There's a bunch of anonymous IPs who have been engaged in disruptive acitivity for quite some time now. The recent ones are 70.21.139.214 ( talk · contribs), 149.68.31.146 ( talk · contribs) and 69.125.221.82 ( talk · contribs). All 3 have been attacking Azerbaijan related images in wikipedia (check their contribs) and commons: [1] acting as a tag team. The IPs in 149 range appear to be related with banned Azerbaboon ( talk · contribs), see this CU where they are listed: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Azerbaboon. One of the IPs in that range uses the same ethnic slur as used by the banned user: [2] In addition, these IPs might be related with User:Erkusukes, who according to cu on Azerbaboon edits from open proxies and "has a few edits from a business in the same vicinity". The IPs have been reverting the article Caucasian Albania in support of Erkusukes. [3] [4] This coordinated activity deserves investigation, and I filed a CU here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Erkusukes. However, the activity of IPs deserves the attention of the admins right now, as they continue edit warring on various articles and bait users restricted by arbcom parole. Here's the latest revert by anon IP without any discussion on talk, which resulted in removal of a large chunk of information from the article: [5] -- Grandmaster ( talk) 07:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The CU results are available now, please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Erkusukes. Urgent action is required. Grandmaster ( talk) 06:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Please check 85.211.4.163 ( talk · contribs), another sock IP gaming the system. It made 2 rvs without any explanation. Grandmaster ( talk) 12:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Another one: 85.211.2.204 ( talk · contribs). He follows me and reverts my edits. Grandmaster ( talk) 20:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Lokyz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject since mid-December to a general civility "don't create a battleground" sanction ( the "Digwuren sanction"). The user has been rather inactive till mid-March, when he became more active and since than he has posted many inflammatory posts. Having recently posted accusations of "antisemitism, polnish revanshism, making idiot of people" and most recently of "justifying of mass murder of civilian people (including children)" - which I believe qualify as being "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith" - I think it is high time that the above sanction is enforced and civility restored to related discussions. Please see below for the list of offensive diffs. PS. Please consider whether one diff from March 13 may need to be erased via oversight per WP:LIVING. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Note: Piotrus maintains a black book on multiple contributors off-line, something he refused to stop when asked as late as a week ago. The cherry-picked collection of best hits over extended time may make anyone look devilish or saint. The aim of this meticulous record-keeping followed by unloading to AE is to "win" content arguments through achieving the sanctions of the opposite side. This was done before at PAIN, RFI and CSN before they were shut down (to Piotrus' protestations) by a wide community consensus. Now this board is being turned into the Wikpedia:Block my opponent just as the ones above were.
Also a disclosure that may matter. As far as I am aware, Piotrus, unhappy with the lack of quick action was seeking for a friendly closure at #admins today. Hope this helps. I hope this will not end up by rewarding the side in the argument that is simply more devious. -- Irpen 21:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
More coming. -- Irpen 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I've blocked Lokyz for 24 hours, as his language as expressed in the diffs above does seem quite inflammatory and attacking, against the restrictions from the ArbCom case. krimpet ✽ 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Irpen's analysis show that many diffs indicated by Piotrus are quite good (like removing a Holocaust denier used as a reliable source). If anything their mentioning by Piotrus in the blocking context warrants a warning by an uninvolved admin to Piotrus for assumption of the bad faith. Other diffs are less than ideal but still relatively mild. If we assume to uniformly apply those requirements we might find 3/4 of the editors involved into Eastern European topics to be banned. Myself and Piotrus will be certainly included. Do we need it? Alex Bakharev ( talk) 03:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
User:67.167.55.3 has repeatedly vandalized Albanians in Serbia [10], [11], [12]. I could just let him succumb to AIV, but I thought he should be blocked longer than he would from AIV because of his defiance of the ArbCom. (case here) J.delanoy gabs adds 19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I would like to inform Administrators and the Arbitration Commity that User:Elonka has been abusing the Arbcom ruling against me, to try to have me blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia [13]. Most recently, Elonka pushed for a one-week block against me, based on a compilation of false statements and claims against me, which was implemented through a 60-hour block by an unsuspecting Administrator ( User:AGK), later abandoned for a "20 hours time served" in the face of a numerous opposition here. As User:Abd summarizes, Elonka has been "exaggerating the ArbComm decision regarding PHG as if it were a weapon rather than an attempt to cool things down." [14]
Although I dispute the Arbcom ruling against me, I have stated repeatedly that I intend to follow it, out of respect for Wikipedia.
I hereby wish to document the facts of this harassment, as well as the numerous complaints by other others that this generated. I would like to ask Administrators and the Arbitration Commity to protect me from such abuse, and warn Elonka against repeating such actions, and restrict her from harassing me in such a manner.
Numerous users have already complained of such abuse. As explained by User:Abd, she is using the ruling "as a weapon" against me [15]:
Elonka has been claiming blocks based on a compilation of false statements and undue stretching of my restriction perimeter:
This statement is false: there was never "clearly a section on Medieval History" in the article in question ( France-Japan relations (19th century)). The article actually started with a reference to the second half of the 16th century, which is certainly not part of the Medieval period, and therefore outside of the Arbcom ruling.
However, my subpages are certainly not targeted by the Arbcom restrictions, which only concern articles: I am totally free to create User subpages, even ones that would deal with ancient history or Medieval material. Actually this is important, since I intend to use this material when my restrictions are lifted.
Elonka typically mounts extremely well-constructed accusations against a specific user. She typically provides hundred of diffs that give her cases a look of trustworthyness, and in effect swamps other users or reviewers of the case. When scrutinized however, individual accusations usually are not decisive at all, and either consist in misrepresentation, deformations or exagerations.
As clearly shown in the case above, Elonka typically makes false statements, misrepresents the reality of Arbcom sanctions, harasses users who are subjected to Arbcom restrictions, in order to push for ever-increasing blocks and obtain total banishment from Wikipedia. She uses such inadequate case-building to push for the harshest penalties. In her own words: "it is my opinion that he [PHG] needs to be permanently blocked" [32], "It is reasonable to give everyone a free pass for their first (and maybe second) block. But we should follow a three-strike rule. Three problems, and still no indication that the editor is going to do better, then they should just be "out"." [33].
I request a fair treatment from the Administrators and the Arbitration Commity through an honest implementation of my Arbcom restrictions, and protection from users who try to bend the rules to do me harm. Specially, I request that Elonka be warned against harassing me or misrepresenting my contributions. Regards to all. PHG ( talk) 08:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The title says it all. Just two days after his one-week topic-ban expired, Jaakobou promptly initiated at least two edit wars:
Furthermore, his crusade to excise the term Palestine from Wikipedia continues (and again here).
What bothers me here is not the substance of the disputes (in which I am involved) but the tone of the discussions ( here, here and here on another recent issue, no edit-war though, since I'm following WP:BRD).
User:Jaakobou does not follow WP:BRD, forces his preferred version during ongoing discussions, assumes bad faith and is borderline uncivil. This is not the editing style I would expect from someone who is under close supervision in a controversial area of Wikipedia. His previous topic-ban has taught him nothing.
As for what is to be done, I am at a loss. I leave it up to responsible admins to deal with.
Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 28.03.2008 07:52
I actually believe Pedro and Nickhh should be sanctioned for tag-teaming to include BLP, and for purposefull waste of time - following me around into a number of articles and making WP:POINT reverts. However, I don't have time or special need to file anything more. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 08:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Nickhh,
I disagree with your recent revert
[36]. The text was mucked up with misuse of sources and needed an NPOV rephrase.
Source 1:
independent.co.uk
Source 2: haaretz.com
Source 3: Reuters
I'd appreciate an explanation on why you believe that despite your revert reinserting these misrepresentation of sources, that it was the correct move. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 22:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Atabek has been edit warring, gaming the system, refusing to read what others are writing, engaging in OR, POV pushing, attempting to turn wikipedia into battleground, misquoting and misrepresenting sources on several indirectly Armenian related articles for quite some time now, since February 14 he engaged on King Agbar and several articles relating to him to continue the POV pushing in accordance to the fringe claims of Azerbaijan International on which Church of Kish article was based on. And one of Adil Baguirov's battles, (see Adil's letter here)
Please note Atabeks statement here: [41] He states: So, misinterpretations of historical scale like 1) "Armenian genocide" is the first genocide of 20th century - ERR, NOT TRUE - see Herero and Namaqua Genocide, 2) Armenia was the first Christan state (as if that's supposed to mean anything or have influence on Western public opinion) - ERR, NOT TRUE - see Osroene/ Edessa, Mesopotamia,
He has gone further by doing the same on Agbar IX entry [53]. That edit was a deliberate falsification as prior Agbar V edit here shows that he knew the origin of the claim is based on a legend.
All this is based on few misquoted and misrepresented sources. Two sources from 1905 and 1913, an uncritical non-history book on "Hagiography of Saints" which is supported to contain legends. He then quotes a google book from 1840 about Armenia and Christianity which he misinterprets, as it was already explained to him that the conversion of the Armenian king was not the legend but rather the healing by Gregory(the source he used speaks of Gregory, and Atabek also ignored a prior explanation refusing to read) The latest one he found to misquote is called "China in World History"! Finally, a book from 2000, which he again misquoted. It actually states as it was explained to him: "But Abgar the great is remembered not so much for his lavishness or even his ambitious building program, as for his reputed conversion to Christianity in about 200. If true, this makes his kingdom the world's first Christian state". [54]
Even though the author is not sure if it is true, Atabek adds it as a fact! Finally I would note that Atabek's behavior violates the Arbcom junction that Wikipedia is not a nationalist battle ground. Yet Atabek's statements speak otherwise. For example: [55]
I will just quote a few of them: "MarshallBagramyan, there are many edits with Armenian POV pushing on a number of topics that I disagree with." "Not sure why you're jumping right at reverting the fact that Osroene was first Christian state apart from anything else, just pushing Armenian POV on irrelevant topic page." "Tigran showing 25 sources with POV based on Armenian sources does not disprove another 25 sources presented from neutral sources citing Osroene as a first Christian kingdom." (Actually none of the sources provided were Armenian, and they were not presented by Tigran but Fedayee)
"I still fail to see why Tigran is pushing Armenian POV, when Abgar had nothing to do with Armenia." (note here, that Osroene had been a vassal of Armenia prior and had something to do with Armenia, Atabek has actually attempted to remove any mention of Armenia from the articles lead.)
"So it's incomprehensible as to why Armenian contributors are getting so zealous over the subject very remotely related to their history, on Osroene page?" (IMPORTAN NOTICE: Atabek claims that he innocently attempted to add information unrelated to Armenia which Armenian contributors attempted to remove. Atabek's action is actually a continuation of what went on the Church of Kish. The claim on Osroene is one of Adil Baguirov's real life battles. As you'll note on his letter here and here.
"And frankly, it's still comic as to how Armenian contributors are fighting basic material from sources on this page, essentially portraying attempts to purge out historical information for purely modern nationalist interests" "Conversely, if the Armenia article does say so based on some references, then I don't see why Osroene article should be purged out of similar references by Armenian nationalist POV."
To not have to deal with his restrictions, Atabek has also several times gamed the system by reverting just a week after his edits. See here for exemple: ( [56] and [57], notice the 7 day interval), I am just wondering how many arbcom junctions Atabek has violated. After two Arbcoms and multiple blocks, he still believes and acts as if Wikipedia is a battle ground. VartanM ( talk) 19:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
No, I disagree. Atabek has been disruptive, upon a review of the evidence. This is highly tendentious editing - typical nationalist-battleground stuff. I've had other complaints concerning his conduct on this little set of articles as well. Therefore, I have applied a topic-ban - details here. Moreschi ( talk) 20:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
ScienceApologist ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a civility parole per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist_restricted. ScienceApologist recently made two edits [58] [59] in violation of that restriction, after being blocked on many occasions for prior violations. I therefore request that ScienceApologist be blocked for an adequate period of time, consistent with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Enforcement_by_block. John254 19:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I think what may be going on here is that User:Ryan Postlethwaite is not familiar with American colloquialisms. I suppose if you had never heard the phrase "put up or shut up" before you might think that it was rude. After all, "shut up" in many households is considered inappropriate speech. I use the phrase all the time in polite company. If I am curt or rude, I apologize. I will rephrase the offending remarks. It would be wonderful if people would just tell me when they are offended so I can fix the remarks rather than running off here each time. ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I would also like for a neutral party to read the current discussion at Talk:Eric Lerner and explain to me how to interpret the situation in some way so that User:John254 can be extended as much good faith as possible. Right now, as I read it, he just seems to want to include material that he hasn't personally read for reasons that seem to me to be entirely vindictive. This report itself strikes me as very tendentious. Why is he harboring a vendetta against me? Can someone contact him and ask him? Thanks. ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Landon1980 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been refusing to read what I have written and keeps wanting to edit a single item without use of WP:Common. He refuses to go along with the compromise made in the article already. The article's compromise was made and he made edits afterwords to the band's genre. He also threatened me by saying he was going to report me, which I do not mind if someone reports me, but the fact that he threatened with it was just uncivil. Also, he may be a sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer of User:TheRedPenOfDoom (also unregistered), as they are editing the same article. here is a link of the fued: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Family_Force_5#Regarding_Genres and a link of his actions on my discussion page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IronCrow#Landon I tried being civil and telling him to avoid too strict of an interpretation of policy (he completely disregards WP: Common sense and dissagrees with the sources already established, so he removes them), but he just doesn't listen. Please help out, I would like tog et this situation fixed so I can continue editing the article in conflict without having to to face his POV of the atricle. he is technically "gaming the system." He neglects to edit anything except the band's genre. I asked for a third party, and none has yet joined except the suspected sockpuppet (they have the same style). He constantly states relibable sources are "unreliable." Here's a link of the final edit before he arrived: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Family_Force_5&diff=202557094&oldid=202452018 and here's the one after the warring began: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Family_Force_5&diff=202575062&oldid=202574974
Thank you in advance. IronCrow ( talk) 21:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
He accuses me of vandalism by reverting my recent edits (which were no reverts) with comments like "rvv" and the like, e.g.
or as "nonsense"
or as revert of "POV"
Tulkolathen reinstates ( invalid category removal) two Czech categories for an 19th Century person explicitly described as Austrian in the only reference given [61], thus exposing his Czech nationalist POV - or at least anti-Matthead POV. As collateral damage in his revert spree against me, he also reintroduced an inexplicable "Czech composer" category for a Slovene, again with his trademark rvv.
Regarding the German noble laureate Peter Grünberg, it was also Tulkolathen who introduced an totally unsourced statement (which since showed up in Wiki mirrors) into the article. And it was also Tulkolathen who removed the fact that Grünberg's father died in Czech imprisonment and was in buried in a Czech mass grave [62].
I'm tired of having my work blindly negated by a stalker who e.g. shows up at articles soon after I have created them [63]. Please include him at least in the list of editors placed under editing restriction, too. Thanks in advance! -- Matthead Discuß 20:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: I reverted these changes [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72] as far as I see in Matthead's edits a complex form of vandalism where he tries to find a plenty of Czech (or Bohemian) people and institutions and at least deletes mentions about them being bohemians. Like for example here [73]. He behaves similarly in the articles about Poles, he was warned by the administrator Ioeth for his disruptive behavior [74]. The revert [75], he worked in Bohemia and Moravia also and thus that category is perfectly valid, the reason I reverted it was your addition of Holy Roman Empire, why? Administrator Antandrus agreed that mentioning Holy Roman Empire is redundant and a base for claims he was Austrian (another Matthead's attempt) ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: My addition to Peter Grunberg is sourced (info.plzen-city.cz/attach/1002670080314124444.doc):
Nejrozšířenější (seriózní) německé noviny, deník Süddeutsche Zeitung, označují Petera Grünberga za „rodilého Čecha“. K tomuto závěru je zřejmě přivedl fakt, že fyzikův otec, dipl. ing. Fjodor Grinberg, původně carský důstojník a uprchlík před bolševiky, získal v roce 1936 československé občanství. V roce 1940 se však přihlásil k německé národnosti (jeho druhá manželka Anna Petrmannová patřila k sudetoněmecké menšině) a získal občanství říšské. Tehdy si také změnil příjmení.
Translation:
German newspapers, Suddeutsche Zeitung, marks PEter Grunberg as born Czech, but they were lead to this statement probably by the fact, that physics father Fjodor Grinberd, originally russian officer and refugee from the bolcheviks, gained in 1936 Czechoslovakian citizenship. In 1940 he became German (his second wife Anna Petrmann came to Sudeten Germans) and gained German citizenship. He also changed his surname.
Any member of the WikiProject Czech Republic can confirm this source and provide verification or better translation. ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 21:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I'd like to confirm Tulkolahten's translation, this is really complex! I think that most of his edits were in fact justified but Tulkolahten should refrain from calling the edits vandalism or nonsense. Even if they were deliberate bad faith edits, they shouldn't be called vandalism unless they are blatantly obvious. The source does in fact identify this individual as Czech-born and I would call it a reliable source, but the tone of the paragraph also suggests that he wasn't officially Czech, but Czech born should be enough for the Czech related categories to stay in the article. The Dominator ( talk) 21:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I did not bother to compile a list with wrong-doings (other apparently do so), but a quick look in the history of User talk:Tulkolahten shows rv personal attack, a summary with which Tulkolahten removed a comment with many diffs from his talk page, critizing his edit summary habits. -- Matthead Discuß 22:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I also think neither of you are editing in bad faith; you are, however, edit-warring, and have gotten angry at each other. I answered at greater length on my talk page. Compromise here is not only possible, it is desirable, and seems to be within reach. Antandrus (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
As I have noted above, Matthead has been put on general sanction w/ regard to EE topics, please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. This should be considered. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Classic content dispute, no issue here. Also I don't know why this complaint was posted on arbitration enforcement noticeboard. - Darwinek ( talk) 08:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
And yes Matthead, you called Darwinek explicitly a commie here [80], you mention there he was born probably in the communist country and it implies, from the context, that his opinion is less accurate probably lowered by the communist propaganda ? And here [81] you use his parole to get down his arguments and invalidate his arguments in the following discussion. ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 08:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC) User Matthead obviously has breached civility and acts in inproper way, Tulkolahten edits seem very productive and enrich Wikipedia, he sometimes comments in normal language rather then encyclopedic, but I think seeing Matthead actions that Tulkolahten occassional lack of encyclopedic style can be understood.-- Molobo ( talk) 11:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
So I am not unwilling to accept consequences but what I expected is a fair acting, now I feel punished for nothing. ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 01:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I apologize for not being fully aware of the best way to show that I have offered to not only watch for possible incivilities but also provided the article's own archives as evidence of my actions. The entire thread above was in reference to Durova's stated concern about WP:COPYRIGHT problems yet they even concede that the material should be sourced to the original publisher rather than Youtube which I readily agree with, again. I also wonder why this route was taken rather than just working with other editors to fix the issue, instead of fixing the reference Durova told me to shop the idea at Reliable Sources Board which I think is inappropriate, if they knew the original sources should have been utilized then they could work with others to fix the problem. I don't believe the topic ban has been given fair consideration and being extremely new to this venue would like some uninvolved admins to consider offering opinions and advice as I feel Durova may have a COI being not only involved with the military project but also mentoring Sanchez is some fashion. Durova's offer to filter my insights on the article are interesting at best and I think it's fair to say would effectively silence my involvement altogether as I now feel little good would come of engaging that talk page, at least for a while. I fully support wikipedia's policies and have stated that above. I also don't appreciate the assertion that I want to compromise on article quality either. As for the anon IP vandal, the timing is interesting but is also simply par from the course with Sanchez and I'm well used to these attacks and the anon IP's contributions seemed to match that of Sanchez or a meatpuppet of some sort, sometimes we only have a gut feeling, i can't help that this anon feels to me exactly like a Sanchez sock of some sort, regardless of where the IP is located. I've asked nicely for that to be added to the Log of blocks and bans. Benji boi 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Benjiboi, the copyright issue was separate from the reliable sources issue and concerned different citations. Maybe you got confused because Eleemosynary insisted on copy/pasting an unrelated discussion into the thread about copyright. Either way, if you don't want to work with me you're welcome to use the option JzG provided. And as several people have discovered (including Matt Sanchez), when I support a ban it's a policy matter with no prejudice toward the individual. I've given barnstars to people who were banned. So go ahead and use the noticeboard instead. All I intended to do was give you another option where your concerns could get swifter attention than a low traffic board, and firsthand interaction would ensure that if the concerns that led to the page ban stopped being an issue I'd be on the ball about getting that restriction lifted as swiftly as possible. I juggle a lot of things and the Matt Sanchez article isn't a top priority. The door remains open if you choose to suppose I can be taken at face value. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 22:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
(outdent) I agree that Sanchez's editor preferences are immaterial. Anyone who acts as a neutral Wikipedian is welcome there as far as I'm concerned whether their tastes are for men, women, or barnyard animals. ;) Seriously, I did not inform Matt Sanchez about the AE thread until after Benjiboi articulated suspicions that the trolling might have originated with Matt. Durova Charge! 23:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Would someone close this subthread please? The parent thread has been closed for so long that it's gond into archive. Durova Charge! 03:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Note: I have re-opened this per instructions as I am convinced this ban should be lifted as nicely requested several times. I have asked for instructions on what steps to take to solicit an arbitrator in hopes to avoid taking this to Arbcom as well as asking for assistance if there is some other venue I should seek support from. Banje boi 13:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
People are using Jeff Merkey's article to push external agendas, in defiance of WP:BLP. Jeff is, on the othe rhand, banned, and he knows it. But single-purpose accounts do not actually help either situation. Guy ( Help!) 00:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Jeff has been editing again using the IP addresses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.70.238.45 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.70.238.44 (and possibly others) He appears to have the netblock: 166.70.238.40/29. This is a violation of his 1-year ban from July 2007. A traceroute to these IP addresses ends with: 19 jmerkey.fttp.xmission.com (166.70.235.16) 3035.655 ms !H 3028.875 ms !H *
This edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-03-13/Scandal_fallout_continues&diff=prev&oldid=198077758 is particulary telling, since he appears to be attempting to delete the evidence of his own ban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Nemo III ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Big legal threat here. Lawrence § t/ e 19:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I was about to reset his ban timer, but Coren beat me to it. Looking at that legal threat, I'm of the mind that we ought to ramp this puppy to indef. Anyone else agree? Blueboy 96 20:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
More Legal Threats == Indefinite ban.
I would like to bring this to your attention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey&oldid=148077649#Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey_placed_on_legal_threat_parole
Quoting from the final decision regarding JVM:
2.1) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is placed on permanent legal threat parole. Any uninvolved administrator may indefinitely block him if he makes any statement that can be reasonably construed as a direct or indirect legal threat.
Passed 9 to 0, 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It's time to take the action that was envisaged by the last arbitration. Captain Nemo III ( talk) 23:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
By the letter of WP:BAN, all of the edits made by banned user Merkey under his recent account should be deleted. Before someone starts on that task, whether merely intending to enforce policy or from a desire to harass Merkey, it would be helpful if it could be determined if the policy actually applies. Even though the policy specifically states that the worth of the edits should not be considered, a cursory look at these edits seems to indicate that most were worthwhile additions. It should be noted, however, that Merkey has claimed (on deleted User talk:Waya sahoni) to have deliberately introduced copyright violations into articles in order to discredit Wikipedia. Limited excerpts from his source are available to help review at least a few of his edits. Because of my history of past interactions with Merkey, I will of course take no action. -- MediaMangler ( talk) 01:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings, Privatemusings ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is subject to an enduring restriction prohibiting him from editing any article which is substantially a biography of a living individual.
The restriction makes no exceptions for reversion of vandalism. Guy ( Help!) 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Anti-in popular culture/anti-trivia accounts Dannycali, Burntsauce, and Eyrian were banned in the Alkivar and subsequent Eyrian arbitration cases. Those familiar with those cases should look at these contribs. Notice, the editor under question has an incrediblye large gap in edits:
He also expresses an opinion strikingly similar to the banned socks associated with the above mentioned cases and seems to be picking up today where the banned accounts left off. More specifically, his main contributions for today focuses on starting and participating in a new AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical elements in popular culture (second nomination)) for the same article previously nominated by banned account Eyrian ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical elements in popular culture). And the use of death as a metaphor for what should happen to these kinds of articles is also consistent with what we have seen in previous AfDs associated with the now banned accounts. Nevertheless, to be fair, based on this edit, I could be wrong (Eyrian was almost never nice to me), so I'll leave it to someone else's judgment. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 02:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
User:Karabinier had already been notified about WP:ARBMAC (repeatedly) [102] [103], yet chose to ignore these polite reminders and proceeded to engage in an edit war with four other users and on mulitple occasions on the Alexander the Great article. [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110]. Further he
His behaviour runs the danger of reigniting the tendentious and time wasting debates engendered by this matter before consensus was finally arrived at. The article had been stable for over a year before User:Karabinier showed up. Finally User:Karabinier has also been reverting consensus on other Macedonia related articles, like Republic of Macedonia. Thanks. Xenovatis ( talk) 13:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
ScienceApologist ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under a restriction against assumptions of bad faith which he appears to have violated with this edit. Dlabtot ( talk) 16:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It's also worth noting that SA is exactly right about Childhoodsend - he (Childhoodsend) is a reprobate POV pusher who does, in fact, push an anti-science agenda in one article after another. Raul654 ( talk) 16:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I have also had very difficult and unreasonable irrational interactions with Dlabtot. I think that until we start sanctioning people for bringing these egregious spurious complaints, they will continue and get worse. We will live more and more in a state of terror by those who want to use political correctness and wikilawyering as a weapon. Sanction Dlabtot if anyone for this.-- Filll ( talk) 16:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Anti-in popular culture/anti-trivia accounts Dannycali, Burntsauce, and Eyrian were banned in the Alkivar and subsequent Eyrian arbitration cases. Those familiar with those cases should look at these contribs. Notice, the editor under question has an incrediblye large gap in edits:
He also expresses an opinion strikingly similar to the banned socks associated with the above mentioned cases and seems to be picking up today where the banned accounts left off. More specifically, his main contributions for today focuses on starting and participating in a new AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical elements in popular culture (second nomination)) for the same article previously nominated by banned account Eyrian ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical elements in popular culture). And the use of death as a metaphor for what should happen to these kinds of articles is also consistent with what we have seen in previous AfDs associated with the now banned accounts. Nevertheless, to be fair, based on this edit, I could be wrong (Eyrian was almost never nice to me), so I'll leave it to someone else's judgment. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 02:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Closing admin statement: I've spent 2-3 hours looking into this today to resolve it somehow. There are at least Jehochman, Durova, Akhilleus, Rocksanddirt, Coren, and Nsk92 calling for mentorship of PHG. This seems to represent the consensus on this issue. There are many users concerned about PHG's use of unverfied sources, two of whom are
User:Aramgar and
User:Kafka Liz--the unsourced and inaccurate info postings seem to still be ongoing, and there are others. Other areas of major concern are derogatory comments about other users (though he did strike one after it was brought up), towit the
"midwest christian" and on this page "females from the US Midwest", which offended the mentioned users (see PHG's 01:07 7 Apr posting). There also seems to sourcing and accuracy issues ongoing with PHG in
Louis XIV of France,
Talk:Christian_Polak#Phillipe_Pons_and_Le_Monde:_Needs_to_be_Verified,
Talk:Christian_Polak#Latest_edits,
Talk:France-Japan_relations_(19th_century). As for the AFD issue, PHG inserted questionalbe material into the article during the AFD. Through all this PHG has shown a consistent pattern with little or no change with multiple respected editors showing significant concern who are about at the end of their patience. In short,
User:PHG has almost exhausted the patience of the community. I think Akhilleus summed much of this up quite well in his
15:41 06 Apr post. In essence, PHG's editing behavior is causing undue disruption. Unfortunately, PHG has shown no willingness to change nor does he seem willing to accept a mentor. There is enough concern that at
Wikipedia:RCAM it appears his restrictions will be tightened. I feel I have no choice but to block him for the maximum allowed by his arb restrictions, 1 week, and strongly encourage him to accept a mentor. —
Rlevse •
Talk • 01:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
PHG ( talk · contribs) appears to be making unverifiable claims about an individual winning the Légion d'honneur. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak#Convenience break 2. PHG claimed that they won the honor in 1989, but there is no evidence at Catégorie:Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur , nor at List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name, nor via Google search, including book search. It appears that the messages from the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance have not been taken to heart. I think PHG immediately needs to cease editing until a mentor is found to check for compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:V. Thoughts? Jehochman Talk 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
On hold. Keep in Un-Resolved section, for now.
Since it was initiated, the AfD should be allowed to take its course without the discussion, and energies of the participants, being fragmented. Report may be reopened based on the result.
El_C 21:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replyOn hold. Keep in Un-Resolved section, for now.
Since it was initiated, the AfD should be allowed to take its course without the discussion, and energies of the participants, being fragmented. Report may be reopened based on the result.
El_C 21:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Can I ask what on earth the AfD has to do with whether or not this incident warrants a block? This isn't about someone's behavior in one AfD, this is about a contributor who habitually misrepresents or outright falsifies sources -- that he happened to do so again on an article that is up for AfD is completely beside the point. Shell babelfish 01:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It comes across as too eager for immediate censure. All of you should have just let me place this report on hold. Allow the AfD to close (any day now — I would have done it myself and had time to look at it had it not been for these distractions), then, if the citation methodology was shown to still be problematic (which it may well be), we could have made arrangements for mentorship or whatever. But this seeming concerted must-be-censured right-now mentality is not what we want to turn Arbitration Enforcement into. There's no rush. El_C 01:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Would several other uninvolved editors please weigh in on what we should do about this situation. We do not have a consensus yet. Jehochman Talk 04:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your kind support on this during the time I was peacefully sleeping in Paris. I do read and write Japanese quite fluently (I spent quite a few years there), and I basically never use a translation tool such as Google for Japanese. Unfortunately, I am not an expert of the Japanese names for French medals though. When I saw the information about Polak's medals on the Japanese website, I did think that 国家功労賞 was Japanese for "Legion d'honneur". I asked a Japanese national (who speaks fluent French), who could not give me the French name for 国家功労賞 either. The Japanese site used for the source is an online publishing house [131], which I thought should be fair enough as a (first) source. A few hours later and some Googling, I realized 国家功労賞 was Ordre National du Merite (mainly because I couldn't find other mentions of Polak's Legion d'Honneur as well). So, I was wrong with the denomination of the medal, and when I realized that I corrected it right away ("Ahhh, 国家功労賞 seems to be Ordre national du Mérite. シュバリエ is Chevalier (the first rank), オフィシエ is Officier (Officer, the second rank). Would somebody have access to the list of recipients of the Ordre national du Mérite? PHG (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)" [132]). By the way, the Japanese site was not so bad, as it was confirmed by French official sites [133]. Sorry for the mistake, but sometimes Japanese/French/English translations can be tricky, although I think I would rank as quite good at it. Best regards to all. PHG ( talk) 13:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
(unindent) PHG's misrepresentation of the Japanese language website is all too typical of the problems with his use of sources. He is long past the the point where he can afford to pass off the deficiencies of his research as simple mistakes. He has never shown any understanding of the issues which led to the Arbcom censure and as a result his problematic behavior continues. His most recent activities constitute a clear violation of Remedy #2. He has abused our good faith for too long. Aramgar ( talk) 17:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I think the following remark [136] by PHG reveals his agenda:
... Christians might resent material showing exchanges, agreements and goodwill between the Popes and the Mongols for example, although it is historical reality. The people whom I have encountered (and who attacked me relentlessly at Arbcom) and who have always tried to play down these relations, remove original letters etc... typically seem to be from "heartland America" (Christian Midwest).
— User:PHG
PHG was reminded of the need to collaborate with other editors at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#PHG reminded: collaborative consensus. Baiting with ethnic/religious provocation is not collaborative; in fact, it is quite disruptive. Jehochman Talk 13:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
(unindent) PHG's comments about Midwestern Christians are reminiscent of the delusional ravings of Geir Smith and Dr Boubouleix. Need we state again that many editors had concerns about his Franco-Mongol alliance because he misrepresented sources to advance a novel interpretation of history. The suggestion that he is the victim of some sort of religious prejudice is absurd. It is a breach of civility, no matter where it was written, and constitutes a personal attack on User:Elonka (and perhaps User:Ealdgyth also). How much longer will the Wikipedia community allow a single disruptive user to waste our time? Aramgar ( talk) 17:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The above comment of PHG placed was originally left at my Talk page, so isn't it a courtesy for anyone to let me know of this? I feel obliged to comply with this endless accusation on PHG because every time I say something to PHG, he gets some unfair punishment or blame. ( Legion d'honneur, image warnings, so-called religious "agenda")
Well, I highly recommend PHG to use E-mail if he wants to chat casually with somebody. That is not an ethnic and religious provocation or agenda or whatever. It is simply chatting. I think someone may accuse me of suddenly jumping into this matter, but I'm primarily a Korean Wikipedian who has translated over 300 articles (mostly about Western culture and history) into Korean and Commons editor, so I've acknowledge PHG for his accomplished contribution on Commons, especially his photography related to Asian art and history in which I am getting very interested.
In my short response, I told him about Korean Wikipedia's situation briefly but he caught a hidden meaning well. The Wikipedia has barely over 50,000 articles, but holds considerable amount of articles related to Crusader and Christianity. The number of articles is double of Chinese Wikipedia and almost similar to Japanese Wikipedia (170,000 articles and 450,000 articles in total respectively) That means when I translate those kind of articles, I should be very careful not to exhaust myself to deal with some editors, honestly to say, who don't get respect by the community. Even though I'm a Christian, I do think that anything violating WP:UNDUE to look the religion or people unnecessarily glorified should be out of the Wikipedia. Anyway, I don't know what ethnicity PHG or other editors have, but I don't think PHG explicitly implied Elonoka. Before PHG created Franco-Mongol alliance, did he ever get blocked for any disruption? No, but the article is strongly associated with religion, so he may think as such. That is not a derogatory slur or anything. This unfair accusation is an attempt to block him permernantly which is really beyond good faith. I am also very disturbed by Elonaka's attempt to accuse PHG's photography of violating the image policy. [138] [ [139]] I checked his earing image and one presented by her with Photoshop software, but that is really his picture. I think Elonka's activities against PGH is really disruptive and makes her unwarranted more.-- Appletrees ( talk) 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Ahem. I objected, but he never responded. Although I didn't suppose when it happened that it was particularly aimed, this current thread does lead me to wonder. It isn't all that hard to find out that I went to graduate school at the Cinema-Television division of the University of Southern California. Was PHG calling a group of editors bigots collectively, or was that coded language directed at me in particular? Either way, an apology is six weeks overdue. Durova Charge! 01:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I strongly recommend that PHG ( talk · contribs) be prevented from editing until such time that a mentor can be found to guide and oversee his edits. Because of El_C's unexplainable decision to unblock him previously, I am not in a position to enforce this without descending into wheel-warring. — Coren (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree with Coren that PHG has exhausted the communities patience regarding his use of sources and uncollegial communication with other editors. In my mind, PHG is one step from a complete article space ban, and two from full site ban. While I understand ElC's position, I disagree also. PHG as lost whatever good faith an editor normally gets. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 20:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree with Coren that PHG needs mandatory mentorship. I participated in the Christian Polak AfD until the Légion d'Honneur blow-up, after which the AfD discussion degenerated into a contentious battle. I think that PHG's edit adding the Légion d'Honneur info with a reference to a Japanese source, without providing a translation, was, at best, very reckless and imprudent. WP:V contains a section dealing specifically with non-English sources, WP:RSUE, and its requirements were not followed here. It is not enough for PHG to dismiss this episode as a "translation mistake". PHG may be fluent in Japanese but most of the rest of us are not. That is why the WP:RSUE section of WP:V exists and requires that: "Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." WP:RSUE is meant to prevent exactly the kinds of mistakes PHG made here from leading to erroneous info being included in Wikipedia. I have read through the above discussion as well as through the original AfD thread. I personally do not believe that PHG intended to deceive when he introduced the Légion d'Honneur info and reference. But it is clear to me that PHG does not sufficiently appreciate the requirements of WP:V and does not understand the need to critically and carefully examine sources, especially when they support his point of view, before citing them in Wikipedia. I think he gets over-enthusiastic when he finds some source that supports or appears to support his position, then rushes to include this info on WP (thinking, OK, now will they finally see my point?) and often ends up overstating his case in the process. This is exactly the kind of attitude that requires mentorship, and, given PHG's history and his lack of acknowledgement of his past and current problems, this mentorship needs to be mandatory. Nsk92 ( talk) 14:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There's a bunch of anonymous IPs who have been engaged in disruptive acitivity for quite some time now. The recent ones are 70.21.139.214 ( talk · contribs), 149.68.31.146 ( talk · contribs) and 69.125.221.82 ( talk · contribs). All 3 have been attacking Azerbaijan related images in wikipedia (check their contribs) and commons: [1] acting as a tag team. The IPs in 149 range appear to be related with banned Azerbaboon ( talk · contribs), see this CU where they are listed: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Azerbaboon. One of the IPs in that range uses the same ethnic slur as used by the banned user: [2] In addition, these IPs might be related with User:Erkusukes, who according to cu on Azerbaboon edits from open proxies and "has a few edits from a business in the same vicinity". The IPs have been reverting the article Caucasian Albania in support of Erkusukes. [3] [4] This coordinated activity deserves investigation, and I filed a CU here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Erkusukes. However, the activity of IPs deserves the attention of the admins right now, as they continue edit warring on various articles and bait users restricted by arbcom parole. Here's the latest revert by anon IP without any discussion on talk, which resulted in removal of a large chunk of information from the article: [5] -- Grandmaster ( talk) 07:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The CU results are available now, please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Erkusukes. Urgent action is required. Grandmaster ( talk) 06:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Please check 85.211.4.163 ( talk · contribs), another sock IP gaming the system. It made 2 rvs without any explanation. Grandmaster ( talk) 12:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Another one: 85.211.2.204 ( talk · contribs). He follows me and reverts my edits. Grandmaster ( talk) 20:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Lokyz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject since mid-December to a general civility "don't create a battleground" sanction ( the "Digwuren sanction"). The user has been rather inactive till mid-March, when he became more active and since than he has posted many inflammatory posts. Having recently posted accusations of "antisemitism, polnish revanshism, making idiot of people" and most recently of "justifying of mass murder of civilian people (including children)" - which I believe qualify as being "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith" - I think it is high time that the above sanction is enforced and civility restored to related discussions. Please see below for the list of offensive diffs. PS. Please consider whether one diff from March 13 may need to be erased via oversight per WP:LIVING. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Note: Piotrus maintains a black book on multiple contributors off-line, something he refused to stop when asked as late as a week ago. The cherry-picked collection of best hits over extended time may make anyone look devilish or saint. The aim of this meticulous record-keeping followed by unloading to AE is to "win" content arguments through achieving the sanctions of the opposite side. This was done before at PAIN, RFI and CSN before they were shut down (to Piotrus' protestations) by a wide community consensus. Now this board is being turned into the Wikpedia:Block my opponent just as the ones above were.
Also a disclosure that may matter. As far as I am aware, Piotrus, unhappy with the lack of quick action was seeking for a friendly closure at #admins today. Hope this helps. I hope this will not end up by rewarding the side in the argument that is simply more devious. -- Irpen 21:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
More coming. -- Irpen 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I've blocked Lokyz for 24 hours, as his language as expressed in the diffs above does seem quite inflammatory and attacking, against the restrictions from the ArbCom case. krimpet ✽ 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Irpen's analysis show that many diffs indicated by Piotrus are quite good (like removing a Holocaust denier used as a reliable source). If anything their mentioning by Piotrus in the blocking context warrants a warning by an uninvolved admin to Piotrus for assumption of the bad faith. Other diffs are less than ideal but still relatively mild. If we assume to uniformly apply those requirements we might find 3/4 of the editors involved into Eastern European topics to be banned. Myself and Piotrus will be certainly included. Do we need it? Alex Bakharev ( talk) 03:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
User:67.167.55.3 has repeatedly vandalized Albanians in Serbia [10], [11], [12]. I could just let him succumb to AIV, but I thought he should be blocked longer than he would from AIV because of his defiance of the ArbCom. (case here) J.delanoy gabs adds 19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I would like to inform Administrators and the Arbitration Commity that User:Elonka has been abusing the Arbcom ruling against me, to try to have me blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia [13]. Most recently, Elonka pushed for a one-week block against me, based on a compilation of false statements and claims against me, which was implemented through a 60-hour block by an unsuspecting Administrator ( User:AGK), later abandoned for a "20 hours time served" in the face of a numerous opposition here. As User:Abd summarizes, Elonka has been "exaggerating the ArbComm decision regarding PHG as if it were a weapon rather than an attempt to cool things down." [14]
Although I dispute the Arbcom ruling against me, I have stated repeatedly that I intend to follow it, out of respect for Wikipedia.
I hereby wish to document the facts of this harassment, as well as the numerous complaints by other others that this generated. I would like to ask Administrators and the Arbitration Commity to protect me from such abuse, and warn Elonka against repeating such actions, and restrict her from harassing me in such a manner.
Numerous users have already complained of such abuse. As explained by User:Abd, she is using the ruling "as a weapon" against me [15]:
Elonka has been claiming blocks based on a compilation of false statements and undue stretching of my restriction perimeter:
This statement is false: there was never "clearly a section on Medieval History" in the article in question ( France-Japan relations (19th century)). The article actually started with a reference to the second half of the 16th century, which is certainly not part of the Medieval period, and therefore outside of the Arbcom ruling.
However, my subpages are certainly not targeted by the Arbcom restrictions, which only concern articles: I am totally free to create User subpages, even ones that would deal with ancient history or Medieval material. Actually this is important, since I intend to use this material when my restrictions are lifted.
Elonka typically mounts extremely well-constructed accusations against a specific user. She typically provides hundred of diffs that give her cases a look of trustworthyness, and in effect swamps other users or reviewers of the case. When scrutinized however, individual accusations usually are not decisive at all, and either consist in misrepresentation, deformations or exagerations.
As clearly shown in the case above, Elonka typically makes false statements, misrepresents the reality of Arbcom sanctions, harasses users who are subjected to Arbcom restrictions, in order to push for ever-increasing blocks and obtain total banishment from Wikipedia. She uses such inadequate case-building to push for the harshest penalties. In her own words: "it is my opinion that he [PHG] needs to be permanently blocked" [32], "It is reasonable to give everyone a free pass for their first (and maybe second) block. But we should follow a three-strike rule. Three problems, and still no indication that the editor is going to do better, then they should just be "out"." [33].
I request a fair treatment from the Administrators and the Arbitration Commity through an honest implementation of my Arbcom restrictions, and protection from users who try to bend the rules to do me harm. Specially, I request that Elonka be warned against harassing me or misrepresenting my contributions. Regards to all. PHG ( talk) 08:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The title says it all. Just two days after his one-week topic-ban expired, Jaakobou promptly initiated at least two edit wars:
Furthermore, his crusade to excise the term Palestine from Wikipedia continues (and again here).
What bothers me here is not the substance of the disputes (in which I am involved) but the tone of the discussions ( here, here and here on another recent issue, no edit-war though, since I'm following WP:BRD).
User:Jaakobou does not follow WP:BRD, forces his preferred version during ongoing discussions, assumes bad faith and is borderline uncivil. This is not the editing style I would expect from someone who is under close supervision in a controversial area of Wikipedia. His previous topic-ban has taught him nothing.
As for what is to be done, I am at a loss. I leave it up to responsible admins to deal with.
Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 28.03.2008 07:52
I actually believe Pedro and Nickhh should be sanctioned for tag-teaming to include BLP, and for purposefull waste of time - following me around into a number of articles and making WP:POINT reverts. However, I don't have time or special need to file anything more. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 08:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Nickhh,
I disagree with your recent revert
[36]. The text was mucked up with misuse of sources and needed an NPOV rephrase.
Source 1:
independent.co.uk
Source 2: haaretz.com
Source 3: Reuters
I'd appreciate an explanation on why you believe that despite your revert reinserting these misrepresentation of sources, that it was the correct move. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 22:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Atabek has been edit warring, gaming the system, refusing to read what others are writing, engaging in OR, POV pushing, attempting to turn wikipedia into battleground, misquoting and misrepresenting sources on several indirectly Armenian related articles for quite some time now, since February 14 he engaged on King Agbar and several articles relating to him to continue the POV pushing in accordance to the fringe claims of Azerbaijan International on which Church of Kish article was based on. And one of Adil Baguirov's battles, (see Adil's letter here)
Please note Atabeks statement here: [41] He states: So, misinterpretations of historical scale like 1) "Armenian genocide" is the first genocide of 20th century - ERR, NOT TRUE - see Herero and Namaqua Genocide, 2) Armenia was the first Christan state (as if that's supposed to mean anything or have influence on Western public opinion) - ERR, NOT TRUE - see Osroene/ Edessa, Mesopotamia,
He has gone further by doing the same on Agbar IX entry [53]. That edit was a deliberate falsification as prior Agbar V edit here shows that he knew the origin of the claim is based on a legend.
All this is based on few misquoted and misrepresented sources. Two sources from 1905 and 1913, an uncritical non-history book on "Hagiography of Saints" which is supported to contain legends. He then quotes a google book from 1840 about Armenia and Christianity which he misinterprets, as it was already explained to him that the conversion of the Armenian king was not the legend but rather the healing by Gregory(the source he used speaks of Gregory, and Atabek also ignored a prior explanation refusing to read) The latest one he found to misquote is called "China in World History"! Finally, a book from 2000, which he again misquoted. It actually states as it was explained to him: "But Abgar the great is remembered not so much for his lavishness or even his ambitious building program, as for his reputed conversion to Christianity in about 200. If true, this makes his kingdom the world's first Christian state". [54]
Even though the author is not sure if it is true, Atabek adds it as a fact! Finally I would note that Atabek's behavior violates the Arbcom junction that Wikipedia is not a nationalist battle ground. Yet Atabek's statements speak otherwise. For example: [55]
I will just quote a few of them: "MarshallBagramyan, there are many edits with Armenian POV pushing on a number of topics that I disagree with." "Not sure why you're jumping right at reverting the fact that Osroene was first Christian state apart from anything else, just pushing Armenian POV on irrelevant topic page." "Tigran showing 25 sources with POV based on Armenian sources does not disprove another 25 sources presented from neutral sources citing Osroene as a first Christian kingdom." (Actually none of the sources provided were Armenian, and they were not presented by Tigran but Fedayee)
"I still fail to see why Tigran is pushing Armenian POV, when Abgar had nothing to do with Armenia." (note here, that Osroene had been a vassal of Armenia prior and had something to do with Armenia, Atabek has actually attempted to remove any mention of Armenia from the articles lead.)
"So it's incomprehensible as to why Armenian contributors are getting so zealous over the subject very remotely related to their history, on Osroene page?" (IMPORTAN NOTICE: Atabek claims that he innocently attempted to add information unrelated to Armenia which Armenian contributors attempted to remove. Atabek's action is actually a continuation of what went on the Church of Kish. The claim on Osroene is one of Adil Baguirov's real life battles. As you'll note on his letter here and here.
"And frankly, it's still comic as to how Armenian contributors are fighting basic material from sources on this page, essentially portraying attempts to purge out historical information for purely modern nationalist interests" "Conversely, if the Armenia article does say so based on some references, then I don't see why Osroene article should be purged out of similar references by Armenian nationalist POV."
To not have to deal with his restrictions, Atabek has also several times gamed the system by reverting just a week after his edits. See here for exemple: ( [56] and [57], notice the 7 day interval), I am just wondering how many arbcom junctions Atabek has violated. After two Arbcoms and multiple blocks, he still believes and acts as if Wikipedia is a battle ground. VartanM ( talk) 19:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
No, I disagree. Atabek has been disruptive, upon a review of the evidence. This is highly tendentious editing - typical nationalist-battleground stuff. I've had other complaints concerning his conduct on this little set of articles as well. Therefore, I have applied a topic-ban - details here. Moreschi ( talk) 20:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
ScienceApologist ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a civility parole per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist_restricted. ScienceApologist recently made two edits [58] [59] in violation of that restriction, after being blocked on many occasions for prior violations. I therefore request that ScienceApologist be blocked for an adequate period of time, consistent with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Enforcement_by_block. John254 19:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I think what may be going on here is that User:Ryan Postlethwaite is not familiar with American colloquialisms. I suppose if you had never heard the phrase "put up or shut up" before you might think that it was rude. After all, "shut up" in many households is considered inappropriate speech. I use the phrase all the time in polite company. If I am curt or rude, I apologize. I will rephrase the offending remarks. It would be wonderful if people would just tell me when they are offended so I can fix the remarks rather than running off here each time. ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I would also like for a neutral party to read the current discussion at Talk:Eric Lerner and explain to me how to interpret the situation in some way so that User:John254 can be extended as much good faith as possible. Right now, as I read it, he just seems to want to include material that he hasn't personally read for reasons that seem to me to be entirely vindictive. This report itself strikes me as very tendentious. Why is he harboring a vendetta against me? Can someone contact him and ask him? Thanks. ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Landon1980 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been refusing to read what I have written and keeps wanting to edit a single item without use of WP:Common. He refuses to go along with the compromise made in the article already. The article's compromise was made and he made edits afterwords to the band's genre. He also threatened me by saying he was going to report me, which I do not mind if someone reports me, but the fact that he threatened with it was just uncivil. Also, he may be a sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer of User:TheRedPenOfDoom (also unregistered), as they are editing the same article. here is a link of the fued: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Family_Force_5#Regarding_Genres and a link of his actions on my discussion page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IronCrow#Landon I tried being civil and telling him to avoid too strict of an interpretation of policy (he completely disregards WP: Common sense and dissagrees with the sources already established, so he removes them), but he just doesn't listen. Please help out, I would like tog et this situation fixed so I can continue editing the article in conflict without having to to face his POV of the atricle. he is technically "gaming the system." He neglects to edit anything except the band's genre. I asked for a third party, and none has yet joined except the suspected sockpuppet (they have the same style). He constantly states relibable sources are "unreliable." Here's a link of the final edit before he arrived: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Family_Force_5&diff=202557094&oldid=202452018 and here's the one after the warring began: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Family_Force_5&diff=202575062&oldid=202574974
Thank you in advance. IronCrow ( talk) 21:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
He accuses me of vandalism by reverting my recent edits (which were no reverts) with comments like "rvv" and the like, e.g.
or as "nonsense"
or as revert of "POV"
Tulkolathen reinstates ( invalid category removal) two Czech categories for an 19th Century person explicitly described as Austrian in the only reference given [61], thus exposing his Czech nationalist POV - or at least anti-Matthead POV. As collateral damage in his revert spree against me, he also reintroduced an inexplicable "Czech composer" category for a Slovene, again with his trademark rvv.
Regarding the German noble laureate Peter Grünberg, it was also Tulkolathen who introduced an totally unsourced statement (which since showed up in Wiki mirrors) into the article. And it was also Tulkolathen who removed the fact that Grünberg's father died in Czech imprisonment and was in buried in a Czech mass grave [62].
I'm tired of having my work blindly negated by a stalker who e.g. shows up at articles soon after I have created them [63]. Please include him at least in the list of editors placed under editing restriction, too. Thanks in advance! -- Matthead Discuß 20:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: I reverted these changes [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72] as far as I see in Matthead's edits a complex form of vandalism where he tries to find a plenty of Czech (or Bohemian) people and institutions and at least deletes mentions about them being bohemians. Like for example here [73]. He behaves similarly in the articles about Poles, he was warned by the administrator Ioeth for his disruptive behavior [74]. The revert [75], he worked in Bohemia and Moravia also and thus that category is perfectly valid, the reason I reverted it was your addition of Holy Roman Empire, why? Administrator Antandrus agreed that mentioning Holy Roman Empire is redundant and a base for claims he was Austrian (another Matthead's attempt) ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: My addition to Peter Grunberg is sourced (info.plzen-city.cz/attach/1002670080314124444.doc):
Nejrozšířenější (seriózní) německé noviny, deník Süddeutsche Zeitung, označují Petera Grünberga za „rodilého Čecha“. K tomuto závěru je zřejmě přivedl fakt, že fyzikův otec, dipl. ing. Fjodor Grinberg, původně carský důstojník a uprchlík před bolševiky, získal v roce 1936 československé občanství. V roce 1940 se však přihlásil k německé národnosti (jeho druhá manželka Anna Petrmannová patřila k sudetoněmecké menšině) a získal občanství říšské. Tehdy si také změnil příjmení.
Translation:
German newspapers, Suddeutsche Zeitung, marks PEter Grunberg as born Czech, but they were lead to this statement probably by the fact, that physics father Fjodor Grinberd, originally russian officer and refugee from the bolcheviks, gained in 1936 Czechoslovakian citizenship. In 1940 he became German (his second wife Anna Petrmann came to Sudeten Germans) and gained German citizenship. He also changed his surname.
Any member of the WikiProject Czech Republic can confirm this source and provide verification or better translation. ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 21:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I'd like to confirm Tulkolahten's translation, this is really complex! I think that most of his edits were in fact justified but Tulkolahten should refrain from calling the edits vandalism or nonsense. Even if they were deliberate bad faith edits, they shouldn't be called vandalism unless they are blatantly obvious. The source does in fact identify this individual as Czech-born and I would call it a reliable source, but the tone of the paragraph also suggests that he wasn't officially Czech, but Czech born should be enough for the Czech related categories to stay in the article. The Dominator ( talk) 21:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I did not bother to compile a list with wrong-doings (other apparently do so), but a quick look in the history of User talk:Tulkolahten shows rv personal attack, a summary with which Tulkolahten removed a comment with many diffs from his talk page, critizing his edit summary habits. -- Matthead Discuß 22:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I also think neither of you are editing in bad faith; you are, however, edit-warring, and have gotten angry at each other. I answered at greater length on my talk page. Compromise here is not only possible, it is desirable, and seems to be within reach. Antandrus (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
As I have noted above, Matthead has been put on general sanction w/ regard to EE topics, please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. This should be considered. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Classic content dispute, no issue here. Also I don't know why this complaint was posted on arbitration enforcement noticeboard. - Darwinek ( talk) 08:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply
And yes Matthead, you called Darwinek explicitly a commie here [80], you mention there he was born probably in the communist country and it implies, from the context, that his opinion is less accurate probably lowered by the communist propaganda ? And here [81] you use his parole to get down his arguments and invalidate his arguments in the following discussion. ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 08:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC) User Matthead obviously has breached civility and acts in inproper way, Tulkolahten edits seem very productive and enrich Wikipedia, he sometimes comments in normal language rather then encyclopedic, but I think seeing Matthead actions that Tulkolahten occassional lack of encyclopedic style can be understood.-- Molobo ( talk) 11:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply
So I am not unwilling to accept consequences but what I expected is a fair acting, now I feel punished for nothing. ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 01:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I apologize for not being fully aware of the best way to show that I have offered to not only watch for possible incivilities but also provided the article's own archives as evidence of my actions. The entire thread above was in reference to Durova's stated concern about WP:COPYRIGHT problems yet they even concede that the material should be sourced to the original publisher rather than Youtube which I readily agree with, again. I also wonder why this route was taken rather than just working with other editors to fix the issue, instead of fixing the reference Durova told me to shop the idea at Reliable Sources Board which I think is inappropriate, if they knew the original sources should have been utilized then they could work with others to fix the problem. I don't believe the topic ban has been given fair consideration and being extremely new to this venue would like some uninvolved admins to consider offering opinions and advice as I feel Durova may have a COI being not only involved with the military project but also mentoring Sanchez is some fashion. Durova's offer to filter my insights on the article are interesting at best and I think it's fair to say would effectively silence my involvement altogether as I now feel little good would come of engaging that talk page, at least for a while. I fully support wikipedia's policies and have stated that above. I also don't appreciate the assertion that I want to compromise on article quality either. As for the anon IP vandal, the timing is interesting but is also simply par from the course with Sanchez and I'm well used to these attacks and the anon IP's contributions seemed to match that of Sanchez or a meatpuppet of some sort, sometimes we only have a gut feeling, i can't help that this anon feels to me exactly like a Sanchez sock of some sort, regardless of where the IP is located. I've asked nicely for that to be added to the Log of blocks and bans. Benji boi 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Benjiboi, the copyright issue was separate from the reliable sources issue and concerned different citations. Maybe you got confused because Eleemosynary insisted on copy/pasting an unrelated discussion into the thread about copyright. Either way, if you don't want to work with me you're welcome to use the option JzG provided. And as several people have discovered (including Matt Sanchez), when I support a ban it's a policy matter with no prejudice toward the individual. I've given barnstars to people who were banned. So go ahead and use the noticeboard instead. All I intended to do was give you another option where your concerns could get swifter attention than a low traffic board, and firsthand interaction would ensure that if the concerns that led to the page ban stopped being an issue I'd be on the ball about getting that restriction lifted as swiftly as possible. I juggle a lot of things and the Matt Sanchez article isn't a top priority. The door remains open if you choose to suppose I can be taken at face value. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 22:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
(outdent) I agree that Sanchez's editor preferences are immaterial. Anyone who acts as a neutral Wikipedian is welcome there as far as I'm concerned whether their tastes are for men, women, or barnyard animals. ;) Seriously, I did not inform Matt Sanchez about the AE thread until after Benjiboi articulated suspicions that the trolling might have originated with Matt. Durova Charge! 23:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Would someone close this subthread please? The parent thread has been closed for so long that it's gond into archive. Durova Charge! 03:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Note: I have re-opened this per instructions as I am convinced this ban should be lifted as nicely requested several times. I have asked for instructions on what steps to take to solicit an arbitrator in hopes to avoid taking this to Arbcom as well as asking for assistance if there is some other venue I should seek support from. Banje boi 13:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply
People are using Jeff Merkey's article to push external agendas, in defiance of WP:BLP. Jeff is, on the othe rhand, banned, and he knows it. But single-purpose accounts do not actually help either situation. Guy ( Help!) 00:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Jeff has been editing again using the IP addresses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.70.238.45 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.70.238.44 (and possibly others) He appears to have the netblock: 166.70.238.40/29. This is a violation of his 1-year ban from July 2007. A traceroute to these IP addresses ends with: 19 jmerkey.fttp.xmission.com (166.70.235.16) 3035.655 ms !H 3028.875 ms !H *
This edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-03-13/Scandal_fallout_continues&diff=prev&oldid=198077758 is particulary telling, since he appears to be attempting to delete the evidence of his own ban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Nemo III ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Big legal threat here. Lawrence § t/ e 19:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I was about to reset his ban timer, but Coren beat me to it. Looking at that legal threat, I'm of the mind that we ought to ramp this puppy to indef. Anyone else agree? Blueboy 96 20:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
More Legal Threats == Indefinite ban.
I would like to bring this to your attention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey&oldid=148077649#Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey_placed_on_legal_threat_parole
Quoting from the final decision regarding JVM:
2.1) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is placed on permanent legal threat parole. Any uninvolved administrator may indefinitely block him if he makes any statement that can be reasonably construed as a direct or indirect legal threat.
Passed 9 to 0, 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It's time to take the action that was envisaged by the last arbitration. Captain Nemo III ( talk) 23:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
By the letter of WP:BAN, all of the edits made by banned user Merkey under his recent account should be deleted. Before someone starts on that task, whether merely intending to enforce policy or from a desire to harass Merkey, it would be helpful if it could be determined if the policy actually applies. Even though the policy specifically states that the worth of the edits should not be considered, a cursory look at these edits seems to indicate that most were worthwhile additions. It should be noted, however, that Merkey has claimed (on deleted User talk:Waya sahoni) to have deliberately introduced copyright violations into articles in order to discredit Wikipedia. Limited excerpts from his source are available to help review at least a few of his edits. Because of my history of past interactions with Merkey, I will of course take no action. -- MediaMangler ( talk) 01:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings, Privatemusings ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is subject to an enduring restriction prohibiting him from editing any article which is substantially a biography of a living individual.
The restriction makes no exceptions for reversion of vandalism. Guy ( Help!) 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Anti-in popular culture/anti-trivia accounts Dannycali, Burntsauce, and Eyrian were banned in the Alkivar and subsequent Eyrian arbitration cases. Those familiar with those cases should look at these contribs. Notice, the editor under question has an incrediblye large gap in edits:
He also expresses an opinion strikingly similar to the banned socks associated with the above mentioned cases and seems to be picking up today where the banned accounts left off. More specifically, his main contributions for today focuses on starting and participating in a new AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical elements in popular culture (second nomination)) for the same article previously nominated by banned account Eyrian ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical elements in popular culture). And the use of death as a metaphor for what should happen to these kinds of articles is also consistent with what we have seen in previous AfDs associated with the now banned accounts. Nevertheless, to be fair, based on this edit, I could be wrong (Eyrian was almost never nice to me), so I'll leave it to someone else's judgment. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 02:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
User:Karabinier had already been notified about WP:ARBMAC (repeatedly) [102] [103], yet chose to ignore these polite reminders and proceeded to engage in an edit war with four other users and on mulitple occasions on the Alexander the Great article. [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110]. Further he
His behaviour runs the danger of reigniting the tendentious and time wasting debates engendered by this matter before consensus was finally arrived at. The article had been stable for over a year before User:Karabinier showed up. Finally User:Karabinier has also been reverting consensus on other Macedonia related articles, like Republic of Macedonia. Thanks. Xenovatis ( talk) 13:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
ScienceApologist ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under a restriction against assumptions of bad faith which he appears to have violated with this edit. Dlabtot ( talk) 16:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It's also worth noting that SA is exactly right about Childhoodsend - he (Childhoodsend) is a reprobate POV pusher who does, in fact, push an anti-science agenda in one article after another. Raul654 ( talk) 16:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I have also had very difficult and unreasonable irrational interactions with Dlabtot. I think that until we start sanctioning people for bringing these egregious spurious complaints, they will continue and get worse. We will live more and more in a state of terror by those who want to use political correctness and wikilawyering as a weapon. Sanction Dlabtot if anyone for this.-- Filll ( talk) 16:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Anti-in popular culture/anti-trivia accounts Dannycali, Burntsauce, and Eyrian were banned in the Alkivar and subsequent Eyrian arbitration cases. Those familiar with those cases should look at these contribs. Notice, the editor under question has an incrediblye large gap in edits:
He also expresses an opinion strikingly similar to the banned socks associated with the above mentioned cases and seems to be picking up today where the banned accounts left off. More specifically, his main contributions for today focuses on starting and participating in a new AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical elements in popular culture (second nomination)) for the same article previously nominated by banned account Eyrian ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical elements in popular culture). And the use of death as a metaphor for what should happen to these kinds of articles is also consistent with what we have seen in previous AfDs associated with the now banned accounts. Nevertheless, to be fair, based on this edit, I could be wrong (Eyrian was almost never nice to me), so I'll leave it to someone else's judgment. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 02:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Closing admin statement: I've spent 2-3 hours looking into this today to resolve it somehow. There are at least Jehochman, Durova, Akhilleus, Rocksanddirt, Coren, and Nsk92 calling for mentorship of PHG. This seems to represent the consensus on this issue. There are many users concerned about PHG's use of unverfied sources, two of whom are
User:Aramgar and
User:Kafka Liz--the unsourced and inaccurate info postings seem to still be ongoing, and there are others. Other areas of major concern are derogatory comments about other users (though he did strike one after it was brought up), towit the
"midwest christian" and on this page "females from the US Midwest", which offended the mentioned users (see PHG's 01:07 7 Apr posting). There also seems to sourcing and accuracy issues ongoing with PHG in
Louis XIV of France,
Talk:Christian_Polak#Phillipe_Pons_and_Le_Monde:_Needs_to_be_Verified,
Talk:Christian_Polak#Latest_edits,
Talk:France-Japan_relations_(19th_century). As for the AFD issue, PHG inserted questionalbe material into the article during the AFD. Through all this PHG has shown a consistent pattern with little or no change with multiple respected editors showing significant concern who are about at the end of their patience. In short,
User:PHG has almost exhausted the patience of the community. I think Akhilleus summed much of this up quite well in his
15:41 06 Apr post. In essence, PHG's editing behavior is causing undue disruption. Unfortunately, PHG has shown no willingness to change nor does he seem willing to accept a mentor. There is enough concern that at
Wikipedia:RCAM it appears his restrictions will be tightened. I feel I have no choice but to block him for the maximum allowed by his arb restrictions, 1 week, and strongly encourage him to accept a mentor. —
Rlevse •
Talk • 01:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
PHG ( talk · contribs) appears to be making unverifiable claims about an individual winning the Légion d'honneur. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak#Convenience break 2. PHG claimed that they won the honor in 1989, but there is no evidence at Catégorie:Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur , nor at List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name, nor via Google search, including book search. It appears that the messages from the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance have not been taken to heart. I think PHG immediately needs to cease editing until a mentor is found to check for compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:V. Thoughts? Jehochman Talk 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
On hold. Keep in Un-Resolved section, for now.
Since it was initiated, the AfD should be allowed to take its course without the discussion, and energies of the participants, being fragmented. Report may be reopened based on the result.
El_C 21:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replyOn hold. Keep in Un-Resolved section, for now.
Since it was initiated, the AfD should be allowed to take its course without the discussion, and energies of the participants, being fragmented. Report may be reopened based on the result.
El_C 21:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Can I ask what on earth the AfD has to do with whether or not this incident warrants a block? This isn't about someone's behavior in one AfD, this is about a contributor who habitually misrepresents or outright falsifies sources -- that he happened to do so again on an article that is up for AfD is completely beside the point. Shell babelfish 01:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It comes across as too eager for immediate censure. All of you should have just let me place this report on hold. Allow the AfD to close (any day now — I would have done it myself and had time to look at it had it not been for these distractions), then, if the citation methodology was shown to still be problematic (which it may well be), we could have made arrangements for mentorship or whatever. But this seeming concerted must-be-censured right-now mentality is not what we want to turn Arbitration Enforcement into. There's no rush. El_C 01:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Would several other uninvolved editors please weigh in on what we should do about this situation. We do not have a consensus yet. Jehochman Talk 04:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your kind support on this during the time I was peacefully sleeping in Paris. I do read and write Japanese quite fluently (I spent quite a few years there), and I basically never use a translation tool such as Google for Japanese. Unfortunately, I am not an expert of the Japanese names for French medals though. When I saw the information about Polak's medals on the Japanese website, I did think that 国家功労賞 was Japanese for "Legion d'honneur". I asked a Japanese national (who speaks fluent French), who could not give me the French name for 国家功労賞 either. The Japanese site used for the source is an online publishing house [131], which I thought should be fair enough as a (first) source. A few hours later and some Googling, I realized 国家功労賞 was Ordre National du Merite (mainly because I couldn't find other mentions of Polak's Legion d'Honneur as well). So, I was wrong with the denomination of the medal, and when I realized that I corrected it right away ("Ahhh, 国家功労賞 seems to be Ordre national du Mérite. シュバリエ is Chevalier (the first rank), オフィシエ is Officier (Officer, the second rank). Would somebody have access to the list of recipients of the Ordre national du Mérite? PHG (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)" [132]). By the way, the Japanese site was not so bad, as it was confirmed by French official sites [133]. Sorry for the mistake, but sometimes Japanese/French/English translations can be tricky, although I think I would rank as quite good at it. Best regards to all. PHG ( talk) 13:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply
(unindent) PHG's misrepresentation of the Japanese language website is all too typical of the problems with his use of sources. He is long past the the point where he can afford to pass off the deficiencies of his research as simple mistakes. He has never shown any understanding of the issues which led to the Arbcom censure and as a result his problematic behavior continues. His most recent activities constitute a clear violation of Remedy #2. He has abused our good faith for too long. Aramgar ( talk) 17:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I think the following remark [136] by PHG reveals his agenda:
... Christians might resent material showing exchanges, agreements and goodwill between the Popes and the Mongols for example, although it is historical reality. The people whom I have encountered (and who attacked me relentlessly at Arbcom) and who have always tried to play down these relations, remove original letters etc... typically seem to be from "heartland America" (Christian Midwest).
— User:PHG
PHG was reminded of the need to collaborate with other editors at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#PHG reminded: collaborative consensus. Baiting with ethnic/religious provocation is not collaborative; in fact, it is quite disruptive. Jehochman Talk 13:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
(unindent) PHG's comments about Midwestern Christians are reminiscent of the delusional ravings of Geir Smith and Dr Boubouleix. Need we state again that many editors had concerns about his Franco-Mongol alliance because he misrepresented sources to advance a novel interpretation of history. The suggestion that he is the victim of some sort of religious prejudice is absurd. It is a breach of civility, no matter where it was written, and constitutes a personal attack on User:Elonka (and perhaps User:Ealdgyth also). How much longer will the Wikipedia community allow a single disruptive user to waste our time? Aramgar ( talk) 17:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The above comment of PHG placed was originally left at my Talk page, so isn't it a courtesy for anyone to let me know of this? I feel obliged to comply with this endless accusation on PHG because every time I say something to PHG, he gets some unfair punishment or blame. ( Legion d'honneur, image warnings, so-called religious "agenda")
Well, I highly recommend PHG to use E-mail if he wants to chat casually with somebody. That is not an ethnic and religious provocation or agenda or whatever. It is simply chatting. I think someone may accuse me of suddenly jumping into this matter, but I'm primarily a Korean Wikipedian who has translated over 300 articles (mostly about Western culture and history) into Korean and Commons editor, so I've acknowledge PHG for his accomplished contribution on Commons, especially his photography related to Asian art and history in which I am getting very interested.
In my short response, I told him about Korean Wikipedia's situation briefly but he caught a hidden meaning well. The Wikipedia has barely over 50,000 articles, but holds considerable amount of articles related to Crusader and Christianity. The number of articles is double of Chinese Wikipedia and almost similar to Japanese Wikipedia (170,000 articles and 450,000 articles in total respectively) That means when I translate those kind of articles, I should be very careful not to exhaust myself to deal with some editors, honestly to say, who don't get respect by the community. Even though I'm a Christian, I do think that anything violating WP:UNDUE to look the religion or people unnecessarily glorified should be out of the Wikipedia. Anyway, I don't know what ethnicity PHG or other editors have, but I don't think PHG explicitly implied Elonoka. Before PHG created Franco-Mongol alliance, did he ever get blocked for any disruption? No, but the article is strongly associated with religion, so he may think as such. That is not a derogatory slur or anything. This unfair accusation is an attempt to block him permernantly which is really beyond good faith. I am also very disturbed by Elonaka's attempt to accuse PHG's photography of violating the image policy. [138] [ [139]] I checked his earing image and one presented by her with Photoshop software, but that is really his picture. I think Elonka's activities against PGH is really disruptive and makes her unwarranted more.-- Appletrees ( talk) 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Ahem. I objected, but he never responded. Although I didn't suppose when it happened that it was particularly aimed, this current thread does lead me to wonder. It isn't all that hard to find out that I went to graduate school at the Cinema-Television division of the University of Southern California. Was PHG calling a group of editors bigots collectively, or was that coded language directed at me in particular? Either way, an apology is six weeks overdue. Durova Charge! 01:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I strongly recommend that PHG ( talk · contribs) be prevented from editing until such time that a mentor can be found to guide and oversee his edits. Because of El_C's unexplainable decision to unblock him previously, I am not in a position to enforce this without descending into wheel-warring. — Coren (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree with Coren that PHG has exhausted the communities patience regarding his use of sources and uncollegial communication with other editors. In my mind, PHG is one step from a complete article space ban, and two from full site ban. While I understand ElC's position, I disagree also. PHG as lost whatever good faith an editor normally gets. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 20:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree with Coren that PHG needs mandatory mentorship. I participated in the Christian Polak AfD until the Légion d'Honneur blow-up, after which the AfD discussion degenerated into a contentious battle. I think that PHG's edit adding the Légion d'Honneur info with a reference to a Japanese source, without providing a translation, was, at best, very reckless and imprudent. WP:V contains a section dealing specifically with non-English sources, WP:RSUE, and its requirements were not followed here. It is not enough for PHG to dismiss this episode as a "translation mistake". PHG may be fluent in Japanese but most of the rest of us are not. That is why the WP:RSUE section of WP:V exists and requires that: "Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." WP:RSUE is meant to prevent exactly the kinds of mistakes PHG made here from leading to erroneous info being included in Wikipedia. I have read through the above discussion as well as through the original AfD thread. I personally do not believe that PHG intended to deceive when he introduced the Légion d'Honneur info and reference. But it is clear to me that PHG does not sufficiently appreciate the requirements of WP:V and does not understand the need to critically and carefully examine sources, especially when they support his point of view, before citing them in Wikipedia. I think he gets over-enthusiastic when he finds some source that supports or appears to support his position, then rushes to include this info on WP (thinking, OK, now will they finally see my point?) and often ends up overstating his case in the process. This is exactly the kind of attitude that requires mentorship, and, given PHG's history and his lack of acknowledgement of his past and current problems, this mentorship needs to be mandatory. Nsk92 ( talk) 14:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC) reply