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

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

I am Dr. Drakken

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

Let's continue the discussion on the policy page. El_C 04:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, such duplicitous proxy-ing of identities need not be limited to reverts to become disruptive (i.e. on talk pages, etc.). El_C 22:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. I think that as long as someone is keeping track of which, and how many, open proxies are active on these articles, and takes this into consideration when looking at issues of disruption, edit-warring, consensus, etc, then no further action is required right now. I can't bring myself to feel totally comfortable with it, but that's my problem. MastCell 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A somewhat related concern: doesn't the tolerated use of open proxies on these articles undermine the reliance on editor-specific sanctions (1RR through topic bans) which ArbCom has suggested to rein in these articles? 1RR, topic bans, and blocks are easy enough to evade by establishing a new account via an open proxy. I'm thinking out loud here. MastCell 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles

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

Thatcher's 30-day restriction concludes this notice. I, and I suspect he as well, am not inclined to turn this into a lengthy debate. El_C 01:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, as Dr. Drakken points out, there has been a strong consensus on the article that, per WP:NOR and WP:NEO, only sources discussing the term be used, rather than sources using the term. As per WP:NEO:

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy).

I have carefully been replacing sources that use the term with reliable sources that describe the term, and accompanied my edits with copious Talk: discussion. User:G-Dett, who is normally on User:Nagle's "side", for example, supported these changes: User:Georgewilliamherbert, an uninvolved admin who examined the situation came to the same conclusion, and had to warn User:Nagle and User:Carolmooredc about it: A number of other editors, including User:Armon, User:Humus Sapiens, User:IronDuke, User:Lobojo, User:Yahel Guhan and User:I am Dr. Drakken have disputed the insertion of Nagles's policy violating material. Despite this, User:Nagle, User:Carolmooredc, and now User:Jgui have continued to edit war on the article, in violation of policy. John Nagle, in particular, has reverted the article 16 times since January 7, often completely ignoring Talk discussion. Nagle's suggestion that those he has been edit-warring against be banned is interestingly one-sided, but fails to deal with the principle issue, Nagle's stubborn refusal to abide by policy. Jayjg 04:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Procedurally, now what? This is an unusual situation, because ArbCom passed the buck to "any uninvolved administrator" and a working group yet to be formed. -John Nagle (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, now that the article has been locked, you won't be able to engage in your edit-warring and 3RR gaming any more. Perhaps instead you will engage meaningfully on the Talk: page, for a change. It hasn't happened until now, but one can always hope. Jayjg 05:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to take a 30-day break from all Jewish-Israel-Palestine related articles if Jayjg (talk · contribs), Armon (talk · contribs), and I am Dr. Drakken (talk · contribs) do, and any new users who edit in those articles are sockpuppet-checked against those users and myself. This was one of the suggestions from ArbCom in this arbitration. If not, arbitration or mediation would be fine with me. But we have to use a dispute resolution mechanism at this point. (From Jayjg's 2006 arbitration: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid "Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur.") --John Nagle (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem, however, appears to be only with your editing on the Jewish lobby page. Wouldn't it make more sense, for a change, for you to engage meaningfully in Talk: instead? You've already been admonished by an outside and uninvolved administrator to do so. I'm certainly willing to go to mediation too, as the next logical step in this process; I am quite confident that all my edits have been in accord with policy. Jayjg 05:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk · contribs) has a long history of contentious editing and arbitrations. ( 2006 arbitration (User admonished, amnesty granted.) 2007 arbitration #1 (User left Misplaced Pages during arbitration. ArbCom: "As the Committee has been unable to determine which actions in this matter, if any, were undertaken in bad faith, and as the community appears to be satisfactorily dealing with the underlying content dispute, the case is dismissed with no further action being taken.") 2007 arbitration #2 (Misuse of "checkuser" privilege. ArbCom: "Jayjg is reminded to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue.") In fact, he's in a mediation on another article right now: Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism. (I added myself to that one, although I haven't actually edited that article in some time.) So I'm probably not the problem. But let's go to mediation. --John Nagle (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is counterfactual and self-evidently so. This is really pointless. The instigator here is pretending that the issue is with what the sources says, when, in fact, he knows the issue with his edits is that they are Original Research. He is continually inserting uses of the term, rather than descriptions of the term i order to shoehorn all sorts of tangential issues and personal POV into the article. Lobojo (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

From: User:Carolmooredc - I suggested mediation on Talk:Jewish_lobby yesterday and initially thought it was not best to come here to arbitration. But after reading the above, and because I believe this is one of the most important wikipedia articles on Israel/Palestine and related issues, I think at least WP:Mediation Cabal if not full blown arbitration needed:

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

Just to respond to a couple points made earlier:

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

• With respect, the question for this board is not one of content, but whether one, several, or all editors of this article are acting so disruptively that sanctions are needed. It would help for someone to list a few key diffs for each person against whom sanctions are requested. Thatcher 14:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. It's really a content dispute, of course. There's a long history in this area, but the current content issues have been well-described above.

Looking at the recent sequence of significant edits:

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

At this point the article is protected by another admin, which is where we are now.

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

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

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

Note that it is known that Jayjg collaborates with other editors off-wiki which could be interpreted as 'gaming the system'. Catchpole (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Result

Result I am well aware that nearly everyone will have an opinion that I have either sanctioned the wrong people, or not sanctioned enough of the right people. The editors in this area are going to have to get used to imperfect justice. The best way to not be sanctioned is not to get pulled in front of Arbcom; it is too late for that, and admins reviewing these complaints will make good faith efforts, but we (or at least I) have neither the patience of Job nor the wisdom of Solomon, so we will do the best we can. With that said, in addition to the 1RR per day limit at Jewish lobby imposed by Moreschi, the following restrictions are imposed:

• Nagle (talk · contribs)
• Armon (talk · contribs)
• Yahel Guhan (talk · contribs)
• Jgui (talk · contribs)
  • Limited to one revert per week per page on all pages related to the conflict area, excepting obvious vandalism, subject to a 24 hour block per violation. Reverts must be discussed on the talk page. Mischaracterization of content disputes as "vandalism" will double the block. This restriction expires in 30 days (22 February 2008, 00:00 UTC) unless extended. Thatcher 01:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Meowy/IP combination

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

Whether Turkey falls under the AA remedy (and/or in what context) is, perhaps, worthy of further clarification. That is besides the point that, for now, Meowy is subject to the AA restrictions. There was a violation of the 1RR, the removal of the Hutchinson Encyclopedia (and incidentally, subscription-only sources can be checked and can be cited). That said, I'm opting for a warning this time (this does involve edits from four days ago). Similar breaches, however, will be dealt with severely, and I am noting the warning in the arbitration log accordingly. El_C 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

 Confirmed Checkuser. Restrictions notified. FT2  07:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what on earth is your point? Where is the rule that says an editor has to sign in before making an edit? As I have just explained on the talk page of that article, my account must have timed-out (or perhaps I just forgot to sign in) when I made that edit. So, unknown to me, my IP address appeared rather than my name. There was no intent to deceive (why would I want to?), and I have not broken the three-reverts rule. Nor was there any "aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility" in my edit, or in anything I wrote in the article's talk page. I explained the reason for my edit when I made it, and it was done on reasonable grounds. So, again, I ask "what's your point?" Meowy 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You were notified here that you are subject to a limit of one revert per week per article. However, the first removal is just an edit; the IP edit is a reversion, so you have your one revert per week. Thatcher 01:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I had presumed that this edit was essentially a revert of the prior edit with insignificant other modification for it to be called an "edit". These days, it is standard practise for all parties to perform other minor modifications when doing a revert . John Vandenberg (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I do not consider myself subject to the Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 remedy because, as I have fully explained here on my talk page, there is no mention of Turkey in Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy, and the text administrator placed by Seraphimblade in my talk page bore no relation to that RfA remendy. If, at some point, and as a result of this inappropriate use of the AA2 remedy, I am actually placed under editing restrictions then I will be requesting a RfA with the aim of abolishing the flawed Armenia-Azerbaijan2 remedy for all editors. Meowy 20:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Shusha pogrom most definitely fall under the expanded sanctions at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement. Thatcher 00:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

NE2/Highways 2

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

Imzadi1979's delisting entries does seems to change the scope. Let us know if it continues. El_C 01:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I overlooked the language of the injunction that limits reversion of changes to the scope to "uninvolved administrator who is neither a party to the case, nor a member of the WikiProject." Warning issued to NE2. El_C 02:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

NE2 has gone against an issue raised before in other articles by readding removed banners from talk pages. Edits like these are going against the temporary injunction in the case, which is to not do edits affecting the scope. , , and are the three diffs that explain what he did. NE2 in the process also disputed the changes. The ArbCom injunction said that nothing was to happen to the scope, and what Imzadi did by removing them was not in the wrong as they belong in a different project. I don't suggest what should happen, just that this has occurred and it is important that Arbitrators know about the situation.32 00:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note . NE2 is not an uninvolved administrator... besides the fact that this was a legitimate change. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Talk:Race_of_ancient_Egyptians

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

I already warned the user earlier today. As the disruption continued, I issued a 24-hour block. El_C 08:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

ScienceApologist continuing incivility

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

I reviewed this somewhat earlier today. While SA was being needlessly provocational, I don't feel that him being, in turn, provoked, was given enough emphasis. The templatized block notice should have been personalized and of more substantive lengh from the outset, certainly. Accordingly, I, myself, considered shortening the block to 24 hrs, but it looks as if Thatcher beat me to it. Now everyone involved in the dispute please give each other some space (even if we end up being everything and anything at any bleeping time!). El_C 03:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist has a civility restriction here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist_restricted. In this diff he violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It's true he removed it upon advice from someone, but he still said it. He also violates WP:CIVIL here where he's uses foul language to another user several times and "WTF" in the summary. He violates WP:CIVIL again here, removing a users' edit from his (SA's) own talk page, but used foul language again in the summary, but this time in all caps. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. - Revolving Bugbear 15:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that Science Apologist was correct that Rlevse had misinterpreted his statement; he was not talking about edit warring on the article but working on a draft of the lede that was on the talk page. It should have been expressed much more moderately. 72 hours also seems excessive. Thatcher 17:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but "STAY THE F--- OFF MY TALK PAGE" is pretty unequivocally covered by his editing restriction, and it was his third incident of incivility in one day. Also, the last two -- one edit warring this week and one incivility prior -- were also 72 hours. With escalating blocks and all, his second block under this ruling alone shouldn't have, in my opinion, been any shorter than the previous (or the edit warring one related to this case, again, also this week). - Revolving Bugbear 17:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to think out loud here for a moment. We need a policy that says "being bold is good, but don't choose a high-drama occasion for your first foray into a particular area." Extremely controversial AFD discussions (Brandt, Angela, etc) should be close by an admin who regularly handles AFD, not by someone with no experience jumping in. Controversial unblock requests should be handled by an admin who regularly patrols CAT:RFU, not by a borderline involved party. Controversial image discussions should be closed by someone who regularly works in IFD, not by someone unfamiliar with image policy. Yes, every area of admin service is open to any admin, but we would be a lot better off if we would begin involvement in a small way and build up to handling controversial decisions. If you want to be involved with arbcom enforcement, it would be much better to start off by commenting, then move up to closing low-profile cases, then, once you have more experience with it, handle the high-drama cases. --B (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly speaking, I didn't see this as controversial at all. I've seen users get blocked for this sort of behavior after a warning without an ArbCom decision. He was way over the line. Where exactly is the gray area on this one? - Revolving Bugbear 18:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad block, in my view. We don't block people for using four-letter words once in a while. That's not the notion of "civility" we are concerned with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't "for using four-letter words". Please look at the diffs -- "Get the f--- over it"; "Maybe you should block yourself"; "Jesus, what's so goddamn hard to understand about this?"; "Stay the f--- off my talk page" (in caps shouting) ... It's a constant slew of abusive language. - Revolving Bugbear 19:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Stephen B Streater offered to mentor him. He rejected it.

He also seems to have a lovely admin-hate-fest broad-stroke and, in my opinion, largely baseless criticism going on right now. - Revolving Bugbear 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? As an admin I don't see this as an "admin-hate-fest" at all, but instead as much-needed criticism. The criticism is directed at admins who act like me, and I have to admit that he's spot on. Maybe the problem is that you tend to see any expression of criticism or disagreement as "hate" and bad faith. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Redacted. - Revolving Bugbear 20:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And? Admins should be made of sterner stuff. I am much more concerned about incivility directed against other contributors in content disputes. Thatcher 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I agree. I'm just saying, it doesn't look like he plans on stopping the incivility and attacks any time soon. - Revolving Bugbear 20:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that Anthon01's complaint is ...(hmmm... what's a civil word for it?)... fiddle-faddle. This edit is the one he objects to, and SA was moving nothing. Anthon01 abruptly changed the subject on a talk page, and SA inserted a non-insulting header to separate it from previous discussion.Kww (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Anton01 began the spat by posting a comment to the talk page in a way that was clearly meant to make a point about SA. . Thatcher 22:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Block reduced to 24 hours per , and evidence that multiple users are busy filing vexatious complaints and taking comments out of context in an effort to get rid of SA (which does not excuse bathroom language and personal attacks, hence the 24 hour duration). This entire area needs to go to Arbcom for expanded authority. Thatcher 22:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

??? Anthon01 is not an admin, and yes, he is involved in the dispute. - Revolving Bugbear 23:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The original complaint that prompted the ban involved SA attacking Rlevse for his comments on WQA. In fact, Rlevse had misinterpreted SA's comment. It is also important to read this diff in context. The article is currently protected over a dispute about the lead paragraph. SA proposed that rather than engage in extensive negotiations over the article lead, he would simply write one on the talk page, and other editors could make changes if they didn't like something. He was then criticized by one editor who complained about his proposal but refused to either improve it or offer an alternative, and by another editor who thought he was advocating edit warring and seems to have completely missed the point that this was a draft version on the talk page. The problem here is that there have been three Arbitration cases on pseudoscience articles which have resulted in only two enforceable remedies, civility parole for SA and probation for Martinphi, leaving all the other editors free to edit war and bait SA. Yes he should not take the bait, but the situation is inequitable. Finally, a 72 hour block for the first violation of his Arbitration remedy is out of line with precedent. Thatcher 00:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

First, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Rlevse situation. The Rlevse situation was over yesterday. The two I cited in my reasoning to block was from today, and the one I cited to him on his talk page was directed at Anthon01.

Second, I know at least one pseudo-science supporter who has been completely banned from the relevant Misplaced Pages articles as a result of an ArbCom case: User:Richardmalter.

Third, the first violation was blocked by Rlevse. Since SA already had two 72-hour blocks in the past three weeks, scaling the next block back seemed silly to me.

Like I said, I'm okay with the block being reduced, but please make sure you're referring to what he was actually blocked for. The situation with Rlevse is not relevant -- his actions today are a case of their own. - Revolving Bugbear 00:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarity, but you have not recanted or clarified your accusation, that I started the 'spat.' Your assertion regarding me are wrong, as I was forced to bring a conversation that began on SA's talk page onto the Bleep talk page after SA booted me for agreeing quite civilly with an uninvolved editor. Because of SA's action I needed to explain the reason for presenting my comments in that manner, as I felt it would be inappropriate for me to move the uninvolved editors comments (posted on SA's TP) to the Bleep talk page. If you refuse to recant or modify your assertion then please let me know what remedy is available to me. --Anthon01 (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if you disagree with Thatcher's observation, it has no real negative consequences for you, so I don't know that a remedy against it is necessarily required. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have little experience on WP, so I don't know how this may effect me in the future. Editors here have a way of piling it on; my concern is that someone here will try to his Thatcher's comment in the future against me. If I'm off base then fine. I appreciate your input. Anthon01 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Yes, it does. Thank you. Anthon01 (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi

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

I'm willing to accept Martinphi's explanation that he didn't intend his comment mean what several editors thought it meant. Thatcher 00:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

This sounds like a fine idea to me, but I would like to see Martinphi prohibited from making frivolous noticeboard complaints. A ban from posting on this board might be in order. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not. We can ignore them or rapidly decline and archive reports that truly have no merit. It still seems early for an outright ban from the noticeboard. Thatcher 01:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this edit war declaration by SA today and this WQA by SA are pertinent here. Both sides of this overly long debate have taken to filing frivolous claims to solve their issues and need to stop and solve them themselves. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

See also this diff where SA says he'll make it 10K words and laughs. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, are you seriously interpreting this as a threat to disrupt? I realize you aren't exactly fond of SA, but this is too much. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Riiiiight. Because I'm such a villain that I always laugh like this: "Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha." I don't know what to make of this: it's almost absurd. Anthon01 was basically declaring on my talk page that only a single sentence of criticism should go in the lead of WTBDWK. I was merely pointing out how ludicrous this kind of proscribing is. Question: is there any edit that I've made in the last five years that placed 10K in the lead of any article? After you look through those 20,000 contributions maybe you can tell me whether or not I was being serious. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thatcher, It was in context, and should read:

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

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

New section

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

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

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

Added later: I can see how in context of the general dispute it could be seen as my putting myself above the fray and saying how SA should do things if he wants to play. I just didn't mean it that way. I did mean it to be a true and fair analysis of exactly what needed to be done if progress is to be made. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You may have been trying to propose a solution, but the way it was worded, it could be interpreted as a command. I'm not saying it was, just commenting that thats one possible intepretation. Anthon01 (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, understood and already apologized. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Request for clarification

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

I changed that to "create," rather than "organize," per your interpretation. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Any edit judged to be disruptive" and "banned from any page or set of pages" clearly applies to all pages on Misplaced Pages (also by convention in past cases). For example, evidence cited by the Arbs included edits to user talk and the Featured Article talk page. Do you wish to request enforcement for disruption by Martinphi somewhere? Or just asking for future reference? Thatcher 01:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Such phrasing by the Committee always means including talk, unless they exempt it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Mostly for clarification. Historically Martinphi has tended to read arbcom decisions in a very narrow and formalistic sense, so I wanted to clarify the proper interpretation. Martinphi, do you acknowledge now being aware of this interpretation of the ruling's scope? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

"Should they violate this ban, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." Emphasis added. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So then, is it your interpretation is that the ruling does not apply to disruption outside of article space? By your reading you'd have to first be banned from a page outside of article space (say, WP:RFAR) and then you'd have to violate that ban before any blocks could be applied, correct? Just trying to make sure everyone is on the same page here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Martin is correct about the manner in which the restriction is to be enforced, if necessary. He may be banned from any page or set of pages he disrupts, and if he violates the ban by editing such pages (or evades it by editing while logged out or using sockpuppets) he can be blocked. Personally, I start with temporary bans and only escalate if problems persist, and blocks for violating any bans similarly start out brief and escalate only if necessary. Thatcher 05:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If I understand what you're saying, does this mean arbcom didn't intend to restrict disruption in Misplaced Pages space (say, frivolous use of process)? Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

And Thatcher, here is the text of the blocking:

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

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

I also think that my edit at Bleep was not intended to be anything bad, and I fully intend to not directly engage SA in the future in the way I did there. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm trying to clarify whether disruption in Misplaced Pages-space is relevant here. Your explanation above indicates that arbcom did not intend that any sanction could be applied for disruptive activities such as frivolous use of WP:RFAR, WP:RFC, and such. Correct? (All this is hypothetical of course; I'm sure you would never consider doing such things.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, the decision says "Any edits" and both Martin and I have used the formulation "any page" so I am confused at your apparent confusion. The restriction applies to all of Misplaced Pages, including article, talk, project, template, and any other space. (As a matter of personal preference, I would be extremely reluctant to ban anyone from the pages of the dispute resolution process itself, but it could be done under appropriate circumstances.) Thatcher 13:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me state how a hypothetical sequence of events would work. Let's suppose Martinphi brings frivolous action in an RfC. He could then be banned from that RfC. If he continued to edit on that RfC, he could be blocked. If he did not continue editing that RfC, he could bring a frivolous arbcom case. He could then be banned from editing on that arbcom case. If he continued to edit on that arbcom case, he could be blocked. If he did not continue editing that arbcom case, he could bring a frivolous RfC (different from the first RfC). And so on, and on, and on, because it would be a different "page" each time. If there's something wrong with this interpretation, please point out what's wrong. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

While that is true in a hypertechnical sense I doubt admins would tolerate that for long. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely why I asked the question in this way. It addresses Martinphi's inclination to interpret Misplaced Pages policy in a "hypertechnical" sense. I have no doubt that if Martinphi engaged in the behavior I describe above, he'd object strenuously to any sanction. And he'd almost certainly be able to find an admin with a sympathetic ear who would overturn any block. (Again, all this is hypothetical of course.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure they will...because here we are... Shot info (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Mrg3105

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

taken to clarification

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

Warned him on his talk page. Will leave this AE case open a couple days to see what happens. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)w

Thatcher has also warned him, . — Rlevse • Talk • 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this acceptable? Mrg3105 is trying to discredit participants in a move request due to their apparent ethnic origin: "(look at the pages of these users) Biruitorul (very Rumanian), AdrianTM obviously not without Rumanian POV, Turgidson has a "Romanian Barnstar of National Merit", Eurocopter tigre is Rumanian, Roamataa another Rumanian". This appears to be a violation of WP:NPA, as well as a clear attempt to sow divisiveness on national lines. -- Biruitorul (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

After that note on Mrg3105's userpage, the conversation moved to my talk page here. After I let that conversation die, Mrg3105 posted this request on the Digwuren case talk page. Would someone mind reviewing these? Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what happens with his request on the case page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I would like to note, though, that I think the last message he left on my talk page is the most offensive one I've ever received on Misplaced Pages, which is why I am interested in getting others involved. Thanks. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

These two edits are also particularly troubling, as they seem to have spawned from this situation. "Incivility" article and "Logic" article talk page. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't pick up on the edit to your talk page at first. Blocked for 24 hours. Thatcher 23:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I moved the appeal to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Appeals_and_requests_for_clarification. The Arbitrators generally do not watch closed cases. Thatcher 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now what happens to the undiscussed arbitrary renaming of the historically non-extant Battle of Romania into the non-WP:UE, non-WP:MILMOS#NAME, and non-WP:ROR compliant Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive, and the subsequent denial of the RM based on arguments that did not apply to the reasons given for the RM?--mrg3105mrg3105 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

KERKOPS

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

See this, this guy needs to go. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive121#Possibility_of_Sanctions regarding this http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excelcan (talk • contribs) 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs and concise reasons for your request? I also see you only made 3 edits prior to Jan 21, 2008. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on Kekrops' edits, and I don't believe he's done anything lately that would warrant a block. This request seems frivolous to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms that the user that submitted this report is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 00:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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