Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:34, 29 July 2008

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

Important information

Shortcuts

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,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332

Edit this section for new requests

User:Levine2112 request

I hereby request a topic ban for Levine2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from all pseudoscience/alt med. related articles per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions. We have had multiple users say he is disruptive. Recently, he has made false claims of consensus at Talk:Atropa belladonna, mischaracterized discussions, and generally has all the features of a civil POV-pusher who is tendentious and disruptive to the project. We have an entire library of how awful he is available here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Levine2112. NO administrator has taken it upon themselves to fix this problems with this user. Please help. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, this was on ANI a few weeks ago, and I thought you had realized that your conduct of July 5th you actively encouraged him to make the edits that you then used as an excuse to remove all mention of alternative medicine from the article. And you were banned from the article for a week back then. I see that both you and he have made 3 reverts to the article today. Looking at the article history, there was no revert warring going on until you returned to the article yesterday. To the extent that a consensus on the talk page is visible, he is correct; you appear to be the only editor on the talk page who disagrees with the mention of homeopathy in the article, although the edit war history shows you do have one supporter. Right now, my inclination is to renew your article topic ban and possibly make it permanent. To my eyes, the disruptive editor here is ScienceApologist. Does any uninvolved admin disagree? Or, on further thought, would putting SA on a revert limit be more useful than a topic ban? GRBerry 01:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's at least two editors on the talk page who agree w/SA, and I find SA's arguments convincing myself. I've participated in the discussion before, and found Levine2112 uncooperative. At times I suspected he was willfully misunderstanding other people's arguments, instead of engaging with them and explaining why he disagreed. Partially because of Levine2112, I found discussion at Talk:Atropa belladonna to be a waste of time, and stopped watching the page. I also think Levine2112 has misrepresented discussions as resulting in consensus when they were in fact inconclusive (e.g., this thread at WP:NPOVN, which Levine2112 has used as justification for some of his edits). However, behavior on one article doesn't justify a sweeping topic ban such as the one SA is suggesting. Furthermore, both Levine and SA have engaged in problematic edit-warring on this article, and the best way of dealing with this might be a revert limit for both editors. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if Akhilleus is including me in this count, since I have little desire to repeat myself endlessly on talk pages. It should be considered that the reason for aforementioned lull may have less to do with ratiocination of the force of the arguments than boredom with the force with which they are defended. Based on several due credulity disputes with this user, I consider User:Levine2112's editorial insight imprudent in these areas. The fact of aforementioned disputes should be considered when judging the weight of my opinion. In other areas of the project, for instance here, I consider their judgment sound. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GRBerry here. There are legit concerns on both sides. If we topic ban one, we should topic ban both users. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:VartanM

User:VartanM resorts to incivility on Talk:Albert Asriyan. He insists on disqualifying the Azerbaijani-born violinist Albert Asriyan from Category:Azerbaijani violinists on grouds of Asriyan being an ethnic Armenian who fled Azerbaijan as a result of war between Armenia and Azerbaijan (1988—), though after having contributed to Azerbaijani music industry for decades. In his rationale for removing the category, he makes direct attacks on Azerbaijani cultural heritage by suggesting that Azerbaijan has no violinists of its own and therefore is in need of "stealing" them from other cultures.[1] This is not the first instance of VartanM making such incivil and xenophobic comments about Azerbaijan and suggesting its cultural inferiority to Armenia. On 3 August 2007, while arguing the notability of Azerbaijani film director Huseyn Seyidzadeh, he stated that it was understandable why he could only find so few sources mentioning Seyidzadeh, as "not everyone can be Parajanov's" (sic). (Sergei Parajanov was an prominent Armenian film director of the Soviet era). I find such behaviour unacceptable, uncooperative and racist. Parishan (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM is not under sanctions so this is not the proper forum.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So he needs to go under sanctions as such behavior should be stopped. In his recent edits you can see anti-Azerbaijani behavior very clearly. In his another comment in the talk of Azerbaijani radio station ANS ChM he shows racist behave as well regarding a true fact that he removed. Need more facts? ~~16:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)~~
Side comment. He is uncivil when dealing with other users as well. Here he advice "to be nice" as a response to his opponent's completely civil request. Gülməmməd ^Talk 16:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator, did you forget about the amended remedies for AA2? I'm not commenting about VartanM's actions here, but if he fails to adhere to Wikipedia policy on AA articles, he can be placed on discretionary sanctions by an uninvolved administrator (provided that he was warned sufficiently). Gulmammad, your diffs show some rudeness, but nothing in violation of WP:CIVIL IMO. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. That means that an uninvolved admin can impose sanctions on anyone editing within the scope of the conflict. That has yet to be done in his case; ergo, my initial comment.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally comment here, but isn't that the point of this board? If someone is violating a remedy (i.e. the ArbCom decision), then users can come here to seek enforcement for the violation. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that this board is for reporting users who you think have violated existing arbcom sanctions against them specifically not for reporting users who you think oughta be sanctioned.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is also used to enforce a case decision. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion Parishan's complaint looks like a content dispute and I recommend that he uses WP:DR rather than reporting it here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to WP:DR if Parishan is interested, but then again, what guarantee do I have if he'll agree to the outcome of the DR. VartanM (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now for what should I be sanctioned for? Parishan's conduct has been much more reprehensible than mine. Removing Armenian terms on countless articles as retaliation, adding Armenian 'antisemitism' in the main antisemetism article with a text that is longer than Poland or Germany. Adding Armenian descent for some NAZI general as retaliation and check the History of the Jews in Armenia, most of it is about antisemitism, worked again by Parishan. Heavy revert warring and refusing to adhere to the consensus wording accepted by both parties, just recently by adding the term de Jure which has been debated for over a year with a hard reached consensus for the official term. And Parishan is reporting me for what? It seems the past is back, retaliating by reporting someone for some bogus reason because your friend has been reported and sanctioned by that person. P.S I still find it amusing that the "Great Nation of Azerbaijan" has no violinist of its own and must claim Armenian ones, see the Azerbaijani violinist category to know what I mean[2]. VartanM (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of East Europe editors need to start getting along and cease all this wikidrama. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insult: What do you think about this insulting sentense regarding Azerbaijani nation left above by VartanM: "I still find it amusing that the "Great Nation of Azerbaijan" has no violinist of its own and must claim Armenian ones"? I see this to be pure insult adressed to a particular nation. ~~01:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)~~

Here is another comment regarding Azerbaijani radio station: :
"Removed the unsourced claim about the station being the first one on the moon".
In his comment he avoided to be bold and replied rudely to his opponent's cooperative request "please try to provide sources instead of tagging articles." Clearly this behavior shows up in his edits to articles which are related to the region and need to be sanctioned. Gülməmməd ^Talk 02:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point, those kinds of comments need to cease. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse, these are not just minor differences. These people, on all sides, have educated under a certain viewpoint of history. Content disputes on Wikipedia arise when these editors find people of other countries who dispute the entire foundation of their historical understanding. It's something you can't just forgive and forget, unfortunately. However, to avoid a ban in the future, I echo Rlevse's request to maintain civility and to not edit war on these conflict articles. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys don't understand the hilarity of having a Category:Azerbaijani violinists and the only entry in there is an Armenian. I'll make sure both of you get the next Azeri mass hysteria about someone stealing their culture. Hopefully one day they'll have a violinist of their own. Anyway, my sincere apology to the "Great Nation of Azerbaijan". BTW, does anyone know if they have a Article 301 of their own? I mean, I wouldn't want to be shot in the back for insulting azerbaijaness. VartanM (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, you don't make the situation any better by keeping on making comments like this. Of course there are violinists in Azerbaijan, but there are no articles about them in nWikipedia as yet. I don't know who this person in question is, never heard of him before, but "Azerbaijani" is both ethnicity and nationality. You know this perfectly well, and yet you continue making comments offensive for other people and nations. I suggest you stop it, and remember that you are on civility parole. Grandmaster (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that VartanM is on parole, unlike parties to the fist AA case (except Eupator, who was repeatedly placed on parole). So people claiming that this user is not subject to any sanctions are wrong. Please see the list of people who are on parole: [3] Except for the parties to the first AA case, all other people in the list are on parole. A part of VartanM's parole is civility supervision, as could be seen from a warning on his talk page. Grandmaster (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I also find VartanM's comments to be racist and nationalistic. What's the point in making comments like that, how exactly are they helpful for building an encyclopedia? Grandmaster (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are pointing at the hilarity of Azerbaijan stealing Armenian violinists. The fact alone that so many of you get so worked up about it is even more funnier. I'm surprised Parishan hasn't written 10 bio articles already. Good night to all, again my sincere apology to the "Great Nation of Azerbaijan" and its citizens. VartanM (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need Armenian violinists, and Asriyan is not all that famous. I first heard of him at this board. Parishan added him to a category to demonstrate that this person hails from Azerbaijan, like many other people of various ethnicities do. Why so much fuss about this and why do you actually need making comments like these? Your parole requires you to be courteous, and you have prior warnings about this. If you disagree with application of this category, there are venues to discuss it and resolve the issue in a civil manner. Please follow WP:DR procedures, and stop making comments that could only lead to the escalation of the situation. Grandmaster (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And one of my first comments on the talkpage was that I have no problem with a category "Violinists from Baku" or Azerbaijan. What was Parishan's response? edit warring justified by Iranian fleeing from Iran. -???- --VartanM (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to draw attention to this edit summary of VartanM, which in my view is really no good: [4] Grandmaster (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up, it was a joke. VartanM (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and racist? Hold on, who is presenting everything done in Azerbaijan as the first. ANS radio for instance claimed by Gulmammad to be the first FM radio in the Caucasus. Everyone knows FM radio in the Caucasus existed long before 1994. Soviets had a different name for it and the FM spread in 1994 when private non-governmental companies opened their own TV and Radio stations. Hai FM was also founded at the same time and not after ANS, the same goes with some Georgian FM stations. Gulmammad called me a racist for questioning such bogus nationalistic claim.

And for those who don't get it, the comment on this violinist was because the man just like Gary Kasparov had to leave Azerbaijan because of threats and intimidations and ended up as a refugee. He may be considered as a violinist from Azerbaijan, but he is not an Azerbaijani violonist. Parishan created the category specifically for this man, and he knew this will create a conflict.

Perhaps no one will have any real problem if some Azerbaijani refugee of the war was called an Armenian. So those claimed racist comments were only protests retaliating to Parishan new wave of provocations. VartanM (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the category because I was sorting out Category:Azerbaijani musicians and placing its articles under more specific and less ambiguous sub-categories. I equally created Category:Azerbaijani folk musicians‎ on that day. Asriyan had initially been placed under Category:Azerbaijani musicians by the creator of the article; all I did was create a more appropriate sub-category to avoid geniralisation. I could never think this would cause a problem to someone to a point of resorting to xenophobic comments. Parishan (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you still don't believe the ANS ChM radio is "the first FM radio station in the Caucasus and Central Asia regions". This hasn't been claimed by Gulmammad but by the United Nations Development Programme. You didn't want to be WP:BOLD and therefore per your rude request I provided at least one reliable, neutral source, which tells exactly what I have told. Gülməmməd ^Talk 06:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, un-az.org is not a neutral source. It's a website written and mainted by Azeris. And you need to pay close attention, FM radio stations existed long before 1994, they were called УКВ. But wait here is a neutral source from March 1994 that says Armenia had three(3) FM stations, thats 3 months prior to your claim. ....Weired..... --VartanM (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, .com is not reliable source. Second, the site that you see URL contains az is subsite of the UNDP which is for Azerbaijan. Similar one is for Armenia [1] and it contains .am. I see no tragedy here and they are expected to be neutral. Note that the source talks about private, independent FM radio (Frequency Modulation radio). УКВ (Ултра коротких волнах-Ultra Short Waves) were range of broadcasting frequencies not radio station. Gülməmməd ^Talk 06:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply at the talkpage, of said article. VartanM (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, it would be a shame if an administrator blocked you for your conduct in this AE report, so knock it off. As for Albert Asriyan, I believe both the Azerbaijani and Armenian violinist categories should belong. From my experiences, if a person spent a considerable portion of their life in two different countries, then they belong in categories for both nations. That's how I've tagged stubs for musicians and that's how I've seen others do it. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guy above just claimed that .com's are not reliable sources and I'm the one getting warned? Anyway, I'll sort the FM thing in the talkpage of the article. VartanM (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring it to the administrators' attention that VartanM is deliberately restating his original offensive comments about Azerbaijani culture even here. In this very discussion he has done it twice. One could easily come up with gazillions of potential sub-categories that Category:Armenian culture is lacking and likewise make childish impudent conclusions about Armenian culture's inferior, deficient, primitive, meagre little nature. However I have a feeling that users like VartanM would be among the first ones to report someone who would make such statement. Parishan (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

User:Xasha

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

Olahus and Xasha banned from "all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania, expires in 6 months"

I'm filing this report myself regarding statements made by User:Xasha against User:Olahus because the latter is now blocked for revert-warring and wiki-stalking, and because the statements made by Xasha merit the enforcers' attention.

The two statements in question are here ("I'll revert any edit that calls a Nazi invasion 'liberation'") and here ("Wtf man, every edit made by me is blindly reverted by Olahus (he doesn't even care that he introduces Nazi apologia in the process).") (Note too the incivility there.)

For those who may not be aware, what we are discussing is the Romanian advance into Bessarabia (roughly equivalent to today's Moldova) in summer 1941. The province had joined Romania in 1918 before the Soviet Union forced its cession in June 1940. A year of Stalinist terror followed, and Romanians there naturally greeted the return of their army with relief and a sense of being liberated.

Without passing judgment on the liberation/occupation issue, and without seeking to trivialize the crimes committed by the Romanian Army in the period following June 1941, permit me to state that this is an egregious accusation by Xasha, who has a history of comparing opinions he dislikes to "Nazism". First, it was not a "Nazi invasion" but a Romanian operation, something Xasha likely knows well. Second, and even more damning, Xasha accuses Olahus of "Nazi apologia". Unfortunately for Xasha, the Romanian press (and I mean serious, mainstream organs) routinely refers to this event as a liberation, and no one accuses it of Nazi apologia (remember, it was the Romanian Army that went in, not the German). Examples: from Ziua last month - [5] "Voronin's Communists Lament Bessarabia's Temporary Liberation from beneath the Bolshevik Yoke." From Memoria - [6] "the liberation of Bessarabia by the Romanian Army...they were able to return to Chişinău after its liberation." From Jurnalul Naţional - [7] "...a military administration in the provinces liberated in summer 1941." From Gardianul - [8] "On 22 June 1941 the Romanian Army crossed the Prut to liberate Bessarabia." And, from the Romanian Army's own newspaper - [9] "...the anti-Soviet war for the liberation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina..."

Now, why does all this matter? Well, first, Olahus was clearly not describing a "Nazi invasion" as a "liberation". And second, he was not expressing "Nazi apologia" but a mainstream viewpoint. Xasha is attempting to discredit him, to silence him by raising the spectre of Nazi sympathies. Unfortunately for him, the Digwuren case is very clear: "All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee." Given Xasha's expanding block log, including two blocks under the Digwuren case, I trust the Committee will take appropriate action. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The town was captured during an Axis offensive (Operation Barbarossa), by combined Nazi German and Antonescu's Romanian troops (with Germans having the main role, according to this Romanian site describing the offensive). What followed was a massacre of the Jewish majority in the city and the whole region(about 150,000 were deported to Transnistria were most of them perished; that's what the Romanian gvt said at least). How low can somebody go to call this a "liberation"? Xasha (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. It was an overwhelmingly (but of course not exclusively) Romanian operation; the Germans were busy in Russia. 2. No one here is contesting that Jews in the area were deported and massacred, or condoning the action. However, from 1940-41, Romanians were themselves deported and killed, and Romanians in June 1941, having suffered a year of Stalinist terror, did greet the Romanian Army as liberators (note women throwing flowers before Antonescu), something that is still reflected in the mainstream Romanian press today. 3. Regardless of the precise nature of what happened in 1941, your charges that Olahus was defending a "Nazi invasion" and introducing "Nazi apologia" remain unacceptable, per the Digwuren case - both its special provision regarding Nazi accusations, and more general restrictions based on WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Romanians who studied it say otherwise. See linked site 2. Do you want to battle in propaganda movies and photos? I could bring tons of em showing Soviet greeted with flowers, both in 1940 and 1944. The traditional kiss is even more suggestive. Also, please stop this nationalist rant... the Soviets where not after Romanians, but anybody whom they considered an exploiter, kulak or counterrevolutionary, be it Romanian, Moldovan, Russian or Gagauz (the most famous of the deportees being a Russian ethnic, Eufrosinia Kersnovskaya). The Jews, on the other hand, were killed because of their ethnoreligious association. 3. They were very factual accusation, and that Digwuren provision has nothing to do with it. That provision says clearly: accusations that "a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies", but I didn't accuse his national or ethnic group, I accused only himself for a very specific matter: the presentation of an abominable Nazi invasion as a "liberation". Per AGF "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice". Being harassed by him quite entitles me to stop assuming good faith. Xasha (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sure there was German participation, but dismissing it as an "abominable Nazi invasion" is a distortion of the facts that serves to discredit Olahus' views as unacceptably tainted by Nazi sympathies - which is clearly not the case (see the Romanian press quotes). 2. That some greeted the Soviets in 1940/44 is immaterial to the discussion - the fact remains that Romanians, who had just been through a year of Stalinist terror (and calling my description of it as such a "nationalist rant" will not diminish its horror by one iota), were heavily targeted, if not explicitly because of their ethnicity, then because they were the dominant ethnic group, and dominant among the classes the Soviets were targeting. And that they did in fact greet the returning Romanians as liberators, which many Romanians still consider them to have been. 3. You need not assume good faith on every aspect of Olahus' conduct, but you don't go around accusing him of defending a "Nazi invasion" and introducing "Nazi apologia", unless he places a swastika on his user page. You don't link people to Nazism, whatever you may privately think their motivations are. You, however, have chosen to do that, and Digwuren is clear on the consequences. But even if that is not the case, one only has to look at its very next section: "should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." Linking someone to Nazi sympathies in the absence of explicit declarations he is one is uncivil, a personal attack, an assumption of bad faith. Either way, you have violated the restriction and I trust the enforcers will act accordingly. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it is certainly true that all sides should tone the debate down a bit, Biruitorul, I think you are overlooking one particular thing in the present instance: Xasha was edit-warring in favour of a term that is objectively neutral ("capture"). Olahus was edit-warring in favour of a term that very very obviously is not neutral ("liberate"). It doesn't matter in the slightest if you or "many Romanians" may have reasons to think it was the latter; everybody with a modicum of intelligence and experience with Wikipedia policies must understand the term is unacceptable here. And for Xasha to point out that the unacceptability of the term is due exactly to the (very obvious) fact that it can be understood as Nazi apologia is a reasonable thing to do, even if under more relaxed circumstances I'd expect him to with less of an element of personal insinuation. Given the prior history between the two, I don't see much use in looking at it too much from this civility angle; with this amount of multilateral stalking, harassment and revert-warring, people obviously get hot under the collar. Let's deal with the tendentious editing, which is the root cause of the problems here; the civility issues are secondary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree "liberated" was a poor word choice, and that Olahus' conduct was provocative. Nevertheless, what I see as the crucial point is that Xasha has a history of these Nazi insinuations, and it should somehow be impressed upon him that these are unacceptable. Not only here, but here, here, here and here one sees the same sort of thing. Or here, he described a perfectly good-faith edit of mine as "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa" instead of calmly asking me to modify it or doing so himself. It's difficult to edit productively with another party when he's constantly accusing you of harboring Nazi sympathies. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah. You want be banned with all costs. I'm an evil Stalinist paid by the communists. Something new? Should I call operation Barbarossa a "marbelous enterprise of our great Fuhrer, one who is on par with the gods, to free our superior white race from those mischievous, good-for-nothing slavs and their Jewish rulers" just to prevent any accusation of Nazi-bashing?Xasha (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. And here I was defending him and thinking it might be a good idea giving him a chance to edit without his opponent for while. But this posting has earned him his next block too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The particular little revert war over Balti may have been sparked by my own sloppiness: The original edit was made by an anon user from a Romanian IP ( probably Bonaparte having fun). As I'm watching that article, it popped up in my watchlist and I promptly reverted it upon seeing the "Soviet occupiers, the genocidal policy", dismissing it as the usual by Bonny. Unfortunately, I failed to notice that popups reverts only one edit, leaving most of the anon's edits intact. Xasha noticed this on the following day and reverted deeper, correcting my mistake. --Illythr (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, Olahus has made a statement on his talk page. Instead of copying the rather sizeable piece here, as he asks, I'm linking to it instead. --Illythr (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FutPerf except I want to clarify we can't ignore the incivility. Plus this is getting really old. Maybe topic bans are in order all around? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess topic ban for both plus strict civility parole would be a good thing. Two people permanently at each other's throats can simply not be tolerated. (Reminds me of that situation last year with User:Tajik and User:E104421) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - would that be Olahus and Xasha or me and Xasha? Because I haven't even edited on Moldova-related matters for a while. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Olahus of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any opposition to topic bans for Olahus and Xasha, banning them from Romanian-related articles, broadly interpreted? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, seems like a good idea. Sandstein 07:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support such topic ban, but it needs a time expiration, six months will do nicely as a start. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is still happening? Oh, yes, please. -- tariqabjotu 22:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's go for it. The topic should be "all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania", I'd say. No problem if they want to write articles on, say, Romanian or Moldovan towns, villages or rivers. But they'd better not then get into a naming dispute where Romanian or Moldovan preferences are at stake. – Also, should the ban cover talk page discussions? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with FP's proposal, 6 months, renewable if their behavior doesn't improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ban applied. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:DreamGuy numerous violations of ArbCom decisions

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

blocked 96 hours by Jayvdb

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2#Remedies

A case was filed on wp:ani regarding user:DreamGuy, where another editor brought to my attention a list of actions which are in direct breach of the decision and ruling from arbcom, DreamGuy is subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below is taken directly from the arbcom case page:

Incivility - here appears to be a threat on a user acting in good faith and well within expected boundaries.
Assumptions of bad faith - here relating to the same user, DreamGuy accuses him of harrassment. Oh, and the HUGE bold message on the top of his talkpage, the biggest peice of evidence against DreamGuy

Along with the numerous other breaches of condition, and this extremely long block log, I am reccomending an indefinite block until DreamGuy agrees to follow the arbcom's decision. Chafford (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Chafford editor confuses me. When Arcayne posted on ANI (where this whole thing has been discussed with links to diffs showing Arcayne's breaking of policies), Chafford responded by saying "I will have a word with him, if no response is given, we should assume his actions are to deliberatly harm Wikipedia, and he will be dealt with accordingly." which is an obvious major violation of WP:AGF (And common sense - so if I'd not been on Wikipedia today he'd use that as proof of wrongdoing?) and implies that he is an admin and will do some dealing. He is not an admin, and his edit history is very bizarre. When I pointed out the AGF policy to him, he responded nastily to my talk page saying that my opinion wsa "worthless". I have to seriously question who this editor is and what he's up to. Surely it's not an interest in following policies when he seems so unfamiliar with some of the basics.

But at any rate, I think the current dispute actually goes quite far in demonstrating that certain editors seem to be here more for wikilawyering instead of improving the encyclopedia. ANI has my full response to Arcayne's false claims (he seems to file a false claim every few months or so). At this point I'd appreciate someone look into Arcayne's incivility and harassment, and this Chafford guy might need a reminder that the rules apply to him also.

Oh, and many of those blocks were mistakes by overzealous admins who jumped in and assumed accusations against me must be true without looking at edits and got overturned by others. Certainly a block history from before the ArbCom decision isn't new information, and the decision made then already knew and took that into account. DreamGuy (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rules apply to him too, oh I do find you funny, especially considering I haven't broken any rules! Chafford (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except CIVIL, AGF, probably ones about pretending to be an admin when you aren't, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are usually given more latitude on their own talk page, and so I don't think a block is required. Obviously, I agree with DreamGuy about his block log, not least because the last mistaken block was by me. PhilKnight (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The requested indefinite community ban goes beyond the ArbCom remedies, which call for a one-year ban only after five blocks. Only two blocks have been logged. The appropriate block, if such is needed, would be up to a week. In my opinion, the listed edits show a failure to assume good faith on the part of user:Arcayne. Regarding PhilKnight's point about user talk pages, I'm not aware of any policy that allows incivility on certain pages, and there's nothing in the arbCom decision about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If ArbCom decided that such a message on my talk page was incivil, I would have removed it. They were aware of it at the time of the ruling and did not say anything about it. Certainly other admins have supported it as an effective but sometimes unfortunately necessary method of limiting harassing comments. DreamGuy (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where it was ever brought to the attention of the ArbCom. Was it mentioned in evidence? In any case, the evidence that you had failed to assume good faith, including by edits like this[10], was accepted by the ArbCom and they agreed on a remedy as a result. How is your current behavior different from the behavior discussed in that case? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was entered into evidence back then, and other people have looked at it and said it was fine. If the current wording is a big problem I can reword it. But it seems odd to be trying to say I violated an ArbCom ruling for a notice that has been up since before ArbCom was even opened.

My current behavior is identifying someone whose history of edits should speak for itself. The whole idea behind AGF is the ASSUMING part. The proof is all there. The last time Arcayne brought the arguments up here all admin comments agreed that Arcayne was way out of line, saying he was gaming the system, haraassing, etc. That was THEIR statements. Now that he has progressed to being worse it's certainly odd to think I need to be "disciplined" for pointing out an editor's clearly inappropriate behavior. Please go to the ANI page and see the difs provided for the most recent actions. I can provide more difs of his bad faith if necessary. DreamGuy (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last time Arcayne brought a complaint here (same guy who raised the complaint this time on ANI), it was closed without action because it was decided that Arcayne and others were purposefully being incivil, etc. in an effort to incite me to lash out so they could have a reason to try to get me banned. User:PHG said the people complaining had worse histories of incivility than I did. User:Gatoclass went so far as to call the behavior of some of them as harassment. It's frankly getting tiring to have the same people make the same false accusations -- and this time the thread about this at ANI details some pretty disturbing edits by Arcayne (erasing the article talk page, blind reverting some ten edits of mine with the claim that no discussion was on the talk page, etc.) Besides just dismissing this, I would like suggestions on how to get this kind of behavior against me to end. The Jack the Ripper article is still essentially controlled by an editor who reverts each and every change I make no matter what it consists of -- spelling, providing sources, etc. and this has been going on for about a year. DreamGuy (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my earlier comment, I meant that removing a comment by another editor from an article talk page is very different from removing a comment from your own talk page. Otherwise, I agree with Will Beback's comments. PhilKnight (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely that removing comments from one's own talk page is permissible. This complaint also concerns a comment left on another user's talk page, and of the edit summaries in both edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to have an evenhanded blocking policy. BetaCommand is under similar editing restrictions and actions, and is unblocked at the moment. That being said, Arcayne's actions also need to be considered. If his/her actions in regard warning DreamGuy were improper (and I don't have an opinion at the moment), then DreamGuy's violation of AGF is understandable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not a violation of AGF to point out when someone IS breaking the rules when it's so over the top that it's undeniable. I think of year of blind reverting all edits I make on an article no matter what the content is is more than enough proof that Arcayne is not editing in good faith, but then there's more proof than just that. Check the links provided on the ANI page, and I can provide more if necessary... DreamGuy (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, and I do believe it is, then I have fallen into Arcaynes trap and fucked up royally, however in my defence, It says on both pages that I am not an administrator, and, in the message I left on wp:ANI, I said he would be dealt with accordingly, which is completely different to me saying I will deal with him accordingly, nowhere did I say that any action taken would be from me, thus, I have not impersonated admin status. Chafford (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I appreciate you showing up to say you changed your mind. I agree that you did not intentionally mislead anyone, but you should be careful how you word things on a page intended for admin discussion. I think you got Arcayne's hopes up too much. DreamGuy (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I see these things, all I can think of, is "Oh, no ... here we go again". I have recused myself from any administrative action on Jack the Ripper; an article that has an appalling history of bad manners and aggressive reverting, despite any and every attempt to build consensus on the talk page. This ancient edit summary demonstrates DG's rather dismissive attitude to consensus and assumption of "Good Faith" – and it seems to me, the majority of DG's edits are to return to a version that has failed to progress through the wikipedia quality process over a period of years. Now that said, I personally believe that both DG and Arcayne have much to offer the JtR article - if only they could find some way to put their differences aside and talk to each other; and, more importantly, engage with others. I personally am fed up with the "forget about content" let's talk about "your behaviour" attitude that stymies article development; drives other editors away and that permeates that particular article.

Now. I don't think it's appropriate to take action against DG, beyond reminding him of his existing restrictions - because he is an honourable man, so are they are all honourable men .... The most useful thing that could be done (for the project) is to put them both on a parole that said that if they didn't get Jack the Ripper to GA status within three months, they'd both be blocked. Kbthompson (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KB, this page is about current, active concerns, not something from a link to something that happened before the last time someone raised a complaint here. That complaint was already opened and closed as baseless. Please stop trying to refight out battles and focus on the CURRENT situation. And, frankly, I am the one who is focusing on the content on the article in question, by making solid edits in incremental steps that are easy to discuss one by one and revert one by one if necessary. The problem is Arcayne does not do that, and you let him get away with it. Solve that problem and the rest goes away real fast. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, it would appear that some folk are keen about turning this into an Arcayne v. DreamGuy argument, most notably, DreamGuy himself. It is not. The sole purpose of my AN/I was to attempt to interrupt a cycle of behavior on the part of DG that slows to a glacial crawl the improvement of the article. The edits that DG introduced into the article were essentially the same he does every time, as if daring anyone to contradict them. When someone does, he begins and pursues a very familiar argument wherein the actual text on point takes a backseat to the personal attacks and pointy incivility. I speculate that he does this to wear down resistance, so that eventually, either the people arguing with him become uncivil (and either get blocked or muddy the waters in any civility complaint about him, which has happened 3x before) or they simply leave the article (which has happened too many times to mention here).

Wile I personally don't really care about DG's usertalk page incivility bit about admins, it bears noting that he says that he would have removed it if asked to by ArbCom. He knows its uncivil, he knows its a personal attack against admins, but won't remove it because he hasn't been directed to by the highest enforcement authority we have here in WP. That says to me that he is will only follow the letter and not the spirit of the rules; he is afraid of the punishment for failing to follow them, and would likely break them the moment he felt he could get away with them. Such was the case with the anon IP logins and edits - through two different RfCs, he was told to not edit anonymously, and only when AE stipulated that he stop did he do so. However, that is a personal assessment, and the usertalk page rant about admins is not really actionable, in my estimation.

Again, my posting at AN/I was to bring the matter of this vicious cycle to a larger peer group for intervention purposes; I was not seeking to have him blocked - clearly, the mixed signals he has received by being blocked, unblocked and blocked again for the same offense have him thinking that if he can game the system long enough (which he has been blocked for in the past), he will likely find a sympathetic ear willing to buy his line of bs about how the entire world is out to get li'l ol' DreamGuy. Blocking DreamGuy doesn't do anything but provide a respite for others in the articles he edits within.

Nor was it my intent to have this matter escalate from AN/I to AE. I didn't think his behavior was blockable, considering what he has clearly demonstrated in the past.

I was seeking, instead, to involve admins (and others) early into this cycle to keep things calm and on target in the article. That DG's first post to the article discussion at Jack the Ripper was to (again) address the editor and not the edits clearly indicates that bringing the problem to a larger audience was the correct step of DR. My post to his usertalk space simply advised him that his edits weren't in keeping with current consensus, and that the BRD model was pretty useful in building a new one, if he were so inclined. My archival of sections that had their last posts in most cases weeks if not months earlier was routine, not sinister. I do not revert all of DG's posts (only those which do not have consensus) and then I ask him to instead discuss his edits and seek a new consensus. That's it. No incivility on my part at all.

I don't want to see DG blocked or banned - I simply want the pattern of abusive editing to stop. It is distressing that the article loses so many editors because of the flare-ups that occur - strangely enough,- only when DG contributes. He has something to offer the article, but most people aren't willing to brave the briar patch.My AN/I was asking for some assistance in clearing a path through that and get to the good stuff without having to deal with the personality deficiencies. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People aren't turning it into an Arcayne vs. DreamGuy argument, that's basically all it is (Colin4c occasionally does some of the same problem behavior you do, but he has been less likely to jump to blind reverts). Hell, more and more it's becoming obvious this is basically limited to Jack the Ripper editors... Solve the basic problem there (Arcayne's insistence that he OWNs it and people feeling blind reverting is the solution or demanding long explanations for uncontroversial edits (the few controversial edits should be discussed, obviously). We need outside people to come in and force policy following on that page, as the last year and a half seems to have poisoned feelings that even otherwise sensible people like KB can't see past. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest this is the permanent message which Dreamguy has on his User Page in which he accuses unspecified admins of corruption. It is a permanent testament to his permanent assumption of bad faith and unwillingness to abide by the wikipedia rules. I am VERY surprised that he has not been told to remove it by the admins:

"If you have a demonstrated history of personal harassment, your posts are not welcome here. (This includes certain "admins" who only got their position through sucking up.) You should know who you are. If you do post, your comments will be removed, most likely unread. If there's any chance that you might not know that your behavior is considered harassment, I will tell you, and from that point on you will not be allowed to post here. To anyone who doesn't know what I mean here, this warning does not apply to you, so by all means leave a message."

It staggers me that whoever is in charge of the wikipedia allows this flagrant violation of its guidelines to remain unchallenged. Colin4C (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, others have seen it and not had a problem with it, and that message is old -- it was introduced as evidence prior to the ArbCom decision, which said nothing about it, and was brought up the last time Arcayne complained here. This page is to see if I currently need any sanction for new behavior, not to try to continuously refight old complaints. Some people just need to let go and move on. Come on, already. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering who the administrators were who only got their position through 'sucking up'. Sounds like great material for a (blue) movie...Maybe that's why the admins don't object to it...gives them a sexy and sinister Hannibal Lector aura when they are trying to chat up girls in nightclubs....:

Admin: "I only got my position on the wikipedia by sucking up! Suck...suck...suck...suck..."

Girl: "Oooh you are awful - but I like you!" Colin4C (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is another example of the kind of editors I have to put up with on the Jack the Ripper article. It seems to attract people like that, for some reason. DreamGuy (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who opened this request for enforcement now says he was misled by Arcayne, so I would suggest that this latest attempt by Arcayne to refight an old battle be closed. I have an encyclopedia to edit, and the attempts by some to game the system by always forcing people they've chosen as enemies to have to defend against baseless accusations should not be encouraged. A warning by one or admins to Arcayne that he can't keep doing this would be nice as well. DreamGuy (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think misled is putting it a but strongly, as Arcayne's explanation (above) indicates that he did not wish this thread to start in the first place - but rather it was begun as a heads up on AN/I to potential problems at Jack the Ripper; and transferred here by an overly concerned citizen. Personally, I'd ask Arcayne to give you the benefit of the doubt and move forward in the spirit of enterprise and intense article work that seems to be breaking out at that page - but I'd also ask you to do the same. It's not necessary for either party to like the other, but a little generosity doesn't go amiss. Kbthompson (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Tut tut, I don't believe that's what he said. If you look a little further up the page you find he said "If this is true, and I do believe it is, then I have fallen into Arcaynes trap and fucked up royally..." so what he admitted was if your accusations of Arcayne's behavior is in line with reality, then he was mistaken. I have been watching this and have noticed that you have a tendency to drudge when the feeling hits you. You have a habit of playing the victim, even when nothing has been done to you. You berate Arcayne for singling you out... over and over and over... kind of like you are singling him out. You make propositions to include things on the page and then recant when faced with Arcayne's concurrence. Then post comments about not understanding Arcayne because he changes his mind to disagree with you. I am not on Arcayne's payroll, I have disagreed with Arcayne in the past and will do so again. He has goaded you as well, in fact I will give it to you that he started this, if not by reverting your edits (something that can be forgiven by discussing it on the talk page) but by posting an inflammatory (if not downright instigatory) note on the talk page about how "we have to go through this again". You are now both arguing over who is letting this drop and editing the article. You confront Arcayne about how he hs to stop WP:OWNing the article but you don't feel the need to discuss the article content without being forced to ArbCom. I'm not saying better worse or indifferent - I'm saying both of you could do with some self-reflection. If both of you would stop instigating the other this might just go away. How about we give that a try? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Dreamguy has just changed his User Page entry warning, deleting the pervy sucking bit, but I feel not improving the the general wikipedia harmonic ambience. His new version reads like this:

"If you have a history of leaving comments on this talk page that serve no purpose other than leaving harassing comments (whether they are cloaked in civil language or not), as identified by myself or admins who have watched this page, your posts are not welcome here and will be deleted on sight. The two primary examples of this are User:Arcayne and User:Elonka, who have been identified by myself and more than one admin as engaging in activity that qualifies as harassment. Any posts by them left here is a violation of good faith editing -- if they have article related points to be made they still can add their comments to those article talk pages (though with Elonka and I not editing any articles in common for the past several years, it's even more inexcusable that she still continues to be obsessed with me). Others who have been warned individually about personal attacks/harassment on this page in the past six months are also not welcome here. Otherwise feel free to leave your comments."

Any comments as to whether this abides by wikipedia guidelines? Are all editors allowed to make such warnings stigmatising other editors on their User Page or has Dreamguy got a special dispensation which doesn't apply to any other wikipedia editor? Colin4C (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it to be in EXTREMELY bad taste to single out any given editor for abuse. The naming of editors and the presentation of arguments against them in an area that does not allow discussion is the very epitome of bad faith. That is an attack page pure and simple. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)}

I am not sure what to add to this, really. I've pointed out the behavioral issue growing in the article which has (unsurprisingly) grown since I asked for some assistance in helping to calm things down in the article and article discussion. I was not asking for DG to remove his rant about admins, though I am increasingly of the opinion that it (and its new incarnation singling our Elonka and myself) is pretty uncivil and an onglong personal attack. The fellow doesn't want me to post on his page, but seemingly has no problem posting on mine whenever he wants.

This is not personal, no matter how much DG wants to paint it as such. I am not posting comments on my user-talk space singling him out, and am not continually attacking him in article discussion (in fact, i agreed with a few of his edits and discussion points). He, however, is attacking me, and I definitely feel harassed. I have no plans to escalate matters (why I filed the ANI in the first place, to de-escalate the problem before it grew into an AE issue), and I am left curious: how much sniping I am supposed to endure from this particular user? Before filing a complaint asking (this time) for him to be blocked, I'd like to know where the line is going to be drawn here.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The line has been drawn. The material has been excised (G10 attack page) and User:DreamGuy has been notified. I have not prejudged the outcome of any complaint/decision that might now arise here. Kbthompson (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked him for 96 hours. That comment on his Talk: page was beyond the Pale, and clearly in violation of his editing restrictions. I suggest he take the time off to remove the rest of the incivilities in the remaining notice on his Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Zinvats uzher

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

Editor was asked to calm down, hasn't edited in more than 3 days since

Another addition to the fine Armenia/Azerbaijan fight. Zinvats uzher (talk · contribs) has made insulting edit summaries ([11]), shows blatant nationalism, has shown no interest in participating on talk pages, and is generally poisoning any possibility of coming to a consensus on the very issues he's pushing for. I'm not too familiar with the AE process, so I leave this to others, so let me know if I did this wrong, but I just wanted to throw him up here, because I can only see him getting worse. --Golbez (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I told him to relax, stop the edit warring and to start using the talkpages. VartanM (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another edit summery "reverted another lost bakinsky" 1, bakinsky in Russian means a person from Baku. When I reverted his or her two edits to the Aghbulag, which I considered to be vandalism, I gave him/her two general warnings along the welcome template. But others including VartanM1 accused me for biting the new comers and also they got me blocked for those two reverts. The user started his/her first edits with nationalist POV against Azerbaijan such as 1, 2, 3, and do we need this? and I suspect because of that, immediately someone invited him/her to join WP:Armenia. My point is that at the very beginning he/she should have been invited to avoid such editing. I have got an impression that this user will not make any useful edits except being catalyst for edit wars. However, I am not intending to point to you what to do as I am really tired of this kind of things and trying to be away as much as possible from eastern europian related disputed topics. Actually, I found all of them to be disputed even ones about the radio stations! Gülməmməd ^Talk 08:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't appear to have edited since VartanM asked him to calm things down; lets wait a bit and see if he tones things down now. Shell ^babelfish 13:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very simple: one more of these comments and he will get one week block for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Addenda to John Buscema

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

Not a request for arb enforcement; should not have been posted here.

Since someone who collaborates with User:Elonka ended up responding to my request - here's some clarifications of why I requested that User:Elonka not respond -It was related to a previous request- - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&oldid=200244529#User:J_Greb

I just feel that there were too many mistaken assumptions - i.e.

1- 'The ruling does not mention anything about images'

The ruling does make a specific mention of images.

2-'When challenged about this, Skyelarke reacted by deleting the warning, with an edit summary of "please leave me alone"[7] and "calm down guys"[8]'

First of all, that wasn't my first reaction - here was the message left on JGreb's talk page -

The reason why the images were uploaded is because there is currently a RFC going on concerning those images. - + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Buscema - as per the message I left on the images - - + - + Please do not delete. Image currently being used in a Request for comment at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Buscema as per - + - + Criteria for speedy deletion. - + Images and Media - + 5. Unused unfree images - - + Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article. - + - + therefore in order to discuss them, it's important to have them included in the version under discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Buscema&oldid=181851662 - + - + So I would kindly ask you to lighten up, relax, and not delete until the RFC is finished. - + - + Have a good day, - + - + --Skyelarke (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was a little snippy with the subsequent talk page edits - because the reply to the above was to put a pseudo warning template about image usage that I felt disregarded my message and was uncivil -

but also because I had been very clear on my intentions with the RFC with many people, even asking editors who regularly cooperate with TB and JGreb to act as mediators - there's a long discussion about this - it seesms unlikely to me that JGreb was unaware of this discussion -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scott_Free&oldid=190564687

3- 'The RfC does not specifically use the images, but does have a link to a historical version of the article. Skyelarke seems to want the images available so that the old version looks right, as well as the Buscema subpage in his userspace'

'I agree with J Greb that the images are not needed, and that it was disruptive for Skyelarke to re-upload them even after they had been deleted.'

The RfC ended up being essentially about image usage - however the exercize ended up being compromised because midway through the images were no longer available for viewing -

For the record, the buscema subpage I have is not meant for harboring anything, I use it as a sandbox for drafts (plus I had kept it specifically for the RfC, not to advertise an alternate version - something I was clear about)- people can delete it they want once I'm finished with a specific draft.

4- 'Uploading and edit-warring on unusable "fair use" images`'

I disagree about edit warring, I was using the same modus operandi as described in my defense about edit warring in the recent request.

5- 'Posting a somewhat frivolous enforcement request on an editor who is not subject to sanctions'

Uncivil and assumption of bad faith for someone making an effort to implement a dispute resolution tool in contentious situation.

6- What disapoints me the most was the general lack of respect for the RfC process - to me the RfC is fudamental for dispute resolution and consensus - to assume I was using the images other than for the RfC discredits the whole RfC process and the RfC did end up being unsatisfactory.

Nothing against User:Elonka personally, seems to be a decent editor and administrator - it's just in this specific case, to me, there were a few too many misconceptions - and because there are so many misunderstandings in this case, that is why I prefer she not take administrative action on the case, although she is of course welcome to comment.

- --Scott Free (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Collaborates with Elonka" - that really made me stop for a second. We're all supposed to collaborate here, that's kind of the whole point of the project, no? By the way, just because you think an administrator was incorrect doesn't enjoin them from acting on further requests that you make. That aside, what is it that you would like to have happen here? This seems more a defense of a much earlier case than a request for something to be done under ArbCom sanctions. Shell ^babelfish 13:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No action requested other than allow comments for anyone who wishes to and join to previous resolved request as an addenda. The purpose for this is purely damage control - the older request contained statements which questioned my good faith and transparency - I simply wanted to add my defense - I also wanted to make sure that all of the facts about my objections with Elonka are clearly stated so as to make sure that actions on the requests are done as objectively and neutrally as possible. I know Elonka still has the right to take adminstrative action- it was simply a request that is appealing to her common sense and good judgment. I'm by no means suggesting that there is anything improper with Elonka and GBerry's interactions - (it is unfortunate for me though, that apparently GRBerry hasn't actually read the main statement that I had objected to.)

--Scott Free (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to briefly clarify what I objected to - here's an example -

..'was to a mirror site that contains the version largely written by Scott Free's former identity, Skyelarke, which was disallowed by both RfC consensus and a lengthy Arbitration.'

IMO the statement that a specific version of an article as a whole has been 'disallowed' by a RfC and the Arbitration Committee (that doesn't generally rule on content) - is such an incorrect interpetration of the RfC and the Arbitration ruling as to be considered antithetical to the notion of consensus and hence a non-respect of the arbitration ruling in regards to respect of consensus.

Here's an additional statement by the closing arbitrator:

This is certainly a legitimate and well-recognized principle. I don't know that it's applicable to this case because before the article was protected, it's not clear there was a consensus between the two versions, one way or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FJohn_Buscema%2FWorkshop&diff=181873872&oldid=181781354

--Scott Free (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a response to a workshop proposal and he said "before" it was protected. If we look at the actual closing of the case, one of the remedies was:

2) After three months, Skyelarke and Tenebrae may freely edit John Buscema but should respect consensus developed in the interim concerning the basic structure of the article and the nature of the material that should be included, including but not limited to the number of images.

So, I can see how someone would feel that this statement means that the preferred versions of yourself and Tenebrae were no longer in play - instead, you needed to use whatever version developed via the regular consensus process. Elonka may not have worded it in the best way, but the fact is that consensus ruled against the version you've been trying to link to and ArbCom confirmed that the regular consensus process should be sufficient absent the two of you edit warring.

If you have concerns with Elonka's decision or wording, its probably best to take it up with her rather than post here. And just as a personal note, when you get a ruling from this board, its generally better to accept it gracefully (given that you've already been all the way through arbitration) than to try to defend yourself. If you feel there was something said that was particularly troubling, try bringing that up with the editor who wrote it and ask them to change or strike it out. When you make a laundry list like this objecting to someone's characterizations and wording, it looks like you're suggesting that since you feel these things were wrong, you're not going to abide by the decision. Its likely to bring increased scrutiny and possibly further complaints. Shell ^babelfish 14:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John Buscema

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

This borders closely on being a frivolous complaint about Tenebrae. The first of the two allegedly problematic diffs isn't even by Tenebrae; it is by the complaining party. The other is not in any way incivil. I don't find the complaining party's actions sufficiently problematic to merit sanction at this time. Continued edit warring in an attempt to include a link to the out of date mirror would be, but it has been excluded for several days, so I think the issue is settled. GRBerry 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Buscema

I posted a link to the page- which User:Emperor reverted - I reverted the link in order for it to be visible for community discussion, which I initiated on the talk page. The thing is, I feel that User:Tenebrae's reversions and tone of discussion is preventing proper discussion on the question - If someone could take a look at the situation and give some neutral, objective feedback - I'd appreciate it. Isn't it standard community etiquette for a disputed passage to remain on article for it to be visible for discussion pending resolution of said discussion?

Some diffs which I find to be objectionable in tone: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Buscema&diff=226558335&oldid=226555279

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Buscema&diff=226559544&oldid=226558335

PS - If User:Elonka would kindly refrain from responding to this, it would be much appreciated.

--Scott Free (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Free neglects to mention that admin User:J Greb indicated on Scott Free's talk page that the link was inappropriate. Scott Free deleted J Greb's posting.

If Scott Free is insistent on the community seeing the inappropriate link, there is no reason he cannot simply place it on the John Buscema talk page in the context of discussion. --151.205.29.44 (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but those were points I was trying to open a discussion on - via the article talk page- my pragmatic problem is that I feel that, if you look, my discussion efforts were being significantly hindered. The question has been resolved, because a very specific guideline page (which I was previously unaware of) has been provided.

PS - If you look at the user talk page discussion between JGreb and Emperor - and also Tenebrae's statements - notice the amount of speculation regarding various machiavellic intentions, according to their theories, I was apparently harboring - (all this before I had a chance to discuss anything -that's something I'm real tired of at this point - to me they're completely innapropriate, unproven, incorrect insinuations and accusations - I wish it would just stop.

--Scott Free (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken about the burden of proof, see WP:BLP..."The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." Now if by being visible, you mean can it be put on a talk page while discussion is going on, sure. But if it's inclusion in an article is a subject of debate, it should not be in the article until consensus is reached that it should be there (or left out if it's never reached). — Rlevse • Talk • 11:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:

I looked at the external link after it was first added and noted significant similarities between the article hosted at the link and one that Scott Free has been maintaining on a user-sub-page for almost a year now.
Knowing a fair bit of the history of the Bescuma article, Scott Free's involvement in it, and the general trend of the interaction between him and other editors actively involved in the article (and I have to note here that that trend is mutual among those editors Free and one other, Tenebrae, were both subject to an ArbCom decision), I posted two simple questions to Free's talk page: "Is NationMaster a wiki?" and "Are you (Scott Free) the author of the Buscema article hosted there?" I did this to get a feel for where the NM article came from and because of concerns over conflict of interest issues.
I also asked Emperor to take a look, pointing to the diff of the Buschema article where the external link was added, the questions I'd posed to Scott Free, and to the article he's archived. It wasn't until Emperor took a look and pulled the link that I was aware that there is a fundamental issues with NationMaster being just a "mirror" of Wikipedia. Something I had been unaware of when I broached the topic with Scott Free.
At this point I am concerned about Scott Free's tenacity in trying to keep the link in while it was be discussed on the article's talk page. As Rlevse points out, and as per the informal guideline WP:BRD, if a bold edit gets revered out, you don't just re-add it, you discuss it. Generally, yes, I'd say it would be reasonable to re-add, with an appropriate edit summary, the item once. But if that gets reverted, it goes to the talk page before the item gets added again. As a result of Emperor's removal of the link:
- Scott Free re-added it the link citing "Initiated discussion on talk page-please do not revert until discussion is resolved."
- At that point Scott Free had not initiated a discussion of the NM link. Nor had he replied to a post regarding it from Tenebrae, a post that was made after the link was removed. Free's response to that post came after the link had been remove for a second time.
One last thing, the NM article [12] mirrors from this October 2006 version of the Wikipedia article, up to and including the image filenames.

- J Greb (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Greb asked me to check the link and I deemed it inappropriate and removed it. As I say in the talk page discussion speculating about motive is unnecessary for deciding if the link should be removed, however, it may be important for arbitration enforcement. I can't see any unbiased and uninvolved editor adding such a link, however, this is Scott Free's preferred version of the page (see the version he stored in his user space) and the only reason for adding this in is to try to get around consensus. He then tried to edit war the link back in, until I pointed out all the different ways that the link contravened the guidelines.

I agree this should have been reported here but Tenebrae's action have been reasonable in the circumstances (pointing out how this contravenes at least the spirit of the Arbitration) and it is Scott Free's actions that are the actual cause for concern. (Emperor (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I disagree with the general assumption that the edit was done in bad faith - and I was willing to discuss it and provide arguments and proof to the contrary - but I don't see the point now as I feel that (based on their statements) all three parties had basically concluded in advance that the link is inherently subsersive. (With TB, if you look, the reversion was done 6 minutes after I had proposed a discussion, I simply didn't have time to type in my argument. With JGreb, the questions weren't offensive, it's just that I had asked him several times in the past in order to avoid unecessary conflict to not address my talk page, but rather to address the article talk page or the arb enforcement page - with Emperor, I had no problem with per se, except that I cut the discussion short and conceded the point because there were simply too many assumptions of bad faith).

I reiterate that my main problem is that I feel hampered in discussing content with this group because of too many foregone conclusions, accusations without proof and assumptions of bad faith.

--Scott Free (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you haven't actually explained why you thought linking to an old mirror of the article was a good idea, apart from the fact that it preserved your preferred version (as we can see from the version you have saved in your sandbox) - I can't see why a neutral, independent or uninvolved party would add such a link (and if they did I would have also removed it, so it is nothing personal). Given that this article (and that version) was controversial and taken to the Arbitration Committee both you and Tenebrae should be careful about your edits there, not trying to find loopholes. I am not assuming bad faith, I have just been unable to come up with a good faith justification for including that link (other than the editor not knowing about the problems with the page and not realising it was a Wikipedia mirror - which would be that hypothetical "neutral, independent or uninvolved party" but you don't qualify as that) and you've yet to provide one. (Emperor (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

For me it's easier to drop the matter than have to deal with too many preconceived assumptions that I consider incorret - i.e. I say that:

- It's not my preferred version (Very different from the versions alluded to - I don't have a preferred version.)

- The content of previous versions weren't considered inherently 'controversial' (this is the opinion of one user.)

- So-called 'mirror' sites aren't formally forbidden by policy (or even in guidelines.)

-I don't claim authorship to any version - it's free content given to Wikipedia

- etc, etc.

I could only consider discussing content if parties lose the personal suspicions, conspiracy theories, speculation on editors motivations and address the content per se(i.e. does the content of the linked article make a positive contribution to knowledge of the subject?) with a reasonable amount of respect, etiquette, and spirit of compromise and consensus.

--Scott Free (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, you should refrain from looking uninvolved. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My name change was done in complete transparency and I fail to see how it hides my previous involvement.

--Scott Free (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked through the details of this report yet. But for transparency's sake, I do note that it would have been helpful if Scott Free pointed out that he is a rename of Skyelarke, one of the key parties in the John Buscema case. --El on ka 20:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it necessary, because with a name change, all past editing history is changed to the current name - plus the fact that you have already pointed this out on the article talk page and the arbitration decision page and others have already pointed out the fact several times. I kindly ask you again to please refrain from taking administrative action on this enforcement request for reasons I've explained in two previous messages to you.

--Scott Free (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JGreb:

Generally, yes, I'd say it would be reasonable to re-add, with an appropriate edit summary, the item once. But if that gets reverted, it goes to the talk page before the item gets added again.

I agree with the above - and that's what I was doing, reverting with the explanation that content complies with link guidelines - as I mentioned, I ended reverting twice due to an editing conflict technicality.

Just to clarify about the link -

The story is that I randomly came across the site while surfing - obviously it's a Wikipedia derived site and obviously it's an older version of the article - I wasn't being duplicitous about it - to me it was self-evident - By sheer coincidence, it happened to be a version prior to TB's objections (which had previously existed live for 6 months with many edits and not a single content dispute) - being twice the size of the current one and of valid accurate content - I felt it was the one version that would be useful to have a link to - the site itself seemed to have reasonable credibility - ergo it was done for motivations of adding a positive source of information on the subject and was not done for any infiltration, personal gain, or to adulterate the content of the wikipedia article in away way - although I can see how it can be considered questionable and was aware of the probability of objections - and was willing to discuss to question in a civil way.

--Scott Free (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things, the less confrontational first:

Given the ArbCom around this article and your being on of the primary editors whose actions were the primary focus, when you add a link to an article that looks like the version you were championing it raises questions. The biggest of which is whether the is a conflict of interests. That's why I went to your talk page and asked. And given my involvement, I asked an admin I consider even handed (no, not preferential) to double check it. The results were a deleted query with no answer and the link being pulled for issues with the site hosting it that I was unaware of.

Second thing, these are your edit summaries for your two re-insertions of the link:

"Initiated discussion on talk page-please do not revert until discussion is resolved." [13]

"Link is necessary for now because it is now under discussion." [14]

Neither of those seem in keeping with reasonable application of WP:BRD. The first does not have a coinciding discussion started, nor does it seem to be a reasonable explanation as to why the link was added. And both read as "Leave what I've added until consensus says remove it must be removed." The second one is the kicker, because it isn't "But if that gets reverted, it goes to the talk page before the item gets added again." (your words right here for the second removal), not by any stretch of the imagination.

- J Greb (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - I'm not championing anything but civil discussion - I got no problem with you getting involved in content questions - I just don't think you should take administrative action on me in cases of conduct issues - which I prefer be reported to this forum - which you are also free to do. My deletion of your question was explained in the edit - I thought you had agreed not to address my talk page as per my request - in order to avoid unecessary conflict -

With the link question per se - I added a link, properly identified and formatted, Emperor disagreed, I initiated a discussion - there were certain assumptions in his reply that I disagree with, but the first part of his argument, though not conclusive, was convincing enough, so I conceded the point. To me, the link issue per se, was resolved according to proper procedure. (I am objecting to TB's two comments on the talk page, which I find disruptive - many misleading statements about me, the article, and the arbitration decisions - although I don't assume that they were done with calamitous intent).

I wasn't trying to edit war to make it stick - I simply meant to do one reversion because I had a valid explanation to do so, along with a request that it not be reverted if a discussion should ensue. The reason for this is simply for practical purposes. I find that it's easier to refer to the live version and it's better to see the addition in the context of the whole live article (in this case it was just a link, so it wasn't that important) of course if any of the parties disagree to this, I would comply. I don't feel I was going against consensus because to me, the article and links to the article are apples and oranges - this being a new link - to have consensus on it would imply prior discussion of said link.

To clarify - At one point, I proposed various 'versions' in order to try to simplify discussion and compromise (what with 30 or so referenced passages being challenged) - they are not versions I am advocating - I think that it's incorrect to state that any version for the article as a whole has or has not consensus - ultimately it's an edit by edit scenario -

--Scott Free (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] 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.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 ={{anchor|restoc}}Resolved=
+== [[User:Xasha]] ==
+{{report top|Olahus and Xasha banned from "all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania, expires in 6 months"}}
+I'm filing this report myself regarding statements made by [[User:Xasha]] against [[User:Olahus]] because the latter is now [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Olahus blocked] for revert-warring and wiki-stalking, and because the statements made by Xasha merit the enforcers' attention.
+The two statements in question are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bălţi&diff=prev&oldid=226520097 here] ("I'll revert any edit that calls a Nazi invasion 'liberation'") and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=prev&oldid=226521461 here] ("Wtf man, every edit made by me is blindly reverted by Olahus (he doesn't even care that he introduces Nazi apologia in the process).") (Note too the incivility there.)
+For those who may not be aware, what we are discussing is the [[Romania]]n advance into [[Bessarabia]] (roughly equivalent to today's [[Moldova]]) in summer 1941. The province had joined Romania in 1918 before the Soviet Union forced its cession in June 1940. A year of Stalinist terror followed, and Romanians there naturally greeted the return of their army with relief and a sense of being liberated.
+Without passing judgment on the liberation/occupation issue, and without seeking to trivialize the crimes committed by the Romanian Army in the period following June 1941, permit me to state that this is an egregious accusation by Xasha, who has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Latin_European_peoples&diff=221845965&oldid=221787693 a history] of comparing opinions he dislikes to "Nazism". First, it was not a "Nazi invasion" but a ''Romanian'' operation, something Xasha likely knows well. Second, and even more damning, Xasha accuses Olahus of "Nazi apologia". Unfortunately for Xasha, the Romanian press (and I mean serious, mainstream organs) routinely refers to this event as a liberation, and no one accuses it of Nazi apologia (remember, it was the Romanian Army that went in, not the German). Examples: from ''[[Ziua]]'' last month - [http://www.ziua.ro/news.php?data=2008-06-23&id=8131] "[[Vladimir Voronin|Voronin]]'s Communists Lament Bessarabia's Temporary Liberation from beneath the Bolshevik Yoke." From ''Memoria'' - [http://www.memoria.ro/?location=view_article&from_name=Interviuri+din+presa,+carti,+colectii+personale&from=bG9jYXRpb249YXJ0aWNsZXM=&cid=126&id=921&l=ro] "the liberation of Bessarabia by the Romanian Army...they were able to return to [[Chişinău]] after its liberation." From ''[[Jurnalul Naţional]]'' - [http://www.jurnalul.ro/articole/95677/basarabia-in-cel-de-al-doilea-razboi-mondial] "...a military administration in the provinces liberated in summer 1941." From ''[[Gardianul]]'' - [http://www.gardianul.ro/2007/06/07/externe-c3/o_groapa_comuna_descoperita_la_odesa_agita_chestiunea_holocaustului-s95886.html] "On 22 June 1941 the Romanian Army crossed the [[Prut]] to liberate Bessarabia." And, from the Romanian Army's own newspaper - [http://www.presamil.ro/SMM/2004/06-07/P9.htm] "...the anti-Soviet war for the liberation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina..."
+Now, why does all this matter? Well, first, Olahus was clearly not describing a "Nazi invasion" as a "liberation". And second, he was not expressing "Nazi apologia" but a mainstream viewpoint. Xasha is attempting to discredit him, to silence him by raising the spectre of Nazi sympathies. Unfortunately for him, the Digwuren case is [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Editors_warned|very clear]]: "All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee." Given Xasha's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Xasha expanding block log], including two blocks under the Digwuren case, I trust the Committee will take appropriate action. [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]]</sup></small> 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
+::The town was captured during an Axis offensive ([[Operation Barbarossa]]), by combined Nazi German and [[Antonescu]]'s Romanian troops (with Germans having the main role, according to [http://www.worldwar2.ro/arme/?article=5 this Romanian site] describing the offensive). What followed was a massacre of the Jewish majority in the city and the whole region(about 150,000 were deported to Transnistria were most of them perished; that's what the Romanian gvt said at least). How low can somebody go to call this a "liberation"? [[User:Xasha|Xasha]] ([[User talk:Xasha|talk]]) 00:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
+:::1. It was an overwhelmingly (but of course not exclusively) Romanian operation; the Germans were busy in Russia. 2. No one here is contesting that Jews in the area were deported and massacred, or condoning the action. However, from 1940-41, ''Romanians'' were themselves deported and killed, and ''Romanians'' in June 1941, having suffered a year of Stalinist terror, did greet the Romanian Army as liberators ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-teYDFKf5w note] women throwing flowers before Antonescu), something that is still reflected in the mainstream Romanian press today. 3. Regardless of the precise nature of what happened in 1941, your charges that Olahus was defending a "Nazi invasion" and introducing "Nazi apologia" remain unacceptable, per the Digwuren case - both its special provision regarding Nazi accusations, and more general restrictions based on WP:AGF and WP:NPA. [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]]</sup></small> 00:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
+::::1. Romanians who studied it say otherwise. See linked site 2. Do you want to battle in propaganda movies and photos? I could bring tons of em showing Soviet [http://www.uniros.ru/book/ww2/img/tmp1B22-59.jpg greeted] [http://www.uniros.ru/book/ww2/img/tmp1B22-60.jpg with flowers], both in [http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/009/001/239929782.jpg 1940] and [http://www.victory.mil.ru/lib/reel/01/375.jpg 1944]. The [http://www.uniros.ru/book/ww2/img/tmp1B22-60a.jpg traditional kiss] is even more suggestive. Also, please stop this nationalist rant... the Soviets where not after Romanians, but anybody whom they considered an exploiter, ''kulak'' or counterrevolutionary, be it Romanian, Moldovan, Russian or Gagauz (the most famous of the deportees being a Russian ethnic, [[Eufrosinia Kersnovskaya]]). The Jews, on the other hand, were killed because of their ethnoreligious association. 3. They were very factual accusation, and that Digwuren provision has nothing to do with it. That provision says clearly: accusations that "a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies", but I didn't accuse his national or ethnic group, I accused only himself for a very specific matter: the presentation of an abominable Nazi invasion as a "liberation". Per AGF "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice". Being harassed by him quite entitles me to stop assuming good faith. [[User:Xasha|Xasha]] ([[User talk:Xasha|talk]]) 00:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
+. Sure there was German participation, but dismissing it as an "abominable Nazi invasion" is a distortion of the facts that serves to discredit Olahus' views as unacceptably tainted by Nazi sympathies - which is clearly not the case (see the Romanian press quotes). 2. That some greeted the Soviets in 1940/44 is immaterial to the discussion - the fact remains that Romanians, who had just been through a year of Stalinist terror (and calling my description of it as such a "nationalist rant" will not diminish its horror by one iota), were heavily targeted, if not explicitly because of their ethnicity, then because they were the dominant ethnic group, and dominant among the classes the Soviets were targeting. And that they did in fact greet the returning Romanians as liberators, which many Romanians still consider them to have been. 3. You need not assume good faith on every aspect of Olahus' conduct, but you don't go around accusing him of defending a "Nazi invasion" and introducing "Nazi apologia", unless he places a swastika on his user page. You don't link people to Nazism, whatever you may privately think their motivations are. You, however, have chosen to do that, and Digwuren is clear on the consequences. But ''even if'' that is not the case, one only has to look at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction|its very next section]]: "should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." Linking someone to Nazi sympathies in the absence of explicit declarations he is one ''is'' uncivil, a personal attack, an assumption of bad faith. Either way, you have violated the restriction and I trust the enforcers will act accordingly. [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]]</sup></small> 02:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
+:While it is certainly true that all sides should tone the debate down a bit, Biruitorul, I think you are overlooking one particular thing in the present instance: Xasha was edit-warring in favour of a term that is objectively neutral ("capture"). Olahus was edit-warring in favour of a term that very very obviously is not neutral ("liberate"). It doesn't matter in the slightest if you or "many Romanians" may have reasons to think it was the latter; everybody with a modicum of intelligence and experience with Wikipedia policies must understand the term is unacceptable here. And for Xasha to point out that the unacceptability of the term is due exactly to the (very obvious) fact that it can be understood as Nazi apologia is a reasonable thing to do, even if under more relaxed circumstances I'd expect him to with less of an element of personal insinuation. Given the prior history between the two, I don't see much use in looking at it too much from this civility angle; with this amount of multilateral stalking, harassment and revert-warring, people obviously get hot under the collar. Let's deal with the tendentious editing, which is the root cause of the problems here; the civility issues are secondary. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 08:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
+::I agree "liberated" was a poor word choice, and that Olahus' conduct was provocative. Nevertheless, what I see as the crucial point is that Xasha has a history of these Nazi insinuations, and it should somehow be impressed upon him that these are unacceptable. Not only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Latin_European_peoples&diff=221845965&oldid=221787693 here], but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bender%2C_Moldova&diff=204972728&oldid=204971431 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bender%2C_Moldova&diff=205002935&oldid=204994747 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bender%2C_Moldova&diff=209325177&oldid=209316552 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bender%2C_Moldova&diff=215085412&oldid=215083026 here] one sees the same sort of thing. Or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_28&diff=prev&oldid=216858016 here], he described a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Romanian_historical_regions&diff=216792852&oldid=215461109 perfectly good-faith edit] of mine as "trying to legitimize [[Operation Barbarossa]]" instead of calmly asking me to modify it or doing so himself. It's difficult to edit productively with another party when he's constantly accusing you of harboring Nazi sympathies. [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]]</sup></small> 14:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
+:::Yeah, yeah. You want be banned with all costs. I'm an evil Stalinist paid by the communists. Something new? Should I call operation Barbarossa a "marbelous enterprise of our great Fuhrer, one who is on par with the gods, to free our superior white race from those mischievous, good-for-nothing slavs and their Jewish rulers" just to prevent any accusation of Nazi-bashing?[[User:Xasha|Xasha]] ([[User talk:Xasha|talk]]) 15:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
+:::: Sigh. And here I was defending him and thinking it might be a good idea giving him a chance to edit without his opponent for while. But this posting has earned him his next block too. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 15:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
+:::The particular little revert war over Balti may have been sparked by my own sloppiness: The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B%C4%83l%C5%A3i&diff=226040169&oldid=225900479 original edit] was made by an anon user from a Romanian IP ( probably [[user:Bonaparte|Bonaparte]] having fun). As I'm watching that article, it popped up in my watchlist and I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B%C4%83l%C5%A3i&diff=next&oldid=226040169 promptly reverted] it upon seeing the "Soviet occupiers, the genocidal policy", dismissing it as the usual by Bonny. Unfortunately, I failed to notice that popups reverts only one edit, leaving [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B%C4%83l%C5%A3i&diff=226039937&oldid=225900479 most] of the anon's edits intact. Xasha noticed this on the following day and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B%C4%83l%C5%A3i&diff=next&oldid=226045789 reverted deeper], correcting my mistake. --[[User:Illythr|Illythr]] ([[User talk:Illythr|talk]]) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
+:Meanwhile, [[User:Olahus|Olahus]] has made a statement on his talk page. Instead of copying the rather sizeable piece here, as he asks, [[User_talk:Olahus#Blocked|I'm linking to it instead]]. --[[User:Illythr|Illythr]] ([[User talk:Illythr|talk]]) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
+I agree with FutPerf except I want to clarify we can't ignore the incivility. Plus this is getting really old. Maybe topic bans are in order all around?<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
+:Yes, I guess topic ban for both plus strict civility parole would be a good thing. Two people permanently at each other's throats can simply not be tolerated. (Reminds me of that situation last year with [[User:Tajik]] and [[User:E104421]]) [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 15:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
+::Just to clarify - would that be Olahus and Xasha or me and Xasha? Because I haven't even edited on Moldova-related matters for a while. [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]]</sup></small> 15:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
+:::Oh, Olahus of course. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 15:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
+Any opposition to topic bans for Olahus and Xasha, banning them from Romanian-related articles, broadly interpreted? <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 01:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
+:*No, seems like a good idea. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 07:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
+: Support such topic ban, but it needs a time expiration, six months will do nicely as a start. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 21:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
+:This is still happening? Oh, yes, please. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 22:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
+Okay, let's go for it. The topic should be "all edits touching on the historical and ethnic relation between Moldova and Romania", I'd say. No problem if they want to write articles on, say, Romanian or Moldovan towns, villages or rivers. But they'd better not then get into a naming dispute where Romanian or Moldovan preferences are at stake. – Also, should the ban cover talk page discussions? [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 07:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
+:Agree with FP's proposal, 6 months, renewable if their behavior doesn't improve. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 09:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
+::Ban applied.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 12:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
+{{report bottom}}
 == User:DreamGuy numerous violations of ArbCom decisions ==
 {{report top|blocked 96 hours by Jayvdb}}