Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive13

Arthur Ellis
Can an admin keep David Suzuki on their watchlist and block Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Arthur Ellis on sight? He was banned in Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella but he is continually re-inserting smack into the article. He is evading the page protection by registering new accounts a week early. His latest User:Climateguy was registered a week ago and is re-inserting the same thing as Chucky the barber, Overeditor , Backtalk, Sockpuppet99, Homeboy99, Hotgirl99, etc. Should I ask for a CheckUser? maclean 21:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Only Climateguy and Hotgirl99 weren't already blocked--now they are. I handled the SSP case where the others got blocked, yes this is more Arthur Ellis socketry. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 00:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to the Troubles ArbCom
I have placed under probation under the provisions of the The Troubles for further revert-warring on Birmingham pub bombings. Please note the history of this editor with this article, this is approximately the fourth or fifth time he's been sanctioned for edit-warring on this article, and less then a month after the previous probation for edit-warring (which was endorsed by ArbCom) expired. I am pre-emptively bringing this up, because of the history of this editor, and his numerous complaints after the last probation was placed on him. SirFozzie (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Derek Smart
Per the remedy labelled #7 at Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart, surrogates of Derek Smart are banned from editing his article. claims on the account's user page to be used by the PR department of his company, and is editing the article. I pointed this out to 3000ad, but was told I was misinterpreting the Arbcom remedy. More eyes would be welcome here. - Ehheh (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Two things:
 * 1) there is no remedy 7, only 1-5 and by surrogate do you mean sock or spa?
 * 2) role accounts and shared accounts are not allowed and I've blocked for that reason and noted it on the case page. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are five remedies but they are numbered 1, 2, 3.1, 7 and 8, from the proposed decision page. Thatcher 21:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, blockable without the remedy anyway. But it also violated that remedy because it directly edited the article page. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Zeq
Zeq was banned from Palestinian exodus and placed on probation a little less than two years ago. (case) He's recently been quite disruptive on Palestinian right of return, which is closely related to the Palestinian exodus. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 16:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Move-warring the article to dubious titles:
 * Edit-warring argumentative language into the lede:
 * Edit-warring a distinction between real "refugees" and descendants of refugees, despite a mountain of sources (see Talk:Palestinian_right_of_return) showing that this distinction is not widely adopted, and it specifically disclaimed by scholars of international law:

Actually I engage in a civil discussion in the talk page and avoided edit warring. for example when my edits are reverted I have asked on the talk page that they would be re-inserted and indeed in some case they were (by others, among them the revrter) and in some cases they were not. The subject is indeed a tough subject and different POVs need to be represnted. Indeed I was requested on the talk page to better ex[plain (in the article) the Israeli view point. SI encourage everyone to read my 2nd arb com case in whcih they clearly allow some leeway in tough subjects like this one. If a reviewing admin disgaree with my behavior I would sugget they look at others on this page who have been engageing in stream of reverts and plaese let me know - I will provide diff to back up my comments. Thank You.Zeq (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

PS the diffs above are legitimate edits - there is no edit war. (clearly in his point #3 above in which User:Eleland claims that my edits do not fit what exprest in int'l law have decided  he is not making a distinction between a content dispute (a valid dispute in wikipedia) and behaviour which is edit war. (I have not engage in such behaviour but Eleland has a problem with my views not my behaviour)

I have tried different attempts at compromise - again some accepted some don't. I have not done repeated edits - unlike others in this article who have reverted many times. Zeq (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The moves were a bad idea. As for the rest, I will look into it. Thatcher 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, see here, here and last two sections here. Ceedjee (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can agree that at least one of the moves were not a good idea. (the 2nd was made a redirect:  - both moves are a good faith attempt to fix a NPOV problem that still exist. After two attempts (not the same one - I tried alternatives) I have accepted the suggestion on talk to keep the name as it is. In any case since that time there were many edits and discussions in this article - all are legitimate edits. There is a big difference between content dispute and edit war. This was not edit war on my part - I avoided reverting although my edits are routinly reverted on this article.
 * Maybe it is about time to consider the fact that I have been under probation for a long time. Other editors may think that any dispute with me, any revert on their part give them some advantage in the cosntent dispute since I am on probation. If anyone should be snactioned about this article it is those who revert it frequntly and not me - who suggests alternatives to fix inherent problems in this article. btw, if anyone wants to mediate this tough article he/she is more than welcome. As part of my first arbcom case there was a promise by one of the arbitors to mediate the dispute in the exodus article but enfortunatly it proven too tough. Maybe applling an equal playing field to all editors will go a long way to create a more civilized editing environment to all. Zeq (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Response The diffs given in the report above show 6 edits by Zeq to the article lede over 20 days, only two on the same day. It's not much on which to base a finding of disruption.  There seems to be productive discussion on the talk page and a fair amount of prickliness by several editors, and I don't see that Zeq has pushed his own view to the point of unreasonableness, after he's reverted a couple of times he stops and talks about it but the same is true of others.  I don't see any basis for a page ban at this time. Zeq is correct that the new broad discretionary sanctions place all editors of these topics on the same equal footing, more or less.  Hopefully you can move forward with grace, dignity and mutual self-respect. Thatcher 02:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist's RTV
NOTE: I moved this here as it is a separate issue from the one it was file under to "reopen". I also renamed it from "Request to reopen Arbitration Enforcement". — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Add case link to Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. Thatcher 22:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have notified ScienceApologist of this discussion. Cardamon (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, after receiving at 72-hour block for edit warring on What the Bleep Do We Know!?, applied for the Right to Vanish. His user page and talk page were blanked accordingly. However, ScienceApologist has not vanished. At all. Instead, he has returned to Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!? where dispute resolution is underway and his first act was one of incivility. Please see this (diff). I, in turn, removed the incivility and posted (IMHO) a very civil message on ScienceApologist talk page (diff). This posting was immediate deleted by ScienceApologist with an edit summary stating: "rv POV pushing by Levine2112" (diff). This was followed by a pretty terse posting at my talk page (diff). -- Levine2112 discuss 23:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You could always try asking your pseudoscience and fringe POV-pushing friends to stop baiting him. That would probably work - unlike pretending your personally-directed rudeness is civil and his more general testiness is not. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no baiting involved. ScienceApologist came out of "retirement" to make the uncivil actions I detail above. Can you please elucidate what you mean by my "personally-directed rudeness". A diff would help. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist continues to add uncivil comments to a space where dispute resolution is underway (diff). -- Levine2112 discuss 00:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh-Oh, seems to be a lot of tag team baiting and POV pushing occuring over here, lead by (not unexpectantly - given the editor in question and the subject matter) Levine2112. His postings here should be seen as they are in various other forums (ANi, WQA) as gaming the system to subdue an editor that doesn't agree with his and his posse's POV. Seen it before and probably will continue to see it until the Community decides to stop it.  Shot info (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has around six million editors. Of that six million, Levine2112 is in the top five worst possible candidates to be correcting SA on his behaviour or bringing complaints here.  I'm sick to death of fringe bullshit POV-pushers baiting SA and then coming running to mommy when he gets riled.  If they can't stop obsessively pushing this bullshit - which long experience indicates they can't - then they need to learn to work constructively with those who hold a mainstream POV, not constantly pick fights with them and then complain about the fight.  In short, Levine and his pals (and most especially Martinphi) need to stop spitting in the soup. Now. Both Martinphi and Levine should be banned fomr complaining ab out SA, as vexatious litigants. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All I asked JzG for was a diff justifying his assertion of "personally-directed rudeness" from me toward SA. He has not provided any, but rather demonstrated his own brand of personally-directed rudeness toward me. JzG, please consider WP:NPA. I believe your attacks to be unwarranted. I am again requesting a diff(s) from you which demonstrates how any of the attacks you have launched onto me here are justified. You can provide that to me here, or preferably in a more appropriate forum. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop spitting in the soup. As I said, of the six million or so registered Wikipedians, you are in the top handful of worst possible candidates to be correcting SA on his behaviour.  There is essentially no chance whatsoever that he would perceive your involvement as anything other than baiting, and if you had an ounce of self-criticism in your entire body you would realise this.  For you to be doing this is basically trolling.  Stop doing it. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rlevse and Thatcher below that this is a minor infraction. What I don't understand is why Guy is accusing Levine but refusing to provide diffs to support his accusation. Guy, could you explain how Levine is baiting SA? Are you suggesting that Levine should avoid the Bleep talk page since SA would get upset by his involvement there? Anthon01 (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And another of the fringe pushers crawls out of the woodwork. Incidentally, are you Anthony Zaffuto?  Guy (Help!) 22:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I consider your characterization uncivil. Please retract your statement, and please apply WP:CIVIL in addressing me. Are you going to answer my question? You've accused Levine; please provide diffs. Thank you. Anthon01 (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying Levine2112 is innocent, but ScienceApologist needs to learn to control his responses as he is being uncivil as the diffs prove. It is also a fact that he RTV'd has his pages deleted, came back, posted a note about being tired of wikidrama, and resumed editing in within a day. Now that is wikidrama. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Levine needs to learn not to escalate it, which is what he did. Although I have a nasty suspicion that said escalation was deliberate. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikidrama is not an actionable offense, and if this is the most uncivil comment you can find, then Report declined. Thatcher 20:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Thatcher that wikidrama is not actionable, I was just making an observation. — Rlevse  •  Talk  •  —Preceding comment was added at 20:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, SA can be blocked for incivility, and we can read that pretty broadly if needed to prevent disruption, but "this poll sucks" is not what the committee had in mind, I think. Think of this board as an emergency room; you don't have to wait for a compound fracture before filing a report, but don't report every hangnail either, please. Thatcher 22:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood. My hope is that there won't be any emergencies causing me to bring the situation here again. Thanks for the attention which you have given this. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My hope is that there won't be any emergencies causing me to bring the situation here again. The diff you supplied is an emergency? Seems like the POV pushers will be looking to forum shop now. It seems the Community is tired of your crying wolf over every little papercut...  Shot info (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No. As Thatcher informed, it was not an emergency. Note from what you quoted that I said "any emergencies" rather than "any more emergencies". Meaning I wasn't calling the incident which lead me here an "emergency" and that I am hoping there won't be any emergencies. -- Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 01:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OMG the irony. And sure enough, you forum shopped.  Predictable - and your crying wolf is noted by all it seems.  Keep up the good work!  Shot info (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I support ScienceApologist. We need editors like SA to fight the supporters of pseudoscience. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not involved in any of these cases that are ongoing but there is a lot going on. I think another editor retired from being an editor on the same day that Scienceapologist was set to retire.  I just want to say that I am glad that SA decided not to retire.  I watch all of these boards to learn more about policies and to see what is going on here at Wikipedia.  I agree with the comments made by Masterpiece2000.  My feel for all these on going actions is that alternate/fringe editors are trying to get science related editors blocked/banned or so frustrated that they will leave.  The sad part to me is this seems to be working.  There needs to be a way to allow all editors to be involved without a gang like mentality which is what I believe is going on.  This can be seen by the list of editor involvement at Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist.  This is of course my own personal observations as an outsider but I think all of these complaints should be closed and that warnings should be placed to remind editors that group POV pushing is not acceptable.  Thanks for taking the time to listen to me.   -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless I am missing something, this discussion seems to have moved away from the question. Did the editor use "right to vanish" as a means of "gaming the system"?


 * I am here because of a related ArbCom action involving a personal attack and threat by ScienceApologist in which SA was instructed remove the offensive remarks and apologize, as a means of avoiding a block. The issue remains unresolved due to inaction on SA's part. In the context of user SA's invocation of RTV, I had his comments removed. Now, upon SA's un-vanishing, I have restored them and consider that matter as yet unresolved. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Holy smokes, you restored offensive comments that had been deleted?? Ladies and gentlemen, here we have a textbook case of WP:POINT, one that so perfectly fits the definition that it ought to be included as one of the enumerated examples there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No SA did not use RTV as a way of gaming the system, he reacted in a common way to a block brought on by an inappropriate reaction on his part to inappropriate but unsanctioned behaviour from POV-pushers, and the complaints are almost all brought by those self-same POV-pushers. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist continuing incivility
User:ScienceApologist has a civility restriction here: Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. In this diff he violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It's true he removed it upon advice from someone, but he still said it. He also violates WP:CIVIL here where he's uses foul language to another user several times and "WTF" in the summary. He violates WP:CIVIL again here, removing a users' edit from his (SA's) own talk page, but used foul language again in the summary, but this time in all caps. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 72 hours. - Revolving Bugbear  15:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that Science Apologist was correct that Rlevse had misinterpreted his statement; he was not talking about edit warring on the article but working on a draft of the lede that was on the talk page. It should have been expressed much more moderately. 72 hours also seems excessive. Thatcher 17:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good, but "STAY THE F--- OFF MY TALK PAGE" is pretty unequivocally covered by his editing restriction, and it was his third incident of incivility in one day. Also, the last two -- one edit warring this week and one incivility prior -- were also 72 hours. With escalating blocks and all, his second block under this ruling alone shouldn't have, in my opinion, been any shorter than the previous (or the edit warring one related to this case, again, also this week). - Revolving Bugbear  17:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to think out loud here for a moment. We need a policy that says "being bold is good, but don't choose a high-drama occasion for your first foray into a particular area."  Extremely controversial AFD discussions (Brandt, Angela, etc) should be close by an admin who regularly handles AFD, not by someone with no experience jumping in.  Controversial unblock requests should be handled by an admin who regularly patrols CAT:RFU, not by a borderline involved party.  Controversial image discussions should be closed by someone who regularly works in IFD, not by someone unfamiliar with image policy.  Yes, every area of admin service is open to any admin, but we would be a lot better off if we would begin involvement in a small way and build up to handling controversial decisions.  If you want to be involved with arbcom enforcement, it would be much better to start off by commenting, then move up to closing low-profile cases, then, once you have more experience with it, handle the high-drama cases. --B (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly speaking, I didn't see this as controversial at all. I've seen users get blocked for this sort of behavior after a warning without an ArbCom decision. He was way over the line. Where exactly is the gray area on this one? - Revolving Bugbear  18:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad block, in my view. We don't block people for using four-letter words once in a while. That's not the notion of "civility" we are concerned with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't "for using four-letter words". Please look at the diffs -- "Get the f--- over it"; "Maybe you should block yourself"; "Jesus, what's so goddamn hard to understand about this?"; "Stay the f--- off my talk page" (in caps shouting) ... It's a constant slew of abusive language. - Revolving Bugbear  19:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really disagree with the block (maybe the length, but not the block). The ANI thread where he accuses Rlevse of making a threat is definitely a violation of the prohibition against assumptions of bad faith, but his frustration is definitely understandable. --B (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Tangentially, there is also the edit war that was going here, a clear violation of 3RR. Anthon01 (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see nothing problematic about "what's so goddamn hard to understand about this?" - I use exclamations like that myself, not too rarely. "Stay the fuck of my talk page" is understandable if somebody has indeed been harassing him on his talkpage after being repeatedly asked to stay out. Etcetera. Yes, our community here at wikipedia values politeness, but it's not collectively thin-skinned to such a ridiculously artificial degree that use of language like this should be regarded as seriously disrupting its peace. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) @ B: I would not be averse to shortening the block. I was originally going to go for 24-48 hours, but lengthened it when I saw he had been blocked a few days ago for edit warring (for 72 hrs) and just a couple weeks ago in connection with the ArbCom (again, for 72 hrs). It seemed to me to be within the phrasing of the ArbCom decision and the spirit of escalating blocks. But like I said, if it needs to be shortened, I won't object.

@ Fut.Perf.: In my opinion here, the sum is greater than the whole of its parts, especially in light of the fact that he has been warned in this regard and recently blocked for it. You, FB, do not have a history for abusive incivility; SA does. - Revolving Bugbear  19:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also of note are these diffs where he essentially says he is going to push the issue until he creates a controversy without concern for the consequences because "when I get blocked, positive things seem to happen". Any possible assumption good faith in reference to the language he used in the above diffs is at least cast into serious doubt by these comments. - Revolving Bugbear  19:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was the the one SA claimed was harassing him. The fact is SA was moving a comment I made on Bleep into another section. I asked him not to but he persisted. So I placed a fair warning on his page asking him not to edit war and not to move my comment into another section. He moved that comment 4 times within a few hours, effectively violating 3RR. That is two violation of 3RR on the same day. Anthon01 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think a mentor would be more useful in SA's case than just randomly blocking him when someone takes offense. Incivility is a judgement call, after all, and having one person judge it might be better and fairer than the alternative. Adam Cuerden talk 19:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Stephen B Streater offered to mentor him. He rejected it.
 * He also seems to have a lovely admin-hate-fest broad-stroke and, in my opinion, largely baseless criticism going on right now. -  Revolving Bugbear  20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? As an admin I don't see this as an "admin-hate-fest" at all, but instead as much-needed criticism. The criticism is directed at admins who act like me, and I have to admit that he's spot on. Maybe the problem is that you tend to see any expression of criticism or disagreement as "hate" and bad faith. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Redacted. - Revolving Bugbear  20:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And? Admins should be made of sterner stuff.  I am much more concerned about incivility directed against other contributors in content disputes. Thatcher 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh I agree. I'm just saying, it doesn't look like he plans on stopping the incivility and attacks any time soon. - Revolving Bugbear  20:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would just like to point out that Anthon01's complaint is ...(hmmm... what's a civil word for it?)... fiddle-faddle. This edit is the one he objects to, and SA was moving nothing. Anthon01 abruptly changed the subject on a talk page, and SA inserted a non-insulting header to separate it from previous discussion.Kww (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Anton01 began the spat by posting a comment to the talk page in a way that was clearly meant to make a point about SA. . Thatcher 22:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies, but you are mistaken. The comment I posted was meant to bring the POV of an uninvolved editor to the attention of Bleep's editors, in the hopes that a resolution would ensue. The comment was also meant to underscore that the same uninvolved editor, who I assumed is not "advocating fringe POV," was echoing the suggestions I had been offering on how to move the page forward. These are some of the same type of suggestions for I which I have been repeatedly accused of being a "fringe POV-pusher." Anthon01 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Block reduced to 24 hours per, and evidence that multiple users are busy filing vexatious complaints and taking comments out of context in an effort to get rid of SA (which does not excuse bathroom language and personal attacks, hence the 24 hour duration). This entire area needs to go to Arbcom for expanded authority. Thatcher 22:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ??? Anthon01 is not an admin, and yes, he is involved in the dispute. - Revolving Bugbear  23:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The original complaint that prompted the ban involved SA attacking Rlevse for his comments on WQA. In fact, Rlevse had misinterpreted SA's comment.  It is also important to read this diff in context.  The article is currently protected over a dispute about the lead paragraph.  SA proposed that rather than engage in extensive negotiations over the article lead, he would simply write one on the talk page, and other editors could make changes if they didn't like something.  He was then criticized by one editor who complained about his proposal but refused to either improve it or offer an alternative, and by another editor who thought he was advocating edit warring and seems to have completely missed the point that this was a draft version on the talk page.  The problem here is that there have been three Arbitration cases on pseudoscience articles which have resulted in only two enforceable remedies, civility parole for SA and probation for Martinphi, leaving all the other editors free to edit war and bait SA.  Yes he should not take the bait, but the situation is inequitable.  Finally, a 72 hour block for the first violation of his Arbitration remedy is out of line with precedent. Thatcher 00:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Rlevse situation. The Rlevse situation was over yesterday. The two I cited in my reasoning to block was from today, and the one I cited to him on his talk page was directed at Anthon01.
 * Second, I know at least one pseudo-science supporter who has been completely banned from the relevant Wikipedia articles as a result of an ArbCom case: User:Richardmalter.
 * Third, the first violation was blocked by Rlevse. Since SA already had two 72-hour blocks in the past three weeks, scaling the next block back seemed silly to me.
 * Like I said, I'm okay with the block being reduced, but please make sure you're referring to what he was actually blocked for. The situation with Rlevse is not relevant -- his actions today are a case of their own. - Revolving Bugbear  00:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarity, but you have not recanted or clarified your accusation, that I started the 'spat.' Your assertion regarding me are wrong, as I was forced to bring a conversation that began on SA's talk page onto the Bleep talk page after SA booted me for agreeing quite civilly with an uninvolved editor. Because of SA's action I needed to explain the reason for presenting my comments in that manner, as I felt it would be inappropriate for me to move the uninvolved editors comments (posted on SA's TP) to the Bleep talk page. If you refuse to recant or modify your assertion then please let me know what remedy is available to me. --Anthon01 (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if you disagree with Thatcher's observation, it has no real negative consequences for you, so I don't know that a remedy against it is necessarily required. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have little experience on WP, so I don't know how this may effect me in the future. Editors here have a way of piling it on; my concern is that someone here will try to his Thatcher's comment in the future against me. If I'm off base then fine. I appreciate your input. Anthon01 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I should have explained in a little more detail, and am sorry if I wasn't clear. This page is used for the purpose of enforcing remedies against users who have previously been sanctioned by an Arbitration Committee decision. There is an allegation that the user has violated instructions given to him or her in the prior decision, and an administrator (Thatcher is currently the most active at this task) evaluates the user's recent behavior to see if there has been a violation of the ArbCom ruling and, if so, how severe it was. Thus, the focus of discussion on this page will generally be on the user who was already a party to the arbitration case, rather than on other users, and it is unlikely that a passing reference to you on this page would be used to impose sanctions against you later on. The reason for my comment, though, was that a very unfortunate tendency on Wikipedia sometimes is to cause disputes to continue and escalate rather than try to resolve them. My hope is that ScienceApologist and the other editors in this thread will now edit in compliance with Wikipedia policies and the prior decisions. If that occurs, then I would not want to see this dispute continued, in any forum, solely to address a peripheral matter. I hope this clarifies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. Thank you. Anthon01 (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi
Subject to Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist, is not to be disruptive. I find this statement of non-cooperation to be needlessly personal and highly disruptive in our attempts to move beyond page protection:. I removed it. It is my opinion that this user is continuing disruption for the sake of disruption. The current tendentious arbitration request he has made might also be of interest. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That was meant to move the debate forward. Please, everyone, read it.  It was not a put-down, but a real suggestion which gave people a chance to move forward.  Further, it was an assumption of good faith on my part.  It says nothing uncivil, though it does say that SA is not a neutral editor, which is simply a statement that he is on one side of the debate- I, also, am not a neutral editor in that sense.  In other words, it comments on contributions, not contributors.  Reporting here is harassment (also see ).  If you read what I wrote assuming that I really meant SA or other editors to do the things suggested (mediation, writing a new lead while taking into consideration the talk page), you will see what I mean.   As far as rudeness, I am talking about the many, many edits like this.  Also see.


 * The Arbitration request is a good-faith attempt to bring the situation to the Arbitrators, and was rejected not because it was invalid, but mainly because it was not specific enough. That was a mistake, but the arbitration request is legit.


 * Anyway, talking about rudeness openly on the Bleep page was an attempt to move the stalled debate forward, and to try and get a useful process going. Both sides have been rude, as I make clear. The process would re-start if my suggestions were followed, and good faith extended.  Meanwhile, if there is no AGF, or even a pretense of AGF, things continue as they are, and nothing will get done, just like I said.  —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In what way is it an assumption of good faith to tell SA that he can write a new lead but he will have to promise to not revert any changes and furthermore give up his "right" to edit the article ever again? (I suggest he write such a lead, as a good-faith way to express to the community that he is willing to compromise, and that he will abide by consensus. Also, he will need to give up the option to revert any changes he doesn't like, and give up editing the article directly against or without consensus.) I see very little reason not to ban you from editing the article for 30 days under the terms of your editing restriction.  If we going to start tossing blocks at SA for being uncivil when baited, I see no reason to allow you free rein to push his buttons.  The ban will be enacted in 24 hours unless there is a consensus of uninvolved admins here that I have got it wrong. Thatcher 01:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This sounds like a fine idea to me, but I would like to see Martinphi prohibited from making frivolous noticeboard complaints. A ban from posting on this board might be in order. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not. We can ignore them or rapidly decline and archive reports that truly have no merit.  It still seems early for an outright ban from the noticeboard. Thatcher 01:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this edit war declaration by SA today and this WQA by SA are pertinent here. Both sides of this overly long debate have taken to filing frivolous claims to solve their issues and need to stop and solve them themselves. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See also this diff where SA says he'll make it 10K words and laughs. —  Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good grief, are you seriously interpreting this as a threat to disrupt? I realize you aren't exactly fond of SA, but this is too much. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Riiiiight. Because I'm such a villain that I always laugh like this: "Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha." I don't know what to make of this: it's almost absurd. Anthon01 was basically declaring on my talk page that only a single sentence of criticism should go in the lead of WTBDWK. I was merely pointing out how ludicrous this kind of proscribing is. Question: is there any edit that I've made in the last five years that placed 10K in the lead of any article? After you look through those 20,000 contributions maybe you can tell me whether or not I was being serious. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not appreciate this administrator mischaracterizing a good faith effort to provide an alternative version in talk space, and a report I filed because the user I was upset with told me to go through dispute resolution. What the fuck do you want me to do? Rlevse has all but stonewalled me and I am collecting his constant harranging comments about what I'm doing. I'm sick and tired of it. I would appreciate it if he just stayed out of this stuff because I don't trust him to be fair or neutral. The WQA was made to try to alert people that there was a problem. The comment from the article talk page being referred to is inviting people to edit a version of a lead that I am offering (my version in talk space: not the article's version). It's far from an edit war declaration, and I am so sick and tired of Rlevse misinterpretting my actions and poisoning wells wherever I go in trying to resolve the issues with the massive POV-wars happening at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, that was not what I meant. That is horrible, and if I said anything similar, SA and everyone has my sincerest apology. I just didn't mean that, but rather that the article shouldn't be edited without consensus, and the new lead should not be under the control of one editor, who would revert anything he doesn't like- not in order to punish SA, but because it just wouldn't work. It wouldn't work for him any more than me.

Anyway, I could defend myself here, but obviously someone has it in for me. I did my best to help out and suggest a way forward, and it is construed as pushing buttons.

God, why would you think I said he should never edit the article again???? What is this???

Again, I'd like a little neutrality here. Not to mention a little fairness and AGF. I won't attempt a detailed explanation, because reading what I wrote in the context of the actual article page and SA's actual suggestions on how to proceed will to a neutral observer show that I was attempting to help, and that only extreme lack of assumption of good faith can say otherwise.

Nothing in the Arbitration said I couldn't criticize anything SA did. I have that right, and it is not pushing buttons. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, the article in question is currently locked because while every other editor was participating in an RfC to discuss changes made to the lead, ScienceApologist edit warred to make sure his lead was installed instead, against the consensus of several editors who were participating in the RfC. Martinphi's suggestion may have been a bit extreme, but a 30 day ban for making it? This might be a bit much, especially since it was SA's actions that led to the page being locked. I'm not an admin, but I wanted to comment in case arbitrators weren't familiar with the background behind Martinphi's comment. If this belongs on someone's talk page rather than here, please feel free to move it. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 01:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant only that he shouln't make nonconsensus edits- like everyone else. I meant also that it wouldn't work to revert anything he didn't like in a proposed edition of the lead. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, It was in context, and should read:

Also, he will need to give up the option to revert any changes to his proposed lead he doesn't like (otherwise the process won't work), and give up editing the article directly against or against consensus. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin, I did misread the comment somewhat but it is still patronizing and insulting. Presumably you have not agreed to give up your right to revert "nonconsensus" edits made by SA or any other editor of the article. Thatcher 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

New section
Let's start over. I misinterpreted Martinphi's comment, although I still don't like it. I need to think some more about a response. And SA's "declaration to edit war" clearly applies to a draft of the article lede he was writing in talk space. So give me a few minutes to collect my wits and see what is really going on here. Thatcher 03:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I got an email from a party which is friendly, saying that what I said sounded like a command. I do see that, and I did not mean it to.  It would have been better not to address SA directly at all.  I could have said the same things without speaking directly of him.  It was truly my intent to try and bring both peace and progress (I'm not going to pretend I was very hopeful, but it didn't occur to me he would even report it because I didn't think I said anything bad).  It certainly wan't my intent to taunt him or push any buttons.  But, I can see retrospectively that it could be seen that way, and you and he have my apology.

Just because I want to say this: I have about a 3 hour limit on being angry. I can be very persistent on an issue, but I'm usually not angry after 1-3 hours, often even in life-changing situations. So, I tend to come and edit normally, and assume others are not angry either. The fact is that while my self-control is good, it isn't as good as it looks: if I'd been as angry as people generally must assume, there would be quite a few instances of my (intended) incivility around here. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Added later: I can see how in context of the general dispute it could be seen as my putting myself above the fray and saying how SA should do things if he wants to play. I just didn't mean it that way. I did mean it to be a true and fair analysis of exactly what needed to be done if progress is to be made. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You may have been trying to propose a solution, but the way it was worded, it could be interpreted as a command. I'm not saying it was, just commenting that thats one possible intepretation. Anthon01 (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, understood and already apologized. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Presumably you have not agreed to give up your right to revert "nonconsensus" edits made by SA" Actually, Thatcher, I mainly have: I've been pretty much sticking to 1RR for a long time now, and doing even that almost never. SA has had the run of the articles, and certainly could out-revert me (and has in I believe every article I tried a revert on). —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification
It is unclear whether the arbcom's injunction for Martinphi not to participate in "disruption" was intended to apply solely in article space, or whether it also includes activities such as frivolous use of process and baseless accusations against other users. Specifically, in the Arbitration request noted above Martinphi accused a group of editors of carrying on a campaign of "large and ongoing disruptions." No evidence was provided that the editors in question organized their purported disruptions, nor indeed that their "disruptions" were anything other than attempts to present perspectives with which Martinphi disagreed. Thus it would be useful for arbcom to clarify the scope of its remedy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed that to "create," rather than "organize," per your interpretation. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Any edit judged to be disruptive" and "banned from any page or set of pages" clearly applies to all pages on Wikipedia (also by convention in past cases). For example, evidence cited by the Arbs included edits to user talk and the Featured Article talk page.  Do you wish to request enforcement for disruption by Martinphi somewhere?  Or just asking for future reference? Thatcher 01:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Such phrasing by the Committee always means including talk, unless they exempt it. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mostly for clarification. Historically Martinphi has tended to read arbcom decisions in a very narrow and formalistic sense, so I wanted to clarify the proper interpretation. Martinphi, do you acknowledge now being aware of this interpretation of the ruling's scope? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea about unwritten tradition. But I don't know why the committee would bother to write it out so carefully if what they really meant was "ban/block him if you feel there is cause."  It was obviously very specific and carefully written.  I accepted it as written, and endeavored to conform to it. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The words were: "Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages." They went on:


 * "Should they violate this ban, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." Emphasis added. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So then, is it your interpretation is that the ruling does not apply to disruption outside of article space? By your reading you'd have to first be banned from a page outside of article space (say, WP:RFAR) and then you'd have to violate that ban before any blocks could be applied, correct? Just trying to make sure everyone is on the same page here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin is correct about the manner in which the restriction is to be enforced, if necessary. He may be banned from any page or set of pages he disrupts, and if he violates the ban by editing such pages (or evades it by editing while logged out or using sockpuppets) he can be blocked.  Personally, I start with temporary bans and only escalate if problems persist, and blocks for violating any bans similarly start out brief and escalate only if necessary. Thatcher 05:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If I understand what you're saying, does this mean arbcom didn't intend to restrict disruption in Wikipedia space (say, frivolous use of process)? Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Arritt, that isn't what I said: only that a total ban from WP is not in the Arbitration case, but only blocks after violation of specific-page bans. That is not how it was applied before when I was blocked, as I wasn't banned from a page nor did I violate a ban.


 * And Thatcher, here is the text of the blocking:

"1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week [but only] in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month."


 * I was blocked once, and I still can't see how that block was within the specified process.


 * I also think that my edit at Bleep was not intended to be anything bad, and I fully intend to not directly engage SA in the future in the way I did there. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm trying to clarify whether disruption in Wikipedia-space is relevant here. Your explanation above indicates that arbcom did not intend that any sanction could be applied for disruptive activities such as frivolous use of WP:RFAR, WP:RFC, and such. Correct? (All this is hypothetical of course; I'm sure you would never consider doing such things.)  Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Raymond, the decision says "Any edits" and both Martin and I have used the formulation "any page" so I am confused at your apparent confusion. The restriction applies to all of Wikipedia, including article, talk, project, template, and any other space.  (As a matter of personal preference, I would be extremely reluctant to ban anyone from the pages of the dispute resolution process itself, but it could be done under appropriate circumstances.) Thatcher 13:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, let me state how a hypothetical sequence of events would work. Let's suppose Martinphi brings frivolous action in an RfC. He could then be banned from that RfC. If he continued to edit on that RfC, he could be blocked. If he did not continue editing that RfC, he could bring a frivolous arbcom case. He could then be banned from editing on that arbcom case. If he continued to edit on that arbcom case, he could be blocked. If he did not continue editing that arbcom case, he could bring a frivolous RfC (different from the first RfC). And so on, and on, and on, because it would be a different "page" each time. If there's something wrong with this interpretation, please point out what's wrong. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While that is true in a hypertechnical sense I doubt admins would tolerate that for long. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's precisely why I asked the question in this way. It addresses Martinphi's inclination to interpret Wikipedia policy in a "hypertechnical" sense. I have no doubt that if Martinphi engaged in the behavior I describe above, he'd object strenuously to any sanction. And he'd almost certainly be able to find an admin with a sympathetic ear who would overturn any block. (Again, all this is hypothetical of course.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure they will...because here we are... Shot info (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Who is being hypertechnical here? Topic or page bans are at the discretion of uninvolved admins.  If an admin thought that Martin had sufficiently misused some of the noticeboards and project spaces to warrant a ban from all of them, the admin could do so.  Page bans can be appealed to this page, ANI or Arbcom if the banned editor feels an error has been made.  The problem of overturned blocks is not unique to Arbitration enforcement and can also be taken up with Arbcom. Thatcher 00:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Mrg3105
At Talk:Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive, I politely requested to refer to "Romania" not "Rumania", while at the same time saying he could call it what he pleased. In his first reply, he used the phrase "as much as you may dislike that personally", although I never expressed a dislike for Russians. I then reiterated my (and sources') preference for "Romania", which prompted a much more incivil second reply (with the edit summary "go for it Rumanians"). Excerpts: "I feel that I can continue to put logic or facts before you, and you will not see it if "it hit you in the face" as the saying goes. You and others are just intent to make the article as Rumanian/Romanian as you can [...] for the sake of Romanian PRIDE you MUST insert as much ROMANIAN CONTENT into the article as possible. Well, go for it, but I will make you work for it, YOU can bet on that. EVERYTHING YOU SAY WILL HAVE TO BE REFERENCED AND SOURCED PROPERLY IN ENGLISH. [...] you go and find your 'majority'". This is completely uncalled-for. I (and others) are attempting to engage in a dispassionate naming discussion, and here comes Mrg3105 to impute sinister motives on my part. I believe this is a violation of the Digwuren general restriction because Mrg3105, "working on topics related to Eastern Europe", has made edits that are "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith", and thus formal action should be taken against him. -- Biruitorul (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Warned him on his talk page. Will leave this AE case open a couple days to see what happens. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 17:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)w
 * Thatcher has also warned him, . — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this acceptable? Mrg3105 is trying to discredit participants in a move request due to their apparent ethnic origin: "(look at the pages of these users) Biruitorul (very Rumanian), AdrianTM obviously not without Rumanian POV, Turgidson has a "Romanian Barnstar of National Merit", Eurocopter tigre is Rumanian, Roamataa another Rumanian". This appears to be a violation of WP:NPA, as well as a clear attempt to sow divisiveness on national lines. -- Biruitorul (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * After that note on Mrg3105's userpage, the conversation moved to my talk page here. After I let that conversation die, Mrg3105 posted this request on the Digwuren case talk page.  Would someone mind reviewing these?  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see what happens with his request on the case page. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. I would like to note, though, that I think the last message he left on my talk page is the most offensive one I've ever received on Wikipedia, which is why I am interested in getting others involved.  Thanks.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * These two edits are also particularly troubling, as they seem to have spawned from this situation. "Incivility" article and "Logic" article talk page. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't pick up on the edit to your talk page at first. Blocked for 24 hours.  Thatcher 23:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved the appeal to Requests_for_arbitration. The Arbitrators generally do not watch closed cases. Thatcher 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, now what happens to the undiscussed arbitrary renaming of the historically non-extant Battle of Romania into the non-WP:UE, non-WP:MILMOS#NAME, and non-WP:ROR compliant Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive, and the subsequent denial of the RM based on arguments that did not apply to the reasons given for the RM?--mrg3105mrg3105 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Talk:Race_of_ancient_Egyptians
IP user 207.14.129.217, is making personal attacks on the talk page. I have warned the user to stop. Could an uninvolved admin, with no past history with this article, please keep an eye on this talk page. The page is on article probation and this sort of thing is not to be tolerated. I have left a warning on the IP users page, as have others, but the off-topic uncivil comments are continuing. Thanks for your help. futurebird (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement of Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles
ArbCom recently rendered a decision in this case, but the decision is not specific as regards either articles or editors. However, the basic decision was to apply additional and ongoing scrutiny to edits in this area. A working group on the problem was to be established. ArbCom stated that "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." So this issue is appropriate for arbitration enforcement.

The current issue is edit warring in Jewish lobby. Over the weekend, a rough consensus on article content had been reached. Then, in tag team editing, reverts were made by, , and (who may be a sockpuppet) to remove content that these users find unacceptable. These users have repeatedly acted to remove cited quotes which disagree with their position. (Most recently, they're removing a citation to an article by the editor of The Forward about the Jewish lobby. They've also removed quotes from The Economist in previous edits, but that was weeks ago. We're not talking about fringe sources here.) Latest diff:


 * So, given the ArbCom decision, it's now the job of arbitration enforcement to deal with the problem. I'd suggest a temporary ban on the above editors from the indicated article, just to quiet things down a bit. Once the ArbCom working group is up and running, we may have a better way to deal with this.  Thanks.  --John Nagle (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The article has now been locked for 24 hours. So there's some time available to decide what to do next. --John Nagle (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nagle, it is just as easy (and accurate) to describe the recent events as "Over the weekend, a group of editors decided to challenge the long-standing consensus on article content, and in tag team editing, reverts were made by, , and to insert controversial content that these users favor, over the objections of numerous editors who have explained their objections carefully on the Talk page."  In fact, you seem to be the one most actively reverting, and skating very close to violating wikipedia's 3RR rule (or rather, cleverly gaming the system) by making exactly 3  reverts in 24 hours. Are you advocating that only the editors who disagree with you be banned, or should ArbCom look very carefully at what you've been up to, in light of the arbitration case you have referenced? I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as Dr. Drakken points out, there has been a strong consensus on the article that, per WP:NOR and WP:NEO, only sources discussing the term be used, rather than sources using the term. As per WP:NEO: An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). I have carefully been replacing sources that use the term with reliable sources that describe the term, and accompanied my edits with copious Talk: discussion. User:G-Dett, who is normally on User:Nagle's "side", for example, supported these changes: User:Georgewilliamherbert, an uninvolved admin who examined the situation came to the same conclusion, and had to warn User:Nagle and User:Carolmooredc about it:  A number of other editors, including User:Armon, User:Humus Sapiens, User:IronDuke, User:Lobojo, User:Yahel Guhan and User:I am Dr. Drakken have disputed the insertion of Nagles's policy violating material. Despite this, User:Nagle, User:Carolmooredc, and now User:Jgui have continued to edit war on the article, in violation of policy. John Nagle, in particular, has reverted the article 16 times since January 7, often completely ignoring Talk discussion. Nagle's suggestion that those he has been edit-warring against be banned is interestingly one-sided, but fails to deal with the principle issue, Nagle's stubborn refusal to abide by policy. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Procedurally, now what? This is an unusual situation, because ArbCom passed the buck to "any uninvolved administrator" and a working group yet to be formed.   -John Nagle (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, now that the article has been locked, you won't be able to engage in your edit-warring and 3RR gaming any more. Perhaps instead you will engage meaningfully on the Talk: page, for a change. It hasn't happened until now, but one can always hope. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to take a 30-day break from all Jewish-Israel-Palestine related articles if, , and do, and any new users who edit in those articles are sockpuppet-checked against those users and myself.  This was one of the suggestions from ArbCom in this arbitration.  If not, arbitration or mediation would be fine with me. But we have to use a dispute resolution mechanism at this point.  (From Jayjg's 2006 arbitration: Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid "Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur.")  --John Nagle (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem, however, appears to be only with your editing on the Jewish lobby page. Wouldn't it make more sense, for a change, for you to engage meaningfully in Talk: instead? You've already been admonished by an outside and uninvolved administrator to do so. I'm certainly willing to go to mediation too, as the next logical step in this process; I am quite confident that all my edits have been in accord with policy. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * has a long history of contentious editing and arbitrations. ( 2006 arbitration (User admonished, amnesty granted.) 2007 arbitration #1 (User left Wikipedia during arbitration. ArbCom: "As the Committee has been unable to determine which actions in this matter, if any, were undertaken in bad faith, and as the community appears to be satisfactorily dealing with the underlying content dispute, the case is dismissed with no further action being taken.")  2007 arbitration #2 (Misuse of "checkuser" privilege. ArbCom: "Jayjg is reminded to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue.") In fact, he's in a mediation on another article right now: Requests for mediation/New antisemitism. (I added myself to that one, although I haven't actually edited that article in some time.) So I'm probably not the problem.  But let's go to mediation.  --John Nagle (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is counterfactual and self-evidently so. This is really pointless. The instigator here is pretending that the issue is with what the sources says, when, in fact, he knows the issue with his edits is that they are Original Research. He is continually inserting uses of the term, rather than descriptions of the term i order to shoehorn all sorts of tangential issues and personal POV into the article. Lobojo (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

From: User:Carolmooredc - I suggested mediation on Talk:Jewish_lobby yesterday and initially thought it was not best to come here to arbitration. But after reading the above, and because I believe this is one of the most important wikipedia articles on Israel/Palestine and related issues, I think at least WP:Mediation Cabal if not full blown arbitration needed:
 * Wikipedia is the only dictionary or encyclopedia very explicitly defining the term besides the difficult to find Books.Google version of Dictionary of Politics, pg 243. I noticed a phrase encyclopedia asked for suggestions of phrases. When I suggested “Jewish Lobby” they wrote back and said they would not try to define it - I should look at Wikipedia’s definition!
 * Why is there so much heat on this topic? Just for a commonsense reference point, do a google search and you will see that perhaps 1/3 of those who use Jewish Lobby obviously are antisemites; perhaps 1/3 who use it are mainstream Jewish or media sources. However, 1/3 are sources who are critical of Israel - or even people who thinking they are praising Jews!
 * Never the less, despite the mainstream uses of the phrase, even mild critics of organized Jewish lobbying (usually on Israel) who use the phrase in an innocuous manner are lumped in with the antisemites and their careers and jobs threatened.
 * As professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer note on page 188 of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy: “In fact, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents and the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In effect, the lobby first boasts of its own power and frequently attacks anyone who calls attention to it.”
 * Therefore there is a vested (if sometimes unconscious) interest in keeping Wikipedia’s definition of "Jewish Lobby" limited only to the anti-Semitic meaning, and by any means necessary, including dubious claims of WP:NEO and WP:OR, in a very WP:POV fashion, possibly through tag team editing and sock puppets.

Just to respond to a couple points made earlier:
 * Whether this article was WP:POV for excluding non-antisemitic uses of the term has been an ongoing Talk:Jewish_lobby issue for over two years, with a near even split between opinions (which maybe slanted by tag team editing and sock puppets).
 * Here Editor User:Georgewilliamherbert suddenly appeared and initially opined that User:Nagle and I were “misinterpreting the policies.” However, after he admitted he was unsure on some points, and he could not answer other counter-points, he stopped replying and disappeared.
 * On January 17th I got disgusted and said would not try to edit the article any more because of WP:POV behavior of editors. I had made few changes anyway because of it, just wrote a lot on talk.
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles appeared on January 19.
 * User:G-Dett then appeared with an Outside comment and made an excellent critique of the problems with WP:NEO and WP:NPOV.
 * User:Jgui then came in for first time and re-wrote the article in line with the suggestions above. The intro looked a lot more NPOV, though I didn’t study all the changes assuming it would quickly be reverted.
 * Since then I have made only 4 edits to the article itself. 1. to remove POV statement (which was reverted); 2. to make another statement less POV (which was reverted); 3. to revert back to Jgui’s new changes (which was reverted); 4. to add to the first paragraph reliable source quote (“Dictionary of Politics” above) that G-Dett found that actually discusses neutral use of term, though I assume that will be nitpicked away at and reverted. The link already has been removed. Carol Moore 14:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * With respect, the question for this board is not one of content, but whether one, several, or all editors of this article are acting so disruptively that sanctions are needed. It would help for someone to list a few key diffs for each person against whom sanctions are requested. Thatcher 14:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. It's really a content dispute, of course.  There's a long history in this area, but the current content issues have been well-described above.

Looking at the recent sequence of significant edits:
 * 03:54, 19 January 2008 Jgui (Talk | contribs) (14,530 bytes) (Edit to include G-Dett's excellent suggestions, and flesh out and distinguish the difference uses. Please see TALK) There'd been considerable discussion on Talk, and much disagreement. G-Dett had proposed some changes, and Jgui implemented them in this edit.  The lead sentence changed from "The Jewish lobby is a term referring to allegations that Jews exercise undue influence in a number of areas, including politics, government, business, the media, academia, popular culture, public policy, international relations, and international finance. " to "Jewish lobby is a phrase sometimes used to refer loosely to the Israel lobby in the United States, primarily AIPAC, the AJC, and other Jewish-American lobbying organizations." This was a well thought out, but controversial, edit.
 * 06:56, 19 January 2008 Yahel Guhan (Talk | contribs) (12,630 bytes) (rv. old version was much better). This was a straight revert, by someone who had not previously participated in the discussion.
 * 07:03, 19 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (14,530 bytes) (Undid revision 185376763 by Yahel Guhan (talk) Please discuss on talk page before reverting. Thanks.) This is me, reverting Guhan.
 * 23:09, 19 January 2008 Yahel Guhan (Talk | contribs) (12,630 bytes) (Undid revision 185377759 by Nagle (talk)- this is excessively POV and removes much sourced content) Another revert by Guhan.
 * 03:14, 20 January 2008 Jgui (Talk | contribs) (14,530 bytes) (Undid revision 185523456 by Yahel Guhan. Another editor has removed sourced content with inaccurate claims. PLEASE READ AND CONTRIBUTE TO TALK.) Jgui reverts Guhan.
 * 01:06, 21 January 2008 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) (11,936 bytes) (per talk and WP:NOR, removing examples that simply *use* the term rather than *discuss* it, fixing narrow American-centric modifications, adding other sources that *discuss* the term) Next is a rather complex edit by Jayjg. It's not a revert. The lead paragraph is reasonably neutral, but sources that disagree with the "Jewish lobby term is anti-Semitic" position have been removed.
 * 03:03, 21 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (13,531 bytes) (Restore quote from editor of The Forward, specifically talking about the Jewish lobby) I restore quote from the editor of the Forward writing about the Jewish lobby, deleted by Jayjg, but otherwise leave the article alone.
 * 03:09, 21 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (13,569 bytes) (Wikilink lobbying groups) I fix a link. At this point, edits are small and consensus seems to be emerging.  Jayjg has had his say, and my only exception to that is his deletion of the  quotation from the Forward.
 * 08:51, 21 January 2008 Jgui (Talk | contribs) (15,150 bytes) (Fix several problems with the previous version, and better organize the material, without deleting anything. Please SEE and CONTRIBUTE to TALK.) Jgui makes some substantial changes. The content is about the same, but the emphasis and ordering are different.
 * 15:28, 21 January 2008 I am Dr. Drakken (Talk | contribs) (13,569 bytes) (re-organized back to the previous organiztion - see the LENGTHY discussion on Talk) Straight revert of Jgui's previous edit (but not my two previous edits.)
 * 17:17, 21 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (13,560 bytes) (Removed word "exercise", per humorous comments in talk. Lead sentence made no sense.) We have a humor break. G-Dett has pointed out in Talk that the lead sentence, which begins "Jewish lobby is a term used to indicate Jewish exercise influence" doesn't make sense; it sounds like this is about working out at the gym.  So I delete the word "exercise" in a one word edit.
 * 21:26, 21 January 2008 Jgui (Talk | contribs) (15,150 bytes) (rv to previous version which was deleted contrary to WP guidelines - this is discussed in detail in Talk - Please SEE and CONTRIBUTE to Talk.) Jgui reverts back to his own previous version. No new content.
 * 23:36, 21 January 2008 Armon (Talk | contribs) (11,936 bytes) (rv to Jay. We have to abide by policy) Armon reverts all the way back to Jayjg's previous version. No new content.
 * 00:49, 22 January 2008 Carolmooredc (Talk | contribs) (12,470 bytes) (added definition from The Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms to relevant section) Two edits by Caroomooredc, adding a reference to a definition of "Jewish lobby" from a political dictionary. This is controversial, because Jayjg has previously stated on Talk that ""Jewish lobby" isn't a neologism? Great, please direct me to the standard dictionary entry where I can read about this term, then."  Jayjg has insisted that "Jewish lobby" is a neologism (even though there are cites to it appearing in Time Magazine thirty years ago), and thus the exclusion standards of WP:NEO can be applied.  If "Jewish lobby" isn't a neologism, then many of Jayjg's deletions are out of policy.
 * 01:59, 22 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (12,462 bytes) (Choppy editing returned that non-sentence that made someone think of Muscle Beach. Fix.) Another humor break; all this editing accidentally brought back the word "exercise", leading to a silly lead sentence. So I take that out again.
 * 02:00, 22 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (14,057 bytes) (Restore Goldberg quote that keeps getting deleted.) I put back the Goldberg quote from The Forward that was deleted in Armon's revert above.
 * 02:38, 22 January 2008 Armon (Talk | contribs) (12,462 bytes) (rm Goldberg. Again, this is NOT about the term) Armon deletes the Goldberg quote from The Forward again.
 * Four edits by Jayjg. The Goldberg quote is deleted again, there's some rewording and rearrangement, and one cite is added.
 * 03:44, 22 January 2008 Nagle (Talk | contribs) (14,019 bytes) (Undo unauthorized deletions of cited material, but use Jayjg phrasing for Raymond quote.) I put back the Goldberg quote, change "allege" back to "indicate" in the lead, and accidentally delete a new cite added by Jayjg in his previous four edits. (I've apologized on talk for my sloppyness there; that cite should go in.)
 * 03:46, 22 January 2008 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) (12,490 bytes) (remove WP:NOR, per talk - I believe this is about the 50th time this has been explained to you John.) Jayjg reverts back to his previous version, deleting the Goldberg quote.
 * At this point the article is protected by another admin, which is where we are now.

--John Nagle (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * With this background, the key issue becomes clear. There's strong objection by, , , and  to the inclusion of citations which demonstrate the use of the term "Jewish lobby" in more or less neutral contexts. Months ago, we had a similar dispute over an article in The Economist which wrote about the Jewish lobby (see "Quotes from the Economist" in Talk:Jewish lobby), and a few weeks back there was a similar dispute over a quote from the head lobbyist for AIPAC about the Jewish lobby. --John Nagle (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that all the substantive edits from the above-listed editors came from ; the others just reverted, and didn't write much. This may or may not be a sockpuppet/meatpuppet situation. I can't tell.   has some sockpuppet characteristics.  I requested a checkuser Requests for checkuser/Case/I am Dr. Drakken and the response was "Unrelated. However, this person has been using open proxies. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)"  So we have an ambiguous result there. What's current policy on editing via open proxies?  --John Nagle (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that it is known that Jayjg collaborates with other editors off-wiki which could be interpreted as 'gaming the system'. Catchpole (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The article Jewish lobby is placed on 1 revert per day per editor limitation by CMoreschi, and I concur. Exceeding one revert per day will result in blocks. I will try and determine whether additional sanctions are needed against individual editors. Thatcher 22:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * John Nagle, you need to write more concisely. This is unreasonable. El_C 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thatcher asked you for "a few key diffs". Tens is not a few. El_C 01:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Result
Result I am well aware that nearly everyone will have an opinion that I have either sanctioned the wrong people, or not sanctioned enough of the right people. The editors in this area are going to have to get used to imperfect justice. The best way to not be sanctioned is not to get pulled in front of Arbcom; it is too late for that, and admins reviewing these complaints will make good faith efforts, but we (or at least I) have neither the patience of Job nor the wisdom of Solomon, so we will do the best we can. With that said, in addition to the 1RR per day limit at Jewish lobby imposed by Moreschi, the following restrictions are imposed:
 * Limited to one revert per week per page on all pages related to the conflict area, excepting obvious vandalism, subject to a 24 hour block per violation. Reverts must be discussed on the talk page.  Mischaracterization of content disputes as "vandalism" will double the block.  This restriction expires in 30 days (22 February 2008, 00:00 UTC) unless extended. Thatcher 01:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Limited to one revert per week per page on all pages related to the conflict area, excepting obvious vandalism, subject to a 24 hour block per violation. Reverts must be discussed on the talk page.  Mischaracterization of content disputes as "vandalism" will double the block.  This restriction expires in 30 days (22 February 2008, 00:00 UTC) unless extended. Thatcher 01:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Limited to one revert per week per page on all pages related to the conflict area, excepting obvious vandalism, subject to a 24 hour block per violation. Reverts must be discussed on the talk page.  Mischaracterization of content disputes as "vandalism" will double the block.  This restriction expires in 30 days (22 February 2008, 00:00 UTC) unless extended. Thatcher 01:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Limited to one revert per week per page on all pages related to the conflict area, excepting obvious vandalism, subject to a 24 hour block per violation. Reverts must be discussed on the talk page.  Mischaracterization of content disputes as "vandalism" will double the block.  This restriction expires in 30 days (22 February 2008, 00:00 UTC) unless extended. Thatcher 01:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Limited to one revert per week per page on all pages related to the conflict area, excepting obvious vandalism, subject to a 24 hour block per violation. Reverts must be discussed on the talk page.  Mischaracterization of content disputes as "vandalism" will double the block.  This restriction expires in 30 days (22 February 2008, 00:00 UTC) unless extended. Thatcher 01:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Meowy/IP combination
removed a reference on Shusha pogrom at 17:11, 18 January 2008 and an IP has done the same with an edit summary that reads like it is a follow on. As it appears to be an informed Wikipedian doing the edit, the most reasonable explanation is that it is Meowy, or a meatpuppet. Per WP:RFAR/AA2#List of users placed under supervision, Meowy is under revert limitations. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Checkuser. Restrictions notified. FT2 (Talk 07:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but what on earth is your point? Where is the rule that says an editor has to sign in before making an edit? As I have just explained on the talk page of that article, my account must have timed-out (or perhaps I just forgot to sign in) when I made that edit. So, unknown to me, my IP address appeared rather than my name. There was no intent to deceive (why would I want to?), and I have not broken the three-reverts rule. Nor was there any "aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility" in my edit, or in anything I wrote in the article's talk page. I explained the reason for my edit when I made it, and it was done on reasonable grounds. So, again, I ask "what's your point?" <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You were notified here that you are subject to a limit of one revert per week per article. However, the first removal is just an edit; the IP edit is a reversion, so you have your one revert per week. Thatcher 01:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I had presumed that this edit was essentially a revert of the prior edit with insignificant other modification for it to be called an "edit". These days, it is standard practise for all parties to perform other minor modifications when doing a revert . John Vandenberg (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that I do not consider myself subject to the Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 remedy because, as I have fully explained here on my talk page, there is no mention of Turkey in Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy, and the text administrator placed by Seraphimblade in my talk page bore no relation to that RfA remendy. If, at some point, and as a result of this inappropriate use of the AA2 remedy, I am actually placed under editing restrictions then I will be requesting a RfA with the aim of abolishing the flawed Armenia-Azerbaijan2 remedy for all editors. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy  20:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edits to Shusha pogrom most definitely fall under the expanded sanctions at Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2. Thatcher 00:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

NE2/Highways 2
NE2 has gone against an issue raised before in other articles by readding removed banners from talk pages. Edits like these are going against the temporary injunction in the case, which is to not do edits affecting the scope. ,, and are the three diffs that explain what he did. NE2 in the process also disputed the changes. The ArbCom injunction said that nothing was to happen to the scope, and what Imzadi did by removing them was not in the wrong as they belong in a different project. I don't suggest what should happen, just that this has occurred and it is important that Arbitrators know about the situation.Mitch32contribs 00:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note . NE2 is not an uninvolved administrator... besides the fact that this was a legitimate change. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

KERKOPS
See this, this guy needs to go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive121#Possibility_of_Sanctions regarding this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excelcan (talk • contribs) 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide diffs and concise reasons for your request? I also see you only made 3 edits prior to Jan 21, 2008. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been keeping an eye on Kekrops' edits, and I don't believe he's done anything lately that would warrant a block. This request seems frivolous to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Checkuser confirms that the user that submitted this report is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 00:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Eupator
I am requesting that an uninvolved administrator review the recent activities of Eupator (  Ευπάτωρ   ), who is currently under ArbCom restrictions from  Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, specifically, ''Civility supervision (formerly civility parole). If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses." He is also subject to supervised editing and "... may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues''"

For the last few weeks, Eupator has been engaging in a dispute at the Franco-Mongol alliance article, specifically as regards the definition of Armenia's involvement in relations with the Mongols. As part of this, he has made what I regard as assumptions of bad faith. On December 21, he accused me of "bullying" at ANI. More recently, he has created a subpage in his userspace with negative comments about me: User:Eupator/Mongol historians. There is absolutely no need for this personal commentary about other editors. If he wishes to make his points, he should comment solely on article content. This is true of any editor, but particularly of an editor under such a stringent civility parole. --Elonka 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On 14th of October Elonka left the following message on my talk page after I had awarded another user with a barnstar. . The purpose of her message was not quite clear but the entire message was a comment on another editor. I found that quite odd. As a result of Elonka's message on my userspace I started reading the dispute that she had initiated regarding the aforementioned article. My comment in December was in response to user PHG's request: "I am asking you (Elonka) to apologize for your bullying." Elonka responded nicely on the article talk page but left a seemingly threatening message on my talk page:. I did not respond back as I did not wish to escalate the matter any further. Most recently, once again she left another message on my talk page with yet even more inaccurate assumptions . I think I have remained quite civil in all of this but I do acknowledge commenting on user Elonka in my userspace here and not just on content. This was an honest attempt at displaying background info regarding my involvement, not some sort of a rant against Elonka though I do acknowledge that the last sentence is not really necessary. If you take a look at the talk page for Franco-Mongol alliance you will immediately notice how much of the discussion is regarding editors. A good portion of user Elonka's comments there are regarding other user(s) and not content. It is often necessary to discuss a users actions, if it's done civilly it should not be a cause for stress so I fail to see why she is applying double standards here. Also please note the following edit by Elonka on a recent AFD:. She's not commenting on content or my vote, she's making a bad faith assumption instead. --  Ευπάτωρ   <font color=#974423>Talk!! 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My uninvolved, outside opinion: Complaining of being bullied is most certainly not uncivil or, in the context of Elonka's first link above, an assumption of bad faith ("This does look like bullying" is a comment on the content, not the contributor, and seems to be supported by the prior paragraph) and there is no assumption of bad faith anywhere in User:Eupator/Mongol historians. The second link given by Elonka above is merely a request for someone else to step back, and goodness knows we have plenty of people recommending wikibreaks each day without assuming bad faith. I would go so far as to say that anyone being accused on such weak evidence is indeed being bullied. MilesAgain (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My completely uninvolved completely outside opinion: I found out about this entry because I was following the "I am Dr. Draken" section below however I am familiar with Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 and I think it's a huge stretch (to put it mildly) to invoke Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 on this type of article. IMHO the intent of that arbcom decision and the prior decision was to cool the edit warring between Armenian and Azerbaijani editors that were occuring primarily in articles related to Nagorno-Karabakh. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am Dr. Drakken
is a "new" editor editing articles related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Checkuser shows I am Dr. Drakken edits from open proxies. His edits to Jewish lobby, reported below, do not warrant being placed on restriction, except for the possibility that he may be a good hand or alternate account for someone else. This post is to solicit advice from other uninvolved admins on whether to place I am Dr. Drakken on some sort of restriction as a precaution. Alternatively, I am Dr. Drakken may wish to identify himself to me or a trusted admin (uninvolved in the I-P dispute) or to a member of Arbcom so that we can have some assurance that enforcement is not needed. I am not interested in the opinions of editors involved in the conflict so please don't even bother. Thatcher 02:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In terms of adding him/her as a precaution, I don't see anything too urgent. Certainly, s/he can be added immediately in the event of problematic conduct. For now, I suggest waiting to see if s/he can expand on the clarifications sought here and on the account's talk page. El_C 02:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not really involved in the conflict as I've maybe made one edit to the article and posted a few questions to talk. As per WP:PROXY shouldn't the editor provide a really good reason why he/she is using proxies or otherwise be asked to stop using them? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked from editing for any period at any time to deal with editing abuse. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked. I'm not going to target his proxies for blocking; they may or may not get picked up in other sweeps. Thatcher 02:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm here per the note that Thatcher left on my Talk page. I edit from open proxies because I dearly value my privacy and anonymity, and have recently come to the conclusion that the only way to guard them is by editing from open proxies. As Thatcher noted to Pocopocopocopoco - "you are free to use open proxies if you can find them" - and that is what I am doing. I do not believe I am violating any wikipedia policy by doing so, and as several editors have noted, my editing does not warrant any restrictions or sanctions - I have avoided edit warring, and attempt to explain my edits in full on Talk pages and/or edit summaries. I don't know how to address your concern regarding the possibility of an alternate account, which I assure you I am not. I don't know what means of identification will satisfy you and yet allow me to keep my anonymity. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a reasonable enough non/response. The user is entitled to keep their identity secret. Certainly, I am doing the same. I cannot support any restrictions being imposed without specific evidence depicting a violation of rules having been submitted, and reviewed, prior to that. El_C 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In general terms, on a heavily conflict-ridden article it seems a bit problematic to have an obviously non-new editor working via open proxy. While privacy is certainly a legitimate concern, this can be addressed by simply registering an account and avoiding editing personally-relevant articles or divulging info. The only people from whom open proxies protect one's identity are the checkusers, unless I'm missing something in my technical ignorance. It is simply not possible to determine whether is a sockpuppet of an editor involved in these contentious articles. While his editing does not violate any policies per se and his reassurance is appreciated, given the possibility of influencing the appearance of consensus my feeling is that we are better off without experienced editors using open proxies to edit highly contentious articles. MastCell Talk 21:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not believe a ban on editing is required at this time but I would like to think about a revert limit, precisely because we can never be sure what this editor may or may not be doing "behind our backs" so to speak. Perhaps I shouldn't have raised the issue at all, and I have no reason to not assume good faith regarding Drakken's response, but I thought that since I was leveling 1RR limits on several editors I should at least get some feedback on this delicate issue. Thatcher 21:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, anyone editing this set of articles is a breath away from being placed on a revert limitation. That, and imposing a revet limit here, too, in a sense, is besides the point in terms of the above concerns: that if we are to allow registered accounts to use open proxies, they can (albeit gradually) create multiple other accounts and it won't matter that those will be placed on a 1RR. I can appreciate that fear. I, certainly, will take immediate issue if I see more than one proxy-connected registered user reverting the same article, or even the same set of articles. It is, however, a potential problem that is perhaps best left for the policy page in that it is not unique to any specific (sanctioned or otherwise) set of articles. El_C 22:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, such duplicitous proxy-ing of identities need not be limited to reverts to become disruptive (i.e. on talk pages, etc.). El_C 22:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. I think that as long as someone is keeping track of which, and how many, open proxies are active on these articles, and takes this into consideration when looking at issues of disruption, edit-warring, consensus, etc, then no further action is required right now. I can't bring myself to feel totally comfortable with it, but that's my problem. MastCell Talk 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A somewhat related concern: doesn't the tolerated use of open proxies on these articles undermine the reliance on editor-specific sanctions (1RR through topic bans) which ArbCom has suggested to rein in these articles? 1RR, topic bans, and blocks are easy enough to evade by establishing a new account via an open proxy. I'm thinking out loud here. MastCell Talk 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Andranikpasha
has been placed on revert parole in accordance with the ruling of Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, please see:, which limits him to 1 rv per article per week. However on Khojaly massacre he made 2 rvs today, first by adding the POV tag:, which is a revert to his previous attempt to attach undiscussed tags: and then reverting once again:  This is violation of his parole. Grandmaster (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically a violation, yes, but I really doubt Andranikpasha could have realised the first edit was technically a revert. So, no block. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 16:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that he tried to attach tags to the article many times, such as here:, I have a reason to assume that he was aware of consequences. Grandmaster (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Back in September, Grandmaster! It's a bit much to expect people to remember their edits that far back. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for reviewing. Grandmaster (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777
Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine says "Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks." Unfortunately, I think she's crossed that line again at Talk:British Isles/name debate, particularly with this edit. (In fact, as you'll see from the page history, she added those comments in a series of edits over 15 minutes, indicating that this wasn't a flash-in-the-pan show of emotion but a thought-out personal attack). While Sarah's a great editor when it comes to the non controversial issues, she seems to have great difficulty in discussing matters calmly with anyone whose opinion differs from hers. We could really do without that kind of behaviour on Wikipedia. Waggers (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarah777 has been banned from editing or participating at British Isles, Talk:British Isles, or any of its subpages for 7 days. Notice here; logged here. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 13:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I want to object to this. While I'm no fan of Sarah777's, a comment such as "The British Isles ceased to exist when Ireland won Independence" is certainly not anti-British. As I described below Sarah's comment, this assertion is supported by both British, Irish and international literature on the subject. It is a perfectly valid view, supported by published sources - and certainly not anti-British. Oddly, Wagger's agrees with this. (See here for both my comments and Waggers'.)
 * The real issue, I believe, is this dispute between Waggers and Sarah777. That dispute might be hot headed, on both sides, but again I don't see where Sarah777 expresses any anti-British remarks. Anti-British remarks of the kind covered by the ArbCom were things such as comparing British history with the history of the Nazis or calling British editors things such as imperialist jingoes etc. This is not a breach of that ruling. --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth pléigh 14:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Striked that on scrolling down and saw the personal attack thanks to User:One Night In Hackney's comments on my page. Though would like to note that it was a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK and not a breach of the ArbCom decision (i.e. the attack was anti-Waggers not anti-British). --<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth pléigh 15:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK breach, but the restriction, to me, is worded in such a way that her remarks need not be anti-British for them to qualify as "aggressive biased editing". Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Highways 2
Requests for arbitration/Highways 2: Does this violate the temporary injunction? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It just looks to me like the editor created subpages for the project for things like participants. I don't see how this is a change in scope or approach; please explain further if you think so. Dmcdevit·t 03:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the page move - is that a scope change? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the page move. In the first Highways case, the issue was a dispute over preferred terminology between "Roads" and "Highways." Is that also an issue in the current case?  If so, then the move should be reverted.  If you can point to a section of the evidence page or parties' statements showing that terminology is once again part of the dispute, that would help.  If no other admin picks up on this, I will come back to it tonight. Thatcher 13:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeesh that's a lot of moves. The moves definitely expands the scope of the Pennsylvania Wikiproject, (as does this series of edits, as "roads" is a larger set that includes "State highways" as a subset.  If you want to get technical about the language, the injunction prohibits change the scope of USRD or of adding disputed cases to USRD or its subprojects, but does not prohibit changing the scope of the subprojects.  This seems nonsensical to me.  If there is a dispute about whether a certain stretch of pavement should be included in a "Highways" project, surely renaming the project to "Roads" completely changing the playing field of the dispute.  On the other hand, no one else has edited the PASH in almost 3 months, so there is hardly an active dispute about the scope of the PA project.  Does this intersect in some way with USRD so that the moves have a more significant impact than it appears? Thatcher 04:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Including articles in a subproject also includes them into USRD's assessment categories, as articles are tagged for a subproject by using the USRD template with a state parameter. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, but this wasn't adding or removing roads, it was changing the name of the PA subproject from "Highways" to "Roads". I'm unclear on what should be done but there have been no strong objections noted here, and since the project was dead for months any objections will likely come from non-PA editors who have not been working on PA highways/roads articles.  So I think I'll let this one slide with the option to reopen later if needed. Thatcher 02:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Highways 2 - again
violated the injunction. --NE2 05:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverted and notified. Thatcher 13:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Space Cadet
See all under "Another Eastern European flamer". The answer of the user for the notice was a accusation of racism or nazism against the admin. .--80.190.200.171 (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * people often lash out when informed of blocks or other restrictions, and admins are expected to have thicker skins. I would be much more concerned about his behavior on articles and talk pages. Thatcher 04:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Eastern European flamer
Copied what too here is appropriate of.

he is a highly ucivil editor active in discussions related to various Eastern European topics, an area which has been subject to a series of recent ArbCom rulings noting 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 Space Cadet 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 17 November. I would argue that he need to be placed under the same restrictions specified at] Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren" (technical note: there is even a dedicated template for this, see Digwuren enforcement).

--80.190.200.171 (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * November 17: "revert the mess back to Molobo's"
 * November 18: "Also LUCPOL, keep your tRAŚh off my Talk page."
 * November 18: "Bo to tylko twoja prawda, wandalizujący fanatyku!" / "Because it is only your truth, fanatic vandal!"
 * November 19: "We all like English letters like ü, ä, ß, etc., but not Polish ones, right?"
 * November 25: "You German ultranationalists only like the Gdańsk vote when it serves your purposes" and "You're new here or something? Don't play dumb on us (the Wikipedia Community) now!"
 * November 25: "Some nice ultranationalist consistency."
 * November 25: "rm nationalistic nonsense"
 * November 30: "Stop your whining." and "poor Matthead, poor history, so brutally denied. You're such a drama king."
 * December 11: "Do whatever you want to your ultranationalist List of people from Danzig, but leave this neutral version alone."
 * December 15: "You have your own "Danzig" page, play with that, bout leave this neutral version alone."
 * January 4: "It's in a very bad tone to use editor's personal record as an only justification for reverting him. I am highly disappointed. Grow up!"
 * January 13: "At Grunwald Poland actually got more help from Russians then from those wild, half-pagan, jungle people (Lithanians)." and "is the "same language" another myth you believe in?" and "Put away the myths, study the true history of your awesome nation (Lithuania) and become a constructive editor of the Wikipedia. Of course in my opinion you would have to grow up a little bit first"
 * January 17: "And stop using icon together with your poor imitation of that language. Cheers."
 * January 18: "What medication are you on right now?"
 * January 18: "Apologies? You gotta be kidding me! YOU apologize and remove the insults and maybe I'll respond, because I already have answers to all your pseudo-arguments. You are simply afraid of the truth, that's why you turn to namecalling in lack of anything better."
 * January 18: "Seriously though, are you drinking right now? You are, aren't you? Maybe you should go to sleep now and apologize to me later, what do you say?"
 * January 19: "Too bad you cannot live without insults, we could've had a very interesting, stimulating discussion, because I'm a very well read man" and "By the time Poland brought culture to Lithuanians, they were very little more than wild, pagan, forest (here, I replaced "jungle" with "forest", are you happy now?) people, kind of like Poles were in the 9'th century"
 * January 27: "I said it (yellow on blue versus black on yellow or white on red), it just went over your head, so rather than inquiring for further information you blindly reverted my edit."
 * January 27: "shutting me up twice was rude, don't turn stuff around"
 * January 27: "Do you have narcissistic tendencies?"
 * January 27: "Not at all what I expected. Hope to never encounter you again." and "First you were rude, then you tried to make me look bad, now you're threatening me. I'm outta here, it's just that judging by your edits I thought you were a different kind of person. Huge disappointment. Huge. But enough feeling sorry for myself. Good bye and I mean it."
 * Given that evidence, I don't think there can be any argument. The restriction has been duly applied. Waggers (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pallywood
I'm requesting that a 1RR limit be applied to, an article covered by the recent Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles case. The article has a history of contentious editing and edit wars (see ).

Following a recent discussion on the talk page and another editor's tagging of the article, I've amended the article to make it more consistent, add some info from a reliable source that discusses the topic, remove a couple of OR-ish and unreliably sourced items, and reduce overlap with another linked article (diff). Unfortunately User:Leifern, who created the article in the first place, has indiscriminately reverted my good faith edits with an aggressive edit summary (diff) and accusations of bad faith on the talk page (diff), but no explanation of what he considers unacceptable about my edits. This is not what reverts are supposed to be for; as WP:REVERT says, "Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof."

Aggressive reverts of this kind are a major factor in causing the hostile relationship between editors that led to the Palestine-Israel arbitration in the first place. In the arbitration, I said that it would be necessary to have a change of editing culture in this topic area - editors would need to be encouraged to collaborate rather than confront. Discouraging aggressive reverting is an essential starting point. I'd be grateful if 1RR could be applied to this article, and it would be helpful if someone could have a word with Leifern to explain how reverting should be done when it needs to be done. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Enforcement applied. Violations are to be reported to this noticeboard, where uninvolved admins are requested to apply a block no less than 24 hours per revert. <font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (u|t)  01:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

HanzoHattori
The Requests for arbitration/Macedonia case imposes stricter requirements regarding civility and behavior on Balkan related articles.

User HanzoHattori was recently blocked for "repeated incivility, disruption" on the Talk:Bosnian Mujahideen page. Despite this recent block he is now becoming quite aggressive and rude again on the same talk page. Two examples within the last 24 hours: and. I would appreciate if you could apply whatever remedies you find appropriate. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying "god damn" is uncivil to many, but calling another editor "psycho" is definitely incivil (see second listed diff). I checked contribs and the recent 170000 minute (about 12 days) block of HH by East718 doesn't seem to have made the point, so I'm blocking 2 weeks. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 00:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that his response was "Oh Osli, you one silly fucker, you can kiss myass" — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 04:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou
I am filing this request as per the decisions made in the arbitration case Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.

User:Jaakobou, who's editing behaviour was the initial cause for the RfArb, is back at his usual edit-warring, tendentious editing, POV-pushing and point-pushing.

I must admit, I am currently an involved party in two disputes with him, namely But this is just disclosure.
 * Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where after two RfCs (here and here) it was agreed that we would use the term "occupied territories" when referring to the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the context of them being occupied, User:Jaakobou ignored the consent and re-inserted the "disputed territories" . During the ensuing discussion he then unilaterally changed the text to use neither of the terms. This is a clear case of disruption because he didn't like the term used.
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-21 Gilad Shalit, which is still ongoing.

What this request is about are a series of edits to relatively quiet, low-traffic articles All three edits involve articles in which User:Jaakobou had not been involved in during the past 6 months or so and they all involve only the removal of the word Palestine, even when clearly not warranted.
 * Doghmush: removal of the word Palestine, claiming that it was not the name used at that time, whereas the article on Palestine itself states otherwise.
 * Haim Farhi: removal of any mention of Palestine, replaced with Israel or Land of Israel, which makes little sense since the context is pre-1948, thus pre-Israeli.
 * Mar Saba: replaced Palestine with Israel when the location, following the coordinates in the top-right corner of the page, is smack in the middle of the West Bank.

All three edits also represent a clear pattern of singling-out articles containing words or phrases that User:Jaakobou doesn't like. This is WP:TE, WP:DE and WP:POINT in their purest form.

After the first two, I contacted User:Jaakobou's mentor, User:Durova (here) who discussed this with User:Jaakobou, yet to no avail, since the third edit came shortly thereafter.

Despite previous bans, the whole arbitration and mentorship, User:Jaakobou has shown little or no insight and they have had no effect on his behaviour, I would suggest a long, healthy topic ban.

Cheers and kind regards, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedro gonnet  - <font color="#000">talk  - 01.02.2008 09:25


 * Its a basic content misunderstanding. Pedro has not made discussion attempts to understand why I believe one thing and he believes another. Doghmush family used a Turkish source using the word Gaza and not using the word Palestine (I verified this by contacting a Turkish speaking wiki editor). Palestine is a term not used to refer to Gaza by the Ottomans at the early 1800s - the used term was 'Damascus Wilayah' and ''Jerusalem Sanjak'.
 * I am more than puzzled at the (unreferenced) edit warring accusation since Pedro made an edit on Gilad shalit which was not agreed upon in the mediation but I have not reverted him and continued discussions.
 * Also, me and Pedro are currently discussing issues on a Gilad Shalit mediation, and Pedro's assertions have been less than accurate there and here also. He has a clear mis-perception of rules (Sample: asking a page be reverted to his version and protected ) and is attempting to silence others rather than discuss.
 * If anything, Pedro has been in violation of the Decorum principals with some of his comments and actions. Most notably the "assumptions of bad faith" and "incivility".
 * p.s. Pedro, if you believe I've made an error, please explain your position on the article's talk page using relevant sources, not the AE noticeboard.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  19:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed the three edits cited by Pedro and I don't believe this merits a topic ban. In response to this discussion, I've looked into the issue of the Ottoman terminology for Palestine and it isn't a simple matter to determine what territories were regarded as part of Palestine at that time (see my edit here). I think some confusion can be excused here. On the second issue, this edit is certainly sloppy work by Jaakobou - it's plainly anachronistic to refer to Napoleon trying to conquer "the land of Israel" - but by itself it doesn't merit a block or topic ban. On the third issue, this edit is plainly wrong; as this map shows (see top right), the location is well outside even the territory that Israel claims. Assuming good faith, this error shows that Jaakobou needs to take more care with sourcing - if you're going to put something in an article, you need to be sure that it's right, so the lesson is always check your facts first. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I admit to my error on the Mar Saba article; Not knowing its accurate location, assuming that "Palestine" is not an actual recognized country and replacing it with Israel, who if I'm not mistaken is internationally responsible for the area. Considering the now known location, I think the edit made by ChrisO is well and neutral. Hoping this is a sign that we're leaving our old disputes in the past.
 * p.s. I've started discussions for the Haim Farhi article, and you're invited to participate.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  23:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * p.p.s. we can all be wrong at times. Chris, I've added a reference and reinserted your removal of the Kidron Valley  from the Mar Saba article. I promise that you won't see your error on the WP:AE noticeboard with any tendentious editing charges.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  23:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. :-) I'm still confused though, could you address my query on Talk:Mar Saba? (And since further discussion on that topic isn't germane to this page, I'd suggest that this thread be closed.) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Intifada
There seems to be an edit war going on here, in violation of Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, where it seems users are edit warring. It seems tag-team reverting may be being used in this case.  Yahel  Guhan  05:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Some diffs please? Thatcher 13:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * my bad. The following users are tag team- edit warring largly seems to be against User:Michael Safyan.
 * User:Bless sins:
 * User:Tiamut:
 * User:Al Ameer son:
 * User:Michael Safyan:  Yahel   Guhan  01:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * With the exception of a logged out editor using a public terminal to avoid scrutiny (possibly), the article seems to have calmed down for now. Please report if it flares up again. Thatcher 12:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Could someone explain how this could be construed as tag-team edit warring? I made exactly one revert, which I discussed extensively before making and afterward. Additionally, Michael Safyan, Bless Sins and Al Ameer Son were all engaged in discussion over the issues as well. How is this tag-team edit-warring rather than colloborative editing exactly? I need to understand what it is that is wrong about the behaviour of editors here (specifically) so as to avoid repeating similar mistakes (if any) in the future. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 18:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

HanzoHattori, again
The Requests for arbitration/Macedonia case imposes strict requirements regarding civility and behavior on Balkan related articles. User HanzoHattori has recently been blocked twice for incivil remarks either on the Talk:Bosnian Mujahideen page or in relation to discussions there (seeblock log). Despite these blocks he continues the uncivil behaviour. The most recent example being:
 * "Oh Osli you one silly fucker, you can kiss my ass"

I feel a stronger remedy is needed for this user. Osli73 (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked by Keilana, discussion ongoing here. <small style="background:#fff;border:#008080 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 11:27, February 3, 2008

Free Republic
This article, subject of the ArbCom case Requests for arbitration/Free Republic has had to have been full protected due to edit wars three times in less then two weeks.


 * 10:38, 30 January 2008 SirFozzie (Talk | contribs | block) protected Free Republic ‎ (Another edit war between participants of the Waterboarding ArbCom case [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 15:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC))) (Change)
 * 16:39, 22 January 2008 Jj137 (Talk | contribs | block) protected Free Republic ‎ (Full protection: Dispute, Edit wars. using TW [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC))) (Change)
 * 11:48, 18 January 2008 Prodego (Talk | contribs | block) protected Free Republic ‎ (edit warring, short cool down period [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 00:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC))) (Change)

The parties involved in this edit war are familiar to those who remember the past ArbCom case.

User:Eschoir, an outspoken critic of Free Republic, who has had a real life COI with Free Republic due to legal issues initiated by Free Republic.

And a group of users widely believed to be reincarnations or meatpuppets of banned user User:BryanFromPalatine. (there is evidence in the ongoing Waterboarding ArbCom Case that supports the following users being linked in some way to the banned user.

User:Samurai Commuter User:Shibumi2 User:Neutral Good (who emailed me to ask me to watch over/supervise the article despite never having edited in at least the last 500 edits to the page, going back to May, 2007).

I request the following enforcement following on to the Free Republic article:

A) That Eschoir be placed either on a strict, 1 Revert/Week probation with regards to Free Republic, or a full scale topic ban. It is very doubtful that having been such an outspoken critic of the site, he can edit with regards to WP's NPOV policy with this page.

B) That the three users above, and any other account or IP reasonably believed to be related in any way to User:BryanFromPalatine be topic-banned from the article until ArbCom decides if they are sock/meatpuppets of a banned user. I am willing to monitor the Free Republic article for a while if need be to enforce this. SirFozzie (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I point out that there has been no evidence taken about whether I can edit with an NPOV, and I sugggest that the record shows a long history of neutral edits of the article in question. From the time Dino was bannned (was that April?) to when Shibumi2 returned channelling Bryan reverts (in December?), the article was balanced, there were no edit wars.  I personally cleared all the fact tags.  I am the source of the O'reilley "planted" quote so relied upon by Bryanpuppets.  I added the first Huckabee ball section.  I removed the unsourced "messicans" section.  I supplied the Appendix 4 Memogate quote. Are these facts less worthy of consideration than the insistant ululation of the puppet-mob?
 * With all due respect, would it be appropriate due process to take some evidence before rendering judgment? Eschoir (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Article probation in the case of Free Republic is worded in such a way as to make it unenforceable except by Arbcom. BryanfromPalatine is a community-banned user and any admin may block any account he believes is a sockpuppet, subject to review by other admins, of course.  If the situation at Free Republic is really obviously unacceptable, you could try asking at WP:AN for community-imposed article probation, as was done today for Homeopathy.  (If the case for probation is so obvious that no admin seriously disagrees, the community can impose it rather than Arbcom.)  I'm not sure this board can play a role in this dispute at this time. Thatcher 08:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a current arbitration case (Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding) where there are allegations that various accounts are sock/meatpuppets of BryanFromPalatine. If an admin blocks these accounts, would that be short-circuiting the arbitration case? (I'm involved, so I won't be blocking in any case.) --Akhilleus (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is one of the reasons I brought this case to AE, instead of going ahead and placing the blocks myself already. With the words above from Thatcher, I am looking into which actions I may take myself, unilaterally, (posting those actions for review, of course) to resolve this. As reincarnations of banned users, they would not have the right to contribute to the ArbCom case (they can send info into the clerks or arbitrators via email), so that is an option, as well as keeping them unblocked only to contribute to the ArbCom case until their situation is resolved. SirFozzie (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the question is not one of blocks per se. Can we ask (or insist) that the accounts listed by SirFozzie above refrain from editing the page until ArbCom has reached a final decision on the case? That is, a topic ban? I would say yes for the 3 potential BryanFromPalatine socks. As to Eschoir, a 1RR probation would make more sense - he seems to have made some good edits to the article, overlapping with edit-warring. These sorts of restrictions could be appealed to WP:AN/I; they wouldn't really be an issue until the protection expires anyway, but they seem very reasonable given the situation. MastCell Talk 19:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I blocked as a disruptive single purpose account.  No opinion on the others here. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Meowy
'''Just do what Thatcher says. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)'''

Meowy has been placed on revert parole and other restrictions in accordance with Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ruling: which limited him to 1 rv per week. Recently he violated his parole by reverting Shusha pogrom using both his username and IP, for which he was officially warned: Since that time he violated his parole at least 3 times on the same article. This edit removed the fact about Armenian revolt in the city, supported by 4 third party sources: Following User:EI C’s advice with regard to my previous report, I duly warned Meowy about the consequences of his actions on talk of the article:  But it had no effect, after that Meowy reverted the article twice more: Note that the last rv is accompanied by an incivil comment, claiming that the other editor is engaged in vandalism. It is also of interest that Meowy makes clear in his edit summary that he is aware of violation, but does not consider his action to be a revert. Even if we consider first removal of sourced info by Meowy to be just an edit, the last two diffs cited by me are clear self-admitted reverts in violation of his parole. Grandmaster (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Both times Meowy just reverted what can be considered as a editwarring with the elements of obvious vandalism (according to WP:Vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia") by two users (User:Parishan and User:Atabek) who never show any interest to the topic reseach or didnt any significant addings, just reverting to Grandmaster's POV version with only purpose to support dubious and propagandist view of porgoms' denial. They even didnt previewing what they're adding, so Meowy have no any other way to return the article to a correct form except to delete the elements of vandalism (the double-addings of the same propagandist text to the lead). Will Atabek and Parishan be warned for their behaviour? Andranikpasha (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please mind WP:AGF and do not accuse other editors of vandalism. Content disputes are not vandalism, and there's no justification for repeated deletion of sources that Meowy happened to dislike and for which he was officially warned just recently. Grandmaster (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not a content dispute, but a fact of technical (factual) bad edit repeating the same denialist text twice (and without any real discussion or consensus) and if Im calling these reverts "editwarrings with the elements of obvious vandalism" its because of my tolerance (Im discussing only edit's not users despite at least one of them, Atabek, didnt look what is he reverting: is it good?)! After this you're going to support these edits and oppose Meowy's corrections: what about the same WP:AGF? Let other users look on this and this and consider what are these? Andranikpasha (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if someone looks at it. Meowy introduced a strong POV into the intro, and his edit was not acceptable. But more than that, he removed 4 third party sources, and Atabek was absolutely right by restoring them. But most importantly, Meowy made at least 2 clear reverts after being officially warned, and his comments leave no doubt that he was aware of consequences. Admin attention to this issue will be much appreciated. Grandmaster (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And here's another content deletion by this user without any discussion at talk: Grandmaster (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope, and expect, any administrators will look carefully at the activities that have being going on both the article and talk page for Shusha pogrom. As I fully explained on the talk page, I removed Atabek's edit because I considered that it fell under the category of vandalism. That editor has simply copypasted in a previous edit, complete with its error (the error being that two thirds of it just repeated what was contained in the paragraph that followed on from it). Atabek's edit resulted in the article's introduction appearing amateurish and silly-looking (thus compromising Wikipedia’s integrity as a credible source of information) and that is why I removed it.

Grandmaster's complaint, as usual, contains more wind than truth. The time-period between my first revert and the second one is more than a week, so I have not broken any revert parole. I would also argue that the second edit is not a revert anyway because it was also done to remove vandalism (though I accept that Parishan's edit was probably not a deliberate attempt to vandalise the article, and the error just arose due to a mistake in his edit). Atabek does not have that "made a mistake" excuse because I had already pointed out the error in the talk page: Atabek appears to have ignored that, suggesting a disinterest in both accuracy and discussion by that editor. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 22:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Meowy, your calling of my edit a vandalism in this case is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF, especially given the fact that you, and not me, removed a large portion of material sourced with references in your edit. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I consider the result of your edit to be vandalism. Whether the aim of your edit was vandalism will depend on how you answer this question. Can you explain why, when it was clearly pointed out by me in the Talk page, you reverted to an edit of which 2/3rds was simply duplicated material, duplicating almost word for the content of the paragraph that folowed on from it? I did not remove "a large portion of material": the text you removed contained 72 words, and links to other Wikipedia articles, the text you replaced it with contained only 46 words, and three less internal links, when the duplicated words are discounted. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 23:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster has claimed in one of his above postings that I "introduced a strong POV into the intro". Admins can decide for themselves which version is more encyclopaedic and neutral, and more suitable for the introduction section of an article. Is it Grandmaster's the pogrom occurred "when Azerbaijani soldiers suppressed an Armenian revolt", or is it my "had as its background a conflict over competing claims of ownership of the region by Armenia and Azerbaijan" complete with links to Wikipedia articles on the wider conflict and the republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia. "Revolt" is clearly a POV word, used by Grandmaster because it implies rebellion against an established authority (i.e. Azerbaijan), However, Azerbaijan had no such authority over Shusha in 1920 - ownership of the territory had yet to be finalised. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 00:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Revolt" is the word used even by Armenian sources with a strong bias, such as nkr.am. You had no problems using that source in the article, but did it very selectively. But I do not refer to any sources representing sides of the conflict, I used 4 perfectly neutral sources, which you deleted. However this is not about content dispute, which is not dealt with here, this is about the fact that you reverted the article at least twice within the last 3 days, and made personal attacks on other editors calling their actions "vandalism". This is a repeated violation of your parole, which occurred soon after you were officially warned for similar actions on the same article. Grandmaster (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Grandmaster, this is not a good place for content dispute, and your misinterpretation of Armenian sources is already proved at article's talk page so pls stop represent your denialist view as something recognized by Armenian sources. That's not true and have no deal with bad editwarrings by Parishan and Atabek!Andranikpasha (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Meowy, the vandalism has a specific definition, so your comments are not appropriate. I haven't removed any material but only added back large portion with references which you removed without agreement and in violation of parole! AE is not a place for content discussion but for specific reports of ArbCom violations. There is also a talk page of AE, where your points could be presented. I personally see no reason why contributors are given opportunity to open lengthy discussion threads on formal AE or RFCU reports to distract attention from the report of disruption but concentrate on time consuming content disputes, which obviously lead no where in terms of AE. It seems though as a result AE became dysfunctional enough to the point of not enforcing even the ArbCom paroles. Atabek (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Atabek, adding of nonsence text (see the description of obvious vandalism) is surely a violation of Wiki policies. So I see no any justification for your "addings", and as you even dont want to recognize it was a mistake by you and Parishan, an admin opinion on your "edit's" welcomed!Andranikpasha (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Meowy blocked for 31 hours for violation of revert parole. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Moreschi, User Meowy asked the same question, which I already posted here: "I would be grateful if you would pose the following questions to Moreschi. Has he looked at the edit which I removed, and if so does he think that the removed edit was an acceptable edit given that most of it repeated verbatim the content of the following-on paragraph? Also, does removing vandalism, even if it is inadvertant vandalism, count as a revert? My understanding was that it did not." My understanding is the same. So Ill be glad if you represent your opinion on Parishan's and Atabek's reverts. Andranikpasha (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have looked at this. No, he was not reverting vandalism. Vandalism is stuff like "WE ALL HATE KURDS" or "LOL PENIS", or adding gratuitous links to hawtlesbiansex.com in the middle of George Bush. This is quite a strict definition: it is one you would be best off sticking to. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Emphatically endorsed. Disputes over content are not vandalism no matter how much you disagree with it. Thatcher 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ?? Im asking about repeated part in the lead, not content disputed! If I readd the lead of George Bush once again to have 2 leads at same time (a double lead), will you call it a content dispute, not an obvious idiotism? According to you if anyone copies "NKR is a de-facto independent republic" from the lead of NKR and readdes to the same lead once again, its nothing but... disputes over content. Andranikpasha (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

History review
 * 1) The background is that there is a long-running dispute over sources, particularly a source by Waal.  The worst offenders seem to be Andranikpasha, Atabek and Grandmaster.
 * 2) Meowy made several edits including rewriting the intro.
 * 3) Parishan added back part of the old introduction restored deleted parts - see talk.  By adding back text copied from a prior version, Parishan actually duplicated the content of Meowy's rewrite. The text is almost identical, and every reference and footnote is identical:
 * 500[14][dubious – discuss] to 30,000 Armenian[15][4][16][17][18] and 15,000 Azerbaijani deaths,[19] and destruction of many buildings in Shusha. The Parliament in Baku refused even condemn the accomplishers of the massacres in Shusha and the war was started in Karabakh[20]. Historian Giovanni Guaita wrote, the Azerbaijani and Soviet authorities "during the decades will deny and try to hush up the mass killings of about 30,000 Armenians"[4]
 * 1) Meowy reverted, Reverting the badly executed edit of the previous editor - see talk page
 * 2) Atabek readded the extra paragraph references readded
 * 3) Meowy reverted, Vandalism by previous editor removed - nb, I do not consider this action to be a revert.
 * 4) On the talk page, Atabek and Grandmaster criticize Meowy for removing a source by Waal and for removing "the mention of the fact that the events started with the Armenian revolt in the city along with 4 third party sources supporting the fact."  This is true but the edits in which Meowy did that were #1 in this series on 25 Jan and the addition by Parishan and the revert by Atabek did not fix it because they were adding back the wrong section.

Analysis
 * 1) This is not vandalism.  It is incredibly sloppy, and bad editing, but it is not vandalism.  Meowy's edit summary referencing vandalism was misleading and needlessly provocative.  A neutral edit summary about removing a duplicated section would have been better.
 * 2) Parishan's first addition of the duplicate paragraph is an excusable mistake.
 * 3) Atabek's second addition of the paragraph and Grandmaster's comment on the talk page shows that they were not actually reading what they were editing.

Results
 * 1) Meowy is unblocked but warned not to characterize content disputes as vandalism.  Even sloppy edits can be well-intended.
 * 2) For persistent edit-warring over the Waal source, Andranikpasha is banned from editing Shusha pogrom for two weeks.  He may make suggestions on the talk page.
 * 3) For persistent edit-warring over the Waal source and for failing to actually read either their own edits or Meowy's talk page comments about the duplicated paragraphs, Atabek and Grandmaster are banned from editing Shusha pogrom for 3 weeks and banned from commenting on the talk page for one week.  (Since they won't actually take the time to read and comprehend others' comments, their own privilege to comment is temporarily suspended.)
 * 4) Andranikpasha, Grandmaster and Atabek are reminded that during their bans they are not to instruct other editors to edit on their behalf, called proxy editing.  Evidence of proxy editing will result in blocking for both the editor directing the edits and the proxy making them. Thatcher 02:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Thatcher. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. The entire point of Meowy's rewrite was to remove any mention of the fact that there was a revolt of Armenian militants in the city, which led to the clashes. This is supported by all sources, including the Armenian ones. In particular, I added 4 third party sources that supported that fact. Meowy in his rewrite removed all of them and any mention of the revolt. I don't understand why I was edit warring and Meowy was not? Last week he was deleting Hutchinson encyclopedia, violated his parole and got warned, this time he was deleting references supporting the fact of the Armenian revolt, any mention of which he removed. How this is not edit warring and why do you think his rewrite of intro without any consensus on talk was acceptable? I do not agree that I did not read the other party's comments, I read them, but I was making a different point. I told him to not to remove sourced info and discuss his changes with other involved contributors first. Now Meowy achieved his goal, he got to remove the info that he did not like and escaped any punishment for violating his parole (twice already). I think what is actually needed is some sort of mediation. Would you like to help us out to resolve the problems with the sources and content disputes on that article? You've done that before, and I would appreciate if you would help us again. Grandmaster (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite Im banned too, I think this decision is justified and we all need to calm down a little:) And Grandmaster, Meowy is known as a neutral user at Shusha pogrom and what he done is rather a NPOVing than a radical POV pushing (you know the Armenians supported the first version with only 20,000 and anti-Armenianism at the lead, and Azeris support "revolt, +500 of Armenians, and 15,000 for Azeris" so what he done is NPOVing. Mind that another Azeri user who actively reverts is Parishan, a person who's edits Im sure need admin attention. And I'll also be glad if Thatcher help us resolve the problems at Shusha pogrom, so he is always welcomed! Andranikpasha (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Grandmaster, I have commented here on the Hutchinson Encyclopedia. This whole answer was on the entry from that encyclopedia about Karabakh from where the quote came from. Neither you nor Atabek replied to that. As long as I do not edit the namespace or revert you, everything is OK. Because when I actually comment in the talkpage, I am totally ignored until I go on and do as I said, remove it. Did you actually read my comment? If yes, don't you see that this entry from the Hutchinson has made obvious mistakes which you also know they're mistakes? As far as inverting the figures of casualties for the NK war(recognized figures). Should I go on and use its mistakes in the NK war article and others? Meowy's edits were accurate, what you are doing there amounts to revisionism. Shushi pogrom is part of the Ottoman backed policy of destruction of the Armenians in Transcaucasia, recognized as majority position. De Waal is not a credible source there, his work compares the Armenian Genocide (which he considers as claims) to a claim of 2.5 million Azeri having allegedly being killed by Armenians. It is a matter of fact that De Waal has used the lowest ever estimates he could find for Shushi. We've been telling you all this time that De Waal is a political source NOT a historical, his Institute for war and peace reporting receives financial supports from such pleces as the US Department of States. De Waal has been used as a sole source for claims on several articles and several users have already told you that you need a better source then a modern journalist writing about history. VartanM (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Meowy introduced strong POV into the intro, at the same time removing 4 neutral sources about the Armenian revolt in the city, which started the events. He did that 3 times within the last 4 days, despite his parole. I don't see how this is acceptable and why he is allowed to edit the article, while others are accused of edit warring. I never violated my parole, and Meowy violated it twice within the last 2 weeks on that article. Still somehow he is not edit warring? I think the admins need to check thoroughly what was going on there. And whether you like Thomas de Waal or not, it is a neutral and critically acclaimed source on the history of Karabakh conflict, which cannot be removed. Same with other sources. I explained that countless times on talk, and I cannot repeat the same thing over and over again. And de Waal is not the only source providing that figure, Armenian scholar Richard G. Hovannisian provides the same number. The article can be edited by anyone, but removal of sourced info is not acceptable. Whether you like a particular source or not, it is there to stay as long as it fits the criteria of WP:RS. My sources are a lot better than Cox, Zubov, nkr.am (?) etc, used by Andranikpasha and Meowy as references. Grandmaster (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No any Wiki rules support that a "view" what happened before a topic needs to be included to the article's lead. You can have that dubious "supressed revolt" at the article's text, but not directly in the lead! All this time you want only 100% Azerbaijani denialist view to be represented, despite this tragic event is rather related to Armenians (it was an anti-Armenian pogrom, its a tragic calendar date for Armenia and Karabakh, not Azerbaijan, the only Stone of Memory is made by Armenians) but after this all you're the only side who protests all the NPOVings happened untill now and support unconsensused lead as a reliable one. You're calling Meowy's corrections "removal of sourced info which is not acceptable" then how you accept this undiscussed removal of sourced info by you? why did you delete this source (Samuel Lussac, Le Haut-Karabakh, un «processus de paix gelé»? // Regard sur l'Est, 01/01/2008(in French)) without any explanations? Andranikpasha (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thatchers analysis covers the recent events fairly well, but doesnt address the diff that Grandmaster pointed out.Jan 26 The way I see it, this diff is Meowy's second revert on this article within a week (the first being on the Jan 22 - see WP:AN/AE(Archive13)#Meowy/IP_combination - a stern warning by El C)

To help see the revert, I have recreated revision 186933708 (Meowy "I've rewritten the top half of the introduction...") in my userspace as revision 188329706. Note that there are no differences between revs 186933708 & 188329706. I then remove the additional blank line that Meowy added, and then if we diff between the revision 186924389 (which preceeds the Meowy "rewrite") and my revised edition of his "rewrite", we end up with the actual changes. In essense, Meowy removes "when Azerbaijani soldiers suppressed an Armenian revolt", with the references "Tim Potier", "Benjamin Lieberman"(ISBN 1566636469), "Croissant" (ISBN 0275962415), and c-r.org. This phrase has recently been removed by Andranikpasha, restored by Grandmaster, and now removed by Meowy. Meowy's removal of this phrase, and the sources, is what sparked this recent edit war. Note that while the Tim Potier source does appear further down in Meowy's edition, the phrase and the other three sources do not appear anywhere. When others tried to restore this phrase and sources, Meowy removes them again twice(Jan 27&Jan 30) which makes it four reverts within 8 days. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * John, common rewriting is not a revert, and we have no rules... for 8 days. The editwarrings during the mounts are took part there particularly by your obvious and open support to Azerbiajani side, when you made some dubious edits and an unconsensused moving you done just as an user (that are your words), supported Grandmaster to keep the "POV-title" tag there, and after that all you collected an irrelevant "evidence" on me for being used by Azeri users against me . So if you're asking for an attention to Meowy's activities at Shusha pogrom, your too much biased edits  (a reliable source deletion), etc. need an attention (temporary banning?) too, as you was the person who started the real editwarrings. Andranikpasha (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that one effect of this edit was to remove the claim that the pogrom started as a revolt along with its 4 sources. As far as I could tell this was the first time Meowy had done this (although several other editors had done so before, as you note).  Has Meowy previously removed this part of the intro? Thatcher 12:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Meowy hasnt removed it, but it has been removed once by Andranikpasha since Meowy joined the fray on January 17. Meowy's efforts on this article have caused editing to heat up quite a bit, but the resulting progress has been reasonable; it is the display of disregard for the parole restrictions that is causing the unnecessary angst. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I even dont sure if Meowy knows that I previously removed that sources as he removed (rather rewrote the whole lead while I simply deleted them as a denialist misinterpretation for the lead) them with a different purpose to have less disputted, more neutral (for the both sides, as Im not a supporter of de Waal and Hunchington to be keeped) lead. but will the users who call these events clashes be satisfied? Andranikpasha (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to leave things as they stand, then, at least for now. I would point make some additional comments, for the benefit of the parties.  First, an article intro that says "either 500 Armenians and 15,000 Azeris or 20,000 Armenians were killed" is bad writing, and a sign that the editorial process has broken down.  If the only sources are partisan you state, "partisan Armenian sources claim A while partisan Azeri sources claim B" and then analyze it in the main body.  Preferably you discard partisan sources and report whatever neutral historians agree, and if you can't agree on who the neutral sources are, you file an RFC.  (Constant bickering that A or B are not really neutral sources leads nowhere except to more bans at this point, frankly.)  Finally, if the editorial process is broken down and can't be reconstituted by the current editors, we can ban them all and start fresh.  Let's avoid that. Thatcher 13:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One question. Me and Atabek are banned from the article for 3 weeks for restoring the quote from Thomas de Waal to the article, right? I checked the history of the article. Both me and Atabek restored it twice each over the period of 2 months, last time over 2 weeks ago. At the same time, Andranikpasha deleted that source from the article about a dozen times (!). However for the same action done almost 5 fold Andranikpasha is banned from the article for 2 weeks, i.e. 1 week less than me and Atabek. Why is such different treatment for different users, and why the user who did more reverts than the other two combined gets shorter ban? I would appreciate a clarification on that. Also note that I never reverted Meowy, while Meowy reverted the article 3 times in violation of his parole. Grandmaster (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the sources, is it OK that Meowy deleted the fact that there was a revolt in the city along with all the sources and does he get to keep the article the way he likes? The way I see it, nothing stops him from deleting any other info that he does not like now. Grandmaster (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a content dispute. Content disputes are meant to be addressed by discussion, not reversion.  Based on the fact that Meowy has not previously removed the revolt information, I am holding him to a lesser standard than editors who have removed it several times.  Obviously he will not be held to the same lesser standard next time. Thatcher 13:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Thatcher, previous report on Meowy was closed with "stern warning" to Meowy. This violation also results in a warning. How many warnings does one person get and why no one else gets away with a warning? Grandmaster (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Thatcher, may I know why myself and Grandmaster are being banned from article for 3 weeks, while Andranikpasha reverted the article multitude more times than myself and Grandmaster combined, Meowy removes the reference that does not fit his POV many times. And what justifies Meowy is claiming my edit as vandalism, when I did NOT remove any material but added sourced material removed by him? Given that you claimed above that it's not appropriate to call my edit vandalism and then blocking me and unblocking Meowy, you simply contradict yourself. And with imposition of ban to even comment on talk page while leaving Andranik with permission to do so, it seems to me that your action is essentially taking a stance to simply have one-sided POV to be reflected at Shusha pogrom. I have known and appreciated you as neutral admin on these and other topics in general, but this action is far from being NPOV. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See result #3 above. Not only were you edit warring over Waal, it is obvious that when trying to revert Meowy, you did not actually read the edit you were reverting, or the comments on the talk page.  You simply reverted to Parishan's version without realizing that Parishan had mistakenly added back the wrong text.  In fact, it looks like a coordinated effort, which would be bad.  If you aren't reading your own edits, why should you be privileged to edit at all?  Meowy's 3RR last week has been dealt with.  He has been warned about characterizing content disputes as "vandalism" and blocked for half a day, but, given the sloppy duplication of text, I would probably have given him a pass on that second revert anyway. Thatcher 13:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, what do you mean by "wrong text" in Parishan's edit ? Is that wrong text per Meowy's POV on talk page? I believe I have a right to revert to any text within my 1RR parole as long as I do provide a justification for the edit. It's impossible to revert war with 2 edits in 2 MONTHS! on a page. And what do you mean by coordinated effort? How would I be tag team editing if I only edited the page on January 8th and January 30th. But even ignoring all these facts, check the history of Shusha pogrom - and who has most reverts per this page. Yet the top reverter is getting 2 weeks ban with permission to edit talk page, while I get ban for 3 weeks without permission even to express my view. Plus you have already given Meowy a pass on prior instance of parole violation, this is a second time. Any reason for dichotomy? Atabek (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How about Andranikpasha and why does he get better treatment despite reverting the article more than anyone else? Grandmaster (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I'm not counting reversions. The editors most involved in the edit war over Waal get two weeks.  You and Atabek get an extra week for your absurd failure to actually read what Meowy had written and what Parishan's edit had actually done. Thatcher 14:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But I did not even revert Meowy. Grandmaster (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The "wrong" version
It is apparent that Atabek and Grandmaster still have not read the edit that Atabek reverted and Grandmaster criticized on the talk page and reported here. I will quote the entire opening paragraph from Parishan's edit.


 * The Shusha pogrom of 1920 [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] were pogroms during the Armenian-Azerbaijani War in 1920, when Azerbaijani soldiers suppressed an Armenian revolt[10][11][12][13][dubious – discuss] in the town of Shusha (named Shushi by Armenians) in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. These events took place from March 22, 1920 to March 26, 1920, and resulted according to various estimates in 500[14][dubious – discuss] to 30,000 Armenian[15][4][16][17][18] and 15,000 Azerbaijani deaths,[19] and destruction of many buildings in Shusha. The Parliament in Baku refused even condemn the accomplishers of the massacres in Shusha and the war was started in Karabakh[20]. Historian Giovanni Guaita wrote, the Azerbaijani and Soviet authorities "during the decades will deny and try to hush up the mass killings of about 30,000 Armenians"[4]
 * Estimates of casualty figures are uncertain and varied: 500[21][dubious – discuss] to 30,000 Armenian [15][4][22][23][24] and 15,000 Azerbaijani deaths,[25] and destruction of many buildings in Shusha. The Parliament in Baku refused even condemn the accomplishers of the massacres in Shusha and the war was started in Karabakh[26]. Historian Giovanni Guaita wrote, the Azerbaijani and Soviet authorities "during the decades will deny and try to hush up the mass killings of about 30,000 Armenians"[4]

The duplicated text is green in the first appearance and red in the duplication. Do you still fail to comprehend? You may have disputed the removal of Waal and the reference to revolt, but that is not what you added back. Parishan made a mistake and added duplicate text instead of restoring the disputed text. Atabek reverted to Parishan's mistake. Grandmaster criticized Meowy and reported a 1RR violation here. Neither of you seems to have actually read what you were fighting about. Article ban extended to 4 weeks. Thatcher 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thatcher, I am not disputing the erroneous duplication in my edit reverting to Parishan's version, however,, where is Benjamin Lieberman reference removed in Meowy's edit? Where is Conciliation Resources reference? What was Meowy fixing in his edit?? I read exactly removal of these references while reverting. So instead of reverting me calling my edit vandalism, Meowy could have just removed duplication and restored references!
 * Also I asked you to answer as to why Andranikpasha edit warring on the page is restricted for 2 weeks, while I am restricted for 3 and now 4 without permission to post on talk page, and being called "persistent" edit warrior with only 2 edits on January 8th and January 30th. Extension of uneven handed article bans is not a constructive and neutral way of dealing with this conflict. Atabek (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So you disputed the removal of 4 references by Meowy, reverted to a version that did not contain the references you wanted, and then expected Meowy to fix your mistake? Amazing. Thatcher 16:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision

 * OK, I'd rather be right in the long run even if I have to correct myself. It has been pointed out to me that Parishan's edit (and Atabek's reversion) contained both some duplicated text as well as a restoration of the disputed "revolt" material and sources (now in blue text above).  So, that means that Grandmaster and Atabek were partially right in their description of the edit, although it would have been far better to fix the mistake than repeat it.  And Atabek's suggestion that it was Meowy's responsibility to fix makes more sense, even though it is still silly and an attempt to displace his own responsibility.  On the other hand, it means that Meowy was not only repairing the duplication, which could have been viewed as an exception to 1RR, he was also making a content reversion.  Since this was Meowy's first incident with this particular dispute (Waal) and another admin suggests he is did good work in repairing copyvio damage, I'm going to apply a 24 hour block for the 1RR violation but not the 2 week topic ban.  He was already blocked for a while so I will tack on enough time to make it up to 24 hours total.  Obviously any further 1RR content violations will be sanctionable as well. Thatcher 02:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have some points I'd like to raise. I can't read Atabek's mind - so why should I be expected to return the edit to what he had intended to do rather than what he had actually done (especially since his edit entirely removed the NPOV text that I had previously worked upon). Secondly, what do you mean when you write "this was Meowy's first incident with this particular dispute (Waal)". I have not been disputing anything regarding De Waal. Thanks to their inexplicable refusal to actually read the edit, Grandmaster and Atabek claimed that I removed the De Waal reference - but as I said in my reply to him, it is clearly still there. All I removed was the duplicated reference! Thirdly, where did this discussion continue after the above section was archived? Has material been blanked from here or from the AE talk page?: <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 18:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the above (because don't want to start things up again into some pointless argument with Atabek and Grandmaster) but I'd appreciate if you were to answer me through my talk page. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy  20:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Meowy, you are making the same mistake I did when I first analyzed the edits. Parishan and Atabek both added back De Waal and duplicated the casualty text.  Look at this diff and the next one, and search for the text "when Azerbaijani soldiers suppressed an Armenian revolt" in both versions. Thatcher 02:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User directed commentaries and breaches of the Decorum Principals by have become overbearing.

Background notes: Editor was already noted multiple times about civility issues and even once, a long time ago, apologized (in a fashion which looked more like a mockery) for his user directed commentaries. Part of my personal unpleasant interactions with him included repeated insinuations that I might be a war criminal rewriting history on a battle/massacre I supposedly participated in, and despite numerous requests - sample - the issue persists.

Comment: The included diffs are constricted to the past 3 weeks.


 * 1) "a number of editors... allowing their own ethnic identity and national affiliation" -
 * 2) ("apology/rephrase":) "political leaders of a faction you identify with" -
 * 3) "I realize it's a time honoured tradition around here, but could you avoid punctuating... with obnoxious straw-man arguments... It makes you look rather desperate." -
 * 4) "your personal crackpot interpretation of the RSes" -
 * 5) "the writer still adheres to "there are no Palestinians" viewpoint" -
 * 6) "rm unsourced propaganda; please do not regurgitate content" -
 * 7) "stop with the puffery and WP:FRINGE theory pushing" -
 * 8) "cleanup a really ugly piece of historical fabrication" -
 * 9) "You can't recast... because you don't like them." -
 * 10) "trim uncited conspiracism" -
 * 11) "rv WP:FRINGE theory pushing" -
 * 12) "An IP editor is campaigning... [he's] an Internet kook." -
 * 13) "The guy is still a fringe pov-pusher" -
 * 14) "looks a lot like just shouting "antisemite!" because something personally troubles you." -
 * 15) "umm, yeah, "resifix" = "i made this up for wikipedia"" -
 * 16) "I'm not sure why Leifern is so determined to portray this as vandalism or censorship." -
 * 17) "One of the chief POV-pushers" -
 * 18) "You're exhausting everyone's patience with this constant theory-pushing." -
 * 19) "Bible Land is the name of the website you're spamming, not anything that exists in the real world" -
 * 20) "When are you going to acknowledge the distinction between "which I personally like" and... You just keep making the same assertions." -
 * 21) "your aggressive hounding of Huldra" -
 * 22) "rv; ... stick to scholarly understanding... rather than imaginative" -
 * 23) "sneak in the "prefers hype to facts" quote that you're so very, very fond of." -
 * 24) "Anything else is... achieved via serial POV-pushing" -
 * 25) "you seem to have gone back to... mass POV editing across multiple articles, accompanied by manipulation of the talk page discussion" -

Cordially,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Link to the case,please? It saves us the digging. Thatcher 19:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ARBCOM Case: Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone over the diffs that you provided and consulted with another uninvolved administrator (Dmcdevit), Jaakobou, and we both feel that all but one of them is without merit. Even when you took those statements out of context, they did not become enforcement-worthy infractions.  And when I do look at them in the context of the entire post, it's very clear that they're not.  The only one that I was trouble by was the cheap shot at Jayjg in #3, but that comment was made a day before the ARBCOM case was closed, which makes it almost 3 weeks old.  I'd consider a warning if it were recent, but it's not at all, and I can't find any more recent reasons to impose discretionary sanctions on Eleland.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ioeth for the case link.
 * Thatcher, I linked to the relevant section of the case (Decorum Principals), sorry if it was not clear enough.
 * I'd appreciate a re-inspection or possibly an explanation on the two most recent of the diffs and why they are not part of the Decorum Principals.
 * With respect,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sidenote while I examine those in more depth: You should probably link to the actual case (here) rather than the proposed decisions. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The comment at #24 isn't directed at anybody in particular; it reads to me like an honest observation of the situation by Eleland and I have no reason to believe that it was said in bad faith. As far as #25 goes, if I were you I wouldn't be including diffs like that in reports here.  Eleland could have come directly to AE with that, but instead decided to talk with you directly first.  That seems pretty courteous to me.  The message reads like a fair warning from a concerned editor, and frankly, it's probably written nicer than if an administrator had left it formally.  I'm sorry, Jaakobou, but I just think you're off base with report.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ioeth,
 * "serial POV-pushing" - I'm the only other editor involved on this issue (at Saeb Erekat).
 * A "mass POV editing across multiple articles... manipulation of the talk page" comment by an involved party of the disputes doesn't seem as 'the courteous way to talk with others'. That is not the impression I received from the accepted principals.
 * I'm sure insinuations -- that I'm a revisionist war criminal -- did not help my ability for neutral observation but rude behavior can have a chilling effect on Talk pages and worsen edit-warring issues. These comments are restricted to clearly personal references and I still feel (the listed 25) are uncivil and improper. I don't see a change sticking on Israeli-Palestinian editors and editing style unless the core principals are being enforced in the proposed manner which will hopefully help make editing become more communal.
 * Regardless, thank you.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jaakobou, this is a simple case of pot calling the kettle black. You both need to just leave each other alone because you're as bad as each other.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  21:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems Eleland's civility is at borderline on most of these cited diffs, but I do have an issue with "your personal crackpot interpretation of the RSes". I also agree with Ryan. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Both warned. See Gildabrand thread below. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Requesting a kind reminder of when and where I have been uncivil after the arbitration decisions (the last three weeks, or before that) so that I'm receiving the honor of being called "the pot".  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: this is an example. Everyone has a right to participate in article talk pages.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: this diff shows a comment relating to a series of stalk-like comments by Nishidani. Off-course everyone has a right to participate in article talk pages but it's expected that they make an attempt to contribute, not turn the discussion into a battleground. That was the intent of my comment and I've even stressed that Nishidani is welcome to contribute .  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)