See, e.g., these 11 edits of his: Cartagena, Colombia, Faith Lutheran College, Redlands, P-38 Lightning, Wynn Harmon, Enoch Powell, Bottom (TV series), Johnny Cymbal, George E. Staples, Cray, Liz Callaway, and Buick Skylark. He was previously blocked for 24 hours on March 6, 2009, for violating the injunction. Tennis expert ( talk) 10:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Colonies Chris has been notified about this post. Tennis expert ( talk) 10:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Request for sanctions declined. Requesting moves in opposition to clear consensus can be disruptive (but see WP:CCC), and reverting an admin close of a discussion most often is. I am not persuaded, however, by the evidence presented here that the request was made in an intent to disrupt Wikipedia and that it (as well as the revert) justifies WP:ARBMAC sanctions. This does not rule out ordinary sanctions by uninvolved admins (warning, brief blocks etc.), but the issue seems moot now because the move request has been (and remains) closed. The tone of this request is, I think, unbecoming a longtime administrator, and I am simply disgusted at the unproductive mud-slinging that the rest of the thread has mostly turned into, so I'm closing it. (Note for those whom it may concern: This closure is not to be construed as endorsing anyone's actions or position in this matter.) Sandstein 22:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
ΚΕΚΡΩΨ ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Kekrops), a party in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia in 2007, is a long-term Greek nationalist POV-pusher with an obsession about the name of the Republic of Macedonia (note his original arbitration statement). Greek nationalists object to the naming of the state and insist on calling it FYROM ("Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia") instead. They have repeatedly unilaterally attempted to rename the Republic of Macedonia article - which is why it's on indefinite move protection - and the issue has been discussed dozens of times by Kekrops and others, to such an extent that the naming issue has its own talk subpage. The current name was decided as far back as 2002, is supported by policy and has been stable for a long time. Kekrops has a history of Macedonia-related disruption; he has previously been blocked and placed on revert parole for repeatedly reverting templates and articles that do not use his favoured wording.
After another editor began discussion about the use of the term "FYROM" on the Greece article (see Talk:Greece#FYROM), Kekrops decided to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by proposing, in bad faith, a move of Republic of Macedonia to a name favoured by Greek nationalists, "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". [1] [2]. I closed it yesterday as an obvious bad-faith disruption; he has this morning reopened it to continue the disruption [3]. It will doubtless end with no consensus or a majority against the move, but in the meantime a great deal of time will be wasted and further disruption will be caused with the usual sockpuppetry, off-wiki canvassing and nationalist ranting from both Greeks and Macedonians. Kekrops is well aware that the proposal is futile; the aim is to prove his case that Wikipedia is biased against the Greek nationalist POV.
This is not only an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point but is also a clear attempt to game the system. Both actions have been specifically prohibited by the Arbitration Committee in relation to Macedonia-related articles (see WP:ARBMAC#Decorum). I therefore propose a topic ban for Kekrops on Macedonia-related articles, for a period of not less than three months. -- ChrisO ( talk) 08:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It's udoubtable that the request has been made to prove a point about policy ( proof). However, I would please ask admins to let the renaming request run its natural course as any other uncontroversial request, and to close it normally. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 10:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Request endorsed. If WP:ARBMAC were enforced more often, we could finally have discussions on this subject peacefully, civilly and dramalessly. It is clear that whenever one wishes to even slightly discuss something related to the name of the Republic of Macedonia on Wikipedia, this will prompt immediate bashing and disruption from a group of Greek editors. I've started a discussion on the matter recently and it quickly spiraled into accusations of censorship, double standards and racism. The article on the Republic of Macedonia was also targeted in a clearly vindictive, disruptive and WP:POINTy move proposal. Hús ö nd 19:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
ChrisO, it's not a coincidence that every single Greek editor including the most moderate ones feels terribly offended and mistreated by your abuse of administrative powers. I urge you, once more, to stop being an involved party and an involved administrator at the same time. Your repeated attacks at both an ethnic and an individual level to every single Greek editor are telling. Niko Silver 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Ibrahim4048 ( talk · contribs) has been making repeated reverts to the Mehmet Talat article to insert the word "alleged" in front of the phrase "Armenian Genocide".
On the 22nd March he did it on five occasions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278846793&oldid=278798713
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278862357&oldid=278859393
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278962105&oldid=278946499
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278964259&oldid=278963506
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278973428&oldid=278964782
On the 21st March he did it twice
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278702548&oldid=278573478
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278755731&oldid=278743423
On the 18th March he did it twice
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278024832&oldid=277955955
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278142291&oldid=278131324
This use of the word "alleged" contradicts the majority academic viewpoint as well as all the other Armenian Genocide-related articles on Wikipedia (including the main article, the Armenian Genocide entry). The proper route would be for him to present his arguments on the talk page of the Armenian Genocide article, and if they were accepted there, any changes would flow down to other articles containing Armenian Genocide-related content, including the Talat one. However, Ibrahim4048 seems intent on using only the Talat article as a platform for his marginal opinion. Under Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 Amended Remedies and Enforcement can this editor be given restrictions that will stop him from editing the Mehmet Talat article (i.e. just the Mehmet Talat article)? Meowy 21:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
We are already in a mediation process [7] which meowy has tried to sabotage by warning users not to take part in the mediation [8] because it would give me a platform and legitimize my arguments. He is basically denying me to represent myself in this dispute. He has also been very uncivil towards me and the mediator. Tealwisp, the mediator, has reported [9] him to the adminstrators. Some of meowy's arguments in the mediation process are valid though. Tealwisp tried (after various other compromises) to avoid the dispute by rephrasing the part so that only undisputed facts were included and the disputed part left out. By doing this information was left out that was relevant to the article. Tealwisp did it in good faith though, not because he took a certain side. I agreed to the compromise at first but changed my mind after vartanM reverted [10] and seeing his reasons. The best solution is to come to a decision whether in this case alleged or another construction must be made to show that the genocide is disputed or that wikipedia takes a stand and accepts the genocide as an established fact and representing it as such in its articles. I would like you to read through the mediation process carefully because this dispute is not so simple as it seems. Ibrahim4048 ( talk) 22:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you show me where this arbcom decision was taken? I already asked meowy several times whether wikipedia had made a decision to recognize the genocide. I am new to wikipedia and don't know my way around here and also don't know many of the terms that are used. Does arbcom mean arbitrary commission? Can you provide a link to the decision that was made? Ibrahim4048 ( talk) 10:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for a week. Sandstein 08:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Arbcom case: The Troubles.
89.217.188.221 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The editor has twice reverted back to their own disputed version in less than 24 hours, revert 1 and revert 2. They were informed of the sanctions here prior to making their second revert. O Fenian ( talk) 02:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could someone please have a kind word with Stevewunder ( talk · contribs) about his topic ban ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand#Stevewunder topic banned and warned? He is a relatively new editor, and I believe he may not understand our conventions about topic bans. He could use a little guidance, rather than a stern warning. Thanks! -- Vassyana ( talk) 11:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, could an uninvolved administrator please look over Ayn Rand ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), particularly in the context of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand#Editors not named and the following remedy? Thanks! -- Vassyana ( talk) 17:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Stevewunder: (this heading added March 26 by Slp1) Incivility building on past incivility despite support for a reduction in his proposed sanction. -- Snowded ( talk) 17:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Plain talk is allowed. Peter has not attacked anybody's person. He has called out stupid comments and dickish actions. While his manner of communication is not ideal, we do not sanction people for making blunt comments that are intended to advance the project. Jehochman Talk 20:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Stevewunder, despite understanding that he is topic-banned from editing the talkpage of the Ayn Rand article under this remedy ( warning, acknowledgment), persists in commenting there. The comments have been affable rather than disruptive for the most part, but in order to retain some respect for the Committee's rulings, perhaps a short holiday from editing might be appropriate. Skomorokh 03:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Enforcement request moot because I have applied an ordinary edit-warring block of one month's duration for the conduct at issue. Sandstein 07:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Arbcom case: The Troubles.
"All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related."
Mooretwin ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mooretwin has twice reverted back to his preferred version in less than 24 hours, first revert. second revert and third revert. He is well aware of the 1RR sanction [11] [12] [13] after being blocked for breeching it several times. -- Domer48 'fenian' 22:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree O Fenian, but however. I've added additional information, if User:Sandstein wants me to add all the warnings, final warnings and blocks, they need only ask. -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Domer48, I have removed ( [14]) your duplicate request above ( [15]). Please do not disrupt this noticeboard by adding redundant requests. Sandstein 23:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
OK, as I am a friend of Alastair I am involved, but thought I would point out this series of edits by Abtract which would appear to be in violation of this ruling, although Alastair last edited on the page a month previous. Anyway, I will leave it for someone impartial to decide. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vacio ( talk · contribs) is involved in edit warring and POV pushing on a number of articles related to Armenia - Azerbaijan topics. For instance, in the article about Nagorno-Karabakh he has been trying to suppress the info about the Treaty of Kurekchay for quite some time. Originally he removed the mention of the treaty and the link to the article about it on 13 March: [29], and a week later he nominated the article about the treaty for deletion: [30] Vacio claimed that no sources about the treaty were available, despite the fact that the text of the treaty in Russian from a scholarly publication, secondary sources mentioning the treaty and even the scans of the original document were provided. The result of the nomination was to keep the article. Despite that, Vacio started an edit war in Nagorno-Karabakh article, removing the information about the treaty. He did that 3 times within the last 4 days: [31] [32] [33] In addition, he is attaching baseless tags claiming that the article about the treaty is an original research: [34] [35] [36] This is an obvious attempt to suppress the information about this document, as there could be no reasonable doubt about the existence of the document, after so many sources being provided. Another article where Vacio wages an edit war is that about Ibrahim Khalil Khan, where he removes statements from the scholarly sources, which say that the person was Azeri, or adds a statement that he was either Azeri or Turkic, as if Azeri cannot be Turkic. [37] [38] [39] [40] It is well known, that Azerbaijani people are one of the Turkic peoples, so it is the same as saying that a Russian person is either Russian or Slavic. As one could see, this user has been engaged in a pointless edit warring on a number of pages, disrupting normal editing. It is worth to mention that Vacio has been twice placed on editing restrictions, but both times the sanctions were lifted, first time because the arbitration enforcing admin was given incorrect information that Vacio had no prior warning, [41] [42] [43], while in fact Vacio was officially warned: [44], and second time after Vacio promised not to edit war. [45] [46]
I think the recent activity of Vacio in arbitration covered area warrants placing him on editing restriction again. According to the ruling of the arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. So please consider placing this user on editing restriction, because his behavior has not improved after he was given second chances. Grand master 06:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Some relevant links
The editing environment at Ayn Rand has begun to rapidly degenerate yet again. Personal attacks, insults and accusations of bad faith are flying, and large series of edits are being made to the article without consultation on the talk page. I would like to urgently request administrator intervention to help enforce the recent ArbCom ruling. TallNapoleon ( talk) 08:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to note here that a set of editors on the article appear to be engaging in editwarring technics of frustration and personal attack. They are also attacking peer reviewed sources because those sources specialize in the subject and are therefore by these editors standards are "biased". I joined the article on March 19 alittle over 10 days ago and have been in protracted and unproductive arguments and been called insane on Jimbo's personal talkpage by one of the warring editors. LoveMonkey ( talk) 12:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's User:Peter Damian Insults and threats and general disruptive behavior.
Examples of his refusial to remove the insults and threats of reporting to Arbcomm. He refused the request to remove the comments from administrator User:DGG.
Here's User:Snowded disruptive, disrespectful, hyer critical and obstructionistic tactics.
Using Wikipedia Policy to frustrate and edit war. In general argumentive and unapologetic about behavior even after being banned.
LoveMonkey ( talk) 13:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I have notified both Peter Damian [83] and Snowded [84] and their respective talkpages. LoveMonkey ( talk) 13:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
This is Arbitration enforcement. Please don't come here unless you have a particular arbitration remedy to enforce. This has not been listed, so I don't see much to do here. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 14:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On the Workshop page for the WP:RfArb regarding West Bank - Judea and Samaria, Malcolm Schosha ( talk · contribs) made the following comment:
I'm the user who initiated the ArbCom case, and I support it. I do not appreciate being called a 90-100% "garden variety" anti-Semite. This baseless accusation is a direct violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. When asked to back-up or strike his comments, Malcolm Schosha ( talk · contribs) replied with
I live and work in a country that takes accusations of Anti-Semitism quite seriously, and since other editors have had few qualms about using my real name here, this kind of comment can have direct, real-life consequences. This is not the type of accusation that one can post and then "not have time now to reply to": any editor that has the time to make such serious and defamatory accusations, should also have the time to back them up.
Malcolm Schosha ( talk · contribs) has not been officially notified of WP:ARBPIA, but his participating in the RfArb and other discussions on the topic should have made him aware of the restrictions and discretionary sanctions specified therein. Even without having been warned, this type of behaviour merits a serious response.
Cheers and many thanks, pedrito - talk - 02.04.2009 08:10
Rather amusing that Brandspoyt below selectively chose who was at fault in the edit wars. For all that, let's not forget that Elsanaturk ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is essentially a revert warrior who pops in and out of articles, without really adding any material. As a party to AA as well as AA2 and despite numerous warnings, he reverted no less than three times on the same article below [87], [88], [89], without contributing anything to the article's talk page. According to decisions made in AA2, "any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." A similar pattern of war-reverts seems to exist among other articles as well.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 19:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
On Oct 18, 2007 Meowy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was placed termlessly under AA2 restrictions and is listed among people placed under the editing restrictions. He was limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, but recently made three reverts in two days at the same page: [90], [91], [92]. Despite Meowy's appeals for sticking to talk it was him who resorted to edit-warring. Previously he removed other user’s comment at AfD discussion, allegedly because he did not like it. According to AA2 decision, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. brand спойт 13:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Ohconfucius ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has started delinking dates in violation of the date delinking injunction yet again today ( [93] [94] [95] [96]). Take a look at his block log if you're not aware of the previous history with this user. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, my clear recollection is that you are INVOLVED, and should leave the matter to another admin. Now, Ohconfucius, given sensitivities and that he is a party to the ArbCom hearing, has been unwise; however, this hardly falls within the definition of "mass program" (as specified by the injunction). Indeed, he appears to have done a lot of other work on the articles concerned at the same time. I believe that in view of his written undertaking to avoid unlinking until the lifting of the temporary injunction against mass unlinking, he should be given the benefit of the doubt.
I remind you that User:Kendrick7 was discovered to be fly-by relinking dates to many, many articles, over a period of more than two weeks—yet he somehow escaped blocking for the blatant breach of the injunction. I'm not saying that the injunction should not be enforced; however, Ohconfucius's article improvements at issue here seem relatively trivial. Tony (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Meowy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was placed on AA2 editing restrictions on October 18, 2007, limiting him to a 1 revert per week. After a fresh report just few days ago (still be seen just below) [98], Meowy again violated this restriction by trying to reinsert a disputed map by a blogger on Azerbaijan Democratic Republic page:
Besides the violation of 1RR, his reverts are contrary to discussion going on the talk page, with understanding that no disputed POV maps should appear on the page until there is consensus achieved. Atabəy ( talk) 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
See this diff. The editor was previously warned and has received extensive counseling here. They refuse to understand that Wikipedia is not for publishing original research and promoting conspiracy theories. Jehochman Talk 21:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The article is biased and doesn't represent facts because U say the facts come from unreliable sorces. AE911Truth.org (Archetects & Engineers for 911 Truth) is not mentioned at all. We have a profesor at our university who is an archetect of heavy construction (bridges and more), who holds meetings a few times a year to discuss how the structure of the Twin Towers and WTC7 could never have fallen like that. If more archetects saw these videos (IMO, "Zeitgist" is propaganda) and read David Ray Griffin's books, they would join too. Popular Mechanics & Skeptic magazine aren't really reliable peer-reviewed journals (I've subscribed to Skeptic since the beginning and met/spoke to Michael Shermer several times, telling him he's not skeptical enough, etc. . . I inspired him to do the Holocaust issue but he ignored the forensics and logistics of the alleged murder weapon.) Griffin did a through debunking of the Popular Mechanics article/book. Popular Mechanics is like the Reader's Digest for mechanics. Do U consider Reader's Digest a reliable source or a place to pitch propaganda to the masses? I have nothing more to say on the article unless I find some more bias in it. I'd like to change the header to the topic I started to add, "Biased article" to see if other's agree. The article reads like a handout from the CIA or something that would appear in Reader's Digest. U wanna ban me 'cause U don't wanna have to deal with the elephant in the room, which is the pulverized dust several inches deep throughout Manhattan, the tiny debris pile, big, heavy beams hurled 600 yards, destruction of evidence at the crime scene, reliable witnesses/victims of explosions and molten metal in the basement. Could also be that if an Archetect/Engineer comes out agains't the Government's conspiracy theory, they would not get a government job. Like I said, I have nothing more to say there. If I do start another topic it will be after I look through the archives to see how many other people think the article is biased. I do promise to be very careful if I do post anything more there. I also want to watch the page to see how U handle other dissentors of the Official Conspiracy Theory. If Ur just gonna delete what they write on talk-pages like U did to me. It's only a matter of time before some prominant, retired archetect or a better, more informed dissentor comes along to challenge this article. There's no doubt in my mind thermobaric bombs brought down the WTCs. The two videos at the bottom of my webpage should be mentioned too. Raquel Baranow ( talk) 20:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, the comments by Raquel Baranow ( talk · contribs) on this page have convinced me that her approach to editing Wikipedia is fundamentally incompatible with our goals and principles, and I have blocked her indefinitely. I do not object to an unblock by any administrator who disagrees, although I strongly recommend that, if unblocked, she is made subject to a 9/11 topic ban for which we have clear consensus here. Sandstein 14:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
NootherIDAvailable ( talk · contribs) Single-purpose Homeopathy account. Despite being relatively new, has managed to cause massive disruption, including:
Copyvio:
This is a copyvio of http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/research/the_evidence_for_homeopathy.html, and this inserts text from http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Homeopathy.
Edit-warring:
For instance, here he repeatedly tries to add an RFC discussion to the article page, and gets upset and edit wars when people remove the vandalism:
[103] (reverted: [104]) [105] (Rev: [106]) [107] (Rev: [108])
Recruiting:
Among other places, [109].
Other:
Furthermore, he doesn't actually understand basic facts about homeopathy:
Here and elsewhere he claims that succussion does not just mean shaking, but shaking with dilution. This is completely wrong: The procedure is referred to as dilution and succussion, with unsurprisingly, dilution referring to the duilution, and succussion to the shaking.
He doesn't know what he's talking about, he's inserted copyvio, he's edit-warred, recruited, and he's a single-purpose account. Homeopathy is under an article probation per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. I think a lengthy topic ban (taken widely to include all alternative medicine) is the best solution: It will give him a chance to learn more about Wikipedia, without allowing the disruption to continue. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It's obvious to me that this person has come here only to defend his POV, and he is not going to drop his efforts, never mind how gentle we are or how many explanations we give him. See, among others, his repeated justifications that the POV tag was removed because there weren't homeopaths back then to defend it, that homeopaths have to be happy with the article, his plead to insert the POV tag in homeopathy and, at the same time, to remove it from osteopathy, naturopathy and chiropractic [110], see also "you skeptics" [111]. His only contribution is distracting people who are working to improve the article. Please topic ban him. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 02:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
There are lots of editors who come here just to defend their POV. After a few months, they hopefully learn that this is frowned upon by the community (yet some still persist). This editor is essentially a newbie and hasn't been afforded the time to learn about the intricacies of WP:NPOV and WP:COPYVIO. I am sure that all of us had committed such "sins" early on in our Wiki careers The editor has stated that he/she will stay away from Homeopathy for the time being, and since blocks/bans are supposed to be preventative and not punative, I don't see any need for such a topic ban at this time. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I think "massive disruption" is an overstatement in describing this user's editing practice to date. Perhaps we are all being a little oversensitive here given the volatile nature of the topic (homeopathy) at Wikipedia. This editor is not responsible for the past homeopathic grievances, so let's not treat this new editor as if he/she were. Let's assume some good faith and realize that even diamonds have rocky beginnings. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The user's page states, Promoting accuracy in information. They have been disrupting Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center with tendentious, repetitious arguments. It is highly disruptive to repeat the same rejected proposals over and over again. We've seen this pattern many times before. I request that this account be banned from all 9/11 pages under WP:ARB9/11's discretionary sanctions. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 08:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Comment by User:WLRossThis request appears to be a misuse of WP:ARB9/11. What The Original Wildbears user page states is irrelevant as it is not specific to the subject of the page in dispute and his beliefs should have no bearing on his licence to edit 911 pages without proof of POV pushing. Wildbear has made a total of two requests in Talk for edits to the article page with another 9 edits explaining his reasoning. The first was a request on March 2 for a "brief explanation of the physics and mathematics" of the tilt of the upper floors before collapse be included in the page if worthwhile and the second was a request on March 17 to modify a section name. The typical response to his first request (March 2) was that "as no reputable third party has covered it.. likely means it doesn't bear mentioning" and "the alleged tilt" along with accusations of WP:SOAPBOX for making the request. This totally ignores the fact that both Bazant and NIST, the RS used for much of the article, have both covered it. Wildbear made no more posts in this section after March 4 (almost 3 weeks ago). I see no problem with this section not being good faith on Wildbears part. Wildbears second request (March 17) is problematic ONLY because he quoted a Steven E. Jones website but otherwise was also a good faith edit requesting a grammar fix. Replies dismissing Wildbear in this section ranged all the way from lies to misquoting sources with the only reply addressing the grammar being "It is not a matter of proper grammar" with the comment "Learn what grammar actually is" which is hardly constructive. Wildbear made no more edits in this section after March 18 (6 days ago). The limited participation of Wildbear in the page, 9 edits over a period of 2 weeks with the last a week ago, contradicts accusations of tendentious and repetitious arguments on his part. If editors had replied to him without accusations and sidetracking in the first place there would have been no issue. Wayne ( talk) 16:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Firstly we need to clear up a few things that Jehochman had alleged.
If there has been "tendentious and repetitious" editing it has been by the editors replying to Wildbear. For some odd reason his behaviour is being held to a much higher, if not impossible, standard than those editors who continually make personal attacks and misquote in support of their own claims to deny his edit requests. WP:ARB9/11 applies to both the editors who believe the official theory and the conspiracy theories equally yet seems to be "applied" ONLY to the later and arbitrarily at that for even good faith edits. This is leading to "ownership" of the article by a clique and discouraging legitimate editors from participating. I would take your lead and suggest that "There are millions of other articles they can edit" but I do not believe in preventing those I disagree with from editing. Wayne ( talk) 23:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC) |
User:Drsmoo was blocked March 24th for 3RR and accusations of antisemitism against other editors. Here is my report to 3RR about his behavior in the article about musician/writer Gilad Atzmon.
DrSmoo did engage in 3rr again today
as of this edit to get his way with his edits.
More importantly, instead of dealing with other editor’s WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:editwarring concerns with his edits (as expressed in these sections: here, here and here), he has continued to engage in attacks. Here and here he makes all sorts of barely relevant or inaccurate charges related to the antisemitism issue, including twice from doing research on an editor’s off-wikipedia activities which is against WP:harassment. Obviously, he is producing a very difficult editing environment!
Enforcement action: Whatever seems appropriate to stop him from disrupting this article. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 21:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I've notified Drsmoo of the WP:ARBPIA editing restrictions, and given him some editing advice. In my humble opinion, further action isn't required at this stage. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Carolmooredc has been engaging in WP:Tag Team and WP:Cabals both on her own talk page as well as on other talk pages in violation of wikipedia guidelines against doing so. Examples are [ [120]], [ [121]] [ [122]], [ [123]] where she actively is working with similar minded editors as her to control the article as well as one other user pages [ [124]]
She should be encouraged not to work behind the backs of the majority of the editors in an article, and make discussions regarding the article in the appropriate discussion page. Drsmoo ( talk) 02:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
As for Dr. Dan's actions, all I know is that shortly after the discussion on Battle of Vilnius commenced he showed up on an article I just created, Białystok pogrom, and made several provocative edits, without apparently looking at the sources first, in what looked like an attempt to create another battlefield. These changes are listed by Piotrus above. In general I find discussion about controversies with Dr. Dan quite difficult since, in addition to the sarcasm which even Deacon noted (and the problem with sarcasm in a written medium is that aside from its implicit lack of AGF, its use can make it quite difficult to understand what another editor is saying particularly when the sarcasm is not employed with sufficient skill) in almost every instance he tries to change the subject to anything but what is actually being discussed. Examples of this can be found both on the talk page of Battle of Vilnius as well as other talk pages of Lithuania/Poland related articles (for example [128]). radek ( talk) 00:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Deacon of Pndapetzim and I do not consider the edits by Dr. Dan that have so far been provided as liable to trigger an EE sanction for "repeatedly or seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Speaking for myself only, I will in any case not contemplate any enforcement action as long as the request section contains no notification diff. Sandstein 05:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This is very disconcerting, and I don’t know if Digwuren Discretionary sanctions constitute a better reference point than, let’s say, the Eastern European disputes Remedies to deal with this chronic illness of good will. I think Dr. Dan’s behavior warrants some sort of preventive action, like in the case of Lokyz blocked by PhilKnight for 48 hours, [145] because battlefield creation destroys the spirit of camaraderie among us. -- Poeticbent talk 19:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, if this: [147] (note - after this AE started) isn't an attempt to create a battleground and violate WP:Battle then I don't know what is and that policy clearly is meaningless. So Dr. Dan starts a section on talk page called "WP:Plagiarism" and asks "some...editors" to review their edits. When asked to be more specific he starts talking about something else. When the question is repeated he... eh, just see for yourself. The end result is that there's an accusation of plagiarism made, but no specifics, just a general aspersion cast on involved editors. And it continues... radek ( talk) 23:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
No action. As far as I can tell, no uninvolved administrator (or uninvolved user, for that matter) has expressed the opinion that the reported edits warrant any sanctions, and the discussion is becoming entirely unproductive. As an aside, a WP:DIFF of the user's notification has still not been provided. Sandstein 20:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
I agree that Ksnow's edits violate the injunction despite a clear warning. I am blocking him and advising him to make an unblock request stating clearly that he will not continue his programme of date delinking. I suggest this discussion be closed a day or so from now unless there are any further developments in this case. Sandstein 21:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Unblocked per discussion on the talkpage. De-linking of years (not dates which seemed to have caused a communication problem with the editor) was done as part of a wider systematic working the articles in question. Ksnow has said he will no longer delink and no script is used. In is not a good idea to let a very productive content editor stop dead in his tracks over a policy dispute he has expressed no active interest. Agathoclea ( talk) 08:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
See, e.g., these 11 edits of his: Cartagena, Colombia, Faith Lutheran College, Redlands, P-38 Lightning, Wynn Harmon, Enoch Powell, Bottom (TV series), Johnny Cymbal, George E. Staples, Cray, Liz Callaway, and Buick Skylark. He was previously blocked for 24 hours on March 6, 2009, for violating the injunction. Tennis expert ( talk) 10:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Colonies Chris has been notified about this post. Tennis expert ( talk) 10:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Request for sanctions declined. Requesting moves in opposition to clear consensus can be disruptive (but see WP:CCC), and reverting an admin close of a discussion most often is. I am not persuaded, however, by the evidence presented here that the request was made in an intent to disrupt Wikipedia and that it (as well as the revert) justifies WP:ARBMAC sanctions. This does not rule out ordinary sanctions by uninvolved admins (warning, brief blocks etc.), but the issue seems moot now because the move request has been (and remains) closed. The tone of this request is, I think, unbecoming a longtime administrator, and I am simply disgusted at the unproductive mud-slinging that the rest of the thread has mostly turned into, so I'm closing it. (Note for those whom it may concern: This closure is not to be construed as endorsing anyone's actions or position in this matter.) Sandstein 22:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
ΚΕΚΡΩΨ ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Kekrops), a party in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia in 2007, is a long-term Greek nationalist POV-pusher with an obsession about the name of the Republic of Macedonia (note his original arbitration statement). Greek nationalists object to the naming of the state and insist on calling it FYROM ("Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia") instead. They have repeatedly unilaterally attempted to rename the Republic of Macedonia article - which is why it's on indefinite move protection - and the issue has been discussed dozens of times by Kekrops and others, to such an extent that the naming issue has its own talk subpage. The current name was decided as far back as 2002, is supported by policy and has been stable for a long time. Kekrops has a history of Macedonia-related disruption; he has previously been blocked and placed on revert parole for repeatedly reverting templates and articles that do not use his favoured wording.
After another editor began discussion about the use of the term "FYROM" on the Greece article (see Talk:Greece#FYROM), Kekrops decided to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by proposing, in bad faith, a move of Republic of Macedonia to a name favoured by Greek nationalists, "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". [1] [2]. I closed it yesterday as an obvious bad-faith disruption; he has this morning reopened it to continue the disruption [3]. It will doubtless end with no consensus or a majority against the move, but in the meantime a great deal of time will be wasted and further disruption will be caused with the usual sockpuppetry, off-wiki canvassing and nationalist ranting from both Greeks and Macedonians. Kekrops is well aware that the proposal is futile; the aim is to prove his case that Wikipedia is biased against the Greek nationalist POV.
This is not only an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point but is also a clear attempt to game the system. Both actions have been specifically prohibited by the Arbitration Committee in relation to Macedonia-related articles (see WP:ARBMAC#Decorum). I therefore propose a topic ban for Kekrops on Macedonia-related articles, for a period of not less than three months. -- ChrisO ( talk) 08:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It's udoubtable that the request has been made to prove a point about policy ( proof). However, I would please ask admins to let the renaming request run its natural course as any other uncontroversial request, and to close it normally. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 10:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Request endorsed. If WP:ARBMAC were enforced more often, we could finally have discussions on this subject peacefully, civilly and dramalessly. It is clear that whenever one wishes to even slightly discuss something related to the name of the Republic of Macedonia on Wikipedia, this will prompt immediate bashing and disruption from a group of Greek editors. I've started a discussion on the matter recently and it quickly spiraled into accusations of censorship, double standards and racism. The article on the Republic of Macedonia was also targeted in a clearly vindictive, disruptive and WP:POINTy move proposal. Hús ö nd 19:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
ChrisO, it's not a coincidence that every single Greek editor including the most moderate ones feels terribly offended and mistreated by your abuse of administrative powers. I urge you, once more, to stop being an involved party and an involved administrator at the same time. Your repeated attacks at both an ethnic and an individual level to every single Greek editor are telling. Niko Silver 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Ibrahim4048 ( talk · contribs) has been making repeated reverts to the Mehmet Talat article to insert the word "alleged" in front of the phrase "Armenian Genocide".
On the 22nd March he did it on five occasions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278846793&oldid=278798713
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278862357&oldid=278859393
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278962105&oldid=278946499
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278964259&oldid=278963506
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278973428&oldid=278964782
On the 21st March he did it twice
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278702548&oldid=278573478
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278755731&oldid=278743423
On the 18th March he did it twice
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278024832&oldid=277955955
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278142291&oldid=278131324
This use of the word "alleged" contradicts the majority academic viewpoint as well as all the other Armenian Genocide-related articles on Wikipedia (including the main article, the Armenian Genocide entry). The proper route would be for him to present his arguments on the talk page of the Armenian Genocide article, and if they were accepted there, any changes would flow down to other articles containing Armenian Genocide-related content, including the Talat one. However, Ibrahim4048 seems intent on using only the Talat article as a platform for his marginal opinion. Under Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 Amended Remedies and Enforcement can this editor be given restrictions that will stop him from editing the Mehmet Talat article (i.e. just the Mehmet Talat article)? Meowy 21:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
We are already in a mediation process [7] which meowy has tried to sabotage by warning users not to take part in the mediation [8] because it would give me a platform and legitimize my arguments. He is basically denying me to represent myself in this dispute. He has also been very uncivil towards me and the mediator. Tealwisp, the mediator, has reported [9] him to the adminstrators. Some of meowy's arguments in the mediation process are valid though. Tealwisp tried (after various other compromises) to avoid the dispute by rephrasing the part so that only undisputed facts were included and the disputed part left out. By doing this information was left out that was relevant to the article. Tealwisp did it in good faith though, not because he took a certain side. I agreed to the compromise at first but changed my mind after vartanM reverted [10] and seeing his reasons. The best solution is to come to a decision whether in this case alleged or another construction must be made to show that the genocide is disputed or that wikipedia takes a stand and accepts the genocide as an established fact and representing it as such in its articles. I would like you to read through the mediation process carefully because this dispute is not so simple as it seems. Ibrahim4048 ( talk) 22:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you show me where this arbcom decision was taken? I already asked meowy several times whether wikipedia had made a decision to recognize the genocide. I am new to wikipedia and don't know my way around here and also don't know many of the terms that are used. Does arbcom mean arbitrary commission? Can you provide a link to the decision that was made? Ibrahim4048 ( talk) 10:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for a week. Sandstein 08:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Arbcom case: The Troubles.
89.217.188.221 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The editor has twice reverted back to their own disputed version in less than 24 hours, revert 1 and revert 2. They were informed of the sanctions here prior to making their second revert. O Fenian ( talk) 02:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could someone please have a kind word with Stevewunder ( talk · contribs) about his topic ban ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand#Stevewunder topic banned and warned? He is a relatively new editor, and I believe he may not understand our conventions about topic bans. He could use a little guidance, rather than a stern warning. Thanks! -- Vassyana ( talk) 11:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, could an uninvolved administrator please look over Ayn Rand ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), particularly in the context of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand#Editors not named and the following remedy? Thanks! -- Vassyana ( talk) 17:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Stevewunder: (this heading added March 26 by Slp1) Incivility building on past incivility despite support for a reduction in his proposed sanction. -- Snowded ( talk) 17:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Plain talk is allowed. Peter has not attacked anybody's person. He has called out stupid comments and dickish actions. While his manner of communication is not ideal, we do not sanction people for making blunt comments that are intended to advance the project. Jehochman Talk 20:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Stevewunder, despite understanding that he is topic-banned from editing the talkpage of the Ayn Rand article under this remedy ( warning, acknowledgment), persists in commenting there. The comments have been affable rather than disruptive for the most part, but in order to retain some respect for the Committee's rulings, perhaps a short holiday from editing might be appropriate. Skomorokh 03:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Enforcement request moot because I have applied an ordinary edit-warring block of one month's duration for the conduct at issue. Sandstein 07:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Arbcom case: The Troubles.
"All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related."
Mooretwin ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mooretwin has twice reverted back to his preferred version in less than 24 hours, first revert. second revert and third revert. He is well aware of the 1RR sanction [11] [12] [13] after being blocked for breeching it several times. -- Domer48 'fenian' 22:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree O Fenian, but however. I've added additional information, if User:Sandstein wants me to add all the warnings, final warnings and blocks, they need only ask. -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Domer48, I have removed ( [14]) your duplicate request above ( [15]). Please do not disrupt this noticeboard by adding redundant requests. Sandstein 23:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
OK, as I am a friend of Alastair I am involved, but thought I would point out this series of edits by Abtract which would appear to be in violation of this ruling, although Alastair last edited on the page a month previous. Anyway, I will leave it for someone impartial to decide. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vacio ( talk · contribs) is involved in edit warring and POV pushing on a number of articles related to Armenia - Azerbaijan topics. For instance, in the article about Nagorno-Karabakh he has been trying to suppress the info about the Treaty of Kurekchay for quite some time. Originally he removed the mention of the treaty and the link to the article about it on 13 March: [29], and a week later he nominated the article about the treaty for deletion: [30] Vacio claimed that no sources about the treaty were available, despite the fact that the text of the treaty in Russian from a scholarly publication, secondary sources mentioning the treaty and even the scans of the original document were provided. The result of the nomination was to keep the article. Despite that, Vacio started an edit war in Nagorno-Karabakh article, removing the information about the treaty. He did that 3 times within the last 4 days: [31] [32] [33] In addition, he is attaching baseless tags claiming that the article about the treaty is an original research: [34] [35] [36] This is an obvious attempt to suppress the information about this document, as there could be no reasonable doubt about the existence of the document, after so many sources being provided. Another article where Vacio wages an edit war is that about Ibrahim Khalil Khan, where he removes statements from the scholarly sources, which say that the person was Azeri, or adds a statement that he was either Azeri or Turkic, as if Azeri cannot be Turkic. [37] [38] [39] [40] It is well known, that Azerbaijani people are one of the Turkic peoples, so it is the same as saying that a Russian person is either Russian or Slavic. As one could see, this user has been engaged in a pointless edit warring on a number of pages, disrupting normal editing. It is worth to mention that Vacio has been twice placed on editing restrictions, but both times the sanctions were lifted, first time because the arbitration enforcing admin was given incorrect information that Vacio had no prior warning, [41] [42] [43], while in fact Vacio was officially warned: [44], and second time after Vacio promised not to edit war. [45] [46]
I think the recent activity of Vacio in arbitration covered area warrants placing him on editing restriction again. According to the ruling of the arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. So please consider placing this user on editing restriction, because his behavior has not improved after he was given second chances. Grand master 06:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Some relevant links
The editing environment at Ayn Rand has begun to rapidly degenerate yet again. Personal attacks, insults and accusations of bad faith are flying, and large series of edits are being made to the article without consultation on the talk page. I would like to urgently request administrator intervention to help enforce the recent ArbCom ruling. TallNapoleon ( talk) 08:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to note here that a set of editors on the article appear to be engaging in editwarring technics of frustration and personal attack. They are also attacking peer reviewed sources because those sources specialize in the subject and are therefore by these editors standards are "biased". I joined the article on March 19 alittle over 10 days ago and have been in protracted and unproductive arguments and been called insane on Jimbo's personal talkpage by one of the warring editors. LoveMonkey ( talk) 12:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's User:Peter Damian Insults and threats and general disruptive behavior.
Examples of his refusial to remove the insults and threats of reporting to Arbcomm. He refused the request to remove the comments from administrator User:DGG.
Here's User:Snowded disruptive, disrespectful, hyer critical and obstructionistic tactics.
Using Wikipedia Policy to frustrate and edit war. In general argumentive and unapologetic about behavior even after being banned.
LoveMonkey ( talk) 13:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I have notified both Peter Damian [83] and Snowded [84] and their respective talkpages. LoveMonkey ( talk) 13:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
This is Arbitration enforcement. Please don't come here unless you have a particular arbitration remedy to enforce. This has not been listed, so I don't see much to do here. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 14:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On the Workshop page for the WP:RfArb regarding West Bank - Judea and Samaria, Malcolm Schosha ( talk · contribs) made the following comment:
I'm the user who initiated the ArbCom case, and I support it. I do not appreciate being called a 90-100% "garden variety" anti-Semite. This baseless accusation is a direct violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. When asked to back-up or strike his comments, Malcolm Schosha ( talk · contribs) replied with
I live and work in a country that takes accusations of Anti-Semitism quite seriously, and since other editors have had few qualms about using my real name here, this kind of comment can have direct, real-life consequences. This is not the type of accusation that one can post and then "not have time now to reply to": any editor that has the time to make such serious and defamatory accusations, should also have the time to back them up.
Malcolm Schosha ( talk · contribs) has not been officially notified of WP:ARBPIA, but his participating in the RfArb and other discussions on the topic should have made him aware of the restrictions and discretionary sanctions specified therein. Even without having been warned, this type of behaviour merits a serious response.
Cheers and many thanks, pedrito - talk - 02.04.2009 08:10
Rather amusing that Brandspoyt below selectively chose who was at fault in the edit wars. For all that, let's not forget that Elsanaturk ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is essentially a revert warrior who pops in and out of articles, without really adding any material. As a party to AA as well as AA2 and despite numerous warnings, he reverted no less than three times on the same article below [87], [88], [89], without contributing anything to the article's talk page. According to decisions made in AA2, "any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." A similar pattern of war-reverts seems to exist among other articles as well.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 19:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
On Oct 18, 2007 Meowy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was placed termlessly under AA2 restrictions and is listed among people placed under the editing restrictions. He was limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, but recently made three reverts in two days at the same page: [90], [91], [92]. Despite Meowy's appeals for sticking to talk it was him who resorted to edit-warring. Previously he removed other user’s comment at AfD discussion, allegedly because he did not like it. According to AA2 decision, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. brand спойт 13:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Ohconfucius ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has started delinking dates in violation of the date delinking injunction yet again today ( [93] [94] [95] [96]). Take a look at his block log if you're not aware of the previous history with this user. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, my clear recollection is that you are INVOLVED, and should leave the matter to another admin. Now, Ohconfucius, given sensitivities and that he is a party to the ArbCom hearing, has been unwise; however, this hardly falls within the definition of "mass program" (as specified by the injunction). Indeed, he appears to have done a lot of other work on the articles concerned at the same time. I believe that in view of his written undertaking to avoid unlinking until the lifting of the temporary injunction against mass unlinking, he should be given the benefit of the doubt.
I remind you that User:Kendrick7 was discovered to be fly-by relinking dates to many, many articles, over a period of more than two weeks—yet he somehow escaped blocking for the blatant breach of the injunction. I'm not saying that the injunction should not be enforced; however, Ohconfucius's article improvements at issue here seem relatively trivial. Tony (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Meowy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was placed on AA2 editing restrictions on October 18, 2007, limiting him to a 1 revert per week. After a fresh report just few days ago (still be seen just below) [98], Meowy again violated this restriction by trying to reinsert a disputed map by a blogger on Azerbaijan Democratic Republic page:
Besides the violation of 1RR, his reverts are contrary to discussion going on the talk page, with understanding that no disputed POV maps should appear on the page until there is consensus achieved. Atabəy ( talk) 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
See this diff. The editor was previously warned and has received extensive counseling here. They refuse to understand that Wikipedia is not for publishing original research and promoting conspiracy theories. Jehochman Talk 21:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The article is biased and doesn't represent facts because U say the facts come from unreliable sorces. AE911Truth.org (Archetects & Engineers for 911 Truth) is not mentioned at all. We have a profesor at our university who is an archetect of heavy construction (bridges and more), who holds meetings a few times a year to discuss how the structure of the Twin Towers and WTC7 could never have fallen like that. If more archetects saw these videos (IMO, "Zeitgist" is propaganda) and read David Ray Griffin's books, they would join too. Popular Mechanics & Skeptic magazine aren't really reliable peer-reviewed journals (I've subscribed to Skeptic since the beginning and met/spoke to Michael Shermer several times, telling him he's not skeptical enough, etc. . . I inspired him to do the Holocaust issue but he ignored the forensics and logistics of the alleged murder weapon.) Griffin did a through debunking of the Popular Mechanics article/book. Popular Mechanics is like the Reader's Digest for mechanics. Do U consider Reader's Digest a reliable source or a place to pitch propaganda to the masses? I have nothing more to say on the article unless I find some more bias in it. I'd like to change the header to the topic I started to add, "Biased article" to see if other's agree. The article reads like a handout from the CIA or something that would appear in Reader's Digest. U wanna ban me 'cause U don't wanna have to deal with the elephant in the room, which is the pulverized dust several inches deep throughout Manhattan, the tiny debris pile, big, heavy beams hurled 600 yards, destruction of evidence at the crime scene, reliable witnesses/victims of explosions and molten metal in the basement. Could also be that if an Archetect/Engineer comes out agains't the Government's conspiracy theory, they would not get a government job. Like I said, I have nothing more to say there. If I do start another topic it will be after I look through the archives to see how many other people think the article is biased. I do promise to be very careful if I do post anything more there. I also want to watch the page to see how U handle other dissentors of the Official Conspiracy Theory. If Ur just gonna delete what they write on talk-pages like U did to me. It's only a matter of time before some prominant, retired archetect or a better, more informed dissentor comes along to challenge this article. There's no doubt in my mind thermobaric bombs brought down the WTCs. The two videos at the bottom of my webpage should be mentioned too. Raquel Baranow ( talk) 20:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, the comments by Raquel Baranow ( talk · contribs) on this page have convinced me that her approach to editing Wikipedia is fundamentally incompatible with our goals and principles, and I have blocked her indefinitely. I do not object to an unblock by any administrator who disagrees, although I strongly recommend that, if unblocked, she is made subject to a 9/11 topic ban for which we have clear consensus here. Sandstein 14:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
NootherIDAvailable ( talk · contribs) Single-purpose Homeopathy account. Despite being relatively new, has managed to cause massive disruption, including:
Copyvio:
This is a copyvio of http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/research/the_evidence_for_homeopathy.html, and this inserts text from http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Homeopathy.
Edit-warring:
For instance, here he repeatedly tries to add an RFC discussion to the article page, and gets upset and edit wars when people remove the vandalism:
[103] (reverted: [104]) [105] (Rev: [106]) [107] (Rev: [108])
Recruiting:
Among other places, [109].
Other:
Furthermore, he doesn't actually understand basic facts about homeopathy:
Here and elsewhere he claims that succussion does not just mean shaking, but shaking with dilution. This is completely wrong: The procedure is referred to as dilution and succussion, with unsurprisingly, dilution referring to the duilution, and succussion to the shaking.
He doesn't know what he's talking about, he's inserted copyvio, he's edit-warred, recruited, and he's a single-purpose account. Homeopathy is under an article probation per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. I think a lengthy topic ban (taken widely to include all alternative medicine) is the best solution: It will give him a chance to learn more about Wikipedia, without allowing the disruption to continue. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It's obvious to me that this person has come here only to defend his POV, and he is not going to drop his efforts, never mind how gentle we are or how many explanations we give him. See, among others, his repeated justifications that the POV tag was removed because there weren't homeopaths back then to defend it, that homeopaths have to be happy with the article, his plead to insert the POV tag in homeopathy and, at the same time, to remove it from osteopathy, naturopathy and chiropractic [110], see also "you skeptics" [111]. His only contribution is distracting people who are working to improve the article. Please topic ban him. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 02:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
There are lots of editors who come here just to defend their POV. After a few months, they hopefully learn that this is frowned upon by the community (yet some still persist). This editor is essentially a newbie and hasn't been afforded the time to learn about the intricacies of WP:NPOV and WP:COPYVIO. I am sure that all of us had committed such "sins" early on in our Wiki careers The editor has stated that he/she will stay away from Homeopathy for the time being, and since blocks/bans are supposed to be preventative and not punative, I don't see any need for such a topic ban at this time. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I think "massive disruption" is an overstatement in describing this user's editing practice to date. Perhaps we are all being a little oversensitive here given the volatile nature of the topic (homeopathy) at Wikipedia. This editor is not responsible for the past homeopathic grievances, so let's not treat this new editor as if he/she were. Let's assume some good faith and realize that even diamonds have rocky beginnings. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The user's page states, Promoting accuracy in information. They have been disrupting Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center with tendentious, repetitious arguments. It is highly disruptive to repeat the same rejected proposals over and over again. We've seen this pattern many times before. I request that this account be banned from all 9/11 pages under WP:ARB9/11's discretionary sanctions. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 08:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Comment by User:WLRossThis request appears to be a misuse of WP:ARB9/11. What The Original Wildbears user page states is irrelevant as it is not specific to the subject of the page in dispute and his beliefs should have no bearing on his licence to edit 911 pages without proof of POV pushing. Wildbear has made a total of two requests in Talk for edits to the article page with another 9 edits explaining his reasoning. The first was a request on March 2 for a "brief explanation of the physics and mathematics" of the tilt of the upper floors before collapse be included in the page if worthwhile and the second was a request on March 17 to modify a section name. The typical response to his first request (March 2) was that "as no reputable third party has covered it.. likely means it doesn't bear mentioning" and "the alleged tilt" along with accusations of WP:SOAPBOX for making the request. This totally ignores the fact that both Bazant and NIST, the RS used for much of the article, have both covered it. Wildbear made no more posts in this section after March 4 (almost 3 weeks ago). I see no problem with this section not being good faith on Wildbears part. Wildbears second request (March 17) is problematic ONLY because he quoted a Steven E. Jones website but otherwise was also a good faith edit requesting a grammar fix. Replies dismissing Wildbear in this section ranged all the way from lies to misquoting sources with the only reply addressing the grammar being "It is not a matter of proper grammar" with the comment "Learn what grammar actually is" which is hardly constructive. Wildbear made no more edits in this section after March 18 (6 days ago). The limited participation of Wildbear in the page, 9 edits over a period of 2 weeks with the last a week ago, contradicts accusations of tendentious and repetitious arguments on his part. If editors had replied to him without accusations and sidetracking in the first place there would have been no issue. Wayne ( talk) 16:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Firstly we need to clear up a few things that Jehochman had alleged.
If there has been "tendentious and repetitious" editing it has been by the editors replying to Wildbear. For some odd reason his behaviour is being held to a much higher, if not impossible, standard than those editors who continually make personal attacks and misquote in support of their own claims to deny his edit requests. WP:ARB9/11 applies to both the editors who believe the official theory and the conspiracy theories equally yet seems to be "applied" ONLY to the later and arbitrarily at that for even good faith edits. This is leading to "ownership" of the article by a clique and discouraging legitimate editors from participating. I would take your lead and suggest that "There are millions of other articles they can edit" but I do not believe in preventing those I disagree with from editing. Wayne ( talk) 23:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC) |
User:Drsmoo was blocked March 24th for 3RR and accusations of antisemitism against other editors. Here is my report to 3RR about his behavior in the article about musician/writer Gilad Atzmon.
DrSmoo did engage in 3rr again today
as of this edit to get his way with his edits.
More importantly, instead of dealing with other editor’s WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:editwarring concerns with his edits (as expressed in these sections: here, here and here), he has continued to engage in attacks. Here and here he makes all sorts of barely relevant or inaccurate charges related to the antisemitism issue, including twice from doing research on an editor’s off-wikipedia activities which is against WP:harassment. Obviously, he is producing a very difficult editing environment!
Enforcement action: Whatever seems appropriate to stop him from disrupting this article. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 21:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I've notified Drsmoo of the WP:ARBPIA editing restrictions, and given him some editing advice. In my humble opinion, further action isn't required at this stage. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Carolmooredc has been engaging in WP:Tag Team and WP:Cabals both on her own talk page as well as on other talk pages in violation of wikipedia guidelines against doing so. Examples are [ [120]], [ [121]] [ [122]], [ [123]] where she actively is working with similar minded editors as her to control the article as well as one other user pages [ [124]]
She should be encouraged not to work behind the backs of the majority of the editors in an article, and make discussions regarding the article in the appropriate discussion page. Drsmoo ( talk) 02:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
As for Dr. Dan's actions, all I know is that shortly after the discussion on Battle of Vilnius commenced he showed up on an article I just created, Białystok pogrom, and made several provocative edits, without apparently looking at the sources first, in what looked like an attempt to create another battlefield. These changes are listed by Piotrus above. In general I find discussion about controversies with Dr. Dan quite difficult since, in addition to the sarcasm which even Deacon noted (and the problem with sarcasm in a written medium is that aside from its implicit lack of AGF, its use can make it quite difficult to understand what another editor is saying particularly when the sarcasm is not employed with sufficient skill) in almost every instance he tries to change the subject to anything but what is actually being discussed. Examples of this can be found both on the talk page of Battle of Vilnius as well as other talk pages of Lithuania/Poland related articles (for example [128]). radek ( talk) 00:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Deacon of Pndapetzim and I do not consider the edits by Dr. Dan that have so far been provided as liable to trigger an EE sanction for "repeatedly or seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Speaking for myself only, I will in any case not contemplate any enforcement action as long as the request section contains no notification diff. Sandstein 05:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This is very disconcerting, and I don’t know if Digwuren Discretionary sanctions constitute a better reference point than, let’s say, the Eastern European disputes Remedies to deal with this chronic illness of good will. I think Dr. Dan’s behavior warrants some sort of preventive action, like in the case of Lokyz blocked by PhilKnight for 48 hours, [145] because battlefield creation destroys the spirit of camaraderie among us. -- Poeticbent talk 19:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, if this: [147] (note - after this AE started) isn't an attempt to create a battleground and violate WP:Battle then I don't know what is and that policy clearly is meaningless. So Dr. Dan starts a section on talk page called "WP:Plagiarism" and asks "some...editors" to review their edits. When asked to be more specific he starts talking about something else. When the question is repeated he... eh, just see for yourself. The end result is that there's an accusation of plagiarism made, but no specifics, just a general aspersion cast on involved editors. And it continues... radek ( talk) 23:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
No action. As far as I can tell, no uninvolved administrator (or uninvolved user, for that matter) has expressed the opinion that the reported edits warrant any sanctions, and the discussion is becoming entirely unproductive. As an aside, a WP:DIFF of the user's notification has still not been provided. Sandstein 20:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
I agree that Ksnow's edits violate the injunction despite a clear warning. I am blocking him and advising him to make an unblock request stating clearly that he will not continue his programme of date delinking. I suggest this discussion be closed a day or so from now unless there are any further developments in this case. Sandstein 21:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Unblocked per discussion on the talkpage. De-linking of years (not dates which seemed to have caused a communication problem with the editor) was done as part of a wider systematic working the articles in question. Ksnow has said he will no longer delink and no script is used. In is not a good idea to let a very productive content editor stop dead in his tracks over a policy dispute he has expressed no active interest. Agathoclea ( talk) 08:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)