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

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

Edit this section for new requests

User:Timothy Usher/User:Proabivouac

It has recently come to the Arbitration Committee's attention that User:Timothy Usher, who was placed under probation in the His excellency case, ceased using that account at about that time and resurfaced as User:Proabivouac without informing the committee about this new identity. He has subsequently edited without being held to the conditions of his probation, and has engaged in behavior that may have been subject to sanction under those conditions. Because of this, the term of his probation is reset and begins again from this point. For the committee, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fedayee

This contributor was a party to both Armenia-Azerbaijan and Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ArbCom cases. According to second ArbCom remedy [1], User:Fedayee is subject to supervised editing and must "maintain a reasonable degree of civility" with other users. In last few days, he has assumed bad faith and personally attacked at several instances:

Attacking the ethnicity of User:Ehud Lesar [2]: **Why request a checkuser... sounds right now that his Ehud account still sticks, an alleged Jew who merely reverts to your and Grandmaster’s versions and is concentrated in Armenian-Azeri related articles and who only returns to Jewish contributions when other editors wonder about him
Attacking me [3]:
- "you are editing in a very abrasive way"
Assuming bad faith against me [4]:
- Atabek has not changed a bit, after two arbitration cases and the arbitrators ignoring our plight to take dispositions to stop Atabek’s disruptions
Wikilawyering [5]:
- you should've not been in the current Arbcom remedy this is far too light in your situation because you could and still disrupt without having to be uncivil
Accusing me of irrelevant, unproven and unrelated things in Wikipedia [6]:
- Also from recent allegations from Persian members, it seems that Atabek has created havoc in a Persian website extending conflicts on Wikipedia.
Assuming bad faith again [7]:
- Given I have experienced your history of misrepresentation of sources and misquoting...
Assuming bad faith [8]:
- Chaser, on the 200,000 figure, Atabek made this edit as a provocation; he could have known that he will be accused of source manipulation and distortion

I would like to ask for User:Fedayee yet again to assume good faith and be civil. Thanks. Atabek 03:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:VartanM

[9] - User:VartanM, after revert removing body of sourced material [10], addresses me:

I am getting tired of your abrasive answers...

I don't see a basis for such wording, especially given the fact that User:VartanM was warned earlier [11] to assume good faith and to be more corteous [12]. Atabek 04:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, keeps pushing his POV. He moved the article without discussion and getting a consensus He is misquoting scholars. He is yet to compromise and work constructively. He never assumes good faith. VartanM 04:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason for such bad faith words by User:VartanM, when I did provide extensive rationale for my edit and the move [13]. Sources I cited are a prominent scholar Minorsky from University of London and Oxford scholar CJD Dowsett, both references are being removed by VartanM, and my answers are being called "abrasive", even here now. Thanks. Atabek 05:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek has been harassing me since his 4 day block. He filed 2 baseless reports about me while he was blocked and now another one. Its tobvious his holding a grudge against me and is trying to get even. I request the arbitrators to check his contributions after the block and check his contributions in more details.

Armenian Legion He choose to edit and add that 200,000 Armenians served in Germany under the Nazis the same day his block expired. WP:AGF WP:POINT WP:Retaliation

I will file another arbitration request if this attacks and continuous provocations don't stop. VartanM 05:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all partisan content from both your userpages. If you can't deal with the sight of it, then neither of you will have anything partisan on his userpage. As to the incivility, I've warned VartanM about the above comment. As to everything else, you're welcome to post diffs of specific things. I'm not going to go searching for evidence. The move reversion was explained in the edit summary and then immediately on the talk page. The lack of consensus isn't really relevant unless there was consensus against moving or active discussion on the talk page. As to the title itself, let's discuss that on the article's talk page, please.--Chaser - T 07:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC) I don't find the Armenian Legion diff above to be a policy violation; there's active disagreement on the talk page about that point, and Atabek did include the crucial "claimed" qualifier.--Chaser - T 07:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a mistake to have a warning for this "Atabek does answer in a very abrasive way". Atabek’s edit on his userpage was not to provoke Vartan, it was to provoke Fadix after knowing about the new sock which was the same day he made those edits, possibly expecting a reaction from the sock. He did the same thing soon after I had proposed that Fadix’s first sock creation might have actually been to answer Flavius, it was only then that Atabek started his multiple article disruption campaign by editing various mainspaces, removing the mention of the Armenian genocide (including from Fadix created articles) while the arbitration was still proceeding. Atabek’s battleground mentality and his repeated and consistent provocations have not ceased one bit. I am waiting for administrators reply on the possible course of event and if there is material to re-open a new arbitration case. Chaser, to a certain limit, Atabek could claim that he does not believe the genocide happened, we can't restrict people to put their opinions in userpages, the differences with Atabek’s modification in his userpage was that it was added specifically to provoke us, he did not merely say he does not believe the genocide happened, he compared the death of over a million, the successful destruction of the entire Armenian community in Western Armenia in its entirety, with a tragedy having happened in avillage.

Chaser, on the 200,000 figure, Atabek made this edit as a provocation; he could have known that he will be accused of source manipulation and distortion. Atabek’s first attributed the 200,000 figure to Y. Auron, and if you read Atabek, you will see that he was actually rejecting that the source was saying that represents Dro figures. [14]. He was rather claiming that they were the true numbers claimed by Auron. Vartan did his homework and read the pages in question, and it ended up that both Atabek and him were wrong, the figures were neither Auron's neither Dro, they were from Minna Rozen [15]. They were not cited for accuracy, it comes from a letter she wrote on the Armenian Genocide to her Mayor, most likely she miswrote it by adding one more 0, since it was a letter not an academic paper which was reviewed for correction from mistyping and fact checking. Auron who reproduced the letter say in the next page that he will be covering this Armenian legion, which he does and provides the official German archival figures of 18,000 and Walker figures of 20,000 (which probably Rozen misquoted by adding one more 0).

Atabek knew that Auron was not talking about Dro figures, he denied they were his himself, he knew that by re-adding something which he himself knew was not true, he would provoke Vartan. The same goes with Smbat, Atabek was caught misquoting Dowsett’s work by replacing the in text use of Smbat for Sunbat, he even admitted previously that he was doing it be claiming that he did nothing wrong and that he was merely using the Arabic version. But now, he again by knowing he is misusing sources, used Dowsett in the discussion to support Sunbat while Dowsett uses his Armenian name Smbat.

Also, if Atabek keeps reporting members’ each and every contributions, it is obvious that with time he will be able to have every members restricted. No member can remain civil when harassed and provoked this way. - Fedayee 18:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not harassed nor provoked User:VartanM either with my edit or with my comment [16]. Assume good faith, this policy and ArbCom remedy requires strict adherence. Thanks. Atabek 21:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaser, this is a second time User:VartanM attacks me and is being warned, while the ArbCom remedy clearly asks [17] for only one warning. I would like to ask again for the case to be reviewed by arbitrator, who participated in formulating the remedies. It's unclear how remedy applies one way to me, and another way to User:VartanM and User:Fedayee above, the latter was also a party to both ArbCom cases. Atabek 21:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vartan did not attack you; he presented the situation as it is and in a civil fashion. You don't need to repeat AGF I know very well what it means. My opinion is that you should've not been in the current Arbcom remedy this is far too light in your situation because you could and still disrupt without having to be uncivil.

It is the third time you are reporting Vartan for things which are not clear cut incivility and this in a short length of time abusing the process, you returned to the Armenian Legion article making an edit knowing that your edit was not accurate. You could not have ignored that Vartan would accuse you of distorting because he knew you knew that your edit was inaccurate including your comment about Dowsett on the name Smbat. You are taking this whole reporting thing as a strategy game, it was never meant to be this. By scrutinizing members contributions that far and reporting them on each occasion, it is expected that you could successfully restrict any members under the arbitration remedy.

I just hope Thatcher comments on your contribution and his allegation that you were less disruptive than some other contributors was not made in similar form in private to other arbitrators. Because I am at odds on why administrators and arbitrators are reluctant to check your conduct.

Also from recent allegations from Persian members, it seems that Atabek has created havoc in a Persian website extending conflicts on Wikipedia. But I prefer not to discuss about something which I ignore. - Fedayee 23:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fedayee, there is no proof to claim me as someone posting at Persian website. So again, be civil and assume good faith, and VartanM has been warned for incivility, for a second time now. Thanks. Atabek 00:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then the incivility warning is open for debate, you are editing in a very abrasive way. Provoking members to have them blocked. Chaser removed your provocations from your userpage, and when I made my comment on the freedom of users to hold their opinion in their userpage, you did not waste any time to reinstate a provocative and abrasive template. This: This user recognizes and condemns the Armenian and Turkish massacres during World War I but opposes their political misinterpretation as "Armenian Genocide". is not a holding of an opinion unlike what it appears to be, it is a statement of fact disguised as a sympathy recognition for others to wonder why Armenian users are still offended for such a nice gesture of recognition.

Atabek has not changed a bit, after two arbitration cases and the arbitrators ignoring our plight to take dispositions to stop Atabek’s disruptions, Atabek is still continuing by provoking members and taking Wikipedia as a chess board or another strategy game. We have requested him to stop soapboxing about the Armenian genocide on every given occasion… he did it regardless while the first arbitration was proceeding, he also did it while the second arbitration was proceeding, trying to provoke a banned member to invade his ban even further. He knows how this issue is sensitive for the Armenians and he used it to provoke members into a fight and it doesn't appear that he has any interest into stopping it.

I already announced that I intended to request another arbitration case while the other was closing if nothing was done to stop Atabek’s multiple and simultaneous disruptions, but waited. I see no other option now, which is what I will be doing. - Fedayee 01:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fedayee, you have been asked to assume good faith, your continuation along these lines will force me to report on AE. Regarding some of your comments, accusing and attacking me for information I put on my own user page, it strictly adheres to WP:USER, so if you see a violation of it, please, discuss that on my talk page instead of WP:SOAP on Arbitration enforcement page and/or threatening with another ArbCom. Also, remember that ignoring massacres of scores of Turks during World War I occurred at the hands of Armenian Dashnak bands and invading Russian troops is the same provocative insult as denial of Armenian massacres (which I actually did and do say I recognize and condemn!). According to your logic, your edits at Talk:Khojaly Massacre and Talk:March Days trying to question the number of Azerbaijani victims, undermine the fact of massacres committed against Azeris, etc. when I clearly provided references from the New York Times (1920), Michael Smith and Dr. Firuz Kazemzadeh of Yale, would also be considered engagement in battles along national lines and provocative editing. After all, I don't do the same on Armenia-related pages. So, yet again, assume good faith, and before attacking me again, please, adhere to Wikipedia policies. Thanks. Atabek 02:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zephram Stark

Banned user Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark, now editing under new username: User:Ned_Pierce. By own admission, here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ned Pierce blocked indefinitely. Waggers 14:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the diff is garbled when I use it, even though when I recreate it from the history page I get the same URL jossi posted. When I use it, the old id is a version of Tom Swift from 2005; the new id is on Wikipedia talk:10 things you did not know about Wikipedia. This diff shows the admission, and at least for me is not garbled. Since Zephram is indefinitely blocked now, no longer under the ArbComm sanction, I'm not sure this was the right venue but the outcome is correct. GRBerry 15:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bmedley Sutler, User:Fairness And Accuracy For All

Related to the FreeRepublic arbitration, Bmedley Sutler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) finally admits that not only has he been continuing to edit in proxy for Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), he has been allowing FAAFA to log into his account and edit. Bmed has already been blocked indef, but his block log implies that he may be unblocked under certain conditions. I would like to see him reblocked, with a more appropriate message. I would also ask that FAAFA's block be reset to expire one year from today, and his user page template date updated to reflect that. (His template says March, but he has already had one reset, so this date is incorrect anyway.) While WP:AGF is an important core policy, I hope that this situation illustrates how AGF can be taken a little too far, allowing abusive editors to game the system through WP:AAGF. (There is also an admission that this was all about sinking my RfA, which makes complete sense, since Bmedley signed up at Wikipedia after there was already some open discussion about me going for an RfA. So if the committee is inclined to recommend that a steward immediately sysop me as a remedy, I won't argue against it, though I do not expect that to be a likely outcome.) - Crockspot 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The committee doesn't read this page, enforcement action can be taken by any admin. So as far as your RFA is concerned, you'll have to contact the committee directly. The rest is done. Thatcher131 21:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Crockspot 21:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Halibutt

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Following the Arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus involved parties were cautioned to follow good editing practice, however user:Halibutt demonstrated neglect to Arbitrators suggestion and applicable policies with article Stanislovas Narutavičius (currently renamed). Halibutt neglected fact that Arbitrators named that contributions should be made by seeking consensus, however this was not done as particular contributor started one sided renaming article [18] [19] [20] , also neglecting the Arbitration case Courtesy accused other contributor of vandalism and generally neglected WP:Point in several accessions [21] [22], neglecting WP:AGF.

But that is most shameful that neglecting WP:NPA Halibutt started to attack certain nationality of editors, calling them as ultras and trolls, morons and a bunch of idiots. His "metaphors" in this "disucssion" are insulting, to say the least. Sadly but this is the same behavior of this contributor, which was discussed in the past and in the Arb case.

I ask immediate assistance from uninvolved parties, which could inform particular contributor Halibutt that his neglect to the policies and disruption is not acceptable.--Lokyz 07:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no remedies in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus that can be enforced by ordinary admins. You will have to request help from ArbCom itself, via e-mail or by posting to the Requests for clarification section of WP:RFAR. Thatcher131 14:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you, I will.--Lokyz 18:48, 6 September 2007 (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.

Grandmaster 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Yes, Hajji Piruz was accidentally left off that list, which I compiled to try and make enforcement easier. Yes, Grandmaster probably should have mentioned it to me instead of fixing it himself, not because it was wrong, but because of the pre-existing conflicts. Is this a big deal? No. Thatcher131 14:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not helping in the improvement of the situation, Grandmaster takes it upon himself to add me to a list created by the administrators [23]. Whether I belong on that list or not is not the problem, and I have no problem being on that list, but I think that Grandmaster should not have taken it upon himself to do something and administrator should have as he was a party to the arbcom himself. THis does not help in the improvement of things.Hajji Piruz 04:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem there. Admin made a technical mistake by not including you in the list of people covered by the latest arbcom remedy. I fixed that, since you are also covered by that remedy and moreover, you are the only one mentioned personally: [24] If you believe that you should not be in that list, feel free to remove yourself, and the admins will review the situation. My edit was just a good faith attempt to fix a mistake, since the list is very important for the admins when reviewing the actions of people covered by that remedy. --Grandmaster 04:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I should not be on the list or if it was wrong that I should be on the list, re-read my above comment. You took it upon yourself to do something that an administrator should have done. Who else do you think the administrators "forgot"? Do you see how small that list is compared to the list of involved parties? Please assume good faith. You were a party to the arbcom and so you are in no position to decide for the administrators what should be done. If anything, you should have gone to the administrators themselves.

How is this actions supposed to be perceived? Did you honestly believe it would help the situation? Actions like this will help no one really, the purpose of the arbcom was for everyone to change for the better and fix all the problems, not to simply continue everything under more restrictions. After the second arbcom just ended, I dont see how such a bad faith action during such a sensitive time could be justified. I'm trying to change, and I can only hope that others are also making the same effort.Hajji Piruz 04:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you yourself admit that you should be in the list, then what is the problem? If you know that anyone else should be there, add him to the list too. I found it strange that the admin omitted the user who is personally mentioned in the remedy #1. Of course, it was an honest mistake and I fixed it in good faith. It is a technical issue, not a real problem at all. Grandmaster 05:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not the problem here, the problem is that it seems as if both arbcoms dont seem to mean anything to the users involved. When I say I have no problem being on the list I mean that I know that I am making the changes to better the community and have am not worried about anyone watching my contributions. How are we ever going to resolve these issues? Its simply amazing that you would defend such an undependable action. You are not an administrator, and you are a party to the arbcom, yet you took administrators duties into your own hands and made a bad faith assumption about another user.Hajji Piruz 05:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the bad faith assumption here? I made no assumptions at all, let alone bad faith assumptions. The remedy #1 says: Hajji Piruz and the other users placed on revert limitation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies are subject to supervised editing. [25] You being covered by that remedy is not my personal assumption, this is what that remedy actually says. The admin compiling the list of editors covered by this remedy made a small technical mistake, mentioning “other users”, but forgetting to mention Hajji Piruz. I only fixed that mistake in good faith. And I’m allowed to edit that page same as any other user. It says on top: Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. So I fixed an omission in the list of blocks, and everyone is allowed to edit it. Grandmaster 09:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You assume an admin made a mistake, so why did you not go to the admins? Simple question that deserves a simple explanation.Hajji Piruz 13:47, 6 September 2007 (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:Sarah777

Could a member of the ArbCom committee please take a look at this discussion on the British Isles talk page. The issue relates to the term British Isles, which Sarah objects to. Sarah777 had previously made a POV fork using a "better name." Another user has done so again. Sarah is encouraging the user to continue doing so and is stirring it up in what is a known trouble area with talk of "political pov", "being persecuted by the Povians", "THEY are watching me!", accusing others of being "determined to impose a political POV term on these islands " etc. etc. This is a very long-standing issue, Sarah is well-aware of it and this kind of behaviour is part of the track record of Sarah's editing and contributions to talk pages. See: ArbCom decision. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted this reply to Sony on his page, but feel I should add it here. I believe, sincerely that Sony is engaged in a spiteful personal vendetta against me.

Hi Sony. Your attempts at provocation and your continued campaign against me are regrettable. The relevent section of the Arbcom ruling in relation to me is:

"Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks."

I made no "anti-British" remarks on the article talk-page nor did I make any edits bar reverting the deletion, which I then stopped to avoid 3RR. Furthermore your allegation of POV-fork is your OPINION; it was not a ruling of any sort, if you recall the article was deleted without any discussion; as, indeed was the "Atlantic Isles" article. As for "encouraging" the user who created "Atlantic Isles"; once the article was (arbitrarily) deleted I was WARNING him of my experience and particularly to be careful on his own Talk Page in the light Wiki policy (which I advised him to check) and, not least the way you used selective out of context quotes from my page (and elsewhere) to build your campaign.

You appear to spend all your Wiki-energy "contributions" obsessing over a small number of political articles; your editing record is, basically, rubbish. And you obviously have far more time to devote to persuing your vendetta than those of us actually contributing to the project in a productive manner.

I am aware that the tactics of some on the "pro-British" side is to systematically goad and provoke in order to try and get your target to say something that will get them banned. I put you on notice now that your CONTINUED referrals of me; RfC, the Arbcom and now this latest "report" can only be regarded as harassment. Please stop. And DO NOT leave ANY further messages of any sort on my talk page. Thank you. (Sarah777 21:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Response Sarah needs to be civil and not disruptive; that doesn't mean she has to agree with you. It looks like Sarah777 has a serious axe to grind regarding the naming issue of that article, but her behavior on the talk page does not seem to me to cross any boundaries requiring enforcement. Thatcher131 00:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have guidelines as regards to "aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks", because if it's simply that she can't call British editors "Nazi imperialist scum" etc. or Irish editors that take her distaste "uncle Tom holocaust deniers" etc. then the enforcement will be quite ineffective as she is very able to game the system and bat her eyes innocently. --sony-youth^pléigh 06:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I have made my point regarding the BI name; I would have thought that taken in context my remarks were pretty light-hearted and someone would really have to work at being offended enough to report me to Arbcom - yet again. Maybe Sony should be my mentor then he could take total control of what I say, do, how I say it, how I interact with other editors and so forth. If some facetious (if heartfelt) remarks I made about POV pushers now becomes an "anti-British remark" then....I don't know. My most serious axe to grind is with Sony. I would suggest that if he took a break from political articles himself, and took a break from his constant hounding of myself, and spent his time doing some real editing then this would be a happier place without the need for Sony thought-control.

As this is Arbcom, I must in my defence point out again that the number of edits I have made to Irish political articles and the BI article is tiny, both compared to my total and to the number Sony has made to these articles. (Sarah777 07:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Important point - I have never referred to ANY editor, of any nationality, as a "Nazi scum"; I have made comments (in the past) about a political position and about a State. This is a clear example of "synthesis" is it were in an article. I may have made the other remark long before the RcF and Arbcom but patently such a remark can't have been addressed to any British editor. And it would have to be put in context of the avalanche of personal abuse I was taking at the time. Can Sony, post RcF and Arbcom keep dredging up his carefully selected "insults" over and over again? Till....when? Till he finally succeeds in getting me banned? (Sarah777 07:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There is no particular bright-line standard, it's a matter of judgement, and other admins may have different views. It is also relevant that Sarah was making points in discussion but not edit warring over the article itself. Thatcher131 14:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point in question here is whether or not Sarah777 has engaged in "aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks" in this discussion - my view as a British admin involved in the discussion is that she came close, but did not cross the line. It could be argued that Sarah engaged in edit warring (one revert short of breaking WP:3RR here) which could be described as "aggressive biased editing" - but my view at the time was use a bit of discretion and let it go this once. Nevertheless, I think Sarah should take this as an absolute final warning. Waggers 08:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? "An absolute final warning" of WHAT and by WHO? There is NO anti-British comment on the talk page; not even close. (Sarah777 19:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

<reduce indent> Sarah777 is definitely pushing her luck. Hughsheehy 16:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and her veiled comments re. British and Nazis wasn't appreciated. I pointed that out at the time. However, I personally feel that it doesn't require remedy at this time (and it would appear that Thatcher131 concurs). However, I am concerned that Sony-youth just doesn't seem to want to be happy until Sarah is well and truly banned from Wikipedia, hence his rapid re-appearance here. That in itself, concerns me. I didn't like what Sarah said at the time and I called her on it pretty quick; however, it's interesting to note Sony-youth immediately ran back to ArbCom to tell tales - Alison ☺ 03:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dacy69

Dacy again reverted Movses Kaghankatvatsi without appopriate justification, he justified it by claiming it is OR without sayin it is. He always get away with such reverts by writting a line of justification which could be used for almost any reverts. He is not reaching consensus, and in violation of the terms of parole.Hetoum I 04:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No violation as there was only one revert and there is discussion about the issue on the talk page. However, I am rapidly losing my patience with every other edit war being about whether some person is an ethnic this or an ethnic that. Protected for 3 days. Work out a compromise or else. Thatcher131 14:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the first time Dacy69 gamed 1RR by reverting and leaving 1 sentence long comment [26]. I will kindly ask Dacy69 to explain the reason for his reverts in details, because one sentence long explanations are as good as none. VartanM 19:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, [27], some of your comments don't exceed one sentence either. Dacy69 provided sufficient explanation, and the complexity is not usually measured by number of lines or sentences. Assume good faith. Atabek 21:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, please note that in my two sentence justification I actually say why it was OR, while Dacy merely said it was OR without saying how. Also note that I don't have to justify my reverts but I always do, out of respect to all other users who have to justify them. You can call it "self imposed revert parole" ;) VartanM 00:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users Atabek, Dacy69, Parishan, and Grandmaster are clearly gaming the system by trading reverts. It appears as though Dacy69 is a meat puppet, reverting for them whenever they need a revert based on the following evidence:

Dacy69 came back after a 7 to 8 day absence and made 6 reverts out of a total of 15 edits. The other 9 edits were on the talk pages based on the arbcom parole requirement that users make comments for their reverts. His contributions: [28]

Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy: Dacy69 reverts to Atabek: [29]
Movses Kaghankatvatsi: Dacy69 reverts to Grandmaster: [30]
Khurshidbanu Natavan: Dacy69 reverts to Parishan: [31]

This is clearly not a very nice gesture of good will regarding improvement in the relations of the users of our wiki community and if anything is simply abusing the restrictions of the arbocm, which were meant to stop such things, not to allow them to happen on a slower pace.

Technically, there is no violation, but our editings, according to the new arbcom, are being monitored by the admins and, with that said, the admins should know about such editing. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 03:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hajji Piruz, there is a group of users (including socks) that reverted to your versions. Here are few examples:

[32] - revert to you by sock User:Hu1lee,
[33] - revert to you by sock User:Hu1lee
[34] - revert to you by User:Dfitzgerald
[35] - revert to you by User:Alborz Fallah
[36] - inviting user to removal of information citing non-existent Wikipedia policy.

I believe when people are involved in editing the same article, reverting may happen to version of others, it does not necessarily mean that the users coordinate, they just happen to work on the same topic. Especially, in light of your claim: "Technically, there is no violation" and given the extent of the reverts to you listed above, please, assume good faith. Also, in light of your comment: "according to the new arbcom, are being monitored by the admins and, with that said, the admins should know about such editing", I hope they do take a look at the references brought above as well. THanks. Atabek 05:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, can you then explain to me why Dacy reverted on a this article when he made 0 edits on it before? I can provide more difs if necessary. --VartanM 06:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this question should be addressed to Dacy69 on his talk page. I don't know why you ask me for that. Assume good faith. Atabek 06:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed it to you because you're defending Dacy by saying that you believe that people are involved in editing the same article, reverting my happen to version of others. Dacy never edited that article, neither he edited this one, this one this one, this one or this one, but it didn't stop him from reverting and leaving a sentence long justifications. As a regular editor of all but one of those articles I consider his behavior as disruptive and unacceptable. The 1RR was put into place to stop revert warring, but when a user reverts without giving proper justification another will revert him, creating revert war. I don't see why I would address this on Dacy's talkpage, were discussing his exact same behavior here. You don't have to address it if you don't want to, I'll be happy to hear Dacy's response --VartanM 06:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you can address your question about Dacy69 to Dacy69. Also few notes here:

[37] - your revert to User:TigranTheGreat's version.
[38] - revert by User:Andranikpasha to your version.

[39] - revert to you by anon IP.
[40] - your revert to User:Andranikpasha . This is just for furhter information. Assume good faith. Atabek 07:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not whether reverts happen, the point is that Dacy reverts articles, eaves a line of justification that can justify anything, and leaves. If I revert an article I explain and engage myself in the talkpage. VartanM 07:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you attempting to justify Dacy69's actions by saying "because Azizbekov did it he can do it?" It seems as if the entire point of the arbcoms have been missed here. Both you and Grandmaster should make a greater effort here, this is not a one sided issue. You two are just as obligated to make an effort to better the community as I and others are. Lets make the effort.

Again, I think you have failed to see the point of the arbcom. You continue to make bad faith assumptions, now accusing two legitimate and established users as being meat puppets.

Interestingly, the diff you used for Alborz Fallah is from August 17th. Once again, you immediatly jump to assuming bad faith. I did not invite VartanM to remove anything, I agree with him that Adil Baguirovs (AdilBaguirov is a banned Wikipedia user) website should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia.

What if I had a website and it was being used on Wikipedia? VartanM had a website and it was being used on Wikipedia? Your position is not defendable.Hajji Piruz 05:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for suggestion, Hajji Piruz, except I am not sure why your friendly suggestion, if executed in good faith, appears at WP:AE instead of user talk pages. And before accusing another group of established users of meatpuppetry, please, review the list I brought above and assume good faith. I see no further need in continuation of this thread at WP:AE. Thanks. Atabek 05:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek there are no groups is Wikipedia. VartanM 07:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more assumptions of bad faith. Hopefully the administrators will review both Dacy69's actions as well as Atabeks actions.Hajji Piruz 05:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of your bad faith assumptions right above:

"Users Atabek, Dacy69, Parishan, and Grandmaster are clearly gaming the system by trading reverts"
"This is clearly not a very nice gesture of good will regarding improvement in the relations of the users..."
"I think you have failed to see the point of the arbcom..."
"Once again, you immediatly jump to assuming bad faith"
"(AdilBaguirov is a banned Wikipedia user) website should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia..." - yet again, no policy to support this assumption.

Assume good faith, and continue discussion on talk pages as necessary. Good night. Atabek 06:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You took all of those comments from right here...from my arbcom report, which is a completely different situation than on a talk page or simply making comments. And saying that Adil Baguirovs, a banned user, website should not be used in WIkipedia is not an assumption of bad faith, neither is saying that Grandmaster taking administrator actions into his own hands is not a nice gesture, or saying that you jump to conclusions of bad faith. You follow up your accusation that I assume bad faith with even more bad faith assumptions.Hajji Piruz 12:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hetoum I

According to the remedy #2 of the recent arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, the admins can place any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility on revert parole and other limitations, established by the arbcom. Please see [41]

Hetoum I (talk · contribs) was placed by the admin under the remedy #2, which includes revert parole, limiting him to 1 rv per week. [42] This was logged here: [43]

As soon as Hetoum I returned from his 24 hour block reported below, he violated his parole again, making 3 rvs in less than 1 week on Battle of Baku: [44] [45] [46] This is another violation of parole by this user. --Grandmaster 05:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another violation on Khurshidbanu Natavan: [47] [48]. Grandmaster 05:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another violation on Karabakh khanate: [49] [50] (removed the category) Grandmaster 05:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed an example of blatant nonsense, that is Orignal Research - there was no mention of the residence of natavan, despite claims by grandmaster information was sourced.Hetoum I 05:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Parishan violated parole, he reverted 3 times in less than a week [51]Hetoum I 05:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parishan is not on parole. Grandmaster 05:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [52], the first one after the block expiration, seems to be in violation of WP:CIVIL as well. Atabek 06:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Two reverts within 24 hours on Battle of Baku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), both after the block expired. [53] [54]. Blocked for 36 hours. Thatcher131 14:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: Grandmaster

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No evidence that Parishan is a "meat puppet" for Grandmaster. No evidence that Parishan is behaving in a way that would cause him to be noticed in to the Arbitration case. Thatcher131

14:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

grandmaster is on parole violation on the same article, he is not talking or trying to reach consensus, and is using user:Parishan to meatpuppett. he is clearly i violation.Hetoum I 05:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of violation, please. --Grandmaster 05:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parishan reverted, and you commented on the talk page :) it's quite clear.Hetoum I 06:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Kish blind revert, no talking on the page .... so say what's wrong instead of blindly revertingHetoum I 06:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were advised by an admin to stop edit warring and making edits to the article without consensus with other editors. [55] Yet your largerly rewrote the article without any discussion on talk. I just would like you to discuss your proposed edits with other involved editors according to WP:CON. Grandmaster 09:44, 5 September 2007 (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:VartanM violated WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Three administrators have now weighed in on this, including an arbitrator and an ArbCom clerk. I don't consider it frivolous, but neither do I consider it worthy of any more attention. Discussion over.--Chaser - T 01:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that as a (former) clerk, I have no special authority when it comes to enforcing Arbitration decisions, I am simply an admin who hangs out here. Also note that Fred asked VartanM to be much more courteous. The fact that we decline to take action on these particular comments should not be seen by VartanM or anyone else as a green light. Thatcher131 14:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ArbCom principle here, passed with 6-0 votes in favor, clearly says:

"Users are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those whom they had conflicts with in the past."

Despite this principle, User:VartanM, a participant to the above mentioned ArbCom case, again assumed bad faith by his comment [56]:

"AdilBaguirov and the team are banned from Wikipedia..."

Here User:VartanM goes further on assumption of bad faith, stating:

" I don't know if Atabek considers himself part of that "team" but both of them shared similar views when both were active. If indeed Atabek considers himself part of Adil Baguirov's team its just another reason to remove it."

This is a violation of WP:AGF. Since, I believe User:Chaser's comment was referring to lack of incivility conclusion, I would like to request another independent review of this report, considering that violation, as initially indicated, was that of WP:AGF not just that of WP:CIVIL. Atabek 18:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according to WP:CIVIL, among the "Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment" lists also "Lies". Since User:VartanM cannot establish a fact that User:AdilBaguirov has a "team", and I am a member of that team, such statement cannot be interpreted other than a lie in assumption of bad faith. Hence his comment also violates WP:CIVIL and consequently the ArbCom remedy is applicable. Thanks. Atabek 18:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained, a principle is unenforceable. But noting the problem with "team" thinking of this nature, I've left this note to VartanM. At Atabek's request, I'll leave this thread for an uninvolved editor to review.--Chaser - T 18:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaser, the rationale for application of remedy, similar to the one applied here [57] and [58] has been provided. Also, remedies usually come in response to violations of principles, not just by themselves. I am not reporting "remedy", no one can report a remedy I believe, I am reporting a violation of ArbCom principle. Thanks. Atabek 18:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, if you take a look at the Adil Baguirovs geocities site on the very bottom of the page its says:

When I was referring to the team I never meant to imply any teams here in the wikipedia. You simply misunderstood me and put yourself in that team. I apologize if I offended you. We better mind the WP:BAN and stop talking about AdilBaguirov. VartanM 20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were assuming bad faith, a) claiming "Adil Baguirov and a team" are banned from Wikipedia, 2) assuming me as a member of that team, whether listed on website or here. You continue to assume bad faith by saying right above that "I put myself in that team", when I never made such statement - which is a violation of WP:AGF.

In addition regarding these [59], [60], , nowhere does WP:BAN indicate that links to scholarly, informative and cited websites are inappropriate just because their creator has been banned from Wikipedia. So your removal of those links and citing them as inappropriate or unacceptable is not based on any policy. Moreover, you're removing links from several websites, in coordinated fashion with User:Hajji Piruz - [61], whose claim also does not base on any particular Wikipedia policy. Besides, your removal of the links to Virtual Azerbaijan are inconsistent with your insertion [62] of highly partisan website nkrusa.org references at Khojaly Massacre, by way of an edit war.

Finally, just now, you again violated WP:AGF, by saying [63] - "Atabek himself admitted...", when I never said such things. Again, false statement->lie->violation of WP:CIVIL.

So, while I appreciate your apology for offense, I would like to highlight that I did not misunderstand, but was rather reporting facts of disruption, for which I finally expect an independent and impartial review, just like other editors involved in ArbCom get for violating the principles of ArbCom. Thanks. Atabek 20:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, is Atabek joking here? Clearly "Adil and team" was being quoted from Adil's website. How could "Adil and team are banned" ever REMOTELY be interpreted as bad faith? Adil is banned, it's a pure statement of fact, and clearly that's what Vartan was refering to. And why would Atabek think that Vartan assumed Atabek was in the "team"--Vartan clearly says "I DON'T KNOW IF ATABEK *THINKS* he is in the team, but IF he is..."--there is nothing that definitively states that Atabek is in the team. Whoever is going to review this--this is obviously a frivolous claim by Atabek to "make things even." And no, I am not assuming bad faith either here--Atabek complained on Thatcher's page that he was banned, but Vartan wasn't. This kind of frivolous accusation creates bad atmosphere among editors and shouldn't be allowed.--TigranTheGreat 01:24, 5 September 2007 (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:VartanM

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I don't see anything particularly uncivil in the diffs presented either below or above my comment, so I'm closing this thread. If anyone is going to open further threads related to this conflict, I suggest you judiciously select the diffs you want administrators to consider and then let them consider it. Continuing the conflict by elongating a thread on this page is often a pointless exercise.--Chaser - T 16:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In violation of ArbCom remedy [64], assumes bad faith [65] by comment: "AdilBaguirov and the team are banned from Wikipedia...". He further expands on his assumption of bad faith [66] by saying:

" I don't know if Atabek considers himself part of that "team" but both of them shared similar views when both were active. If indeed Atabek considers himself part of Adil Baguirov's team its just another reason to remove it."

Please, take a note that he is also concurrently involved in an edit war at Khojaly Massacre. Thanks. Atabek 22:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hajji Piruz openly coordinates with User:VartanM, in removing sources and attacking another Wikipedia user [67], which also goes along ArbCom remedy violation. Atabek 22:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal web sites are sometimes acceptable as external links, but not if they are highly partisan in nature and involving extremely controversial material. (For example, the personal web site of Burt Rutan may be an acceptable external link for an article on Spaceship One, but Yassir Arafat's personal web site would not be an acceptable external link for an article on the history of Israel.) I don't see anything particularly uncivil there. Thatcher131 23:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thatcher131 that there's nothing particularly uncivil here. I expect that editors will leave me talk page posts about alleged ban violations in this case (but let's not start an annoying tit-for-tat).--Chaser - T 07:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaser, what Thatcher131 was referring to was the principle whether a website can or cannot be included as external link. The issue I report is the assumption of bad faith by User:VartanM, that User:AdilBaguirov has a team, and I am its member. That's a clear-cut violation of WP:AGF, and I expect a response on that subject. Whether AdilBaguirov's website should or should not be included, that is a separate content subject, which was addressed by Thatcher131 above. Thanks. Atabek 07:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about blatant bad faith assumption here: [68] I beleive admins might be interested in considering comments like: Ironically, had she been an ancient Armenian queen, our Azeri friends here would have insisted that she was non-Armenian. (And I am not saying you guys are doing it in bad faith--I am sure you fully believe you are improving the quality of Wikipedia while disrupting Armenian articles. I am merely making an observation on a well established pattern of edits). Accusations of disrupting "Armenian articles" are far from this principle, declared by the latest arbcom: [69] Grandmaster 07:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must also note a bad faith assumption right here on this page by User:VartanM: [70] --Grandmaster 08:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also pushing some WP:OR here [71] and further assumping bad faith and attempting to single me out here. Atabek 08:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaser, the violation of WP:AGF reported has not been addressed. So the discussion should not be archived until another admin independently reviews the issue. Atabek 17:30, 4 September 2007 (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.

Occupations of Latvia

The article Occupations of Latvia has been placed on probation over a long pattern of various disruption. During the recent months, largely thanks to new, previously non-involved editors such as Termer, the article has been severely overhauled. Recently, it passed Wikipedia peer review with no major content problems found.

However, Irpen and Grafikm_fr have engaged in a campaign of developing artificial controversy over this article's compliability with Wikipedia standards. It's all the more insidious that both have refused -- not merely neglected -- to provide any specifics of the non-compliance issues proposed; see Talk:Occupations of Latvia#Suggestions for improvement for details. Despite refusal to actually cite compliance issues, both have reinstated the {{noncompliant}} tag ([72], [73]) after it was removed following the consensus developed on the article's talk page. Such behaviour is clearly disruptive, and there's currently a discussion on Talk:Vandalism going on over whether it can also be classified as vandalism.

According to the arbitration decision:

“

The article at the locus of this dispute is placed on probation. Any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and the right to review the situation in one year, if appropriate.

”

I'm requesting administrative intervention to enforce the arbitration decision in an appropriate manner. Digwuren 20:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed attention to this article is warranted. Objections to its condition remain not addressed despite their being described at talk multiple times and in detail. The editor above dares to revert war on the article on probation, repeatedly removing a well-epxlained tag. Feel free to join the discussion and enforce the ArbCom's decision. --Irpen 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen refuses to explicitly articulate what those objections are and continues to claim the old discussions regarding the old article are still applicable. However the article was extensively revised and subject to peer review since then. This approach of tagging while being evasive about the reasons is disruptive to building a good article Martintg 21:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response It appears that the one of the main concerns originally identified by the Arbitrators, namely whether the Soviet presence in Latvia was an occupation, and whether—regardless of the answer to the first question—the article's current title and scope are appropriately chosen has not been addressed by the recent re-write. The question of whether to identify the Soviet presence in Latvia as an "occupation" or something else is a problem that is not confined to this article, see obviously Occupation of Baltic states among others. I am not pursuaded by the alleged peer review, to whom the only contributor seems to have been javascript that analyzes grammatical and style issues. Therefore I am not convinced that Grafikm_fr and Irpen are creating an artificial controversy. I suggest that the editors engage Irpen and Grafikm_fr in a discussion to determine whether, as a matter of editorial judgement, it is acceptable to refer to the Soviet presence as an occupation, and whether, as a matter of editorial judgement, the three phases of occupation should be described in 3, 2 or one article. I also suggest that comments be solicited in a neutrally-worded way from the RFC process, the admins' noticeboard, and even the Village Pumps, to obtain a significant outside comments on these issues and a more meaningful peer review than a grammar bot. I ask Grafikm_fr and Irpen to provide meaningful feedback and suggestions on how the article might be split and especially on how to refer to the 1945-1991 period. If after one week significant progress is not being made on these issues please make a new report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher131 23:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be mild, this reporting is a WP:KETTLE thing. A discussion was evolving on the talk page (slowly it's true, but given the subject, better take it slow) with some advances made.

OTOH, User:Digwuren exhibited an extremely disruptive behaviour on this page (and not only on this page, I might add) that is currently under examination by the ArbCom.

As you noted, I'm not attempting to create a controversy but merely to get answers to questions I've been asking for months. Obviously I got only PAs...

A lot of suggestions were provided, but all were turned down by only a handful of editors who're crippling the whole thing. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there has been a previous pattern of tagging with insufficient clarification on this article, ending up with tag warring (being one of the main reasons it was taken to Arbitration in the first place). In this instance the same scenario was beginning to unfold, particularly that significant revision of the article had occurred. Hence notification was necessary in my view, which had the beneficial effect of prompting Irpen to add more clarifcation of his issue, and the welcomed input of Thatcher131. However, it is apparent your only input is to snipe here, rather than engage in any meaningful discussion on the article talk page. For the record, User:Digwuren had only reverted once (your placement of the tag without providing your own reasons on the talk page) and engaged in dialogue on the talk page, unlike you. So your claim of "extremely disruptive behaviour" is totally untrue. Martintg 00:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I held a small attempt of dispute resolution and mudclearing on the talk page. During this I checked the issues raised by arbitration case and the article itself. I have to agree that there are more things to do, but the issues raised seem to be addressed.

Although some editors seem to disagree with the articles concept "Occupations of Latvia" and claim it should be split into separate articles, it is notable topic in one article, because it was continous event of Latvia being under occupation. Latvia was republic - Latvia was under occupation - Latvia became republic again.
The articles dealing with separate events are correctly winked with {{{main}}}.
Marting provided list of books which treat the Occupations of latvia continuously.
All issues of possible Original Research have been removed.
All issues of possible NPOV violation have been removed.

Thus, I see that the noncompliant tag is anything but appropriate for the article.

During the latest discussion Irpen and Grafikm showed non-constructive editing. I asked for providing the points where and how the article is non-compliant, but nobody gave anything constructive. Instead Irpen claimed that this is waste of editors time. I think it is waste of editors time when you have to reread the whole arbitration discussion of problems which have been fixed long time ago.

Thus, I have removed the template from article. The article is definitely compatible with wikipedia quality standards. Ofcourse, it is not a GA candidate yet, but I do think it is possible to get it there.

My wish is that everyone who oppose my decision would take part of discussion and present their concerns in civil and constructive fashion. Tagwarring or saying: "This article sucks, try again" is not constructive. Suva 08:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-constructive editing" accusations sound like a joke. For the umpteenth time same editors force me to repeat my objections, stated multiple times at the article's talk page. And in response, they resort to more accusations and same of the old claims. After the page gets filled with a few screens of same old, I am asked to repeat what my objections are. This is just ridiculous. The article's problem that stem for the apriory non-neutral combination of its title with its scope remain unaddressed. The selective tendentious presentation of the topic remains unaddressed.

Any experienced editor with a sufficient time on his hands and an ax to grind may write a perfectly sourced but extremely POVed and tendentious article simply because sourcing is only one of many requirements of academic integrity. This article is a perfect example of this approach. I wholeheartedly invite anyone to comment and not only on the editor's behavior, but on the content dispute itself. This whole ArbCom brought about no meaningful decision because it was essentially a content dispute and remains such no matter how some try to dress it into a policy debate. --Irpen 09:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles scope is "Latvian history under the occupation". First by soviet, then shortly under German and then under Soviet again. As the Germans took Latvia from Soviets, not from Latvians, and Soviets retook it from Germans also not Latvians so, atleast for Latvia itself, it was continuous event of Latvia being occupied by foreign powers.

I fail to understand what your problems are. I guess you don't see the soviet occupation as occupation and think the article should be named to: "Free will joining with Soviet Union, Evil Occupation by Nazi Germany and free will rejoining with Soviet Union". Is that the case? Suva 10:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about free will. I said that the country's history over the period of time should be called [[History of Country (Year1 - Year2)]] while articles about the events of occupation are legit as well as the article that explains why the entire period of Soviet control qualifies as occupation. You want a period article? Call it as such. You want an event article? Fine by me. But do not paste separate events together arbitrarily under a tendentious title to make a WP:POINT. I accept both extended history and single event articles. I object to the tendentious approach in POVish selection of both the title and the scope. --Irpen 10:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hetoum I

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result: blocked for 24 hours. Thatcher131 23:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the remedy #2 of the recent arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, the admins can place any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility on revert parole and other limitations, established by the arbcom. Please see [74]

Hetoum I (talk · contribs) was placed by the admin under the remedy #2, which includes revert parole, limiting him to 1 rv per week. [75] This was logged here: [76]

However, on the article House of Hasan-Jalalyan Hetoum I made 2 reverts within 1 week, deleting sourced info: [77] [78] This is clearly a violation of the revert parole Hetoum was placed on. Grandmaster 07:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hetoum I repeated the same violation on Karabakh khanate, making two rvs within 1 day: [79] [80] Grandmaster 07:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another violation on Khurshidbanu Natavan: [81] [82] Grandmaster 07:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will call this report as misleading for the lack of better words

Hetoum is being accused for violating 1RR on House of Hasan-Jalalyan whats misleading about this is that the first revert was on August 28 and Hetoum was warned on August 29, further misleading is that Hetoum was removing irrelevant information added by Grandmaster. Atabek and Grandmaster both reverted once and are now out of revertes for a week. Grandmaster apperantly decided to spam this page.

For Karabakh khanete there is no substantial proof that it was an Azerbaijani khanete and therefore the category was removed.

The other "violation" is on Khurshidbanu Natavan where Hetoum removed this picture and the text that accompanied. The picture was being considered as a source for a lengthy POV section to attack Armenians. Grandmaster reverted Hetoum saying (do not remove sourced info). How is that picture sourcing this info?? So you see Grandmater did nothing but mislead you. VartanM 16:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply a fact that he made his second rv on House of Hasan-Jalalyan after being placed on a parole, therefore it is a violation. The same with other two instances reported here. Regardless of content issues (where Hetoum was making POV edits, btw), he made 2 rvs in less than 1 week. Therefore Hetoum is in violation of his parole. Grandmaster 16:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's obvious vandalism, revert parole is revert parole. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Notification appears to have been sufficient [83] so blocked for 24 hours. Thatcher131 22:53, 3 September 2007 (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:Atabek

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Atabek has been banned from the Armenia-Azerbaijani topic area for 4 days, enforceable by blocks. New reports should be made in a new section. Thatcher131 22:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user is under civility parole under Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case. He repeatedly accused me of being immoral in Khojaly Massacre talkpage --VartanM 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, please, provide the diff, where I said "you're immoral". I said, I have a question about the moral stance of an individual trying to remove the picture of massacred Azeri children from Khojaly Massacre page, while insisting on recognition of Armenian Genocide. What kind of recognition or sympathy can there be to one cause, if it's only insisted upon national lines? Thanks. Atabek 10:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difs are provided below. You repeatedly implied that I have no morals. Just for your information I never tried to remove the said picture, only the link to youtube videos. which were in violation of WP:Youtube. I return you attacked my personality by calling me immoral. --VartanM 16:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, this user has been ratcheting up the rhetoric left and right, trying to get a rise out of ethnic tensions by implying that some of the users are intolerant or racist in their editing and opening up a new front on nationalist grounds on Wikipedia.--Marshal Bagramyan 23:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MarshallBagramyan, perhaps, since you claim your actions are not "intolerant or racist", why this image [84] should be removed, and another Azeri image is being removed by you while this image [85] uploaded by you currently appears on Nagorno-Karabakh War page? Don't you think the dichotomy here is rather driven by nationalist sentiments? Atabek 10:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, HUH? Dare I ask where did you get the "nationalist" view from?... I personally think that all of you need to cool down and then come back to this. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that insertion of victim images from one side of conflict, while persistent edit warring and writing lines of discussions, reports for the purpose of removal of victim images of the other side, is driven by nationalist sentiment? In fact, this sentiment now started attacking Georgian contributors as well - [86].I would love not to waste time on these discussions and provocations, and continue editing articles, but I am not the one who started this thread on AE. Atabek 12:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pocopocopocopoco is not Armenian as far I know. Hes contributions are mostly on Georgian separatist states Osetia and Abkhazia and he happens to edit Nagorono-Karabakh articles once in a while. Atabeks accusations that User:Pocopocopocopoco is driven by nationalist sentiment are nothing more than WP:BITE. And it is true that he was wikistalked to Khojaly massacre by User:Iberieli whom never before edited any Nagorono-Karabakh related article. --VartanM 01:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's actually in violation of number of Principles

1 Negotiation
4 Consensus
5 Wikipedia is not a battleground
7 Courtesy
8 Assume good faith
10 Diplomacy
14 Provocation
17 Users national background and neutrality

He's also in violation of Remedies

1 fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in their interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise.

2 shall apply to any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility.

Its very hard for me to Assume good faith while the user keeps attacking me. VartanM 23:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In discussion at Talk:Khojaly Massacre, User:VartanM is being incivil [87], and wrongfully accusing me of "personal attack" [88]. I believe his attempts to remove externally linked videos, as well as continuous attempts by User:Pocopocopocopoco - [89] to remove the image of Azeri children victims of Khojaly Massacre from the page, and attempts by User:MarshallBagramyan to purge Wikipedia image of Azeri girl from Shusha in traditional dressing at Shusha are assumptions of bad faith and engagement in battle along national lines. Doing so while arguing otherwise on the verifiability of images claimed to be related to Armenian Genocide (which were never touched or questioned), are nothing more than violations of WP:AGF and WP:SOAP. While ArbCom decision has clearly stated the requirements for editing in good faith within the limits of civility, User:VartanM and User:MarshallBagramyan, joined by User:Pocopocopocopoco are engaged only in removing images they don't like from the relevant pages or disruptively attacking contributors.

I would also like to thank User:Thatcher131 for his conclusion [90] on the issue of the image of massacred Azeri children, which should address the questions User:VartanM may have. Thanks. Atabek 11:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about any arbitration but regretfully I have to agree with User:VartanM and User:MarshallBagramyan about user:Atabek's assumption of bad faith, lack of courtesy and diplomacy, as well as his engaging in WP:BITE. I made a good faith edit removing an image that had an extremely questionable source and which Administrator Francis Tyers had himself removed earlier and user:Atabek assumed bad faith and accused me of fueling conflict, insulting Azeris, and engaging in war along national lines [91]. I'm not sure which national lines Atabek is talking about though. - Pocopocopocopoco 03:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek keeps accusing me of being incivil, what he's forgetting to mention is that, I only repeated what he said about himself that his not an expert. Also note the WP:Personal Attack (Implies that I have not moral) and the WP:SOAP(Armenian Genocide pictures). Here he again questions my morals and accuses me of being racist against Azeri. Also he questions the pictures of Armenian Genocide (in the above comment he says that it was never questioned) He further Soapboxes by denying the Armenian Genocide as a genocide. May I also remind you that Atabek went on a genocide denying spree and changed the term genocide to massacre from a dozen of articles [92]. He again calls me Immoral and accuses me of waring along national lines, while all I did was ask him to follow Wikipedia policies. Here he again calls the Armenian Genocide a massacre in early 20th century and claims that the Khojaly Massacre was no different then the Armenian Genocide. Anybody who has a basic knowledge about Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey would know that the two are in no way the same thing. I believe he was trying to provoke me. Keeps telling me to calm down, while I was perfectly calm and didn't answer his provocations to get me angry. In 8 months that I have been a wikipedian,I I am yet to have a conversation with Atabek without being attacked. would like to conclude by thanking Thatcher131 for explaining the WP:External Links to Atabek. VartanM 03:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above users have tried to remove an image from the article about Khojaly massacre, but admin explained that the image shall remain: [93] I must also note that Pocopocopocopoco is being suspected by an admin to be a sock: [94] and he has made highly questionable edits to Khojaly massacre article, where he encountered Atabek. And I don't see any serious personal attacks on part of Atabek on anyone posting evidence here. Grandmaster 05:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said what about the image? Better read it again. Thatcher131 06:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that you said that the image could not be deleted from the article for copyright infringement, as certain users claimed. You recommended to take the issue elsewhere if they believe that copyright has been violated. --Grandmaster 06:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that attempts by User:Pocopocopocopoco, User:VartanM, now with support of User:MarshallBagramyan, to get rid of the image on Khojaly Massacre, which clearly exposes the savagery with which those children were massacred, are nothing other than attempts to start another war which leads straight to ArbCom. They know absolutely well that these actions may cause counter reactions on unverified images on a number of "Armenian Genocide"-related pages, hence starting another war along national lines. Users clearly try to engage in WP:BATTLE and push their WP:POV, other than contributing to the articles in a non-disruptive fashion. And I refuse to be engaged in their provocations. Atabek 10:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALL of you need to take a step back and relax. Arbitrations ended just a few days ago and you guys are at it again. *sighs* - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panwhale, I appreciate you trying to calm everybody down, but its very hard to be calm, when your morals are questioned and implied that you're immoral. It's further frustrating that the administrators are choosing to ignore rather then deal with this. Perhaps its time for Atabek to stop pointing fingers every time he does something wrong and face the consequences of his actions. --VartanM 16:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully Penwhale, I know nothing about any arbitration and I am relaxed. I will drop this matter in it's entirety if user:Atabek and user:Grandmaster stop biting, behave in a civil matter, keep an open mind about reliable sources and neutrality in Khojaly Massacre, and they stop trying to pile on in another case that they know very little about merely because they disagree with me about Khojaly Massacre. I only speak for myself on this issue. Pocopocopocopoco 02:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't miss the chance to WP:SOAP the Administrators Notice board with Armenian Genocide pictures. [95] VartanM 16:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for crying out loud, your edits and comments are provocative in nature and are the crux of why these problems keep rising. "which clearly exposes the savagery with which those children were massacred", VartanM, nor I, are the one here who are resorting to these demagogic and crass accusations. Every single edit that you disagree with is met with a revert and the banal repetitive accusation that we are trying to "cover up the truth."--Marshal Bagramyan 20:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned Atabek here that future uncivil comments (drop a note on my talk page) will result in a one week ban/block. The first comment was before the ArbCom remedy was finalized, so while technically inapplicable, the remedy was clearly coming and won't permit anyone slack in the future.--Chaser - T 19:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC) I forgot something I'd read in the thread after reading a bunch of other things. I have instituted a four-day ban, which I will enforce by block if necessary.--Chaser - T 20:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaser, thanks for taking the time and understanding the situation. I just want to add more evidence on Atabeks disruptions.

Here asks the arbitrators to place everyone involved in the AA2 case on 1RR limitation. Which is a WP:AGF violation, also principal #8 of the AA2.

Here He declares that Yelena Boner is Armenian and removes the information from the article based on that. Violation of principal #2 of the AA2

Here He threatens to wikiretaliate on Armenian Genocide pictures. The rest of his message is violation of the AA2 principals #1, #5, #7, #8, #10, #14, #17 --VartanM 02:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no violation with proposing general revert parole on all Armenia – Azerbaijan related articles. It is not a bad faith assumption, it is good faith attempt to resolve the problems with topic related articles. Me and other users were proposing the same during the first and second arbcom, as users not restricted by parole take advantage of the situation and revert legitimate edits of paroled users without any fear of punishment, which leads to further escalation of the situation. As for Bonner, she is indeed Armenian and cannot be used as a reliable source on NK related articles. This is a content dispute, and removal of this source was justified. As for "wikiretaliation", Atabek never did anything of the kind, he just pointed out that many pictures uploaded by those who tries to delete the image from Khojaly massacre article have similar copyright issues. Grandmaster 06:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster did you suddently became a arbitrator and we didn't know about it? because you answer as if you were one. It is up to the arbitrators to judge whether Atabek violated any of the rules. I'm not saying that you can't defend him, because I intend to defend Hetoum I in just a little bit. As for Yelena Bonner, she is not Armenian, her step-father was. If we are to consider her to be Armenian then Steve Jobs is also Armenian. And for her reliability you need to read the AA2 principals, its #2 on the list. As for wikiretaliation he never did so, but was threating to do it which in itself is a hostile behavior and is very disruptive. VartanM 15:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to get too involved here, but for the record, Atabek has, in the past, threatened Wiki-retaliation also:

"Then we should prepare a collage picture of Adolf Hitler with Swastika and images of Holocaust and post it on all Iran related pages"[96]
"I am working on Pan-Aryan collage meanwhile. Thanks."[97]

The instance VartanM points out is not the first time he has done such a thing. I just thought that this should be mentioned. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 16:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By comparing Armenian Genocide with Khojaly massacre on his userpage is trying to start a war along national lines. I believe thats a violation of his 4 day block. [98] --VartanM 21:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask User:VartanM to provide an explanation proving that my user page incites a conflict? The edit is completely within the rules of WP:USER and does not violate ArbCom decision. Also, User:VartanM has been incivil here, and falsely accused me of "personal attack" here [99]. I expect a non-selective application of ArbCom decisions to all involved editors. Atabek 21:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USER states, under the Inappropriate content section:

There is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense. Wikipedia is not a soapbox is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but remember: don't be a dick about it. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor.

I'm sure that questioning of the Armenian Genocide counts as widespread offense.

Furthermore, Atabek has just come out of his block and has already started making bad faith assumptions regarding other users. Here is an example: [100].Hajji Piruz 21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how anyone was offended on my page, neither do I see any questioning of any genocides in my edit. Can you please, detail your reasoning with reference to particular wording used on the page. Also, would be interesting to know how your response comes within 15 minutes of User:VartanM, while both of you are involved in reverting warring on (Azerbaijan-Iran-Turley-Armenia) topic-related articles, targetting the same user with assumptions of bad faith, and were both ArbCom participants restricted from doing so. Atabek 21:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is a clear violation of "assume good faith" by Atabek. I need not say anything more regarding this issue, I have said everything that I felt needed to be said and will not involve myself here anymore. Hope the administrators comment regarding the above posts soon. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 21:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check the history of edits by User:Hajji Piruz - [101]. They include no other topics than those related to politics, ethnicity or conflicting issues related to Azerbaijan-Armenia-Iran. Also removals of sourced material: [102], [103], assumptions of bad faith [104], and coordinating with User:VartanM to attack another Wikipedia contributor [105]. Thanks. Atabek 22:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I edit Iran-Armenia-Azerbaijan historical, political, and ethnicity articles because those are the fields that I am interested in, doesnt that seem plausible? You continuously fail to assume good faith, and this is the single greatest set back to resolving the issues. You continually make up false and misleading accusations, and you continue with your aggressive editing. You have just recently come out of a block and the first things you do is make several reverts (and then revert your own reverts), make assumptions of bad faith, and attack other users.

What sourced information did I remove? I removed the Safavids from the List of Turkic states and empires because of an agreement reached on List of Iranian states and Empires. And the second diff, on Ethnic minorities in Azerbiaijan, I actually added more information. Contrary to what you may think, telling another user that he cannot put his or her assumption on sourced material is not in violation of WP:AGF in any way shape or form, its simply reminding them that we, as users, are not allowed to put our own interpretations on what scholars say.

What was the point of the arbcom we just had? It was meant to calm down the situation. Now your newest claim is that I am coordinating with VartanM simply because I agreed with him that Adil Baguirovs (User:AdilBaguirov is a blocked Wikipedia user) very own person website should not be used on Wikipedia? Ridiculous accusation and a huge violation of WP:AGF.Hajji Piruz 22:34, 3 September 2007 (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:Skinny McGee

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No case for ArbComm enforcement is presented here. The complaints about the user in the section title either 1) predate the ArbComm case or 2) are not diffs on pages from which he is banned. The complaints about the behavior on other pages need to go through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, where the behavior of all parties will be considered. GRBerry 21:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate, Skinny_McGee is barred from editing any articles related to Midnight Syndicate or Nox Arcana.

Skinny McGee has broken his ban on 3 occasions and exhibits a strong (or at the very least suspicious) bias toward any editor who mentions the name of the former band member, Joseph Vargo, for whom Skinny McGee holds a strong aversion, as indicated in his past when calling the person a "dispicable human being." [106] It was this contempt for his former band member and efforts at self-promotion for his band Midnight Syndicate that resulted in an edit war, and resulted in the ban in the first place. This could be Wikistalking in its infancy steps.

Skinny McGee adding a promotional link [107] to Midnight Syndicate. Skinny McGee was suspected to be a member of that band, which was part of the reason the ban was placed.

Removal of content (twice) from the Nox Arcana's Darklore Manor album[108] and[109]. Skinny McGee was previously found to be biased against Joseph Vargo, who is the frontman for Nox Arcana, and former producer of Midnight Syndicate. Again, this is the reason for the ban above.

Lobbying to Prevent further investigation into references that relate to Midnight Syndicate album credentials [110]

Wrongful allegations by Skinny McGee against User:Ebonyskye about what was posted. Ebonyskye never posted what Skinny McGee accused (he accused Ebonyskye of saying that Midnight Syndicate "copied" someone). Ebonyskye only defined an album that "inspired" Midnight Syndicate.[111]. The part about the band's being "similar" was already in the article posted by another user.[112]

Skinny McGee also complains of an item referring to his band's former producer [113] however, the post is cited and validated. Skinny McGee also complained that this post qualified as reason to block Ebonyskye. The post was not biased in any way, it was also supported and even lengthened by another user later[114] and remains.

Due to the complaints inaccurately reported to admins by Skinny McGee as something they were not, Ebonyskye was indeed blocked for 48 hours. According to User:Thatcher131 who blocked Ebonyskye, "I am reasonably convinced that Skinny McGee is, or is associated with, Edward Douglas."[115] (Edward Douglas being a member of Midnight Syndicate).

Skinny McGee did NOT notify Ebonyskye of his displeasure of the edits that Ebonyskye made and did not report to Ebonyskye's page anything in regard to the request for block, giving Ebonyskye no opportunity to reply.

Thatcher131 has refused to block Skinny McGee and cites a VERY unstable reason for not unblocking Ebonyskye... that being that an IP is "similar" or in the "vicinity" of another older user. That in addition to Skinny McGee's slanted report against Ebonyskye, conspired to cause an uneccessary block of Ebonyskye.

Ebonyskye requested a review of the block, and it was summarily done (within 09 seconds of the request)[116] which means that no "review" was actually done at all. Thatcher131 exhibited some bias in his refusal to consider this mistake.

I request a punitive temporary block of User:Skinny McGee for 1) breaking his ban as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate and 2) causing undo strife and confusion in regard to making false reports. Thanks. Ebonyskye 04:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to interested admins: Be sure to read User_talk:Ebonyskye/Archive1. Thatcher131 04:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the link given by Thatcher131 to point to my archived talk page, as it includes a contents directory to make finding my points easier. Ebonyskye 20:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out about this, a past Check User report about many alias' of Skinny McGee. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Skinny_McGee. I'm not sure what it all means but it seems rather suspicious that he would try to lay blame on me for only one edit when he has all this other stuff going on. Ebonyskye 06:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That report appears to be from before the arbitration case started. Newyorkbrad 02:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter when that report was done. I just think is shows a pattern of suspicious behavior that has gone unpunished in the past, and it just seems to be allowed to continue while no one here has even made an attempt to look into the false claims that Skinny McGee made against me. He/she claims I wrote things that I did not write! He/she links to things that were previously posted that I only tweeked a little bit, to make something more concise or to add a date. That kind of thing. Then he/she gets me blocked because the admins looking at the "report" made by Skinny McGee do not bother to actually investigate the links any further back than my edit. I will not let this go. I really want my name cleared and the actual guilty party punished for editing on articles he was previously banned from, and it seems for good reason. Ebonyskye 00:10, 4 September 2007 (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]