Revision as of 18:46, 13 August 2007

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

User:Alienus

Looking at his contributions and behavior, I think User:ThAtSo is Alienus editing in violation of his ban. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Alienus Tom Harrison 21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment. Tom and him are in a content dispute. I don't think this user is Alienus. Their writing style, word choice, and grammar, are quite different--and its things like that which are more unique, and hard to hide.Giovanni33 00:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Having looked a little through the contribution histories of both usernames, I am fairly confident that this is the same individual. Whether there is disruption, I'm not certain. According to the ArbCom decision, User:Alienus was known for edit-warring, personal attacks and obstinacy. Thus, it makes loads of sense for User:ThAtSo to avoid edit-warring, personal attacks and, I suppose, also obstinacy, lest he appear even more like User:Alienus then he already does. Has any of this behavior recurred? If so, the Committee will be obliged to take action.Proabivouac 00:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, Giovanni33, per your comment, it strikes me as supremely unlikely that Tom Harrison would level such an accusation in order to gain an upper hand in a content dispute.Proabivouac 02:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the first step should be a checkuser request. That being said, looking through the contributions, the similarities in tone and content are uncanny. Nandesuka 01:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

CU is superfluous; it's the same individual whether there is a CU match or not.

It does look like there has been some edit-warring and obstinacy on Christianity lately. That's really unfortunate.Proabivouac 02:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"CU is superfluous" is paramount to "I do not need proof, my say so is enough" If he is a sockpuppet the CU will say so and administrators will take action. I have been accused of being 3-4 other people since I have been here from 2 users and an admin that I was in a content dispute with, so I would not be surprised if it in fact was a common tactic. Users editing the same articles is not proof of a sockpuppet, its proof of like interests. If editing the same articles is enough let me know, I can prove Tom is actually MONGO, they not only revert the same users, but participate on the same articles, but that is silly, which is why we rely on CU for proof. --SevenOfDiamonds 04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser does not presume to say who is who, but where is where (a little more than that, but same idea.)Proabivouac 04:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems quite likely that it is the same user. Same edits, some subjects, same insistence on Objectivism and Satanism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong stylistic and other similarities lead me to concur. Raymond Arritt 04:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Interests are not only similar but uncannily exactly similar on point after point. Examples of stylistic similarity are everywhere; it would only be a matter of finding the labor to prove what is immediately obvious.

A shared argument: 17:32, 18 May 2006 04:28, 12 August 2007

A shared edit summary: 20:25, 12 August 2007 , 02:46, 29 June 2006 , etc., etc.

There are occasionally tough calls, but this one's a no-brainer.Proabivouac 04:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether thatso is a suck puppet or not but these guys are a christian well-lubricated wikilawyering bias producing machine! I'm sure I'll soon be accused of suck pupeteering too oh well atleast its a skill who ever is going to decide on this case should take a good look at the work done by the folk accusing this guy I've never seen such a group of wiki folk I just cant understand how this harrison guy has become an administrator he should be closely watched by some higher ups... good bye account its been fun  ;) Esmehwp 08:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately disagreements on the Christianity talk page seem to fly to "sockpuppet" accusations on a regular basis - sometimes with absolutely no foundation (my husband in Sussex UK was accused of being Italian Giovani33's sockpuppet). It does seem to becoming the standard way of dealing with those who get so hacked off at the cozy status quo on that page that they start sticking to their point. Just read the article - it's an advert for Christianity that plays up their own persecution to the extent that you would never guess they have been in charge of most of the western world for the best part of the last 2000 years. The violence suppression and murder done in the name of this religion are glossed over - no mention of the crusades at all (better in the History of Christianity article - no mention needed here). I have had the same frustrations and rarely edit there now - if a "Christian" does bad things in the name of "Christ" he's just a bad man - not an example of the wrongs of Christianity. But if a bad man is persecuted for gross abuses (see The French Revolution) and happens to ba a Christian then it's persecution of Christians. According to the article there is Persection of Christians but only Historical persecution by Christians???? What no persecution by those currently in charge in most of the Western world??? You can see why frustration flares.

Alienus was banned for a year and that then turned into a perm ban with no discussion by an admin who's judgement I would question. Anyone who worked with Al for a few months knows he was banned because his pissed off the pro-circumcision crowd. He crossed swords with Jayjg who is a checkuser and has already shown that he keeps a quiet eye on open-proxies (the only way I guess he could edit at all without being immediately tracked to the Alienus account) with or without a CU request. I think it's safe to say that if he could have nailed an Alienus sock he would have done it by now. As for the evidence above - I've used similar arguments myself and see them often from others. Referring to wikipedia rules is common for a lot of editors. If you review the "evidence" against Al in the arbcom case it looks weak in the light of what has been swept under the carpet recently (diffs available on request). Sophia 08:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sophia, please don't force me or anyone else to spend days compiling the evidence per User:Proabivouac/Oldwindybear&Stillstudying. It's the most obvious thing in the world, as you surely know. The ArbCom case is another matter upon which I can offer no opinion besides that it seems unduly harsh. The doubletalk in your post - ArbCom remedy against Alienus too harsh; perhaps this is not Alienus (in which case why would that matter) makes it clear that you suspect this identification to be correct. To state otherwise is not only to defend Alienus, but to unjustifiably question our competence. If you wish to defend Alienus, please do so directly - e.g., the ban should be lifted - rather than by telling others that we are hallucinating this very plain equation. One I find intriguing; the other insults my intelligence.Proabivouac 09:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Another…and this took me roughly five seconds to find:

20:17, 29 June 2006

07:52, 10 August 2007

And that's just from summaries of the most recent fifty edits. It's a turkey shoot, Sophia.Proabivouac 09:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

My last post explained the situation on the Christianity page at present and why it seems to produce such stroppy editors. I then separately dealt with my thoughts on whether this was Alienus with some background for those who missed this case of over a year ago. How you can interpret that as me meaning it's a done deal and I'm pleading on Al's behalf I do not know. My english must be much poorer than I thought.

Your "success" with one editor should not give you an overarching view of your own competence to judge these things. Looking at the latest examples I do dispute that it is Alienus - "stuff" is not an Al word he is usually much more precise as in the genuine Alienus example you give - "text". Anyway I can't see why he would bother with a username again after the raw deal he was given last time. I will resist all attempts to turn this personal despite provocation but I do not insult your intelligence - I question your judgment. Your eagerness to dispense with the bother of substantial evidence when you are calling for the perm ban of a user you are in dispute with is very questionable. Your failure to address any of the substantial points I made above - mass accusations of sockpuppetry from the Christianity article - the lack of action by Jayjg on possible open proxies - also concerns me. I do not think this is Al - if it was he would have hit the Circumcision related articles by now as this was where he really dug his heels in. If you counter that he is too smart to hit all his know territories with one account then I would also say his smart enough to use the open proxies with different accounts for different areas of interest so as to avoid any suspicion of this kind. Sophia 10:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sophia, I am hardly involved in any of these disputes of which you speak. If I can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that these are the same individual, will you recuse yourself from all further sockpuppet investigations? Because this incompetence - not misconduct, but incompetence - is a serious problem in the community. We need people evaluating these reports who can discern whether one user is the same as another.Proabivouac 11:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I do you a disservice but I read the above as saying I am incompetent to ask that a subjective assessment be properly investigated before a user is perm banned? Sophia 11:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I assert that anyone who views contributions of User:Alienus and User:ThAtSo and concludes the matter as indeterminate is ipso facto incompetent to judge any sockpuppet report, for this is among the most obvious I have ever seen.Proabivouac 12:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess that makes me incompetent as well, since I'm looking at the evidence and I do not jump to the conclusion that these two accounts must be the same person. Edit summaries are not only different, but the ideas being the same with some same words (common words) make sense given that edit summaries often describe the same idieas and issues (unexplained removal, etc); even I used such terms. Everyone does. In order to be convicncing you have to look at larger bodies of writing to find peticular vernacular that is unique to one but shared by the other. So far I've not seen it. I'm not sure its so good for you to be so convinced, so sure of yourself. Nor is it good to judge everyone else ipso facto incompetent simply because they don't see eye to eye with what you see. In anycase, I feel there is reasonable doubt so I'm opposed on principle taking any harsh actions without very good proof. I think that was one of Sophia's main points.Giovanni33 15:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That told me then didn't it. I apologise for thinking that perm banning a user required a proper case to be brought. Better tell the Arbcom they are out of a job. Sophia 12:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So every sock must be brought before ArbCom afresh and anew? Indeed, why not abolish ArbCom, for there is no credible remedy at all, except against usernamesProabivouac 13:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the contributions that Probivouac highlights, I'm convinced. This is the same guy, and he's trying to avoid his arbcom remedy (which, ironically, was only put into place because he didn't respect the community enough to actually participate in the arbitration process). The remedy should be enforced. Nandesuka 13:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorse as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Take it to checkuser as appropriate. People spent more time arguing over each others judgment, then it would have taken to compile a RFCU. Sorry I do not believe in people guiding by their "judgment," especially when they are calling others not so competent for not seeing eye to eye with them. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/WP:APARTHEID Centralized discussion

As part of this arbitration it was ruled discussion should happen in WP:APARTHEID (see here). To make navigation of the series easier, a navbox was created {{Allegations of apartheid}}. This navbox was subject to an AfD, which was no consensus and further consensus after the AfD developed to edit the box to a version that includes a link to the centralized discussion. A number of anonymous editors have removed this link in the last few days, alleging it violates WP:ASR, and commented on the talk page . However, one of the anon editors commented in an entirely different fashion, which leads one to believe that this is more a disruptive editor than a good faith attempt to defend WP:ASR[(see here). Furthermore, only anon editors have been involved, it is only rarely one sees anonymous editors defending policy, specially one as ignored and obscure as WP:ASR (I do agree with it, but facts are facts).

(The similarity of arguments leads one to believe this might be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet case, but I am raising this where appropriate.)

I just want clarification if linking to the "centralized discussion" (ruled by ArbCom) is in fact a violation of WP:ASR, and if it is, if it is reasonable to WP:IAR in order to publicize the centralized discussion as part of the dispute resolution process. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom merely ruled that WP:APARTHEID should be the central location for discussions; you make it sound as if they ruled that the template (which did not exist back then) had to somehow incorporate a link to it. I (yes, for the record, I use both of the IP addresses) did go thru and add a link to this centralized discussion page on the top of all the relevant talk pages (well, except the template talk page -- that only just occurred to me, I'll fix it done!). That's the proper way to handle this, not crossing namespaces, per WP:ASR. -- 146.115.58.152 04:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I am asking ArbCom to rule if strict adherence to WP:ASR is more important than giving publicity to a centralized discussion ruled by them. I clearly invoked WP:IAR. Please read what I wrote again. Thanks!--Cerejota 19:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects seems clear cut -- "our articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves" -- as is WP:ASR#In the Template and Category namespaces: "Limited use of self-references are sometimes found in the Template namespace and the Category namespace, such as with disambiguation and stub notices. Expanding this to other areas is not encouraged due to the need of third party users to either delete those templates or modify them to remove the Misplaced Pages references." I don't see a compelling rationale for ignoring the guideline. -- 146.115.58.152 20:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you misunderstand WP:IAR, because I argue we have a compelling reason to self-reference: the need for a wider community attention to the ArbCom ruled centralized discussion. You are putting the needs of a dispute resolution procedure beneath the needs of WP:FORK. The question is: What is more important? To resolve a conflict or to guarantee a smooth WP:FORK?

However, I must state this again WP:ASR doesn't forbid anything, it even allows for self-reference in certain circumstances: it discourages, which we all agree is not forbidding or requiring. I think your argument that WP:ASR applies is weak, and furthermore, that the needs of the community are to be considered before the needs of the WP:FORKing. ArbCom should clarify which perspective is correct. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The need for wider attention of WP:APARTHEID is already addressed by linking to it at the top of the various involved talk pages (1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 and 8) as well as including Template:Wider attention on the WP:APARTHEID page itself. You may suggest the WP:ASR guideline is merely window dressing for a bothersome existance of WP:FORKs just as easily as I can suggest it's a core underlying part of WP:ENC, a principle which in my perspective is undermined by cross-linking to wikipedia space from article space at a whim. But I would also appreciate ArbCom's clarification. -- 146.115.58.152 22:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I have resolved the WP:ASR allegation by including the "offending" text and links under {{selfref}} as WP:ASR. I find it ironic that the anonymous editor so keen on defending WP:ASR overlooked this solution. I'll admit I overlooke dit because I am sure there is no WP:ASR violation, however, that is moot. A self-reference included within {{selfref}} is allowed as the only reason to avoid self-references is to allow WP:FORK. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That does solve the problem on mirrors, which was my main concern. However, WP:FORK is only a secondary rationale behind WP:ASR: "The first is that self-references are often considered disruptive in an encyclopedia because they distract from the topic at hand." So I'm still not sure if it is in the spirit of WP:ASR, but I'll leave it until ArbCom makes a decision here. -- 146.115.58.152 22:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In what way is pointing in the direction of an ArbCom-ruled centralized discussion disruptive? Thanks!--Cerejota 06:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There may be something to be said for not going out of our way to draw ordinary reader's attention to all that ugly and endless bickering. Please ignore the man behind the curtain, to coin a phrase. A lot of the original ArbCom issues were resolved long ago by the consensus to merge all the different "type X apartheid" articles into Allegations of Apartheid, getting rid of Apartheid (disambiguation), making Apartheid redirect to the historical South African Apartheid with dab links up top, and moving Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid (though people have been complaining about that ever since, even people who supported the move in the first place). So for the most part, WP:APARTHEID has already accomplished what the original ArbCom intended it to accomplish. If they aren't going to take up another case and give that page new direction, it won't be anything more than a central place for people to vent. -- 67.98.206.2 19:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You think the controversy is over, and hence the centralized discussion has outlived its usefulness? If so, please raise an RfC in the centralized discussion itself, or present the question to ArbCom. But first saying you want something out for techno-bureaucratic reasons and then switching to a clear content dispute is suspiciously close to try to overcome consensus by bureaucratic means. Likewise, I offer by the level of activity this has recently seen, that your impression that the centralized discussion has "already accomplished what the original ArbCom intended it to accomplish" is wrong. The controversy (And even the cast of characters) remains essentially the same. However, this is the ArbCom board, so what better place to ask!

ArbCom: Is 67.98.206.2 correct and the centralized discussion "already accomplished what the original ArbCom intended it to accomplish" or is it still a valid place for this discussion? Please provide guidance and clarification. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Admin response Just for reference, Arbitrators rarely if ever post here. This board is for requesting enforcement of enforceable remedies, like revert parole, probation etc. This does not seem to be an enforcement matter, although allegations of bad behavior surrounding the template could be added to the current arbitration case. Purely as a matter of opinion, a template used in main space should not link to a discussion in project space; putting a notice of the centralized discussion on the talk pages would be much more appropriate. You do not, for example, see advertisements for Wikiprojects on article pages but on talk pages. Thatcher131 14:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Dacy69 gaming 1RR

• Dacy69 is under ArbCom parole for 1 revert per week , and has been blocked three times since the ArbCom limited him on 1RR .

Dacy69 is gaming the system by meatpupeting for Grandmaster and Atabek by reverting for them when they exhaust their 1RR's. Please note that he never edited the following articles before or after the revert, neither did he participated in the talkpage before or after he reverted. His explanations in the talkpage for the reverts, were only a sentence long. He is clearly trying to circumvent his parole and continues his edit warring. The following are his reverts, edit summaries and the explanations in the discussion page.

Sahl ibn Sunbat reverts, edit summary: (rv - pls. engage in talkpage)

Talk "Agree that article should be fixed but not by using socks. I rv'ed new editor. Current version accomodate both version." He never edited the article before, neither did he participated in the talkpage.

House of Hasan Jalalyan reverts, edit summary: (rv - dont delete sourced info)

Talk "And put your arguments here so we will be able to discuss". Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.

List of Azerbaijani films 1898-1919 reverts, edit summary: (rv)

Talk "Discussion about the name of Azerbaijan does not belong here: Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.

Movses Kaghankatvatsi reverts, edit summary: "(rv - see discussion. we should use in article like that neutral source)"

Talk "MarshalBagramyan, your last edit has refrence to non-neutral source while you have reverted neutral source.". Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.

Khojaly Massacre revertes, edit summary: "(rv - see talkpage)"

Talk ":Statement is full POV we dont have personal interpretation here." Never edited the article before, neither has he participated in the discussion.

This has already been discussed here: --Grandmaster 06:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, stop soapboxing Wiki. We have discussed this issue on admin Alex Bakharev page. You are alone involved in revert and edit warring and removal of sourced information on so many pages, so punishment you ask for me is indeed should be imposed on you. My contribution is much larger than those you indicated and I left short comments in articles where much points have been already discussed or edit was obvious.--Dacy69 20:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)