edit. So, Nov 6 was a revert, Nov 7 doesn't seem to have been, I'm unsure about Nov 14, and Nov 16 was a revert. Giovanni or someone else, can you show how the Nov 7 and 14 edits were reverts? Also, as JohnSmith's noted, the purpose of the remedy is to limit edit warring, so if Cripipper agrees with his edits he's not really edit-warring. Can I have a diff of Cripipper assenting to your version, JohnSmith's? Picaroon (t) 23:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Picaroon for trying to make sense of this. I agree if Cripipper stated agreement and asked JohnSmiths to make the change, as per agreement, then I don't have a problem with that. I mainly came here because John Smiths was denying he made any reversions, in particular, his reversion of my edits on Nov. 16th, which he still denies counts as a revert. I think bringing it here so it can be officially stated that he is wrong about this, is important. So, thank you for clarifying that. My interpretation of the other important edit in question was that he deleted the addition by the other editor, but if the other editor agrees, I have no problem with it. However, I think JohnSmiths would do well in the future to ask the other editor to make the change himself, if he agrees. Then there would be no question. John Smith should really err on the side of caution, instead of walking the tight rope, and grey areas, including denying that obvious reverts are not really reverts. And, on top of that making bad faith assumptions about my pointing this out to him.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Picaroon, Cripipper agreed with my changing his original statement here - pretty much the first paragraph. When he replied on the next day he didn't mention the edit at all. As far as I have been told, silence equals consensus.
 * Giovanni, I don't believe that you came here to prove I was wrong. I'll quote what you said on the talk page here. You are in violation of your revert parole here. It has already been explained to you that any undoing of another editors work, even if its partial, counts. You already reverted someone else, then waited 7 days, and now only after 3 days your revert of my changes counts as a violation. But instead of reporting you, I will give you a chance to self revert. If you do not self revert, I will report you and you will probably get blocked. Its your choice. I don't see anywhere a comment that I had reverted just once and you wanted clarification - you wanted me blocked. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Violation of revert parole by User:Giovanni33
Right this is completely absurd. First Giovanni complains I'm reverting, now he has definitely made a second revert this week here. This follows his reversionary edit here earlier on. He is also acting in bad faith because he is turning upside down the consensus we reached on Mao: The Unknown Story, re-ordering the article without prior agreement and deleting a long-standed reference. I would ask his last edit is reverted and he is blocked per the arb-comm judgment and his bad-faith editing. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't tell how the first edit is a revert. The second one definitely is, where he moved the Goodman mention back to the original place where it was added.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Picaroon implied that my edit here was not a revert due to the fact that I had obtained Cripipper's consent. If that is the case then Giovanni's first edit was a revert because he was substantially changing the page without gaining consent. He was also undoing Cripipper's change to the introduction to the section on the book. Cripipper changed it to The reaction to the book from Sinologists was divided, with historians generally giving a negative response, and non-historians a more positive reception. Giovanni then changed it to The reaction to the book in academic journals from Sinologists was far more critical, generally viewing the work as fundamentally flawed. This removed the reference to the division, which is important, so he was undoing the change.
 * At the very least he is edit-warring/gaming the system - the latter certainly by removing a long-standing review without consent, which I can't undo because then he would again complain I had broken my revert parole. He came here to report me, obviously hoping that I would get banned. Then he saw things weren't going his way, so he tried to back-paddle and claim he just wanted clarification that my last edit to the page was a revert. That's why he didn't edit the page after I did - he knew that his previous one was a revert. Now he's trying another approach which is to pretend he hadn't reverted at all, despite the fact it goes against the consensus he agreed to on Mao: The Unknown Story. That is not a good-faith approach to editing. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am under the impression that the 1RR restriction is similar to the normal 3RR rule - that it pertains to multiple reversions of one particular edit, and not reversions of different edits. That's coincidently why I don't think you (John Smith's) have broken the 1RR restriction.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong.  Either way, you cannot really accuse someone of edit-warring without also implicating a second person as well, so you might want to be careful where you're going with that.  Honestly, I suggest both you and Giovanni just stop editing those articles for a while and not risk getting sanctioned again.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, 1RR applies to 1 revert per article period. The reason I didn't break my revert parole was because at the least I got Cripipper to agree to the change. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting, JohnSmiths applies a double standard and this seems to be in bad faith and retaliatory, a point violation. My first edit was not a revert. It was my first edit introducing new material, Prof. Goodman and restructuring so that an important point is made clear. It follows the principal agreed to on the main page, and does not alter the intro sentence in meaning except to make the same point clearer, stronger. It was an attempt at a better wording, narrowing it down to academic journals, specifically (as opposed to popular press). As usual JohnSmiths tries to whitewash the criticism, and obscure this point, which is why he reverted me, and in doing I thought he probably violated this probation, as I explained above. I did do a partial reversion in my second edit, but that is my one revert--the first one doesn't revert to a previous version. And, I held off doing this edit until I had a better understanding of what would constitute a revert, per above. JohnSmith wants to have it both ways, it seems. Interesting.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comment is bad faith and again a sign of your attempts to control my editing. I can't report you because you reported me? That's ridiculous. If you don't want me to report you, don't try to game the system and dance around your revert parole so that you can force changes on to long-standing versions of the article.
 * I don't want to have it both ways because (and I've said this several times) I got an agreement with the person in question before I made the change (on the 7th). You did no such thing. So you're comparing apples with oranges. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The agreement aspect was not your idea or argument. You clearly said you made no reversions, even your reversion of my edit on Nov. 14. So, please stop changing your story over and over. At least be a little more consistent. Your hypocritical because you want to apply standards that you say don't apply to yourself, and then change the argument. This is what proves bad faith. And as far as my initial edit not obtaining agreement first, unlike you---well that is because there was no conflict. Unlike you, I was not involved in any edit war with anyone. Your edit that you say was with his agreement was only after your reverting each other on the issue. No such condition exists with me, so there was no one to obtain permission from. Disagreement only became evident once you reverted me on the same day, without even discussing anything in detail with me. Drop your combative attitude, and accusations, please! Giovanni33 (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've always said that my edit of the 14th was not a revert because I reached agreement with the other user (didn't mean to say 7th) - that is not changing the story. It's very simple - either previous to your last edit we had made 1 revert each or we had not (I don't get to decide whether my edit of the 16th was a revert, that's up to someone like Picaroon). If anything I'm arguing from a point of consistency - it's you that want to have it both ways.
 * The idea that I was having a revert war with Cripipper was a joke. We edited the article a few times and then were able to move on. As for your edit, you knew perfectly well I'd object - that's why you jumped in a day or two after I'd made by edit of 14th. You thought that was a revert so you took your opportunity to get in an edit. When I edited you reported me. When the report didn't go your way, you made another edit even though it was clear we were disagreeing. That is bad faith editing and gaming the system, even if you didn't revert twice.
 * "Accusations" - what are you talking about? I've reported you for violating your revert parole and am highlighting the fact your arguments in defence don't hold water. Again, you're trying to stop my editing. First you bullied me by claiming I'd reverted twice, then you pretended I was pushing double standards, now you're trying to make yourself out to be a victim because I'm being "combative". Please drop the act and edit in good faith. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The first edit doesn't seem to be a revert. Which of Cripipper's edits was Giovanni undoing? Please show me a diff of Crippipper's edit, copy and paste the relevant part, and then show where in Giovanni's edit this was undone. The second one was definitely a revert, as noted by HongQiGong. Picaroon (t) 18:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He made a lot of edits rather than just one. But here is a general summary of what he changed.
 * The previous version was "Academic opinion on the book was divided." This was changed to "The book received high sales and was placed on bestsellers' lists, also receiving largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media. The reaction to the book from Sinologists was divided, with historians generally giving a negative response, and non-historians a more positive reception." 12:29, 7 November 2007
 * Giovanni changed it to "The book received high sales and was placed on bestsellers' lists, also receiving largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media. The reaction to the book in academic journals from Sinologists was far more critical, generally viewing the work as fundamentally flawed." 02:02, 16 November 2007 As you can see, he undid Cripipper's reference to the division amongst Sinologists in how they viewed the book. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think this first edit of his is a revert. While Giovanni's edit did have the effect of modifying Cripipper's text so it suggests that the reaction among China-specialists was more universally negative, he wasn't undoing the change; a distinction needs to be made between modifying someone's addition and undoing someone's addition, and I think was a modification. On the content level, I would recommend finding a reference which explicitly comments on what the reaction of historians has been, as aggregating the opinions of several of them the way Cripipper did could be considered original synthesis of published opinions which have not collectively referred to as positive, negative, or in between before. Picaroon (t) 19:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no references that explicitly comment on the reaction of historians, just as there aren't any that say that "the reaction to the book in academic journals from Sinologists was far more critical, generally viewing the work as fundamentally flawed." That's why I wanted to introduce the version we agreed on for the Mao: The Unknown Story page. But as you can see from Giovanni's actions he believes he can re-write that consensus any time he pleases. Also he removed a perfectly valid and well-sourced review in his second edit (the Michael Yahuda article), which can be considered vandalism. He may not have broken the rules but he's certainly dancing around the lines and editing in bad faith. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Picaroon, and I think you know its not true that there are no references that makes this observation. For example, here is a report on that, which is currently linked to the main article page that makes exactly this same point:Giovanni33 (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your citation does not prove the text you have put into the article at all. That is a WP:SYNTH violation - even Hong agrees on that point. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No I do not. I commented about the lack of references in the Talk page before he added the reference.  The text right now does not necessarily reflect the source 100%, but it's hardly a synthesis violation.  I've offered a proposed change in the Talk page.  Hopefully you two can agree with it or at least agree with how to present what the source says.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to broker a solution here
John Smith's and Giovanni - how about the both of you self-impose a ban on editing Jung Chang and Mao: The Unknown Story? Keep discussing the edits you want on the Talk pages, and if the two of you can agree on an edit, I'll make the edit myself. And to make sure I'm neutral, I won't make edits to those articles unless the two of you agree on the edits to make. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, but if we agree to an edit on a talk page either person can do it. Though you can still agree to not make your own edits without prior agreement between us two. But I still want Giovanni's last edit reverted as he was breaking long-standing consensus in removing conent through breaking his revert parole/gaming the system. He also undermined the consensus reached on Mao: The Unknown Story. If we are to enter into something like this it's only fair he show some good faith in that respect. If we're to start off with the current version we'll never get anywhere. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks HongQiGong. I proposed this same solution before, as I felt that if JohnSmith wasn't trying to POV push and violate undue Weight, I would not have to have any conflicts with him--and he only seems to do it on this one topic/issue. I don't have any objection to your proposal. We could both be active on the talk page and convince others to make the edits per our suggestions. This can start now, with the contested aspects that currently exist. I believe my edits are consistent with consensus obtained in the main article page.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Giovanni that is complete nonsense. We reached consensus on the version currently in the book's article. For you to imply you can make arbitrary changes including deleting an entire referenced extract is not credible. If this is going to work you need to stop trying to game the system and twisting things to suit yourself. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The section in this article does not reproduce the entire section in the main article. It is, and should be, a shortened version of that. My main changes follow that. I removed the Guardian piece to save space, as you had added in others, making it larger. My choice in trimming was to keep the best sources, i.e. academic ones, hence my taking out the Guardian piece. Leave that for the main article. In fact, even in the main article, that addition was contentious, due to its non-scholarly nature.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're dodging the issue. We agreed on various parts, such as the lead/intro to the debate section and inclusion of the Yahuda article. Too bad if you would have preferred the Yahuda piece wasn't part of consensus but it was. You changed the wording arbitrarily and removed the review. Also if you wanted to make it shorter you could have also deleted a point from the criticism section. Yet you completely removed the Guardian piece. You added the review so I added one myself and added a little content to the Yahuda article. That was balanced - there was no need to remove it.

John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's - yeah if the two of you agree with an edit, either of you can do it. '''That should have been happening about 6 months ago. But we are still not seeing it after the two of you have been sanctioned.''' You two are experienced editors, for all this time you've been feuding, you could have been agreeing to edits before making them. But obviously that's not what's happening here. The two of you are editing and reverting each other without reaching an agreement with each other first. So this is why I suggest you both self-ban yourselves from editing. Let me be blunt here - the two of you editing against each other is very disruptive. Please stop. Instead of further engaging in your prolonged tit-for-tat to gain the upper hand against each other, just stop editing those articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've said I'm happy to work something out if Giovanni reverts his last edit. I'm not going to give someone a veto over any changes I make to the article if he won't even abide by the consensus we reached on the other article and tries to redefine it to suit himself. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring under different names at BKSWU
New user:Ugesum appears to be today's incarnation of AWachowski/LWachowski/Nexxt 1/etc. He has picked up exactly where the latter left off on the BKWSU page with persistent large-scale edits without discussion or attempts to gain consensus. Further, as an extremely vehement ex-BK member he suffers from a COI (and is a single-purpose account). Please see Ugesum's first edit below and then compare with the exact same persistent edit reversions in the following difs:

(With this massive change above, identical to those difs below, this is all he wrote on the talk page.)
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=172445848&oldid=172120342


 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=169339063&oldid=169128361
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=169484684&oldid=169365976
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=169512295&oldid=169496108
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=169531222&oldid=169526066
 * 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=169695579&oldid=169548520
 * 6) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=171341777&oldid=170961438

This is getting extremely tiresome. He just changes usernames and comes back as a different person over the different months (and check his userpages, they are full of warnings). Then, he tries to file complaints on his own when really he is the one not discussing changes, making wholesale reverts, and engaging in the fililng of numerous false reports like this and [ this].

I filed a report on the ANI board and everyone keeps referring the case to the arbitration board (including AWachowski/ugesum/green108/etc.'s reports) and then nothing happens.

I am happy to work in good faith with this editor but all he is interested in is reverting to his version, attacking what he perceives to be the pro-BK person (i.e., user Bksimonb), and then filing numerous reports on edits that were in response to his wholesale reversions without discussions.

Please help! I have absolutely no affiliation with BKWSU and came to this article from an RFA. This is a waste of good-faith editors' time. Thank you for looking into this. Renee (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Renee. From my experience, I think the response will be that we need to file a Request for Clarification on the Requests for Arbitration page. The problem, as I understand it, is that the scope of enforcement needs to be extended to cover disruptive editing by editors other than the banned 244 editor. Such as request was suggested some time ago has been declined on the basis that the article was improving and there weren't sufficient problems to re-open the case. I am hoping to prepare a draft request some time in the next week but unfortunately I'm working more hours than I usually do so can't promise. I would hope that this issue has been going on for long enough now to merit a review. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- you'll be preparing this then? I'd be happy to endorse it.  This is getting ridiculous.  Renee (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In the case of an editor editing under multiple user names (especially editing the same article) you can file a Request for checkuser and if the accounts match, have all but one blocked as sockpuppets. This is separate from and in addition to any arbitration remedies that might exist. Thatcher131 20:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User:RJ CG
We have had several weeks of peace since the conclusion of Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren, now RJ CG has returned flagging his intention to deliberately to create an article Whitewashing of Nazi Collaboration in modern Estonia, even attempting to provoke participants on Wikiproject Estonia. Could somebody remind RJ CG that a specific remedy against turning Wikipedia into a battleground is in force Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren, and if he persists this will be taken to ArbCom. Martintg (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring related to "The Troubles"
The article Birmingham pub bombing is the subject of an edit war involving parties to the Arbcom case on "The Troubles". Two substantive issues appear to be in dispute: whether it is appropriate to add the article to Category:Massacres in the United Kingdom and whether the article should include a list of those killed in the explosion.

Relevant links:
 * Requests for arbitration/The Troubles
 * Birmingham pub bombing revision log during the edit war
 * Discussion on the Irish Wikipedians' notice board
 * Talk:Birmingham pub bombings
 * Discussion on my talk page: User talk:BrownHairedGirl

I have participated in the IWNB dicussion and expressed some views on the substantive issues on my talk page, so I take no view on whether arbcom enforcement is appropriate, beyond noting that it may fall within the arbcom ruling that "edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator".

I note that the edit-war appears to be fizzling out, with the last edit at 02:07 today. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See Also:


 * User:Dreamafter/Mediation/Answer/Summaries/Final/Discussion
 * this
 * and this --Domer48 (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with BHG. This is the sort of edit-warring that the probation was designed to stop. Having been chastised for enforcing the probation previously, as an "involved" admin, admins such as myself, BHG, Alison and SirFozzie are not in a position to do so. Could an "uninvolved" editor please take the appropriate action regarding those that have been ignoring their weekly WP:1RR limit. Rockpock  e  t  20:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See also the latest edit war at . - Kittybrewster &#9742;  11:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Gosh, it's quiet here. We should have a visitors' book for the people who find their way here! It does seem rather pointless having the ArbCom going to all the time and effort of considering 'the Troubles' if neither that Committee nor an 'uninvolved Admin' is prepared to enforce the judgment six weeks after it was handed down and one week since BrownHairedGirl posted her request for enforcement. Ah well! Now please excuse me - I'm off for a little light edit-warring myself! --Major Bonkers (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked into this a bit. As far as I can tell, none of the participants in the edit war were under probation, and the edit war has stopped because the page has been protected. So, unless I missed something (which is entirely possible), no action is required at this time. --Akhilleus

talk) 17:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This comment is inappropriate to the process of mediation or the findings of Arbcom - there was no finding not to add the list. Aatomic1 (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Alison, who made unfounded allegations against me during the Arbcom. Has placed me on probation. I have made this comment to the cabal and would respecfully request the input of an uninvolved administrator Aatomic1 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorsed - I'd appreciate that, too - Alis o n  ❤ 23:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The closing of the mediation now accurately reflects the situation Aatomic1 (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite - Alis o n  ❤ 00:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like two parties asked for independent admin input, so here goes: 1) the opinion of the cabal seems clear 2) User:Aatomic1 clearly doesn't want to accept that, but really should...not everything goes you way in life, friend. For peer mediation to work, all parties need to be willing to give in, even when things don't go their way. 3) The ArbCom decision is very clear about edit warring on related articles. 4) User:Aatomic1 is clearly edit warring, and clearly not respecting the process, which is not a very gentlepersonly thing to do 5) Based on the ArbCom ruling, User:Alison was correct in applying the probation/pan provisions to User:Aatomic1. 6} For a community to work, everyone needs to respect each other, even when (and especially when) they disagree; I would thus strongly suggest to User:Aatomic1 that he exercise such respect. AKRadecki Speaketh 00:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Akradecki. It looks like I had pretty poor timing with my earlier post here--Birmingham pub bombings was unprotected at 17:15, I posted at 17:22--so I missed out on today's edit war. But the probation of Aatomic1 seems warranted. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * On the birmingham case...the way the mediation has been done is VERY strange. The case has essentially not been closed.  The input of several editors was apparently ignored.  Hughsheehy (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove
Related links:

User:Giovanni Giove User:151.67.87.93 Istrian Exodus

He was restricted to one edit per week per article with discussion. He edited Istrian Exodus EIGHT TIMES IN ONE DAY. He also is using the IP as a sock to attack user:DIREKTOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gp75motorsports (talk • contribs)
 * That IP address appears to be LEO, not Giovanni Giove. Picaroon (t) 02:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am still skeptical about him. He needs a checkuser. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, so file one at WP:RFCU. Tell us if there are any arbitration committee decisions which require enforcement. Picaroon (t) 16:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is personal attack!!!! Giovanni Giove is in Venice and I stay in Altamura: you can control!!!! LEO is my technical and variable IP!!!! Stop this personal attack against Giovanni Giove!!!! LEO, 28 nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.85.5 (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Bakasuprman / Hkelkar 2
User:Bakasuprman and User:Dbachmann were parties to the ill-starred Hkelkar 2 arbitration case. At Requests for comment/Dbachmann_2, Bakasuprman has made a statement which starts "Dbachmann's pernicious racism and obvious incivility is a noxious menace on the India related pages. He is inherently prejudiced against actual Indians/Hindus editing pages on India and Hinduism..." The statement contains other allegations of racial/religious bias, supported by a collection of misinterpreted, out of context, or mischaracterized diffs, including the infamous "shithole" comment. And, when Bakasuprman refers to "Herr Dbachmann", I doubt it's intended as a mark of respect. User conduct RfCs are a place for frank speech, but this is going over the line.

Remedy #7 ("On Notice") in the Hkelkar 2 case states "All parties are reminded in the strongest possible terms that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for conspiracy, personal attacks, nor the continuation of ethnic disputes by other means. Parties who continue such behaviour, and parties who consider it their moral duty to call out such behaviour, will be hit on the head with sticks until the situation improves." Since Bakasuprman's statement contains a nice helping of personal attacks and since he seems to belive that it's his moral duty to throw light on Dbachmann's supposed anti-Indian bias, I think it might be time to apply a stick. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Here – actually, Dbachmann's characterisation of "Indian trolls" does seem to be problematic. And since, there have been really offensive comments made in the past, I really doubt, if his attitude towards "the Indians" and the Indian users has improved. And some of his comments directed at the "Africans" don't really make me emphatic to his cause either. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  07:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sir Nick, I'm sure you realize that in that diff, Dbachmann was referring to this edit by User:Xyzisequation, whom I blocked as a throwaway sockpuppet. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with this area knows that there's a plague of trolling accounts afflicting Wikipedia's India-related articles; the continuing activities of Hkelkar and Kuntan are obvious examples.


 * I don't think it matters, but for completeness' sake I'll note that Sir Nick was also a party to Hkelkar 2. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you explain to me what does the phrase – "Indian trolls" means? Are there trolls and Indian trolls too? — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  07:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to know that too. I remember reading that statement and going "hmm." And for completeness sake, I would like to note that I am not a party to anything.  I have just noticed dab make some seriously offensive statements towards Indians in the past year or so.  No, I don't have a list of wikilinks to show.  --Blacksun (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Akhilleus has turned from an admin to a forum-shopper, ,  Akhilleus' wikilawyering for Dbachmann and  is despicable. Arbcom instituted Remedy #5 for a reason, that alone should be food for thought.
 * Is this what Arbcom is? Wikipedia is a place for contributions, a place where anyone can edit. I would hope that personal feuds dont become the norm on these boards, because that certainly takes away from the value of the pedia when users are subjected to unjustified harassment. This, even while users are innocently working to protect the reputation of the pedia, which is (in no small way) tied to the quality of admins. Attempting to make admins more accountable for their actions can hardly violate the spirit of "remedy 7" which has been grossly misrepresented. Thoughtcrime. Baka man  19:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As for "Herr", I removed that after seeing that my olive branch of understanding enraged the great protector of Wikipedia, Akhilleus. Even as he referred to the land of my ancestors as a "shithole" and my religious brethren as "hopeless" and "sexually aroused by old people", I stood in stark contrast to his ethnocentric rants by engaging in some cultural understanding, utilizing a respectable title to refer to Dbachmann. Baka man  19:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Bakaman, I'm glad that you removed the "herr" comment, but, don't try to justify it as a nicety, it was a mean thing to say. (I'm not saying this to you to downplay things that Dbachmann has said. But it is sort of hard to ask other users to be civil when you aren't being civil yourself.) futurebird (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a bit more than "mean". If you're accusing someone of being racist, then mention their German (or in this case German-speaking Swiss) heritage, well...do I really have to spell out what's being implied? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the implied accusation is lower than low. It's deeply ironic that User:Bakasuprman complains of others carrying on "personal feuds" and displaying "ethnocentric" behavior. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont agree with your spurious extrapolations, especially when its patently obvious that Dbachmann is the only one that has referred to users as "fascist". What perturbs users is that certain admins think petty feuds are more important than fighting trolls like . Baka man  05:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Again with the Willy on Wheels thing? Listen, if you spot WoW, post to ANI, and he'll be taken care of quickly. If you think Willy is a more serious problem than your repeated (and specious) accusations of ethnic and religious prejudice, well, I guess I see why you call this a "petty feud." Apparently, you think that calling people racists is no big deal. Why, then, do you pretend that you meant nothing by referring to "Herr Dbachmann"? Why even bother complaining about his behavior at all, when it's so "petty"? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the histories involved, Akhilleus' note here seems rather pointy and pointless. Everything he's given there is sadly, par for the course. Akhilleus would do well to post dab's vicious responses too, failing which his note here would appear hypocritical. And need I remind people here that Kelkar2 was about the arbcom unceremoniously throwing out Akhilleus' friends' case and upholding Baka and others' credentials as editors in good standing. Sarvagnya 15:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, this is really quite brilliant. My post is about Bakasuprman, but starting with Sir Nick's first response, it's somehow turned into another flood of complaints about Dbachmann. Sarvagnya seems to be saying that Baksuprman's behavior isn't objectionable because dab's responses are "vicious". Is he saying that two wrongs make a right? At least that's an (implicit) acknowledgment that Bakasuprman's behavior is uncivil, I suppose that's a start. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not saying that two wrongs make a right. Only saying that dab gets as good as he gives and your crybaby finger pointing is quite lame and you're only wasting the community's time.  Bakaman's been through two arbcoms and come out clean.  Its simply time that you let go. Sarvagnya 03:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * One might well say that in response to Bakasuprman's statement as well, since he can't seem to get over a statement Dbachmann made back in 2005. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is merely an introduction to many more numerous diffs that have been provided. Neither myself nor Dbachmann complain about each other's civility, seeing that the incantation "WP:CIVIL!" is often used as a way to stifle discussion. Distrust of forum-shopping springs from actions like these that serve to perpetuate falsehood and character assassination on Wikipedia.  Baka man  05:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My Case
As per Kirill's message [] I kindly request Admins to look into possibility of removing my parole as I never got involved in any incivility in my discussions and edits. Thank you in advance for your consideration. --Aynabend (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am still conserned that while users Andranikpasha, VartanM and Baku87 were relieved of their parole per Kirill's comment[], I did not get the same treatment. I am the only one left paroled.  I claim equal treatment and insist that my parole be lifted. --Aynabend 07:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Aynabend, just to let you know, I'm looking into his as we speak, I'll speak to the admin that placed you on parole.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've already spoken to him about it so I've removed your name as there was no incivility coming from your account. Please be aware however that edit warring is extremely bad practice, and this can lead to blocks, even without infringing on the three revert rule.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Dan inflaming Eastern European topics

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

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

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


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

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

User's contribution to mainspace are less disruptive but contain a high percentage of problematic edits. For example, in addition to edits with uncivil edit summaries linked above, consider the inflammatory potential of edits like those:
 * November 22: removes a Polish name variant in contradiction of WP:NCGN guideline
 * December 6: moves an article to a non-neutral and not recommended by MoS name with "" marks
 * December 7: moves a stable article to a (mispelled) title already rejected in a past RM

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

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

 * Question: Is collecting and maintaining laundry lists of grievances as shown here waiting for the best time to unload them at the opportune time considered "civil", "assumption of good faith" or even decent? Does such approach fall under the radar of WP:STALK and WP:BATTLE policies? Obviously, following the  discovery in the past ArbCom, the list moved but, as evidenced above, the maintenance is as meticulous as ever. Why should we wait for a later time the to see the diffs compiled on M.K., Lokyz, Irpen, Ghirlandajo and others? Let's consider everything at once. I don't condone Dr Dan's comments, but we have seen enough of the undercover detective agencies? Now, I expect a response, like why are you unhappy when I back it up with the diffs. My answer is I am unhappy with  continued long-term project to expunge opponents. Piotrus, doing so is worse than Dr Dan's sins. Why are you still doing it despite being told how this is perceived by other editors? Again, I repeat, my question is narrow. Why are you still doing it, Piotrus? --Irpen 10:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As that ArbCom proved, collecting evidence is expected. And as then I find it hard to understand why you are more critical of complaining about people's right to present comprehensive evidence than of maldoers who are the reason for the complain. Unless... it is because I am the one complaining? Or because you have been found to engage in similar actions? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Collecting evidence suggests that one has concerns already. If such is the case, then those concerns either need to be voiced and resolved, or they need to be dismissed.  For example, if I think that Irpen is being hostile, then I have to address that.  I should address it with him.  If that is unsatisfactory, then I should bring in other people to work it out.  If that does not work, and if things remain ongoing problems, then I have dispute resolution means.  What I should not be doing is saying, "This isn't strong enough to convict, but I can get lots of instances together."  If the behavior in the past is not something that rises to the level of causing disruption, then they should be let be.  Collecting as you go suggests a plan to "get" someone.  Having a file like that does show bad intent.  This is not to say anything about the current case.  Geogre (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidence that shows a longitudinal pattern of disruption requires that you either spend a several hours at one time digging through somebody's contributions 'looking for dirt' or you document it as it occurs. Neither of them is how I prefer to spend my time on this project, but sometimes somebody needs to gather and present such evidence, and I don't believe either of those ways is better or worse. How one collects such evidence should not be regulated; neither should users be forced to gather evidence for DR if they don't wish. I hate wasting my time on DR; I came to this project to write encyclopedic content, not to document trolling - but if I believe trolling is disruptive enough, I should be allow to prepare evidence for DR in a format and timeframe that I believe is right. In any case, since we are not discussing Irpen here, I don't see how his comments about me are relevant here; I do appreciate him saying that he doesn't "condone Dr Dan's comments" but I consider his comments about "detective agencies" and collecting evidence on trolling being worse than trolling itself rather improper, particularly given the ArbCom ruling that neither of us is likely to be neutral in looking at behavior of the other one. I don't stalk Irpen questioning his actions and judgment in DR procedures that don't involve me, and I'd expect the same courtesy from him.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * Generaly Irpen has always been against enforcing civility rules from what I remember so I don't think it is worth trying to convice him otherwise.
 * As to the claim, yes Dan is very disruptive and hostile editor that taunts Polish users quite frequently. It's a part of a wider problem in Wikipedia that is the lowering of standards of discussion here. Instead of encyclopedia we find shouting games and flames. Sadly relevant boards that tried to keep this under control were closed.--Molobo (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


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


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

We are discussing the problems that plague the EE topics and the worst problems and the one that need to be addressed, is strenuous relations between editors and distrust that breeds animosity. Vicious activity aimed at clearing the field of the content opponents fuels this animosity much more than any individual slip from anyone's tongue. You should try to work out the disagreement, including through DR methods when the rest fails, as soon as anything goes wrong rather than "document" them for months until you think you have "enough". Your conduct breeds the worst climate and should not be legitimized in any way by being allowed in the ArbCom proceedings. I am willing to talk to Dan and ask him to cut on the innuendo but I request that you unload everything yet hidden that you "documented" on myself, Ghirla, MK and whoever now so that we work it out or just discard that and in the future always work things out seeking consensus and harmonious editing rather than victories in content disputes through clearing the field. --Irpen 03:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the major problems is tolerance of severe incivility and rude comments. Rigorous discipline in that matter should be made and all violations of civility punished. It would well to clear up the atmosphere. I remember to this day h when one editor threw obscene words at me, and nothing was done about it. Incidents like that downgrade Wikipedia's prestige and the atmosphere of cooperation between editors.--Molobo (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not me who launched a series of DR including an ArbCom against editors involved in our subject areas; it was your friends (Ghirla and M.K.) who forced me to compile evidence to defend myself. When the list was kept online for the very reason that it could be referenced to and editors mentioned in it asked to review their behavior, you have complained about it in the ArbCom, going as far as to say that the very existence of evidence against have offended you so much that you have withdrawn from this project for a month or so. Despite that the ArbCom failed to endorse your proposals to condemn my method of evidence gathering, I have blanked the list so that editors like you don't have to stumble upon it and be offended again. And now you want me to recreate it and advertise it? I am sorry, Irpen, but I will exercise my right as a free editor to collect (or not) the evidence when and how I like, and present it where and when I like for DR proceeding, as recommended by our DR policies. If you are afraid that I may gather evidence on you and your friends, may I suggest, simply, that you act within our guidelines and give others no opportunity to find any diffs where you have broken them. As the ArvCom involving me has shown - by not finding me guilty of any infringements (despite you and your friends proposing dozens in the workshop) - one can edit Wikipedia for years and yet respect our policies. I am sure you and your friends could do it, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO both Piotrus and Dan are guilty in violation of the arbcom ruling. Piotrus is guilty in maintaining the black lists on his opponents, Dan is guilty in unprovoked personal attacks on Piotrus. I would think that warning would be sufficient in the both cases because violations were relatively mild, but I would understand if an uninvolved administrator will use blocks on both participants to show that the arbcom decision has teeth Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are proposing to ban a person because he is being attacked and gave examples of those attacks. Logical ? Also it is interesting to see how the discussion was turned from Dan issue and his constant harassment of several editors into proposal to ban Piotrus.Welcome to Wiki, sigh.--Molobo (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not get it. The topic is Dr. Dan, and here we have another user trying to meander and blame Piotrus for somebody else's wrongdoings. Please, Alex, this is not about Piotrus. Tymek (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ArbCom has never criticized my method of evidence gathering, hence I am not guilty of any infraction; by ignoring Irpen's workshop proposals to condemn this method in fact ArbCom has shown that my method was acceptable. Further, we are not discussing how I collected evidence months ago but how Dr. Dan is behaving now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dr Dan was a party to Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus, he was well aware of the need to edit courteously. Given that there is a general restriction applicable for all editors of EE articles, I am surprised that the admins here have not acted in regard to Dr Dan's long list of poor behaviour, while User_talk%3ASander_Säde was recently given a 24 hour block for this single infraction. Martintg (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A very good point, Marting.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What the hell all this fuss is about? It is a sacred right of every user to collect evidence on inproper behaviour of other users. Above discussion is just absurd, off-topic and trying to confuse readers. No single post about reporter's concerns were reported, therefore I propose some admin should lock this evidence talk up. - Darwinek (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see Piotrus maintaining a blacklist. Keeping track of bad things you run across isn't problematic. This is covered by WP:STALKING. What Piotrus has done isn't, and is entirely beside the point. We should be looking at the contributions of User:Dr. Dan, not a meta page that at a minimum works to ensure compliance with our best practices here. --Hammersoft 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE:I find it rather tasteless that the discussion about Dr. Dan is littered with accusations against the reporter. How is it possible to sensibly understand, comment and resolve the matter when most of the discussion is totally off topic? Irpen is welcome to start his own enforcement request about Piotrus, who is subject to the same restriction, if he can prove that Piotrus's actions have been in violation with the conditions, I belive. A clerk would be useful to clean out the irrelevant accusations.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not uncommon in disputes for one or both sides to attack the messenger. I don't mean to pin blame on any one party, but just want to note that this sort of thing is common. We should work to eliminate it, but recognize that it is as common as it is, and handle it thus appropriately. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Kherli
I don't have the time to look a this right now, so it would be nice if someone else could check it out. I am copying a message I received on my talk page below: Thanks! Dmcdevit·t 00:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

Atabek
is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. After reverting Shusha article, he leaves the following comment in the talkpage:
 * "Andranikpasha, back at removing referenced material after the lifting of his parole. Please, stop doing that, follow WP:NPOV and achieve consensus. On a side note, why the article does not mention the fact that Shusha was founded as a capital of Karabakh khanate?"

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


 * Edit warring considered harmful: Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.
 * Reverting to the version you prefer and accusing another user of not reaching consensus while the last time you posted anything in the talkpage was month ago


 * Consensus: Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.
 * Accusing another user of not reaching consensus while he didn't reach one either.


 * Wikipedia is not a battleground: Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable.
 * Commenting on another user while you just reverted the article turns Wikipedia into a battleground. Andranikpasha was wise enough to ignore his comments.


 * Disruptive editing: Users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site.
 * Reverting the article and not discussing the revert is disruptive and this report here is a testament to that disruption.


 * Courtesy: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.
 * Words that are spelled out in CAPS letters and targeted toward another user are not intimidating and create hostile enviorment.


 * Assume good faith: Users are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those whom they had conflicts with in the past.
 * No comment.


 * Diplomacy: It is when there are serious disagreements that courteous negotiation is most necessary.
 * He wasn't negotiating nor was he courteous.


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


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


 * VartanM, why don't you assume good faith, stop targeting me, and please, check the disruptions of User:Andranikpasha instead, whom you're supposed to actually mentor.
 * On Shusha pogrom (1920) - 3 reverts within 2 days removing POV tag without consensus achieved on talk page -, ,
 * On Shusha - 3 reverts within a week -, , joined by his assigned mentor, that is yourself -  in between.
 * So VartanM, it's clear that the lifting of User:Andranikpasha's parole did not serve the lessening of edit warring, just the opposite, it fueled it further by increasing the number of his reverts without complete discussion and consensus across several pages. And I hope arbitrators and administrators will pay attention to such disruptive editing as well as mentorship. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

Vartan, Atabek is not going to get blocked. You might as well not waste more of your (valuable) time here. I am also concerned about Andranikpasha's edits - there's stuff there that needs looking into. The edit-warring is a valid concern. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 18:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we already established that. I was going to move along, just as I noted, if it wasn't for Atabek and Grandmaster soapboxing about Andranikpasha. Atabek presents 3 diffs of "reverts" where only one is a revert. What happened to assume good faith that Atabek was preaching minutes ago? How can an administrator tolerate such misinformation? And you were so quick to jump into the conclusion that Andranik was edit warring. I guess its easy for you to just ignore the problems and hope that they go away, I would go away if you did something to stop the disruption that Atabek is causing. This actually proves my point about the AA2 being big waste of time and arbitrators not reading the evidence presented or enforcing the sanctions they passed. I really hope that you get elected into this arbcom for the simple reason that you comment, even if its 6 days late. I'll take your advise and not waste your time anymore. VartanM (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And here is more evidence of User:Andranikpasha's edit warring:
 * At Tzitzernavank Monastery - 3 reverts within 3 days, pushing the same unsourced and absolutely non-neutral information -, ,.
 * Also, User:TigranTheGreat just moved the article Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907 - without any comment on talk page. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since Atabek's arbcom restrictions violation was conveniantly ignored by several admins and in addition turned into a discussion of Andranikpasha's edits might as well point out that it's becoming more and more clear that the edits of Grandmaster and Atabek as well as several other users are becoming more and more in unison ergo Andranikpasha's reverts on one article as so generously provided by user Grandmaster on a topic regarding user Atabek. I wonder if there is some behind the scenes coordination going on? --  Ευπάτωρ   <font color=#974423>Talk!! 21:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is only one revert there, and Tigran left a rather lengthy comment in the talkpage and he actually explained why he was doing it. So now its Tigrans fault that you didn't explain your revert? Whos next? MarshallBagramyan? Euprator? Fedayee? VartanM (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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


 * I think it is about the time admins pay attention to the offensive comments Tigran leaves on talk pages. This is the recent example: Referring to Azerbaijani people as "so called "Azerbaijanis" does not help building consensus and may result in baiting other contributors and further escalation of the dispute. Tigran's attempt to move the page without any consensus on talk was not helpful either. This has to stop. Grandmaster (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And this is the fourth rv by User:Andranikpasha on Shusha pogrom (1920) within the last week, ironically marked as "compromise": This user was just relieved of his parole (along with a few others), and I don't see that he changed his behavior in the least. Grandmaster (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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


 * That was my first rv on that article in months, and I just restored my edit that was removed from the article by Andranik without any consensus on talk. Andranik made 6 rvs on this article alone after his parole was lifted. Grandmaster (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

TigranTheGreat
User:TigranTheGreat, a party to two ArbCom cases, , has been placed under supervised editing per most recent ArbCom. He has recently violated the remedy by editing the talk page of Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907 in an offensive manner directed:
 * a) against a nationality -  with remarks like: "...Italians and Germans. These two nationalities were well developed ethnic groups..." and "The loss of Nagorno-Karabakh alone presents a very real fear to so called "Azerbaijanis" about losing their own identity"
 * b) against another contributor -.

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


 * This discussion of national identity is fascinating but I don't see anything that is actionable under the terms of the editing restriction. We need to understand that what is "offensive" is often judged from different points of view, but ultimately some sort of "Average person" standard needs to apply.   As an interested but uninvolved bystander, I don't find anything offensive in quoting a scholar as saying the Azeri people have a weak sense of national identity, or quoting a historian saying that the Azeri identity is a product of 20th century politics, although I acknowledge those views might anger or offend some Azeris.  If we were to take action against every comment that could be interpreted as offensive by the most sensitive editor, all of you would have been banned long ago.  Perhaps there is something more serious that I have missed in the above, very lengthy discussion.  If so, please make a new, brief report with clear and obvious diffs of the problem.  Thank you. Thatcher131 01:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Rosencomet and Starwood related articles
User:Rosencomet has been violating the terms of the Starwood Arbitration. The Starwood Arbitration had this proposed remedy: "Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages."

This has actually been an ongoing problem since the end of the arbitration in March 2007. The central articles affected are:


 * Starwood Festival
 * Association for Consciousness Exploration
 * Winterstar Symposium
 * Jeff Rosenbaum Autobiography concerns, see here.

Rosencomet has used the phrase "as executive director of ACE" so he has a conflict of interest in editing all three of the non-autobio articles.


 * Winterstar Symposium: A section is marked with a laundry list tag . Rosencomet reverts without addressing the issue. On the talk page, Rosencomet is combatative and aggressively argumentative in his approach to the discussion. (This diff covers several consecutive edits by Rosencomet)


 * Starwood Festival: When asked for inline citations and integration of references into the body of the article, Rosencomet responds by adding a link to the Starwood website and removes the citation needed tag. Rosencomet's response on the talk page is again aggressively combatative  I'd also like to note that Rosencomet has apparently been using Google's book search to add references to the article. In other words, if a book mentions Starwood in passing, he will put it in the references section. Many of these are clearly trivial mentions and add nothing of substance to the references beyond increasing the numbers. I believe this kind of empty bloating of references should be avoided in favour of refs primarily about the subject of the article.


 * Jeff Rosenbaum: WP:COI issues are blatantly apparent here since, as noted above, Rosencomet is undoubtedly Mr. Rosenbaum. A look at the history will show he has extensively edited this page. Most recently is this series of edits . Note, among other problems, his insertion of the Starwood website as a reference for information. On the talk page, Rosencomet refers to himself as "the subject" in an attempt to deflect the COI issues.

All of this shows that, despite Arbcom admonitions, he still behaves as if WP core policies are only a matter of opinion and the normal Wikipedia rules don't apply to him. Over a year after these issues were brought to his attention in the strongest possible way and he still responds with hostility when policies are pointed out to him. (I also believe he is still creating articles that astroturf for his festivals and group but this was not specifically ruled on in the Arbcom case.)

I tried to be brief with this but have obviously failed. Because I was the person who brought the arbitration against Rosencomet, I feel my judgment and ability to enforce the arbcom decision is limited. Even bringing the issue here caused me some hesitation but I think my concerns stand independent of my involvement in the Arbcom case. Pigman ☿ 00:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, he's getting aggressive. I checked in on some of the articles that were mentioned in the Arb, and his contribs, and attempted to address some of the problems. This is some of what did in response: Reversions, insertions of more rosencomet.com links, insertions in his autobio of links to forum posts he's made (calling them "articles") and reverting when they are removed, screaming edit summaries, accusations of stalking and attempts to find another contributor to edit on his behalf:     Looking further back, we also see that since the Arbitration he has continued to add mentions of himself and his products (usually tapes he sells) to articles:     . I think it is clear that, even after having it explained to him by Arbcom and numerous editors, Rosencomet does not seem to think that WP guidelines apply to him, or to the articles he works on (and he still seems to have trouble telling the difference between the two). After all this time on WP, he still responds to the efforts of other editors to apply basic standards to these articles as some sort of personal attack. - <font face="comic sans ms"> Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 02:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I decided to look into 's mention of, continuing to create "articles that astroturf for his festivals and group." On his user page, Rosencomet has recently added a list of articles he's created, and which he appears to still be editing. Looking through them I found that Matthew Abelson, Armor & Sturtevant, John Bassette, Steve Blamires, Brushwood Folklore Center, Baba Raul Canizares, Miriam Chamani, Ian Corrigan, Phyllis Curott, Jim Donovan (musician), Sally Eaton, Robert Lee "Skip" Ellison, Philip H. Farber, LaSara FireFox, Laurence Galian, Victoria Ganger, Jesse Wolf Hardin, George R. Harker, Richard Kaczynski, Lehto and Wright, List of Neo-Pagan festivals and events, Louis Martinie', Patricia Monaghan, Christopher Moore (author), M. Macha Nightmare, Owain Phyfe, Lauren Raine, Nicki Scully, Chas Smith, Patricia Telesco, Trance Mission, and Harvey Wasserman all include links to Starwood or Winterstar (the festivals Rosencomet runs), sometimes to his autobio, and usually also to rosencomet.com (which is often the only source cited in these generally unsourced articles). While ArbCom did not rule on the appropriateness of the links, those familiar with the festival, the artists, and the Neopagan milieu did, in this RfC: Talk:Starwood Festival. Of the editors weighing in, the consensus was clearly that the internal and external links to Starwood, Winterstar, and other projects run by Jeff Rosenbaum were "a clear case of linkspam to a commercial site, and that the internal linkspam is as inappropriate as the external linkspam." Looking back over it, it looks like while a couple people were somewhat neutral, the only voice of clear support for Rosencomet's extensive linking to his projects belonged to the Ekajati/999/Hanuman Das/etc sock drawer, now indef-blocked by Arbcom. I think we have a definite problem here. And note, I did not go through his complete contribs, which, skimming the list, I know also includes articles with Starwood links. - <font face="comic sans ms"> Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 04:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since this was precisely the problem that got him to arbitration in the first place, I don't see how we can overlook it. Perhaps we need to go back to ArbCom and ask for a restriction, since his entire purpose for being on Wikipedia appears to be boosting his own interests. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The arbitration case was really about disruption and sockpuppetry on the part of a supporter and an opponent of Rosencomet. Rosencomet's own behavior (at the time) was mostly reasonable.  Of course, his editing often involves conflicts of interest, but COI editing is not prohibited; editors are warned that COI editing can lead to bad behavior and are advised to listen to the advice of more experienced wikipedians on things like notability, linkspam, and the like.  The question I have is, how has Rosencomet behaved when confronted with these points (and hopefully by editors other than Kathryn and Pigman, who have past issues with him)?  Does he react abusively to removal of links or deletion nominations?  has he attacked other editors who have pointed out problems with his edits?  If this is largely a content dispute over the notability of topics he edits that he has an interest in, it seems that the normal content processes should be followed (Third opinion, request for comment, mediation) and only approach arbitration if his behavior in defense of his edits crosses the usual boundaries (incivility, edit warring, etc). Thatcher131 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thatcher, I take your point about the central issues of the arb case. However I note that, except for three very minor edits by others, Rosencomet has been the sole maintainer of the Starwood Festival article since the end of the Arbcom case. I think this is in no small part because people are adverse to enter the situation. The article has a number of obvious problems, from OR to "references" that merely mention Starwood briefly to rather blatant POV/puffery. It irks me to see obvious problems and feel I can't edit the article without being accused of attacking Rosencomet and/or Starwood. Similarly, the Jeff Rosenbaum article is almost entirely maintained by Rosencomet, the subject of the article. I believe much of the reason he has not had conflicts is because he is mostly editing in Wikipedia backwaters, where his COI editing passes without notice. If you think that the situation warrants only normal editing and talk page exchanges unless or until a dispute comes up, I'm willing to do that.


 * On his civility, if you look at one of the diffs Kathryn provided above, Rosencomet said Kathryn was "stalking" him.  Near the end he says "...nor have I EVER touched anything you have written..." which shows he still has not progressed beyond an attitude of ownership of one's contributions to Wikipedia. At the end, he says "Please AGF, and find something better to do than to stalk my work and place unconstructive tags." I may be wrong but I don't think Kathryn has been editing any of "his" articles since the arbitration until these very recent few edits. Hardly "stalking" behaviour. Still, perhaps it was premature to bring this here. Anyway, thank you for your input. It does help to gain some perspective. Cheers, Pigman ☿  20:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I am virtually the sole editor of Coal Torpedo and Thomas Edgeworth Courtenay but that does not mean I am abusive toward other people who try to edit, it means no one else cares much. The scenario that I am concerned with is that (a) you or Kathryn or some other editor has concerns about the article and edits it to address those concerns, (b) Rosencomet disputes the edits, (c) discussion on the talk page, (d)  request for comment or third opinion, (e) Rosencomet edit wars to maintain his version despite consensus of multiple outside editors and/or become uncivil and abusive in defending his preferred version.  If you and Kathryn seem to be the only other people interested in Starwood and Rosenbaum, try to engage Rosencomet in discussion on the talk page about your concerns and proposed changes, and use the third opinion or request for comment processes to bring in outside views, and see how it goes from there. Thatcher131 20:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: sole editorship: precisely. Good faith editing of articles should always be welcomed. Many Wikipedians shepherd and watch articles we are personally interested in but that doesn't mean we attack or are abusive to others who attempt to improve the articles in some way. I think part of the reason I brought this issue here was I envisioned exactly the scenario you outlined above. My frustration is that these articles have all been through this exact process already leading up to the arbitration. I find it rather a pain to think it needs to be repeated since I see little change in Rosencomet's attitude toward "his" articles. It's clear (to me at least) he sees any substantive change or tags to improve certain sections or aspects of the articles as attacks rather than a desire to improve them. I also believe other editors observe how pugnaciously he responds and they back away slowly from the situation as more trouble than it's worth. As I've said in the past, these are only event and organization articles, not issues around Israel-Palestine or abortion; it shouldn't be a massive struggle simply to shape them into good articles with solid sources. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the diffs above there do appear to be problems with reference padding, self-sourcing, and adding links to lecture taps published by his own organization, as well as a failure to assume good faith on the part of his fellow editors (although he has not really been uncivil as such things go; I've seen much worse). As the prior decision was a non-binding "caution", you will need to bring this to the committee again.  I suggest beginning with a user conduct RFC, discussing the issues of reference padding, self-sourcing, and adding links to tapes that he may profit from, as the most pressing of the current issues.  Let it run for a couple of weeks and try to get more outside input, then once the new members of the Arbitration committee have been installed, you can try bringing a case if the RFC has not been satisfactory.  (With the elections over but the new members not appointed, and no prior RFC in place, I do not think a case would be accepted at this time.) Thatcher131 04:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen worse, too, but I don't think calling another editor a "stalker" for daring to edit "his" articles is particularly civil. As for RfCs, the issues are essentially the same (or worse) as when these two were done. I referred to the second one above (Talk:Starwood Festival) The first one, Requests for comment/Mattisse) showed even stronger consensus that he is astroturfing and spamming for his projects. The outside statement in particular, endorsed by fourteen established editors, seven of whom are admins, stated: "2. All the articles in question have links to Starwood Festival and its website. Many of these links fall outside of WP:NPOV Undue Weight, overstating the importance of a performer apperance at the starwood festival. As such these links can be considered a case of WP:SPAM. The links have all been added by User:Rosencomet who is connect to the event so WP:VAIN also applies." RfC outside view, point #2 I don't think it gets much clearer than that.


 * I'd also note that, while there is no evidence to support sockpuppetry on the part of Rosencomet himself, suddenly today after Rosencomet reverted Guy's removal of uncited lists, and I reinstated Guy's edit, another Ekajati sock showed up to start reverting. Rosencomet has never stopped defending the sockdrawer's actions, and I find it interesting that shortly after he started posting on talk pages calling me a stalker for editing an article in a normal manner, and suggesting Guy was "just looking for fights" and should also stay a away from the articles, the sockpuppets returned. Personally, I don't think it's a coincidence.


 * In this diff, Rosencomet states his understanding of the ArbCom decision: "This is obviously not about the data, but a problem she has with me about such issues as POV and COI, issues that were put to bed long ago (I thought) with the assurance that I was free to edit as long as I did not do so "aggressivly" or edit war". So, it looks to me like he truly believes the COI issues do not apply to him as long as he doesn't violate 3RR. Or something. I have to wonder if he's ever read any of the policies we have repeatedly pointed out to him. - <font face="comic sans ms"> Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 05:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever. The caution from the previous case is unenforceable. Thatcher131 05:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah. Well. I see your point. The caution is relatively nonspecific and doesn't provide penalties. However, I admit disappointment that you're essentially saying the Arbitration was pointless in the end. Sadly, Pigman ☿ 06:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can not find any User conduct requests for comment. The difference between an article RFC and a user RFC is that an article RFC is used to attract wider attention to a contentious issue, while a User conduct RFC is used to attract wider attention to a users' behavior.  Giving several examples of problematic behavior as noted here, and asking for comments from uninvolved editors, may be able to demonstrate to Rosencomet how his editing is sometimes not acceptable; alternatively it may demonstrate to Arbcom that his conduct as a use falls outside Wikipedia norms. Thatcher131 19:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article RfCs all focused on Rosencomet's self-promotion toa large extent; it may be moot since he's admitted allowing others to use his account. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Very specific COI violations
I filed a slightly different version of the paragraph below over on WP:COI/N here when it seemed unlikely that this discussion would bear fruit. User:MER-C suggested keeping discussion together here so I'm reposting it. Please look at the links, particularly the two showing identical pictures of Jeff Rosenbaum, who personally sells items from the Starwood Store over the phone. This is a succinct and clear statement on the COI issues. There are several new links but I apologize in advance for any redundancies to the discussion here.



It is reasonably certain that is Jeff Rosenbaum (see Arbcom finding here), the Executive Director of the Association for Consciousness Exploration, LLC (ACE). Despite an Arbcom caution (here), he has extensively edited these articles (please see the histories of the articles.) I interpret these extensive revisions as "aggressive" editing as well as an autobio violation on the Jeff Rosenbaum article. Additionally, his editing and lack of posting of a COI notice on his user page mean that many more articles besides these four are affected. See this version of his userpage for a sizable (but possibly incomplete) listing. If any doubt exists about his COI, see this book excerpt with Mr. Rosenbaum's photo and compare it to this ACE CyberCatalog page. Note the caption saying Mr. Rosenbaum sells the items personally. (As an aside, I found the [www.cafepress.com/starwood.8503799 Rosencomet Classic Thong] offered on Starwood's Cafe Press store to be very attractive. And comfortable too.) As to why this hasn't been brought here before: This noticeboard (WP:COI/N) didn't exist when I first brought the Arbcom case against Rosencomet in Dec. 2006 and I was burned out in the aftermath of the relatively toothless "caution" of Rosencomet by Arbcom in March, 2007. These issues have been discussed with Rosencomet extensively over the last 16 months. Read his talk page for a sampling of efforts by a large number of Wikipedians. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 18:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)  (Addendum: I've just noticed Rosencomet's talk page has been archived so that is a better example of discussions with him. Pigman ☿  19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

Asgardian
I think User: Asgardian violated his restriction on the Vision (Marvel Comics) article (making two reverts in four days) and on the Quicksilver (comics) article. --DrBat (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not true. The user above, however, did make several blind reverts. I have not responded with still another revert, as this will only cause an edit war. Rather, I will explain the changes on his Talk Page and the relevant character Talk page. Thank you.

Asgardian (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Admin response In the future please provide diffs of the alleged reversions so we don't have to hunt them down. On Vision (Marvel Comics), this and this are both reversions in the broad sense of the term, since they discard the majority of changes introduced by other editors and revert to a version that is substantially identical to the previous version in the diff.  I'm not finding any reversions (as distinguished from normal collaborative editing) in the Quicksilver article.  Many people assume that editors on restriction are allowed to edit an article only once a week, this is not true.  A reversion is distinguished from an edit by discarding most or all of the intervening contributions without making an attempt to edit collaboratively.  The edits I cite on the Vision article are reversions and this is a violation.  Since this is the first reported violation I will issue a warning only, but it will be logged. Thatcher131 03:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On 22 December 2007, Asgardian made an interim change re-installing "Earth-616" fan-insider jargon and then a second revert here to reinstall an image that did not meet superherobox (SHB) criteria, replaced an image that did. The page that his two reverts affected was restored here. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at it, that really falls into Asgariand's first revert within a week. There should be a bit of leeway for his not being aware, or noting, that there was a different image available when he uploaded a new one. Just my observation though. - J Greb (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The net result of Asgardian's edits was to revert to the image used by Moshikal.  That's only one revert in the last week, so no problem. Thatcher131 17:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge
The applicable case is Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge and R2.1. The exact ruling is a little confusing, which resulted in a request for clarification. The ruling says that Ferrylodge is "restricted", but the clarification said that FL "is not under any general ban". This has caused FL to start editing at the topics mentioned in the ArbCom remedies (abortion and pregnancy). I'm still a little confused on the nature of the ArbCom ruling, but from what I gather, they basically said "FL is unblocked, and unrestricted in his editing, but if he is disruptive on two specific topics (interpreted broadly) uninvolved admins have the added ability to impose an article ban on FL, on an article by article, case by case level."

Moving on, since FL has been back, he has, to my knowledge, been warned twice about civility. Once by User:The Evil Spartan 23:28, 1 December 2007, and once by User:Cool Hand Luke 01:33, 17 December 2007. Needless to say, someone coming out of a community ban should not need to be warned about civility. Not once, and definitely not twice.

Next, FL has begun editing topics related to abortion, specifically Roe v. Wade and Abortion. I am currently in a content dispute with FL, and I am here to ask an uninvolved admin to ban him from the article, per the ArbCom ruling. I urge you to please read the talk page starting from Talk:Roe v. Wade. I do not believe FL can discuss content, not editors. He has made this discussion personal multiple times. In fact, he posted a personal message to me on the page (see the "Editorializing" heading), which I kindly asked him to move to my talk page (which he refused). I was trying hard to work with FL, really hard. But it is incredibly hard to stay on topic and stick to content, when the other party is making things personal, on an uncivil level. I've reached the point where I do not feel I can discuss this further with FL, and I realized I shouldn't even be in this situation. FL has been uncivil in this talk page discussion. He has been warned twice for civility issues since he has come back. The article in question is on a topic covered by the ArbCom enforcement. So I ask an uninvolved admin to review this case and possibly ban him from Roe v. Wade.

Severa has shown similar concerns that an uninvolved admin may want to considered as well, see this. -Andrew c [talk] 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Informational: Applicable text of the remedy reads "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing."


 * Question: Is the editing Ferrylodge has done on these topics "inappropriate"? I feel this needs to be shown before any block/article ban takes place. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I was not informed about this request by Andrew c (or about Severa's comment to which he links), I hope it won't be inappropriate to respond here briefly.


 * I hope that people reviewing this matter will keep in mind the following recent comment by SandyGeorgia:


 * "Considering how extremely helpful, patient and civil I found Ferrylodge to be on restoring Roe v. Wade to featured status, and that I couldn't decipher his POV during that FAR, I hope post-ArbCom hounding of Ferrylodge doesn't become an issue."


 * Andrew c is correct that we are having a disagreement at a talk page. However, the ArbCom decision involves edits to articles rather than talk pages: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing."  Nor does it does not involve the articles where Evil Spartan and Luke interacted with me.


 * I hope admins and others will feel free to visit the Roe v. Wade talk page that Andrew c mentions, not to decide whether I should be banned (the ArbCom decision does not authorize banning for talk page comments), but merely to see whether I was uncivil as Andrew c contends. I did not accuse him of "bias," or of "editorializing," or of trying to "jab" me, or of trying to insert "personal opinion" into the article.  Those were things he said to me.  All I did was deny it.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the "interpreted broadly" clause might mean that talk pages are indeed included. But the fact remains that it needs to be shown that you are editing inappropriately. --Ali&#39;i 19:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose that's possible, though that isn't how I read the decision. If the decision does include talk pages as well as articles, then I'd like some clarification on that point.  In any event, I was not disruptively editing the talk page in question.  Incidentally, although I don't think the article where Luke and I interacted is at all relevant here, he also commended me for my work there.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec)Not going to comment on Ferrylodge's recent conduct on the two articles in question, but just noting that part of the reason why Ferrylodge was brought to CSN was because of his conduct on talk pages and it seems that is what is in question here, not his actual article editing. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment Bobblehead. The CSN has been abolished, and the complete ban on me that the CSN imposed has been overturned.  So, why is the CSN relevant here?  Also, KillerChihuahua brought her complaint at the CSN for alleged edit-warring in articles, not in talk pages.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. Sorry, should have been clearer and expanded my wording to include the evidence in arbcom. I mentioned CSN because that was the initial place that your conduct was brought up in a manner that requested some sort of "punishment". It should also be pointed out that the evidence that the arbcom chose to use in their Finding of Fact about you having a history of disruptive editing in pregnancy and abortion articles, but productive editing in other areas includes your conduct on the talk pages.--Bobblehead (rants) 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither the findings of fact nor the decision mentioned anything about talk pages.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Geez... I've gone ahead and sought more clarification from the arbitration committee. Drop this until we hear back? --Ali&#39;i 20:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer the question posed by Ali'i: Yes. On the article Roe v. Wade, Ferrylodge inserted commentary on a particular opinion poll, which he had previously done on several abortion-related articles beginning in January 2007. The recent pursuit of a fetal illustration at Talk:Abortion, while not an example of an edit made to an article itself, shows further that Ferrylodge has not let old matters drop with regard to articles on abortion. Ferrylodge added just such an image to the article Abortion in September, resulting in a lot of complication, as documented here. The point is that there are a 2 million articles to edit on Wikipedia and just as many edits which could be pursued on those articles related to pregnancy and abortion. But, even after the ArbCom decision, Ferrylodge is still opting to concentrate on the same narrow range of things as before (the Harris poll on Roe and fetus pictures). It's this fact which I consider worthy of examination. - S e  v  e  r  a ( !!! ) 20:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, Severa is citing only two recent diffs, and all the others are from before the ArbCom proceedings. This is the first of those two recent diffs, in which I updated poll results at the Roe v. Wade article (presumably Severa does not object to that updating), and in which I mentioned that "the poll question quoted above asked about only 'part' of the decision."  That statement is factually correct, and is fully supported by the text of the poll question itself.  Nevertheless, Andrew c objected to that factual statement, and the matter is currently under discussion at the Roe v. Wade talk page.  I did not reinsert that factual statement after Andrew c removed it.  Severa's second diff is here.  This is what I said at the abortion talk page, that Severa finds so offensive:


 * "I hope that some thought will be given to including a non-shock image of a typical fetus before it is aborted, so that the image is not a shock image. Susan Faludi, in her book 'The Undeclared War Against American Women' (1991) said: 'The antiabortion iconography in the last decade featured the fetus but never the mother.' In contrast, the present article now features iconography of the mother but not of the fetus, and I think this situation needs some balancing."


 * Frankly, I do not understand how there is anything inappropriate about what I said at the abortion talk page. Am I to understand that it is forbidden for me to even mention that pictures of a fetus exist?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said I found anything "offensive" about the particularities of what you had said so please refrain from reading that into my comment. What I do find questionable is that you seem to have returned to abortion-related articles just to pick up on old battles instead of letting sleeping dogs lie. And, while we're on the topic, was it really necessary to give this reply to Y? Sometimes the best response is none. - S e  v  e  r  a ( !!! ) 21:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Severa, if you did not find my edits to be offensive or disruptive, then please let's discuss them elsewhere. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your response to my request that you not present my words out of context is to do so to an even greater degree. Above, you stated, "This is what I said at the abortion talk page, that Severa finds so offensive," and then provided a quotation. I responded to clarify that I found nothing "offensive" about what you'd said specifically — I don't agree with the fetus picture suggestion, but that doesn't mean I'm offended by it. What I do object to is the apparent effort to reopen disputes over the Harris poll and fetus pictures months after they've closed. I believe that I was quite clear about the nature my objection in the post above so I am not sure from where you have inferred that I "d[o] not find [your] edits to be...disruptive." - S e  v  e  r  a ( !!! ) 21:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Severa, if you found my comment to be disruptive but not offensive, then that's fine. I'm not sure I understand the distinction, but let's not quibble.  All I did was mention the issue of photos to some new editors at the abortion article who have never even thought about it before.  I didn't argue back and forth, and I didn't edit the abortion article.  If you think it's disruptive for me to not let sleeping dogs lie, do you also think it might possibly be disruptive for you to not relent in your criticism of me?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification has been provided that article talk pages are covered by the ArbCom decision in my case, although I may be given "more freedom on talk pages." In any event, as explained above, I was not being disruptive at the talk page in question.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It has now become clear that Ferrylodge is editing the Roe v. Wade article in an attitude that is having a derogatory and negative effect on the article, and by extension Wikipedia as a whole. In my capacity as a neutral, uninvolved administrator, and in accordance with the remedy outlined here, I instigate a ban on Ferrylodge from that article for disruptive editing: he simply is harming this article. <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 21:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthony, your notice says:


 * "The user specified is on probation and has edited this article inappropriately. The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. This ban must be registered on the administrators noticeboard. If you disagree with this ban, please discuss it with the administrator who imposed it or on the noticeboard. At the end of the ban, anyone may remove this notice."

May I ask what article edit I made that you deem inappropriate? Was it an article edit or a talk page edit? This information would certainly help me to improve. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My main motivation was the entire atmosphere around your editing, over both a recent and long period of time. Despite an Arbitration Committee ruling against you, you seem to have proceeded in pretty much the same manner. This edit was in some ways the final straw: you are editing in a negative manner, and I cannot stand by and allow it to happen any more. Ferrylodge, please edit constructively: further patience is unlikely to be sent your way, if this poor standard of editing continues. <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anthony, thanks for your explanation. I assume that the ArbCom did not want me banned from any article based on activities predating the ArbCom decision, so I appreciate your providing me with an example of a recent article edit.  May I ask, what is it about this edit that you find objectionable?  Was it the fact that I updated out-of-date poll results?  Or was it the fact that I quoted from the poll question?  Do you realize that, after I quoted from the poll question, and after that quote was deleted, I did not attempt to reinsert it?  There was no edit-warring whatsoever.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Request for clarification... how exactly is that edit you provided "editing in a negative manner"? Ferrylodge was trying to update the polls, and clarify the context. How is that negative? You'll have to forgive me if I miss how it is. Mahalo, AGK. --Ali&#39;i 22:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (e.c. mark two) First off, I must admit I'm impressed by the way you are conducting yourself around this: most users who come out of AC cases in this way are rather difficult to deal with. Secondly, I chose that edit as an example: having looked through recent contributions by Ferrylodge in that area, it was and is clear to me that Ferrylodge is not editing there in a positive manner, hence my action. Ferrylodge, are you absolutely positive you can edit constructively in that area? <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anthony, I promise I'll do my best. I've only tried to make the article better.  It's a contentious topic, so there are bound to be disgreements at the talk page, but I promise I'll not make unconstructive edits to the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No offense AGK, but if you look at the history of Roe v. Wade, you'd see that Ferrylodge has probably done more to help the article than any other one person. His editing has hardly been "derogatory and negative". Even since his arbitration committee decision, he has contributed positively. I request that you look at the history page of Roe v. Wade and look at more edits that haven't been brought up here. I think Ferrylodge has done exceptional work in this area, and is in the midst of an ever-lasting content dispute (it's a bout abortion... of course there is going to be debate). Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When I reviewed the history, I picked up exactly the opposite. However, I have been impressed by FL's handling of the situation, so I've reversed the ban for the moment. Having said that, Ferrylodge, I would like to discuss the matter with you, some time; I'm going off-line in a moment, but I'll try and catch up with you tomorrow (talk page, email or IRC?) <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 22:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Anthony. I've never used IRC, and don't know how to.  Email would be good.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

First, I have no prior involvement in this case whatsoever, so I'm neutral, but it seems to me that Ferrylodge's continued reinserting of the same material (the poll for example) is a continuation of prior behavior. But it's also true that this Roe v. Wade article is always a hot one. As FL and AGK are going to discuss it, let's hope something works out. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Rlevse, I'll do my best to minimize controversy here, and to work with Anthony, and to make only constructive edits. Regarding "the poll" that you mention, there are two polls involved here: a Harris poll that has been in the article for a very long time and that I have therefore not had any occasion to reinsert, and also an LA Times poll that was included during the featured article review but subsequently removed.  At the talk page, I did urge reinsertion of the LA Times poll, but I never actually reinserted it into the article because there was no consensus.  The reason why I urged reinsertion is because the article right now has Harris poll results that cover the first trimester, but the article omits poll results for the second trimester, which is not a balanced presentation (the LA Times poll covered the second trimester).  Anyway, I hope that kind of explains the polls.  I will not reinsert that stuff without consensus to do so.  Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[redact my comment. reposted at User_talk:Andrew_c]-Andrew c [talk] 00:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your good wishes, Andrew c. Vice versa, of course.  Out of sympathy for Thatcher131, I'll let my comments at the talk page speak for themselves.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * [Redact my comment per Andrew c. Reposted at User talk:Severa/archive8] - S e  v  e  r  a ( !!! ) 01:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the warning I issued at Mitt Romney was caused by uncivil exchanges entirely unrelated to abortion. In fact, two other users were warned at the same time. I had previously asked if such activity could fall under the language of the ArbCom, but User:Crockspot and others indicated that editing on non-abortion aspects of Romney could not run afoul of his editing restriction. I agree. The restriction is not a topic ban, but is instead a prohibition on: (1) editing disruptively (2) on abortion topics. Neither of the warnings satisfy these conditions, so it should be shown that Ferrylodge is currently editing disruptively on abortion topics. A mere disagreement is not disruptive. Cool Hand Luke 04:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note from someone being quoted above - I, like Luke, did indeed leave a message for FL. However, this message was intended as a means for two users in a dispute, and banning FL from the article makes little sense. In fact, I have found FL's contributions to the Mitt Romney article to be helpful, and I worry (with all due respect, Andrew c), that banning him from the article is just a way of getting a hand-up in an edit dispute, just as I believe his last ban was. I do not believe that "interpreted broadly" should by any means mean "any politics articles at all". The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

MartinPhi poisoning the well
Is it appropriate for MartinPhi to come into a conflict with which he admits he is not involved and poison the well against me? Here is the relevant diff:. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What are the relevant Arbitration cases? Thatcher131 19:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The relevant case is Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. I was involved in that case, so take this for what it's worth: but following ScienceApologist around to various talk pages, by tracking his contrib history, specifically to bring up the Arbitration case seems like borderline Wikistalking and probably violates MartinPhi's restriction against disruptive behavior. MastCell Talk 19:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it is well known that Wiki is very, very hard to follow. If ScienceApologist is (to use the current word) poisoning the Wikipedia experience for new or newish users, or simply users who are unfamiliar with him, it is quite ok -only ethical- to let them know that he is under sanction probably for doing exactly what he's doing there. They deserve to know that, and how else can they find out? If the sanction does not apply to the case, then it does him no harm. If it does, then the sanction should be applied, because the newish users have a right to defend themselves. Otherwise, they are in the position of being bullied by a highly aggressive and highly experienced user, without recourse. Far from being disruptive, this is merely a step toward ArbCom enforcement. Also, I was not wikistalking- I watch the article, and saw that SA was giving other users a hard time -whether justifiably, I don't know.

In point of fact, one of my first experiences with being attacked on Wiki was by ScienceApologist, when I was just in the position I guess they are- a newish user, unable to find my way around very well at all. Boy, was that a negative experience. I wouldn't want anyone else to have to go through that. They deserve the help.

ScienceApologist admits above that it is in fact a conflict (rather than a debate, for instance) and says that I am not involved. I'm involved in WP, and made a contribution as an outside party, giving a bit of highly relevant context as a more experienced user. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comments seek to position yourself as an altruistic "outside party" simply "providing context" for a new user. However, the title of the relevant ArbCom case attests to a long-standing conflict between yourself and ScienceApologist. Furthermore, the "newish" user in question has been on-wiki since May 2005, predating all of us. It would be advisable not to track ScienceApologist and insert yourself into discussions he's having; doing so is virtually guaranteed to be counterproductive given the deep historical antagonism between the two of you. MastCell Talk 21:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. I will consider your advice.  When I see IP users I assume they are new, though that isn't always true.  But also consider that it does him absolutely no harm in the case that he is not violating the terms of his probabtion.


 * Also, I don't track him. I just watch that article. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Per that ruling, Martinphi, you may be banned from any article or talk page you disrupt. That was in my view a disruptive edit, pouring petrol on the flames and in the process bolstering someone who is advancing a fringe view and impeding SA's attempts to help people there understand sourcing, verifiability and neutrality policies.  It's hard to see what intent there was other than undermining SA, which is borderline harassment. It may well be that SA's style is brusque, but your intervention has consistently failed to do anything to improve that, and he's never going to accept you asn an honest broker, so I strongly suggest you butt out of that dispute. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget that SA is under restrictions too...These two have been to arbcom already and a quick look makes me think this is just a rehash of old issues. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Martinphi, you jumped in to a talk page dispute where you have never edited before in order to poke ScienceApologist with a stick. Don't do it again.  ScienceApologist is under restriction that he may be banned from a page or pages for being uncivil, making personal attacks, and assuming bad faith about another editor.  I don't see that in his discussion with the IP editor.  In any case, the proper response, if you see such behavior, is to report it rather than make it worse.  I repeat, don't do it again. Thatcher131 01:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)