Revision as of 16:47, 23 April 2008

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

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Edit this section for new requests

IRC

• That link is to an edit by Giano on FT2s talkpage that appears to violate his civility restriction. I'm sure everyone has had enough of dealing this particular subject for awhile, and yet... Rather than havign a random admin point this out on IRC, and have the whole thing devolve from there, can we have a discussion about this edit and its edit summary (rantings of a disruptive troll) on this page before anyone takes action? Avruch 16:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Bluemarine

Is this user a ban evading sock? Jehochman 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All signs to point to yes. Please block and revert his edits and Talk Page vandalism on the Matt Sanchez article. --Tanstaffl (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You've only made a handful of edits on that account. Which is your main account? I think I'll wait for others to weigh in before doing anything. Jehochman 14:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a checkuser last night. Came back unrelated. Must say I'm still uneasy. Be aware that in this particular dispute spoofing/joe jobbing has also been a significant possibility. Durova 14:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to roll back all of his edits, as some of them need to be discussed, and there is a lot of whitewashing/promotion there. Horologium (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe add Tanstaffl (talk · contribs · count) to that Checkuser request? Jehochman 14:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And Eleemosynary and related socks. I requested Oversight last night on that. See my comment to the CU request. Durova 15:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not averse to that idea, but do I simply edit the RFCU? And how do I justify checking Tanstaffl without running afoul of "no fishing"? Horologium (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User shows up at arbitration enforcement within their first five edits. User appears to be involved in spoofing or Joe jobbing. I think there are strong reasons for suspicion. It is not fishing when there are reason. Jehochman 15:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Added Tanstaffl and Eleemosynary. This looks like it's going to be so much fun </sarcasm>. Horologium (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW (really short summary here because I've gotta run), during last month's AE thread User:Benjiboi and User:Eleemosynary got trolled on their talk pages by an AOL IP address. Then very shortly afterward they got friendly follow-ups by a sock that acted like User:Pwok. Looked like Matt had trolled them, only Matt was in France and couldn't have accessed AOL, and when I contacted him he didn't know anything about it (I still have the chat log; he acted genuinely surprised). So that looks like a joe job. Add to substantiate Matt's claim to having been in France at that time:

• He was interviewed on a French television program. The link was fresh the day the suspicions got raised.
• When he returned he uploaded pics of Normandy to Commons with metadata from the right time frame.
• (this one bites) I caught a French IP address trolling the same people not long afterward, and when I confronted Matt he promptly admitted that was indeed him.

So the AOL IP trolling from a month ago was probably Pwok and the French IP trolling from a month ago was definitely Matt. Is that murky enough for you? I had a hard talk with Matt afterward. He pledged to cease the trolling on-wiki. And although I'll be unavailable most of today I'm very interested in the results of the investigation and checkuser. Durova 15:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute Durova's discussion, but do point out that AOL has (or at least, used to have) numbers that could be dialed into internationally. - Philippe 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Yep, they still do. See this for example: . There's one for Paris. That's all I checked for in France. - Philippe 17:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm still skeptical. Sanchez has never been especially sophisticated about evading checkuser, while Pwok runs a dedicated anti-Sanchez website and has a long history of spoofing Sanchez around the Internet. It doesn't make sense that Sanchez would dial into AOL from France, successfully defend himself with evidence that he's in France, and afterward give away the show by trolling on a French IP address. If that were deliberate, wouldn't he have continued the AOL scheme or invented something else as clever, rather than giving himself away with a clumsy IP and admitting to it as soon as he was confronted? I wish the waters weren't so muddy, but I just won't rule anything out at this point. Durova 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that it's Pwok or Sanchez. Simplest answer is that it's a friend of Sanchez who has taken an interest in helping him out. He or she certainly doesn't write like Matt. I don't know what policies would be in play for that. Cary Bass 18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Proxy editing for a banned user is a bannable offense, IIRC. And while the new editor is more civil, he demonstrates Sanchez's rather bombastic style; note especially the "recommendation" that Lawrence Cohen stop editing the article (at the bottom of Talk:Matt Sanchez#Reported service as an escort, and the changes he made are almost exactly the same as what Sanchez has been requesting. Cary, you have access to OTRS; perhaps you can verify some of the tickets with these changes, although I realize you will not be able to discuss their contents here. Horologium (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Brian Landeche, the namesake of this user, is the founder of NYC's gay bar Splash. I rather doubt this bar owner is the same person as this user. Banjeboi 18:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that there's some unfair editing here. Matt sent me the OTRS, I spent a bit of time going through the issues and I made the changes. The sources seem kosher. Was I wrong? Brianlandeche (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I will assume good faith with you, but you should be very angry with Sanchez, who knows better than to have another user proxy-edit for him. Editing on behalf of banned users is prohibited, and usually results in a block for the editor involved. Considering your extremely brief edit history, you might qualify for some type of leniency; it will be up to a qualified administrator to make a decision. My recommendation would be to topic-ban you on all subjects relating to Matt Sanchez, including publications for which he has worked and anything relating to the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. I am going to revert all of your edits to Talk:Matt Sanchez (as set forth in the banning policy link above). Please do not reinsert them.Horologium (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A topic ban sounds reasonable to me. I'd only want to see a complete ban if the user defied the topic ban or was otherwise disruptive. Aleta 01:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

For clarity could you also explain your user name? I found that coupled with your editing on behalf of Sanchez peculiar but will also await an explanation. Banjeboi 02:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a violation of the username policy. Durova 06:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the violation of "username" policy? Why should I explain my name to anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianlandeche (talk • contribs) 07:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Username policy#Real names. Is Brian Landeche your real name? Aleta 10:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Violations of WP:HARASS

The previous 2 reports were removed from ANI by a bot after 24 hours, without any resolution. I posted this report at ANI because User:Babakexorramdin was not a subject of Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom cases. User:Babakexorramdin attempted to reveal a personal identity and falsely associate me with a different real person. A few days ago, he left an edit comment:

• good source by Javid, I agree

Although he is denying any linkage to a real person in his comment , but rather some ancient term, which no longer exists, I have finally contacted the alleged person linked to me, and Babakexorramdin was apparently contacting this person, accusing him of being myself, and harassing him on a regular basis via email. I have an email evidence.

I do believe User:Babakexorramdin was misled by prior SAME allegation of User:Artaxiad - , for which he was banned - . User:Kirill Lokshin then deleted all of references to the full name of person (Javid ...) falsely associated by Artaxiad with my account. Now, over a year later, User:Babakexorramdin makes the same claim. The question is how did Babakexorramdin get information to make such claim if Artaxiad is banned and links are removed for a year now.

I am also a subject of harassment - by User:VartanM and by User:Fedayee here - . They previously also harassed another Azerbaijani contributor, User:Ehud Lesar, which resulted in ArbCom case, where their allegations were proven false. VartanM recently made another statement on archived ANI report :

• Atabek was not careful enough, as on several occasion he edited unlogged from University, Work and Home and made almost identical statements that were also made by the alleged identity in press briefings.

I don't know of any Misplaced Pages rule, where contributor must provide his identity or any other non-admin contributor (VartanM, participant of 2 ArbComs) is supposed to investigate other people's personal identity and then (falsely so) use it in his incessant edit fights. Atabek (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You said " some ancient term, which no longer exists". That's simply false, "Javid (جاوید)", which can be used as a verb or a noun, is a common term of endearment in Persian, Kurdish and Urdu meaning "the eternal" or " be eternal". --CreazySuit (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the essence of report, which is harassment? As I said, there is email evidence of harassment directed against both myself as well as real-life person, whose name was used to falsely associate with me. Atabek (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It has a lot to do with Babakexorramdin`s explanation...If I was more cynical, I would say you`re forum-shopping to try to drive away editors with whom you were in conflict, in order to gain an advantage. But I think you're just reading too much into Babakexorramdin's edit summery, which appears to be an innocent compliment. It's ultimately your word against Babakexorramdin's word, as emails are not verifiable, and can be manipulated. --CreazySuit (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Nothing more to do here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous claim, and with all assumptions of good faith, I doubt User:CreazySuit could serve as a neutral party in argument vs. User:Babakexorramdin. I am not forum shopping, but only seeking to remove the revision reciting someone's name, for which I will follow advise to request that from oversight. I don't know Babakexorramdin, neither have any grudges against him or had any interaction with him in order to seek his removal. Revealing someone's identity (the intent) by false association, making the person subject to harassment by email or real life is a violation and has nothing to do with intent of Misplaced Pages in first place. As a matter of fact, I never sought to ever seek the real life identity of VartanM, Fedayee, Artaxiad or other contributors who were engaged in edit conflicts with myself. I don't see a reason why they should be doing so. Atabek (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

Thomas Basboll

We have a big problem at this article with a tendentious group of editors who have conducted a straw poll and decided that those who believe in fringe theories may write about them as if they are mainstream views. This horrendous POV pushing needs to be stopped, and policies such as WP:UNDUE need to be enforced. There is an arbitration decision, I believe, covering all 9/11-related articles. Jehochman 02:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit summmary refers to the talk page which includes a poll. Under the poll (and in the summary) I explicitly said I was making a bold change and would not object if anyone thought it was too early. I had invited Jehochman to participate in the poll on his talk page and the discussion had run for a week, clearly leaning to one side. I now see why Jehochman (and perhaps others) did not participate in the poll and discussion. He believes that there is a policy (and an ArbCom decision) that makes discussion unnecessary. This is once again a good opportunity to determine whether what I am doing here is POV-pushing (as has been alleged many times before), and whether the discretionary sanctions should therefore be applied.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never been involved in the 9/11 articles because they're such a battleground, but the diff that Jehochman provided is accurately summarized in his phrase "horrendous POV pushing." I'm not sure what the arbcom sanctions cover (as mentioned I've avoided the articles), but it would be a travesty if they did not apply here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing subtle here. Truthers have been trying to whitewash the article for quite some time, and a variety of editors have been attempting to restore neutral point of view. Id est: At some point people need to understand that Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for advancing fringe theories. The community has been put on notice. Enough is enough. Jehochman 08:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've invoked the arbcom decision to ban Thomas from September 11 attacks-related articles. I've noted such on his talk page. Raul654 (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I will of course respect this ban. I will be appealling directly to the committee, however. I believe that my edits over the last several years have been consistently contributing to the improvement of the articles (on both sides of the "pushing" that I am allegedly doing). Jehochman and I disagree about a very subtle content issue and I have been discussing it openly and civily throughout. If it is impossible to convince the community that I am here for the right reasons, then I have misunderstood the ArbCom case that brought me back to editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have appealled the ban Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_appeal:_Topic_ban_ofThomas_Basboll.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Appeal was moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions Raul654 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Another one - Pokipsy76

Here's another long time source of POV pushing on this article. This editor should be subject to the same sanction. Jehochman 12:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually reverting your unilateraly editing without consensus is certainly NOT "POV pushing". Your unilaterally editing wothout consensus could instead be viewed as a form of "POV pushing".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that my editing is supported by verfiable sources and seeks to follow neutral point of view. You would do well to listen to feedback, rather than digging in and continuing to battle. Jehochman 16:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide whether your edit is supported, is NPOV or is nice: it's up to the wikipedia community by means of consensus.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and those of us in the Misplaced Pages community who aren't here to push a fringe agenda are thoroughly tired of your POV-pushing. You know very well that there will never be consensus for anything on that article, because you're part of an activist bloc which elevates stonewalling to an art form. <eleland/talkedits> 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The same could obviously be said of other people who tries to push your POV.
2. You are deliberately assuming bad faith and personally attacking me without any ground.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I might note that you also re-inserted a pretty egregious BLP violation just yesterday because it advances your fringe POV on the issue. --Haemo (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You are being very dishonest: of course I reverted an unilateral edit without any estabilished consensus and discussion from an estabilished version of the article, like you also have done many many times, didn't you? --Pokipsy76 (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Support an immediate topic ban based on that diff. That's an article probation violation and a BLP violation all in one. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Two-month topic ban imposed, communicated to the user and logged. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Without any previous warning? Please read what the arbcom wrote about this "discretionary sanctions" before implementing them in the wrong way.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary. You are just deciding to ban people who seems to have a POV different from yours. This is obviously not the spitit of the wikipedia project.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they're banning people who are disrupting the project. Be glad that you were given just two months. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You've just violated your ban. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked them for that edit; although it's not to an article, such a line of argument would be verging dangerously close to rules-lawyering. The comment on the talk page served no purpose but to inflame discussion from the peanut gallery, and such behavior needs to be discouraged. east.718 at 07:40, April 22, 2008

"This is obviously not the spitit of the wikipedia project" Actually it is. The goal is to suppress anything they don't agree with and ban people one by one who won't get in line. Recommended reading. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Wowest

I'd ask for consideration of action on this editor as well. His quote sums up his purpose here pretty well: The mainstream account is propaganda created by the Bush regime, repeated verbatim by a captive domestic media, then parroted again by foreign media. Look at this revert "an uncounted, but presumably large number of members of the engineering community"?? Presumably?? Why do we have to put up with this? RxS (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Final warning given. The next disruptive or tendentious edit will result in a topic ban on 9/11 related articles, broadly construed. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw an edit placing lots of OR in Conspiracy theory, and another tendentiously stonewalling regarding sources on Talk:9/11 Truth Movement, both after Raymond Arritt's final warning. As such, I've banned Wowest from all 9/11-related pages for about five weeks. east.718 at 11:01, April 22, 2008

Xiutwel

Xiutwel (talk · contribs · count) is another user engaging in tendentious pro-Truther soapboxing and stonewalling. Additionally, they left me a bogus warning, apparently in retaliation for my involvement above. This account proudly declares on their user page that they are here for the purpose of ideological struggle. I suggest either a final warning, topic ban, or indefinite block for disruption, as appropriate in the discretion of the administrator who reviews this request. The time for nonsense on these articles has come and gone. Xiutwel participated in the arbitration case, so they are certainly on notice about what is acceptable, and what isn't. Jehochman 02:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I also got a "warning" from Xiutwel. This has been going on for 2+ years with him. At this point, I don't seem him changing his way on 9/11 pages. --Aude (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

He also "warned"` Raul, which wasn't a particularly well-advised action. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel has been one of the most singularly disruptive influences on 9/11-related articles. The stonewalling and absolutely tendentious arguments he has repeated for literally years come in ebbs and flows — at first, I thought he simply didn't understand Misplaced Pages's policies and was having language issues understanding them. Unfortunately, that's simply not the case — he simply wants to interpret them in a way which will advance his personal point of view on the issue. Endless thousands of pages of text have been written addressing his novel interpretations, which will (at best) simply induce him to change his argument — never what he is advocating, which just so happens to agree with is POV on the matter. He doesn't see this as a problem, and doesn't view any of his behavior as the issue, since he's convinced himself that he's neutral and everyone else is biased — although the sheer breadth of his fringe advocacy, from 9/11 conspiracy theories, the OKC bombings, and fringe science to the moon landing hoax, is very telling. --Haemo (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Xiutwel's disruption is well-documented. As Haemo writes above, Xiutwel is extremely disruptive. Not only is Xiutwel disruptive, but he often begins discussions which lead to disruption by other users. A topic ban (or indef block) enacted against Xiutwel would be the best effect of the ArbCom decision. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on reviewing the comments above, I tend to think that Ice Cold Beer is probably right. I'm too new at this to stick out my neck as far as seems indicated to me as justified, though. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User:152.131.10.133

Following in User:67.164.76.73's footsteps (see resolved, below), except he's already done 2 each today on Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center‎, Jesse Ventura, and Template:911tm‎.

Has claimed in the past to be User:Bov, who has been warned many times, but not necessarily since the Arbcom.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and if you look at the IP's deleted userpage there's an note about Bov using that IP there as well. The contribs make it pretty clear it's the same user. RxS (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Bov's user page implies that there are multiple IP addresses from which he regularly edits. Anyone know the others, so that I can take a holistic view of his recent edits? GRBerry 14:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And so it begins again

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

All parties are reminded of the committee's second, and unenforcable remedy "The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." The instruction here is to find an approach that will achieve consensus. I suggest that such an approach will result in some pages kept, some merged, and some removed - but you all already knew that. Eusebeus is specifically reminded that it isn't particularly wise to engage in the same pattern of behavior that got another editor sanctioned by the ArbComm. The diffs presented do not move me to take action outside arbitration enforcement. GRBerry 14:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Eusebeus, who is well aware of the decisions of the recent episodes arbcom case, has begun blindly restoring redirects, without the slightest bit of prior discussion, citing WP:FICT as his basis for this, despite the fact it is still under discussion--Jac16888 (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I have to say that's pretty egregious. Just a note for an admin with actual experience. I'm inclined to simply block them to stop this disruption. --Haemo (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As requested. The arbcom case this is related to is Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, and User:Eusebeus is the only party involved, since attempts to discuss it with him have resulted in blunt, somewhat rude responses which basically equate to "I'm doing this and you can't stop me"--Jac16888 (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Diffs would make this much easier to investigate. It is not clear that there is a remedy in this case which is enforcable, and if there is no enforcable remedy then diffs won't matter for arbitration enforcement. They may, however, lead an administrator to act based on those diffs in and of themselves, without it being arbitration enforcement. GRBerry 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry, heres a few, but it should be noted that so far Eusebeus has redirected around a hundred pages, episodes of Scrubs so far. ,, , , , , , , . He has also begun edit-warring with User:Rebecca, reverting her undoing of some of his redirects, , . In addition, he has redirected all .hack characters (admittedly not something i am familiar with) based on one persons suggestion of doing so, , , , , and has since been reverted by User:Ned Scott, and has also begun redirecting House (TV series) characters, .--Jac16888 (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all about how you approach the situation. I didn't directly revert Eusebeus for the .hack characters, because I also added merge tags and I told him that they should still be merged, but we needed to plan it out (the merge target had basically no content at all, and there were multiple games/shows/etc that might be better organized on more than one list). Part of the problem is that it's easy to see these situations as all-or-nothing, even if there are other options. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Scrubs episode articles have been discussed for consisting of nothing but plot since November 2007, and the only way to rectify this per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT is to expand or merge/redirect. The expand didn't happen (it's not even clear that this is possible at all), so it's the latter now. Eusebeus resumed merge discussions after the arbcom case closed (middle of March) and is only taking actions now. Based on that, it would be hard to interpret his actions as wrong. It's been almost five months after all. – sgeureka 11:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be other issues here as well: backhanded apology to White Cat, insulting another user, and this use of obscenity in edit summary. Now as for the "discussion" on scrubs articles, I'm not sure these are helpful: he says "We are part of the Imperial Cabal of Evil Deletionists, and the campaign to ruin Misplaced Pages is simply a first step toward the larger goal of Total World Domination," accuses others of "bitching", and he says "That is not to say that I am not evil AND ruining wikipedia for everybody." Consider also his post at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Melting of Maggie Bean, when everyone is arguing to keep, including those who initially nominated and argued to delete, he tosses in a delete in which he mocks me. On my talk page he outright says, "I am not a keen contirbutor of content, having only rarely done so. I prefer the ruining it for everyone part" and let's not forget that during the ArbCom he declared his intention to proxy on TTN's behalf. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

When you're told g*d-knows-how-often that your evil deletionism will eternally ruin wikipedia (although your edits are totally in line with policy and guidelines), one way is to just "admit" it before the others can get to you, in order to demonstrate how silly these accusations would sound. And Eusebeus is simply "admitting" it. I share Eusebeus' odd sense of humor in real life (i.e. off-wiki), but I know that sarcasm may not translate well in the series of tubes. Which seems to be happening here. I don't expect anyone to ignore or excuse Eusebeus' "humor", but I still see no truth in Jac's initial claims (except citing FICT - Eusebeus should have cited NOTE and EPISODE to get the same results). Anything else is just muddying the water in a situation that has been testy for everyone in the last few months. – sgeureka 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that there is enough disagreement that many would argue his edits are not in line with policy and guidelines as interpreted and understand by multiple good faith editors. What frustrates me is that I have made at least two (see here and here) attempts to be friendly with him in the hopes that even if we disagree we'd at least have had some pleasant and constructive interactions that would make any future disagreements more civil. I have not really been extended the same courtesy or generosity. Moreover, what bothers me is that generally speaking anyone who leaves some kind of anti-inclusionist missive on my talk page actually argues to keep articles far less frequently (if at all) than I argue to delete articles, as I did in these discussions: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alhaji sani labaran, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Butt harp, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Funeral For My Chemical Valentine, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Insane Pro Wrestling, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Interdenominational Church of Huberianism (Apostolic), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jieming Unit, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Regular coffee for a regular guy, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/W.I.T.C.H. The Movie: The Ultimate War, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Screambox 2, etc. Finally, per the ArbCom case's evidence page (see here and here), it is apparent that the case was not just about TTN. Consider as well this proposed rememdy that SEVEN editors (Casliber, Edison, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, Maniwar, Pixelface, Tim Q. Wells, Ursasapien, and Yukichigai) supported and only three opposed (other than Black Kite and Ned Scott, the third one of the opposed was ban evading sock User:Jack Merridew, so really only two legitimate opposes). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this thread about Eusebeus and his edits to the Scrubs episode articles (and by extention to the .hack character articles), or isn't it? If it is, he did no such thing as what Jac claims (E. did discuss Scrubs for many many months, and since no-one else fixed the articles to be in line with policy, he did; .hack did not result in anything but a friendly disagreement without any edit-warring so far). If it's not about Scrubs and .hack, I could list all the extremely positive encounters I had with Eusebeus, and no-one would be any smarter. – sgeureka 10:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone notified Eusebeus about this discussion? I don't see anything on this talk page, so I'll leave him a note there as well. -- Ned Scott 19:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hey Jac16888, what part of Please notify the user of your report at his or her user talk page do you not understand exactly? I don't mind that you want to bring enforcement down on me since, it's true, I'm not a keen contributor of content, having only rarely done so. I prefer the ruining it for everyone part. But there's some pretty basic etiquette here; failure to notify is reprehensible, devious, shameful and cowardly. I don't feel I need to defend any of my edits. I was WP:BOLD and redirected a bunch of miserable .hack articles. These were reverted by Ned who said he would fix them and sobeit. Otherwise we'll take them to AfD. But where, exactly, is the edit warring in the face of disagreement over my .hack edits? Scrubs is a self-evidently justified merge. And if you wish to add further consideration, I will soon be merging some House characters as well per the ongoing discussion at the talk page there. Pumpkin, what can I say ? Stop being so churlish. Eusebeus (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologise Eusebeus, i did intend to inform you, but got dragged away by the real world before doing so, and then forgot. Believe me or not, its the truth. Do you really think that comments like the above really help? You have your opinion i have mine, character assassination achieves nothing. As for not edit warring, what do you call this ? And bold doesn't apply if there have already been several discussions about such edits. Nothing in your comment above even slightly defends your edits, rather it is just an unjustified attack on myself. And by the way, i have already raised the issue of House--Jac16888 (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually made a good faith effort to improve an article you created as a peace offering and you replied with this and this. So, you removed the sources I added, but did NOT add the sources you cite in your edit summary (the article currently has NO sources). Now imagine if the article was on some popular culture item or was a list; under the same circumstances you could AfD this relatively new article with "unreferenced" claims. So, if anything is frustrating it is when one attempts to find somewhere in which we might get along and even that is rebuffed. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll accept your explanation. But you are trying to get me blocked - blocked note - based on discrediting my contributions and my record, mischaracterising my actions, and inflating a set of edits that share clearly evident internal consistency and integrity into some kind of wanton spree of vandalism. Oh, and you don't bother to notify me you've done this. So, perhaps you will accept that I don't look too favourably upon the matter. Hint: if you don't have time to provide the notifications, don't file the complaint until you can do it properly. That's just good manners son. Eusebeus (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to be patronizing or is it just how you normally talk? And i don't see how you can talk about good manners considering some of your recent comments, as Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles has demonstrated. Staggering though it may sound, i am not trying to get you blocked, i really have no desire to see any non-vandal blocked, i simply started this discussion because i saw your redirects taking place without discussion, and in my opinion(which, by the way, i am entitled too), thought they were out of line, and thus was dragged back into arguments like these which i have been avoiding for months. I have not "mischaracterising your actions" i stated what you had done and gave proof, i leave it up to the community to decide who is right, and will gladly accept whatever decision comes out of this, whether it is in support of your edits or not. Can you say the same thing? --Jac16888 (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Ok, Jac, take note since instead of contrition for your wanton breach of conduct, you offer a passive-aggressive defense of your caricature of my actions. Based on your own feelings, based not on Misplaced Pages praxis or policy, you are unhappy that I merged Scrubs material which does not satisfy our standards at WP:FICT - which in recent review has reconfirmed with additional forcefulness our injunction against standalone articles as vehicles for plot summaries; moreover, WT:FICT is a discussion to which you cannot apparently be bothered to contribute, although you have plenty of time to report me to AE, although not enough time to notify me. But I harp.

I discussed this merge at some length and explained, with specific reference to our policy pages and ongoing discussions why this merge was justified by consensus practices. I - note, I - was then reverted without explanation by several editors who didn't bother to discuss the matter with me, but simply undid my efforts with a "no consensus" explanation. I have notified editors Catchpole and Rebecca that their dismissive revert, absent discussion, despite the heretofore referenced discussion which I had initiated and the actions which I had substantiated, was unacceptable. Both are cognisant of, but indifferent to, the consensus practices to which I had repeatedly made reference and to which they had the opportunity to contribute but simply - like you - could not be bothered. And yet you have time to bring me to AE. But don't have time to inform me. But I harp.

Apparently you don't have enough time to read the Arbcom ruling either. This is not a victory for one side or another, despite the apparent widespread conviction that it sanctioned content deemed otherwise unacceptable per WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. That is not true. The arbcom case:

1. Was explicitly about TTN's actions, not mine; and
2. Enjoined editors from abusive editing practices and edit-warring.

No good faith evaluation of my efforts or my edits, combined with my extensive contribution history of improving and adding content to Misplaced Pages, including the kind of shit translation work that few editors bother to do, could be interpreted as constituting a breach of that ruling, at least not without first bringing your concerns to me so I could politely and reasonably provide you context for the actions undertaken with which you disagree. In case you hadn't noticed, my sobriquet is Eusebeus not TTN. But then, if you hadn't time to notify me of this attempt to smear my editing record, why should I expect you to have the time to read the arbcom case you were referencing. Or even time to notify ... But I harp.

Listen, I understand you are unhappy that Misplaced Pages is not a fansite and I wish you had chosen to talk to me civilly about this instead of needlessly wasting up the time of arbcom and imputing my good faith and my intent. I have contributed to the discussions and debates that provide the context for my actions and i reject your appeal that permits you to engage in this drive-by without being called to task for it. Your Who-Me? shucksterism in comments like i stated what you had done and gave proof, i leave it up to the community to decide who is right doesn't wash. You should at least show contrition for the way you have proceeded in violation of the good faith principles, consensus practices and guideline and policy discussions that serve to keep this project vaguely glued together. Not whine about my supposedly supercilious attitude.

As for the diffs provided by Pumpkin they are hardly germane. The "obscenity" he refers is used to describe an article that I myself authored - go read the article if you like and try to watch more George Carlin. The ruining it for everyone is a joke; but I urge you to read the diff that Pumpkin provides in that instance because I think it offers an excellent summary of that editor's disruptive and pointy practices. But this is irrelevant to the larger problem posed by your conduct here, as I see it. Eusebeus (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think all everyone is asking is for you to stop editing in a disruptive and pointy fashion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Eusebeus continues to display TTN-type behaviour by edit-warring over redirects and ignoring talk page discussion that disagrees with him. See and Talk:House (TV series). Catchpole (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that Eusebeus seems to be repeating the disruptive behaviour of TTN. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Ok. Firstly, As i have already said, i am not attacking you, despite what you think () if you actually read my opening comments you will see that they are in fact a pure statement of fact, although if anyone else feels i am attacking Eusebeus please tell me so, its seems very much the other way around to me, nor am i doing this because of any particular bias i may have, i tried to distance myself from these discussions long ago and only came back because i do see your edits as violating the arbcom case i.e. the bit about " stopping abusive editing practices and edit-warring". While you may not be violating the letter of this ruling, i believe (yet again my opinion) that you are violating the spirit, especially since you appear to be proxying for TTN. I do not need to be reminded what wikipedia is not, i spend a fair amount of time keeping the scrubs articles free of too much cruft, even though admittedly work does need doing, that is not a reason for redirecting them. I believe you yourself need to be reminded what wikipedia is not, that is ,it is not a battleground. Need i remind you that i did attempt to discuss your edits (civily, as i always do),, and your response was more of an attack on my motivations than an attempt at peaceful discussion,.As for your claim that you discussed these reverts, the discussion you linked to took place quite a while ago, and there was no consensus to merge. In no way have i violated good faith principles, just as i feel that you haven't, i'm aware that you are acting in good faith, that doesn't stop me from disagreeing, i was well within my rights to begin this discussion, and a as wikipedian you should accept the possiblity that you maybe subject to such discussions about your conduct, rfc/u's, rfcu's, 3rr reports etc.--Jac16888 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster and Atabek

While I am aware that the Arbcom restriction ended on April 11, I (and VartanM as well) did still respect 1RR to not spread another series of revert wars (since it seems both Grandmaster and Atabek thought they were still under restriction). But this has become out of proportion since Grandmaster and Atabek continue to revert without reading. They ignore talkpages and their justifications in them has little to do with their reverts. See Grandmaster’s last justification for example and see what has been reverted. Either Grandmaster did not read the justifications or has completely ignored on purpose what has taken me countless hours to write and explain.

First evidence that Grandmaster did not read what he has reverted is that the version to which Grandmaster has reverted is not the original version as he claims; he reverted to the version which contained Atabek’s changes of yesterday. I already explained the problem with that addition more than once.

Atabek’s added text contains this: the mass of the Oghuz Turkic tribes who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateau, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Caucasus and Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name "Turkmen" for a long time: from the 13th century onwards they "Turkised" the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan, thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris.

And this is the text from the note provided: the mass of the Oghuz Turkic tribes who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateau, which remained Persian, and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name "Turkmen" for a long time: from the 13th century onwards they "Turkised" the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris.

Note that Atabek copied word for word the author and dishonestly added the word Caucasus and removed the information in the parentheses about the former language of Azerbaijan. Atabek was already warned to not do that, to not take sections of texts from authors and incorporates them in articles as if he wrote them. He has to re-word them or place them in quotes. Besides, it was already explained that what Atabek has added is irrelevant to the article or at least he threw it in an incoherent way in an already incoherent and disorganized version. Also note Grandmaster’s justification, when the version he reverted does not even speak of the Turkmen once. Grandmaster has used a disagreement in the talkpage used as an example to work on an irrelevant argumentation to revert me, when his argument is irrelevant to the content he re-introduced. Grandmaster and Atabek continue thinking that justifying reverts is to add just text in the talkpage regardless of if it is relevent as a justification of the revert itself.

In fact, reading the article you will note that important sections have been removed from it, such as organization and context. Never did Atabek or Grandmaster justify the removal of those additions. Not once… they didn’t even bring it once in the talkpage. Once reverted is an accident, but with the number of reverts without addressing the rest of the text is not an accident. If they both had a problem with the word Turkic, they would have changed the term leaving the re-organization of the text and the new elements added there. But instead the Turkic term was used as a pretext to remove information and re-introduce redundancy and/or irrelevancy. Thanks. - Fedayee (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Fedayee just reverting, I actually added a reference to the article, which was quite relevant, claryfing historical identity of Azeris, questioned on the talk page. Fedayee first supported the reference saying "the author like the rest is basically saying what I have been saying". Then he made a revert to his own prior version, obviously not even checking that he reverted a reference which he just supported .

Not quite sure what exactly Fedayee is reporting at AE, when it's clear from the page history that others like User:VartanM and User:Eupator, bunch of anon IPs and User:Aynabend were involved in edits and discussions besides others reported and reporting. Atabek (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Atabek's reply is evidence that he does not read before replying, Fedayee above has shown that Atabek copied word for word from an author and introduced it in the article without presenting it as a quote, which alone warrants the revert. Secondly, Fedayee already quoted from the same author and the same work which is a clarification of the prior pages: The concept of an Azeri identity barely appears at all before 1920. but regardless clarified that he does not see the relevancy.

While my and Fedayee reverts were justified, Atabek and Grandmaster in their reverts removed sources and the texts which were referenced by:

• The Kingdom of Armenia, M. Chahin, Routledge (2001)
• The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict Causes and Implications by Michael P. Croissant Praeger/Greenwood (1998)
• The history and conquests of the Saracens, 6 lectures, Edward Augustus Freeman, Macillan (1876)
• An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires by James Stuart Olson, Greenwood Press, (1994)
• Archives Historique et Politiques, ou Recueil de Pièce Officielles, Mémoires et Morceaux Historiques, Inédits ou Peu Connus, Relatifs à L'Histoire des 18e et 19e Sciècle, Maximilian Samson Friedrich Schoell, Libraire grecque-latine, Original issu de l'Université du Michigan (1818)
• History of Armenia by Mik'ayel Ch'amch'yants', Bishop's college press, by H. Townsend (1827)

Not once did they even justify their removal, not once did they even say anything about that content. In fact they don’t even look at what they revert and ignore what others write. VartanM (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You fail to mention that every time you and countless socks assisting you (check the history of the article) reverted the article a large chunk of sourced information was removed. I read what I reverted and I reintroduced the source that Atabek added to the article on purpose, because it was removed for no reason at all. Fedayee and VartanM are both involved in POV pushing in that article, trying to deny the existence of Azerbaijani people in the region. Instead, they promote fringe theories about existence of Turkmens from Central Asia in the region, while reliable sources were cited that Turkmens of Central Asia never lived in that area. I cited more sources on talk and moreover, I asked a person who is knowledgeable on the subject and who wrote the article Azerbaijani people to an FA standard to take a look at the dispute. However, instead of pursuing WP:DR, Fedayee chose to report me and Atabek here, obviously trying to divert attention from what is actually going on on that particular article. Grandmaster (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And I don't understand what me and Atabek are reported for. Neither me, nor Atabek violated the 1RR limit, and both me and Atabek provided extensive comments and quotes on talk. I don't think anyone provided so many sources and comments on talk as I did, and I'm the one who asked for a third party opinion, trying to resolve the dispute peacefully. So what editing restriction have we violated? The version that I reverted contained blatant original research, such as this: The large scale Turkic migration brought also the linguistic Turkification of a number of the Muslim people in Transcaucasus such as the Shirvanis. It is attributed to a source (P. Croissant) which never even uses the word "Shirvanis", and Shirvanis were not an ethnicity, it is a regional denomination that covers all people living in the region of Shirvan (which has no relation to Armenia), including Turkic population. Turkic population could not be Turkified. It is just one example. The other sources mentioned by VartanM have no relevance to the article, as they deal with deportations of Armenians, but not with Azerbaijani Turkic population. But VartanM and Fedayee keep on reintroducing the OR claims in the article, failing to properly read all the sources quoted in much detail on talk. Grandmaster (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster claims that he has reintroduced Atabek modifications on purpose, what I forgot to add was that he also reintroduced this edit, if he indeed did read the content he was reverting and did the reverts on purpose then he purposely left a misleading comment here to falsely justify his revert by claiming that he reverted to the original version.

Grandmaster also claims that Atabek addition was removed for no reason; again this shows that he actually did not read the talkpage, neither my reply above. Copying an author word for word without rewording it is enough reason to revert. Atabek added that content as if he was the author. This reason was given several times as one of the reasons and Grandmaster still claims that no reason was provided. It is unacceptable that editors have to repeat themselves countless time and Grandmaster reply shows that he either ignored the replies or simply did not read them. He also wonders what he did wrong and claims that him and Atabek provided several quotations and discussed. But most of the content of their reply is irrelevant to what they have reverted. Please also note that just above Grandmaster has finally criticized one element removed by the revert by criticizing the addition of one source. But Grandmaster again assumes. He assumes that Shirvani was attempted to be passed as an ethnic group, while the term was correctly redirected to an article which correctly places the Shirvani's as the Lezgi, Avars, Udis, Kriz and Tats etc.

If Grandmaster took more time to actually read and consider what others say, he would have understood why he is reported and particularly why Atabek has been reported. What Grandmaster considers relevant coming from Atabek, are actually soapboxing materials. See here this is the sort of disruption Atabek has been doing for a long time now, without any opposition. Everyone in the discussion knows that everyone including Armenians were calling them Azeri Turks or Azerbaijani during the Soviet era. Atabek is well aware that the term was not removed for anything after 1918. How is quoting something which was not even an issue relevant? Note and pay attention to why Atabek has brought this quote, it is explained by the last paragraph of his reply: Another interesting point is that already in 1979, when Azerbaijanis, Armenians and Georgians lived in peace, author was claiming that Armenians dislike Azeris and Georgians, which was a prelude to Karabakh war and occasional Armenian claims on Georgia's territorial integrity. Note the real purpose of his reply, he soapboxes the talkpage and makes it look like a reply about the Azerbaijani's, when its real purpose is to push in an irrelevant article talkpage on how Armenians dislike the Azerbaijani's and even succeedes in introducing the Georgians into the picture.

On the subject of the anon IP's. I have already explained that if those Anon IP's were really there to support me and Fedayee, they would realize that their reverts are being reverted, including by Admins and the articles are being locked to Grandmaster version as a result, they were not helping us at all. Grandmaster could not provide one revert from those anon's which were ever left there. So why does Grandmaster bother bringing those IP's every time his conduct is questioned? Like it was explained before, those who benefited most from those anon's were him and Atabek.

Grandmaster claims that I am trying to deny the existence of the Azerbaijani people from the region, the only thing I did was attempting to keep the words used in the body of scholarly publications (which Grandmaster calls it OR). And there is more, this claim that I am denying their existence is dishonest since reading the talkpage it becomes clear that neither I nor Fedayee have ever attempted to do that. It's like accusing someone who reverts the change of the term Dutch to German or Phrigian to Armenian to try to deny German or Armenian identity. It makes no sense at all, as nowhere have we denied that there were Turkic populations in the region since the 11th century, to the contrary it was us who attempted to reintroduce this, which was blindly removed.

The only positive thing Grandmaster did about the article is to request Tombseye'sopinion. Interestingly, Tombseye agrees with Meowy proposal which is a rename, something which was done when Eupator made his additions, the result of which was a revert war. See Grandmaster's reply to both Tombseye and Meowy and try to understand the relevancy with the proposal, the only relevant material is the claim that the name was introduced by the Russians long ago. Now go to the talkpage, and read it to see how this was not the case and how Grandmaster distorted the whole subject.

I and Fedayee are ready to have mediation, as previously said, under one condition, those who are found to be disruptive in this article, should accept being banned for a period of 6 months in the related articles. This condition was provided to Grandmaster in Moreschi talkpage, and both times Greandmaster refused to answer if he would accept.VartanM (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand what I am being accused of. I did not violate 1RR, and I discussed my revert. So where is violation? Editors do not get blocked here for disagreeing with your POV. I restored the quote removed from the article by Fedayee for no reason at all, it was properly attributed to the author, if it needed fixing, Fedayee could have done so, instead he chose to rv to the old POV version by Eupator and removed many references along the way. So I was absolutely right by restoring all the sources that were removed. Also, VartanM failed to explain what Shirvanis had to do with Armenia and why the quote was falsely attributed to Croissant, who never mentioned any Shirvanis. And Tombseye never agreed with Meowy's proposal, read carefully, he proposed a different title with which Meowy did not agree. I actually think that Tombseye's proposal makes sense and could be a basis for the resolution of the dispute. It is clear from the above post by Vartan that he misrepresents the situation to have the article his way and get rid of opponents by making false accusations and supporting frivolous reports on other users, who made no violations of parole whatsoever. Grandmaster (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• The case in question is Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Filing and discussing parties are reminded that there should always be a link to the case or cases for which the report is being made. GRBerry 13:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

September 11 arbitration

Regarding the Thomas Basboll block by Raul654, Raul is:

1. not an uninvolved editor Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications_and motions#Raul654_is_NOT_an_.22uninvolved.22_administrator
2. did not follow the guidelines before blocking Thomas Basboll. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications_and_motions#Raul654.27s did_not_follow_the_arbcom_guidelines

Can someone lift the "September 11 attacks-related articles" ban on Thomas Basboll? This case cannot be anymore clear cut. Inclusionist (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This matter was appealed at WP:RFAC. Creating a duplicate thread here, when no enforcement action is even possible, is disruptive. Jehochman 06:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved notices

September 11 conspiracies

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

IP editor put on a restriction of 1 revert per fortnight and required to engage in discussion on talk page when reverting GRBerry 13:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories, requesting sanctions:

• 67.164.76.73 (talk · contribs), warned 13:35, April 11, 2008
• Continual removal of David Icke from {{911tm}} and Conspiracy Theory from Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center‎, the latest being at 03:23 and 18:21 on 16 April 2008.
• I'm an involved editor, and cannot issue sanctions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The edits to {{911tm}} are repetitive reversion, generally without use of the talk page, over a period of multiple weeks (talk page used once). On their own, they look like a form of 1RR with talk page usage requirements is appropriate. I'll continue investigating as I have time. The same patter is true on the Controlled demolition article; repeated slow reversion without discussion. It seems to be about 5 days between reversions on average, so a week long restriction would be meaningless. Is 1 revert per article per month, talk page usage required a reasonable restriction in everyone else's eyes? Or maybe per fortnight? It should be accompanied by an explanation of consensus and consensus building; this might be a new editor who isn't aware that they should be discussing. GRBerry 19:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC) GRBerry 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

God knows my opinion on these matters isn't necessarily a particularly well-informed one, so don't put too much weight on it, but I could see a once a fortnight restriction imposed. But this IP editor would have to be told about the policies and existing restrictions on the content. John Carter (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There actually seems to be quite a bit of discussion about the Icke inclusion on the discussion page (and similarly large amount of discussion on the demolition page on the issue of the phrase conspiracy theory). Icke is inherently offensive to average 9/11 activists -- if you read the websites you will find this to be true -- so it's clear why most people would not want him on a template. The only people who think he should be included are those who want to discredit the template as is shown in their many reverts of 9/11 info they disagree with, Weregerbil and Arthur Rubin. That's like having pro-Israel editors in charge of a template on Palestine. Makes about as much sense, or at least, is transparent. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Understood, and I've reminded Arthur that he was right last month when he noted that the bit in Icke's article needs better sourcing. Hopefully that will get done soon. But this editor also has been engaging in reversion without discussion on another 9/11 article. . So the problematic behavior is not merely an Icke issue. GRBerry 13:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Osli73

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Revert restriction extended, no current block. See more details at bottom. GRBerry 18:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User Osli73 http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Osli73 has a history of willfully violating probations including the use of sockpuppets on articles related to the former Yugoslavia.

One can see at the bottom of this arbitration webpage that he has been blocked repeatedly for willfully violating sanctions placed against his edit warring and sockpuppetry: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Involved_parties

For example:

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) 3 months per 1 month tthis AE post. Please note this is Osli's fourth block. --wL<speak·check> 07:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for 2 weeks for breaking the revert limit on Srebrenica massacre; also banned from editing Srebrenica massacre for 3 months. Thatcher131 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for two weeks for directly violating his probation and revert parole at Srebrenica massacre. --Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for one week for directly violating his probation and revert parole by using a sockpuppet to edit war at Srebrenica massacre. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked KarlXII (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Osli73 (talk · contribs) proven by checkuser. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On March 19, 2008, Osli73 received the following probation from administrator Thatcher explicitly forbidding Osli73 from more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen article http://en.wikipedia.org/Bosnian_Mujahadin , http://en.wikipedia.org/Mujahideen

Your topic ban is lifted and replaced with a revert parole. You may edit Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen but for one month (from 17 March) you are limited to one revert per article per week. Obvious vandalism is excepted from the revert limit, but you should take care in distinguishing true vandalism from content disputes. You are permitted to revert the edits of banned users such as Grandy Grandy/The Dragon of Bosnia but you should be extremely careful in doing so, because if it turns out the editor you are reverting is not a sockpuppet of the banned user you will have violated the revert limit. It would be better to report suspected sockpuppets to WP:AE or WP:RFCU. Thatcher 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

see user Osli73 talk page for the above probation notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Osli73

Despite the explicit probation against more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles, user Osli73 has again engaged in edit warring, reverting the Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen articles repeatedly, for example Osli made the following 8 reverts to the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles from April 8 to April 14:

diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205563168

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205562519

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205439461

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205437228

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205144618

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204899529

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204888935

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204184557

From his statements, Osli73 has shown that he fully understands the restrictions placed upon him. From his actions, he has shown that he is not willing to abide by those restrictions.

I am notifying the administrators that have sanctioned Osli73 in the past as well as notifying Osli73 of this posting. Especially with articles involving the former Yugoslavia, it is imperative that users respect the limits placed upon their editing. If the more vitriolic editors involved in former Yugoslavia articles see that Osli73 is not held accountable for his his transgressions, then there is greater likelihood of out-of-control edit warring as there has been in the past. Fairview360 (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Copied from WP:ANI#Osli73 violating parole, repeat violator to the proper forum. GRBerry 13:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The limitation imposed is one revert per article per week, not one per week. That clarified, there are two articles reported here and at least three reverts inside a week on each article, so the ban has clearly been violated. When we lowered the topic ban to a revert limit, we didn't specify sanctions upon violation. I'm thinking a short block followed by an extension of the revert limit. We should also check the article histories to see if other editors of those articles have engaged in conduct that needs to be addressed. GRBerry 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

On 18 December 2006, Srikeit (talk · contribs) blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week because of sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole in Srebrenica massacre.

I think Osli created another account Jonathanmills (talk · contribs) in order to edit Srebrenica massacre:

Srebrenica massacre

• Jonathanmills made some edits
• Osli reverts to Jonathanmills

• Osli restores some links
• Jonathanmills restores the same links

If you search through his edits you will realise that both of them edited Konjic article (?!) It is impossible that they are both interested in Konjic village in Herzegovina ?! Osli allegedly from Sweden, and Jonathanmills from England, both interested in a village in a country that most people never heard of ?!

Konjic

• Osli73 edited a section
• Johnatanmills edited the same section.

Due to the fact that it has already been proven Osli was a sockpuppeteer in Srebrenica massacre article, this is a good reason to ask for another check user. They even have the same greetings, it is enough to look at the talk pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.39.121 (talk)

The IP address used for this query was 85.158.39.121 amd whois returns: "85.158.38.0 - 85.158.39.255 descr: Logosoft wireless internet access" which is from one of the IP addresses ranges involved in a recent edit war with user:Osli73 (see my comment below the next one) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am quite concerned about Osli73's edits. This level of edit warring should not be continuing. As I recently blocked him for edit warring I am not going to block him again but would recommend close watch on it. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Block log for Osli73

Much (all?) of his edit warring has been against edits made by sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy. For example a glance of at history of Bosnian mujahideen show that the revert he made of HarisM was because HarisM reverted Osli73 revert of AhmadinV (a probable sockpuppet of Grandy Grand) revert. HarisM has also reverted to versions by sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy on other pages Bosnian war, Mujahideen, Role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war. HarisM has stated that he/she is neither a sockpuppet of user:Grandy Grandy or that user:Grandy Grandy is a sockpuppet of his/hers. I have suggested on the talk pages of Bosnian mujahideen and Role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian War that instead of reverting to a version by sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy --because it involves a large changes from the version by user:Osli73 it is hard to read the diffs and difficult to decide on which is better -- that user:HarisM introduces the changes by section and reaches a consensus for each change on the talk pages before moving on to the next change.

Mixed up in this are repeated reverts to versions of the text by sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy by dynamic IP addresses such as 85.158.35.27 (85.158.36.0 - 85.158.37.255 Bosnia And Herzegovina Sarajevo Logosoft Cable Internet Access (mnt-by: LOGOSOFT-MNT)) 85.158.36.123 (Bosnia And Herzegovina Sarajevo Logosoft Cable Internet Access (mnt-by: LOGOSOFT-MNT)), 85.158.38.208 (85.158.38.0 - 85.158.39.255 Bosnia And Herzegovina Sarajevo Logosoft Wireless Internet Access) 217.75.202.13 (217.75.202.12 - 217.75.202.15 Bosnia And Herzegovina Autoline_salon (mnt-by: LOGOSOFT-MNT)). The locations of the IP addresses were provided via http://whois.domaintools.com.

So in summary, given the residue of the edit war with sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy, I think that in this case blocking user:Osli73 for a week would be sufficient reminder that he should not engage in this behaviour (the block has ended). Further I think that after user:Osli73 has his time in the sin bin, if HarisM still wants to introduce the versions written by sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy he/she should introduce them incrementally having discussed them on the talk page and gained a consensus to do so. On pages where new users or IP addresses revert to versions or partial versions of the page authored by sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy those edits should be reverted and the pages protected for a month from edits by IP and new users. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer ought to more thoroughly research Osli73's edit warring history before making such definitive statements. In fact, Osli73 has engaged in edit wars with several different users. Furthermore, it would seem appropriate for Philip Baird Shearer to recuse himself in the role of administrator on articles that Osli73 is editting since Philip Baird Shearer himself has engaged in edit wars with Osli73 as his ally. Fairview360 (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fairview360 You wrote Despite the explicit probation against more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles, user Osli73 has again engaged in edit warring, reverting the Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen articles repeatedly, for example Osli made the following 8 reverts to the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles from April 8 to April 14:, therefore I have only been looking at Osli73 behaviour since the ban was put in place on March 19 (see User talk:Osli73#Article ban). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer posted Osli73's block log which runs from September 2006 to April 16 and made the statement "Much (all?) of his edit warring has been against edits made by sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy."

That is rather misleading.

Any reader would assume that Philip Baird Shearer was refering to much or all of the blocks shown in Osli's block log that Philip Baird Sheare himself posted. With the comments above, Philip Baird Shearer gave the impression that most or all of Osli73's transgressions have been in reaction to other editors' transgressions which is not the case. The topic of this discussion is not simply Osli73's recent transgression but the fact that he has repeatedly ignored/circumvented sanctions placed upon him. Fairview360 (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I put the link there as a convenience link for those like me who had read the comment by Stifle and like me wanted to see the block log. If I had intended my next comment to be a continuation of the block log link, then I would have placed "Most (all?) of his edit warring..." next to the link on the same line. Instead I placed it on the next line. If that juxtaposition confused you Fairview360 then I am sorry for the confusion that it caused you and anyone else who was also confused by the juxtaposition. But, so that it is clear to you I will repeat what I wrote above, as you seemed to have missed it. Fairview360 You wrote Despite the explicit probation against more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles, user Osli73 has again engaged in edit warring, reverting the Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen articles repeatedly, for example Osli made the following 8 reverts to the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles from April 8 to April 14:, therefore I have only been looking at Osli73 behaviour since the ban was put in place on March 19 (see User talk:Osli73#Article ban). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So, according to Philip Baird Shearer, if he had put his comment on the same line as the block log, then he would have indeed been refering to the entire block log when he claimed that Osli73's edit warring has only been in response to others' sockpuppetry, but because he put his comment on the line below the block log, we are all supposed to understand that he of course was defending only Osli73's recent edit warring. For those of us who did not understand this distinction, he apologizes. O.K. Said apology and clarification are duly noted for future reference. Fairview360 (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"So, according to Philip Baird Shearer" are you implying that I do not know what I was doing or that I acted in bad faith? You say "defending" however I do not consider this to be star chamber, but rather a consensus building exercise. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Before Philip Baird Shearer proceeds any further in this discussion, he ought to clarify if he is purporting to be in the role of administrator here or rather simply expressing his opinion as an editor.

Wiki policy is quite clear concerning when an administrator should not use his administrative tools, ie. not act as an administrator.

Philip Baird Shearer is very much an involved editor here. He has not only edited the articles affected by Osli73's behavior, Philip Baird Shearer has engaged in multiple reverts often in concert with Osli73. Of course, Philip Baird Shearer is entirely free to act as an editor and passionately defend his point of view as others do the same. But if he wants to play on one soccer team against another and at the same time keep a whistle in his mouth as a referee of that very same game, there is obviously a confliict of interest.

Other administrators, who have edited Bosnia-related articles -- actually less than Philip Baird Shearer -- have expressly refrained from using any of their administrative tools, refrained from acting as an administrator, and instead, when aware of an issue worthy of administrative review, referred their concerns to other administrators who are not involved editors.

Wiki policy found on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators is as clear as need be: "Administrators should not use their tools where they are a party (or significant editor).

A review of Philip Baird Shearer's edits of the Bosnian Genocide, Srebrenica Massacre, and Bosnian Mujahideen articles will show that he is indeed very much an involved editor. He has contributed content and reverted multiple times. On the Bosnian Genocide article, among scores of reverts in the midst of edit warring, he has specifically reverted back to the last version by Osli73 many times.

And yet, with both the Bosnian Mujahideen and Bosnian Genocide article, he has used his administrative powers to protect the articles and thereby lock in the version that he himself has been creating and defending as an editor.

It is not a question of content. Many of Philip Baird Shearer's contributions are quite thoughtful even when taking a position that is strongly opposed by other editors. However, it does appear that Philip Baird Shearer is in clear violation of wiki policy which prohibits involved editors acting simultaneously as administrators. No matter how intent Philip Baird Shearer may be towards objectivity, his personal involvement with the content and the editors in question disqualify him as a disinterested third party as mediators are meant to be. There is a reason why wiki has the policies it has.

So the question returns to Philip Baird Shearer, is he writing here as an editor or an administrator? Fairview360 (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to make allegations then at least check you facts. Yes I have recently protected Bosnian mujahideen article because of editwarring, and yes it happens that the last person to edit it was Osli73, but you are wrong about the Bosnian Genocide article. When I protected that article for the same reason, the version I protected was one by user:Grandy Grandy "Protected Bosnian Genocide: edit warring ". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip is not telling the truth. Philip said:"Block log for Osli73 - Much (all?) of his edit warring has been against edits made by sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy."

According to Grandy's contribution, Grandy created his account on 27 September 2007, and Osli has been blocked before that seven times. According to Philip's contribution, Osli and Philip worked together on Bosnian related articles with almost the same opinion. I think Osli should be blocked at least for two months, and of course banned infinitely if the evidence shows he is a sockpuppeteer. 217.75.202.131 (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

217.75.202.131 (217.75.202.128 - 217.75.202.159 (Elektroprivreda Bosne i Hercegovine (mnt-by: LOGOSOFT-MNT)) Are you the same editor who used logsoft IP addresses to edit war with Osli73? If the Philip comment above refers to me see my answer to Fairview360. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip, you don't get it. I dont care whose version it is, if it is using valid sources, and speaking the truth I allready stated that, i don't care about Grandy Grandy or Osli, for me they are the same, they both played dirty games with sockpuppets. You are trying to imply that my opinion is wrong if I support version of Grandy, which is silly. You accused me indirectly of being a sockpuppet or having sockpuppets. I find it offensive, because some other users accused me too, and apologized after a while. I again ask, anyone with Check User rights to do the checking to examine my contribution, or whatever it takes, and finally to stop accusing me. I explained why I support articles with ICTY sources and such. I agree that we all together should agree valid article, with valid sources, that are neutral. And what is it more neutral that source/version I propose. I also showed you on Bosnian War talk page that Osli removes paragraphs with source without explanation hiding with some irrelevant comments not related to removal, Osli never answered my question why he did that. I realised what Osli is trying to do in Bosnian War, and I reviewed his contribution. I saw he did the same thing in all articles about Bosnian War. That's why I was very angry. Noone wants to stop that behaviour. --HarisM (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not accused you of anything I asked you if Grandy Grandy was a sockpuppet of yours. As you have answered no then the matter is closed. As I have suggested on the appropriate talk pages if you wish to introduce text written by Grandy Grandy then do it incrementally so that each change can be judged on its merit. It is debatable, given the cat fight between Osli73 and Grandy Grandy, who is removing old text and adding new as there are large diffs between the versions. An easy way to "cut this gordian knot"/"remove this mares nest" is to make incremental changes discussing each one on the talk page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To whomever is deciding on this matter, I would like to make a couple of statements:

1. I'm very sorry for breaking my revert parole. Honestly, I had forgotten about it. I know it is not a valid excuse, but that is the reason. Regardless, I acknowledge that I have broken it and accept any remedies imposed on me by the editor(s) in charge of deciding this matter. However, in deciding the proper remedy, I would like to ask you to please consider the following:
2. The revert parole violation on the Alija Izetbegovic article was the result of continuous reverts by an anon user unwilling to engage in discussion and reverting to a version which I think is safe to say is definately WP:POV.
3. I believe that I have continuously tried to engage in and promote discussion on articles I have been involved in where there have been edit disputes. For example, please see my edit histories on the Bosnian mujahideen article where I initiated a lengthy mediation process to thwart continuous deletion and vandalism of the article. Same goes for the Bosnian war article. I have also tried to informally mediate in other articles where there have been edit disputes, recently the University of Prishtina article.
4. Please recognize that generally it is very difficult to edit articles and manage editing conflicts in Balkan related articles due to the very ideological motives of some of the editors involved. This includes quite a few personal attacks against myself and an overall rather unfriendly editing environment. With this in mind, please note that none of the sanctions against me have been for personal attacks or unfriendly comments. I believe they have all been WP:3RR related (which, I know, isn't good, but still...).
5. The sockpuppet violation was related to personal attacks I received on my personal email after engaging in the Srebrenica massacre article. Apparently some people had investigated and found some very personal information about myself. I simply feared that the personal attacks on Misplaced Pages could develop into personal attacks off Misplaced Pages as well. I realize it was wrong, but at the time I judged (wrongly) that it was a way to end the personal attacks.
6. I have nothing to do with User:Jonathanmills.
7. Finally, I believe that I am sincerely trying to push for a WP:NPOV on articles which are under a lot of pressure from ideologically motivated editors. Unfortunately, this has landed me in some trouble a couple of times. The 3RR violations are an example where I have felt (again, wrongly) a need to stem a tide of reverts from various editors (who have in at least one case turned out to be one and the same) and anonymous IPs. However, I acknowledge that this is wrong.

Before making a decision I would like to ask the responsible admin to please consider the above. Best regardsOsli73 (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The claim by Osli73 that his use of a sockpuppet was a form of self-defense is not credible given that he used the sockpuppet to circumvent restrictions placed upon him. Most damning of all is that he used both his own user Osli73 and his sockpuppet KarlXII at the same time as a tag team against other users. Additionally, his portrayal of himself as a neutral editor is a bit of a stretch given that there is a clear pattern in his edits of trying to obscure or completely deny Serbia's role in the Srebrenica massacre at times using "Free Slobodan Milosevic" websites as his references. He at times does indeed make thoughtful improvements to articles but he is by no means a neutral observer with only enclopedic interests at heart. In any case, he has shown a consistent disregard for restrictions placed upon him apparently since he usually receives only a brief block or ban -- a slap on the wrist -- and therefore, there appears to be a net gain to his disregarding the restrictions. It is not clear what it would require to get him to abide by the restrictions placed upon him. Fairview360 (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fview360, a quick response to the above.

• I am sorry you don't believe the explanation for the sockpuppetry. That was over a year ago. Here's a recent comment from someone who likes to me to know they've investigated me.
• I'm not trying to obscure Serbia's involvement in the Srebrenica massacre (though I believe you are trying to overstate it). I have never used "Free Slobodan Milosevic" websites as references. I may, however, have used them as examples of dissenting Serbian opinions. Please understand that providing an example of certain people's opinions does not equate to having that opinion oneself. I have already explained that to you several times.

Osli73 (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Osli73 apart from KarlXII have you used any other sockpuppets? Are you a sockpuppet of another account? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk)

No.Osli73 (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This inquiry is not of much value given that the last time Osli73 was using a sockpuppet and was asked if he was doing so, this was his response using his KarlXII sockpuppet: "I know that you levelled the sockpuppet ackusation before and I ignored it but did forward it to osli." (text from KarlXII 08:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC) contribution to the Srebrenica Massacre discussion page.) Not exactly a staightforward honest answer. Fairview360 (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fairview360, I have explained the circumstances of that violation. I was also duly punished for it. Over a year and a half has passed since then. There

Fairview360 initially you raised his current editing behaviour because "I am notifying the administrators that have sanctioned Osli73 in the past as well as notifying Osli73 of this posting. Especially with articles involving the former Yugoslavia, it is imperative that users respect the limits placed upon their editing. If the more vitriolic editors involved in former Yugoslavia articles see that Osli73 is not held accountable for his his transgressions, then there is greater likelihood of out-of-control edit warring as there has been in the past." What do you think is an appropriate sanction on Osli73 to deter "more vitriolic editors involved in former Yugoslavia articles"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

My response to User:Fairview360's comments above: Fairview360 refers to "vitriolic" editors on Yugoslavia related articles. As far as I am concerned he belongs to this group himself (although he is by no means the worst). Please see some examples of his comments on Talk:Srebrenica massacre below. Most revolving around accusations of my being a genocide denier, Milosevic supporter, supporter of the Greater Serbia project, etc.. Very much in line with his comments above. Please take the time to read them to better understand the background:

• "Given your apparent bi-polar approach to editing, for the sake of keeping things straight, I am going to give you two names: Osli the Revisionist and Osli the Reasonable. Unfortunately, the second parts both start with R so it will be Osli-Rev and Osli-Reas. Right now, you are Osli-Reas, not to be confused with Reis."
• "Given that I genuinely believe that you aid and abet the propaganda of those who committed genocide, I am remarkably civil with you."
• "Osli claims that he is not trying to deny anything, yet, now he insists on including a document straight from slobodan-milosevic.org that flatout denies that any massacre took place and then insists on calling it simply an alternative point of view. Why on earth would anyone want to engage in mediation with someone as underhanded as Osli. He claims that he is a 33 year old father of two from Sweden but show almost no interest in Sweden and has quite a bit of time to dicker with this article rather than spend his time earning money for his alleged family. He uses ultra-nationalist tactics of trying to take all the benefits of playing fair - mediation - but shows time and again that if ever it benefits him, he will engage in underhanded tactics like making major changes but trying to hide it as minor or putting pure propaganda - Srebrenica did not happen - and try to present it as a legitimate alternative point of view. And then of course he tries to re-invent himself time and again and does indeed make valid points. But for how long must this article endure Osli?"
• "it is clear to me that Osli wants to create controversy or delete items or in one way or another distract from the basic facts of what happened in Srebrenica. I believe that by reasoning with him, I can expose the fact that many of his deletions are unjustified and are in fact meant to destroy the veracity of the article... I know that some of my time is wasted dealing with Osli who I hardly believe is a Swede and who I do not accept as genuinely concerned about anything other than promoting "Defend Milosevic! Defend Serbia" slants, but from time to time, I learn more while researching his specious claims which adds to my knowledge of the Srebrenica massacre and current ultra-nationalist tactics for covering up or distracting from what happened; and perhaps most relevant of all"
• "I want to thank Osli for inspiring this additional research and given his professed commitment to a rational approach to writing this article, I rest assured that he too will agree to the "approximately 8,000 killed" in the introduction once all the documentation has been presented. Hmmmm... well on second thought he'll probably go running to Seselj to get the latest "controversy" and do everything he can to sabotage putting a reasonable estimate based on ICMP research in the introduction, but so it goes."
• "If anything, I assume you are a nationalist sympathetic to the Greater Serbia Project. It takes more than just being a Serb to be what I believe you are."
• "my view of what happened is substantiated by the ICTY and the ICMP and the Federal Commission for Missing Persons. Your view is supported by slobodan-milosevic.org. What does that tell you? Compromising with one user named Osli is not going to be the basis of this article."
• "I am of the mind that your true objective here is to plant seeds of doubt and revise numbers down and get MacKenzie-esque revisionism back in the article."

Fairview360 was by far not the most "vitriolic" editor, but, as the above comments he made on Talk:Srebrenica massacre show, he did not shy away from personal attacks and bullying. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The salient issue here is that every wiki editor is obligated to abide by the restrictions placed upon him. The fact is that Osli73 has repeatedly violated the restrictions placed upon him. The question for administrators is what course of action will lead to Osli73 abiding by the sanctions placed upon him. Fairview360 (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, if I could add my two cents here... :-)

I can assure people I'm not a sockpuppet (I'm sure that's what they all say, of course :-)

Isn't there some way it can be investigated and resolved, though? As I've said a number of times, if you checked ISPs you'd find that Osli and I are in different countries.

I've said myself that the fact we both use the term 'Cheers' is hardly going to allay suspicions, but he explained to me that he'd been in England for several years, and I have lived in New Zealand, where it is a common phrase (look it up if you're suspicious ;-)

As for that town in Bosnia, that was to do with a Bosnian/Bosniak? detention facility, not just some random small town. Both of our edits were on that subject. Jonathanmills (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to add 'Cheers' ;-)

But I was going to say, in defence of Osli, as far as his story goes, is that he made one alternate identity after some particularly nasty attacks on him (like I say, I haven't looked these up, but it's what he's told me); all I can say about this is that it doesn't surprise me, having been involved on some of the same pages.. and while I of course realise that war is an extremely sensitive subject, war crimes even more so (and I speak from total first-hand ignorance, lucky me..), I don't think some of the fairly aggressive tone of certain editors *towards* Osli can be condoned. Cheers! Jonathanmills (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

While there will always be lingering concerns about Osli73 using sockpuppets given his past behavior, Jonathanmills has a very different style from Osli73. The user persisting with the rumors that Jonathanmills is a sockpuppet does so under an anonymous IP. In fact, at this time, apparently, there are not any named users claiming that Jonathanmills is a sockpuppet. Furthermore, the anonymous IP's claims have been refuted by at least some editors: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AFairview360&diff=206153905&oldid=206094504 , but this discussion is losing focus...

On March 19, 2008, Osli73 received the following probation from administrator Thatcher explicitly forbidding Osli73 from more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen article http://en.wikipedia.org/Bosnian_Mujahadin , http://en.wikipedia.org/Mujahideen

Your topic ban is lifted and replaced with a revert parole. You may edit Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen but for one month (from 17 March) you are limited to one revert per article per week. Obvious vandalism is excepted from the revert limit, but you should take care in distinguishing true vandalism from content disputes. You are permitted to revert the edits of banned users such as Grandy Grandy/The Dragon of Bosnia but you should be extremely careful in doing so, because if it turns out the editor you are reverting is not a sockpuppet of the banned user you will have violated the revert limit. It would be better to report suspected sockpuppets to WP:AE or WP:RFCU. Thatcher 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

see user Osli73 talk page for the above probation notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Osli73

Osli73 violated his probation several times. It is up to the appropriate administrators to decide the response to these violations. Fairview360 (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Many words above, little information. Sigh. Reviewing again, I find that the revert limit was not clearly violated on Bosnian Mujahideen; two of the four diffs reported are definitely reversions of a sockpuppet of The Dragon of Bosnia/Grandy Grandy and thus definitely authorized, and one more is likely a reversion of that editor when using an IP account. On Mujahideen, one of the four is reverting that same IP, leaving 3 reverts, for a violation of the special restriction. Osli73 was already blocked 24 hours for Alija Izetbegović, without the special restriction having been noticed by the blocking admin. The sockpuppetry claim with regard to Jonathanmills does not appear credible, much less correct. This report has also grown untimely, in part due to untimely filing and in part due to a long decision process here. Taking into account my views above, my memory of the report that led to the special restriction, Stifle's views above, and to a lesser extent Phillip B. S.'s views above, I conclude that the best thing to do at this time is to extend the special restriction another two weeks with no current block. GRBerry 18:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of User:Vintagekits status

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

question answered, not arbitration enforcement anyway GRBerry 18:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

At WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive16#Community ban, Vintagekits is listed as one of two users that are banned per behaviour during the "Troubles" arbitration. However, he claims that he is "only" indefinitely blocked and not permanently banned. It appears that he thinks he is eligible to request that the block is lifted one day, and that in the meantime, the methods described at WP:Banning policy#Evasion and enforcement are inappropriate for him. I note that the decision for his most recent indefinite block (!) is described at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive372#User:Vintagekits, and does not actually formally state that he is under community ban. Conversely, I also note that many user comments on WP:AN and WP:ANI since then (e.g. wrt the edit-warring on his user page) imply that those users think he is indeed banned, so it is clear that there is some confusion here. I seek final clarification of his status, with a "formal" notification to Vintagekits stating what it is. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a process heavy place, or I'd have booted this for being in the wrong forum. We think more of the substance of the matter than checking boxes on a form. It is quite clear that the ANI thread in archive 372 that you link to above led to a community consensus that this editor should be blocked with no end date in sight. That is a community ban, and will remain one until such time as an administrator decides that they should be unblocked. I'd call them community banned based on the ANI thread. (The WP:AE thread doesn't evidence that, and we don't do community bans here anyway.) GRBerry 17:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I also just saw that Vintagekits was added to WP:List of banned users somewhat after the fact , but that's good enough for me. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Asgardian violation of restriction

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

blocked for one week for not discussing a reversion on the article talk page per arbitration ruling. Hiding T 17:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Asgardian was restricted from edit warring as a determination of a Dec. 3, 2007 Arbitration decision here. The decision reads in part, "He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page."

Despite this he has incurred two blocks, plus an extension and a sockpuppet use, as documented at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae#Log of blocks and bans.

Since then, he has gradually made small reverts over time that he has been warned are in contradiction to WikiProject Comics' editorial guidelines.

He has now more formally violated his one-revert-per-week restriction by two reverts in less than six hours, at Infinity Gauntlet, JLA/Avengers section:

• 13:53 17 April 2008 Asgardian
• 19:15 17 April 2008 Asgardian

As well, he generally does not — and in this April 17 case did not — "discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page". Indeed, he responded to a request to respect editorial guidelines with an attack on the requester, here ("Over-reaction . Avoid emotive and POV terms such as 'pray'. There are no martyrs here.") This, while refusing, despite two requests over two days, to discuss the content change as required.

I've stayed off Misplaced Pages for a while largely because of this kind of thing, and Asgardian's reverts began as soon as I returned. Please ... I sincerely request enforcement of the Arb decision.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I won't say much, other than once again I have to express concern at Tenebrae's obsession with me and my movements on Misplaced Pages. For someone who has just recently returned to Misplaced Pages, this is a massive overreaction. I quite deliberately avoid contact with this user now as he has a history of trying to play the wronged martyr and using emotive terms. This was the essence of my request to him - that he be logical rather than emotional.

The assumption that there has been a breach is also incorrect, as the opening sentence of the article - the point of contention for the user - was not reverted. In addition to retaining another small grammer change I made another change that the user missed. There was not a blind revert. Tenebrae just needs to pay a tad more attention (another example being the article Masters of Evil, where he blindly reverted much of his own work on the Publication History simply because he didn't like a minor change I made afterwards).

I'm much more of a team player these days, and just proved this by working through another article - Galactus - with another user over a number of sessions. I'm also going to take the issue of what is and isn't fictional to WikiProject Comics for more discussion. Not the acts of someone looking for an edit war.

That said, hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

Asgardian (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Again with the attacks: "obsession", "massive overreaction", "emotional" ... is that really necessary? And Asgardian still has not answered my repeated question of why he will not adhere to editorial guidelines. Logic rather than emotion? His attacks are a smokescreen to avoid answering my repeated question.

Also, he is being disingenuous about the revert. As I say above, what Asgardian calls "the point of contention" is not the opening sentence, but the "JLA/Avengers" section. I ask respectfully that he not try to misdirect again. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The second link you provided doesn't seem to connect to anything, Tenebrae. John Carter (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no attacks, merely observations. You are not objective. No one familiar with your history can claim that. Again, there was no blind revert.

Asgardian (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The Infinity Gauntlet change was disussed after the changes were made at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Comics#Fictional wordplay, but I do note that discussion occurred after the change itself, and that there hasn't been a really set consensus there as to what to do. And I do note that there is no discussion on the Talk:Infinity Gauntlet page regarding the changes. I also note that "pray" is at least in some circles a standard, if more extreme, way of making a request, and that Asgardian seems to have used it to make a sort of insult against Tenebrae, which is probably not a good thing to do under the circumstances. I've never dealt with AE, so I don't know the ropes here, but it looks like there is some basis for Tenebrae's claim. But, like I said, I'm not familiar with this process so I don't know if it's enough for some sort of sanction. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

TTN and notability tagging?

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

User warned ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen TTN (after Ep & Char 2) tagging articles for lack of notability (see, eg here) Now, I'm not trying to call him out on this or get any enforcement going, but I see people a bit upset at these edits and thus seek clarification to make sure that he's not stepping on the toes of this.

The decision text is : TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate.

Now

• The articles in question are only video game articles. Note that during the injunction of the case, any character related article, not just television, were granted protection from deletion. "To be interpreted broadly" could imply any fictional character, not just television related.
• Notability tagging is not necessarily the same as a "request" for merge/redirect/deletion, but again "broadly" could be interpreted as such.

Everything else he's done (only within the last week sicne the case was closed) seems reasonable (trimming character lists but not deleting or merging or redirecting anything). Again, I only seek clarification if the broad interpretation of the ArbCom relates to the notability tagging activities, and if TTN should be warned that he's getting close. If he's not close to any issue raised by Arbcom, then end of discussion. --MASEM 14:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that TTN is getting close, as the wording was broad enough to include behavior such as this numerous tagging of articles. A warning may be suitable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User warned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)