Azerbaijani ( talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Azerbaijani_placed_on_revert_parole.
Azerbaijani has been placed on revert parole and limited to one revert per page per week. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. [1]
However, he reverted Nakhichevan article: [2] (replaced South Caucasus with Arran), and made no use of talk page, which is a violation of his parole.
Reported by: -- Grandmaster 04:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Aivazovsky ( talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Aivazovsky_placed_on_revert_parole. Aivazovsky has been placed on revert parole and limited to one revert per page per week. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. [3]
However, he reverted Greater Armenia (political concept) article more than once: [4], [5], and provided no explanation of his reasonings for content reverts on the article's talk page, which is a violation of his parole.
Reported by: Atabek 17:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing ( talk · contribs) has been placed on indefinite probation and is under an enforcement rule that he "may be blocked for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses, should he... excessively revert any page. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year." The final decision is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing. He has since been blocked between 5-7 times (depending on how you count), including a 1-year block approved by the ArbCom.
He has now engaged in disruptive reverting here (April 30 through May 13), here (May 10 through May 13), and here (May 10 through May 13). Makemi describes the events at WP:ANI#Infoboxes.
Reported by: Fireplace 02:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Atabek ( talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee: [9]
He can only make one revert per week per article, and he has to explain his revert. It is suspected that he was using suckpuppets to edit war on the fallowing articles Monte Melkonian, Drastamat Kanayan, Nagorno-Karabakh and House of Hasan-Jalalyan. The following suck account were used
the following is his IP address, which he accidentally used couple of days ago.
[10]
Compare edits made by Atabek [11] with edits made by User:Zipirtich [12], User:Earthdream [13], and User:Drastamat [14]. -- VartanM 05:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Per Dmcdevit's checkuser finding (see Grandmaster's link), no apparent violation. Newyorkbrad 23:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Aivazovsky ( talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Aivazovsky_placed_on_revert_parole. He has to discuss every single revert that he makes on the talk page.
However, User:Aivazovsky blatantly continues to violate his revert parole, and keeps making reverts without any discussion. Here is his latest revert without any discussion whatsoever on the Demographics of Armenia article:
[16] (revert to the version [17]).
(the history of edits for the article is here: [18])
He made the revert just 23 minutes after he was warned on his talk page by an administrator about his continuous violations of his revert parole ( [19]). Such behaviour shows complete disregard of his parole, of administrators, and of the Wiki community in general.
The user has been blocked repeatedly for violating his revert parole. The number of his blocks is astounding (at least 6 violations of his revert parole: [20]). Clearly, short-term blocks do not work to change this user's disruptive behavior. Therefore, I suggest that User:Aivazovsky be blocked indefinitely.-- TigranTheGreat 21:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Dacy69 ( talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee: [21]
He can only make one revert per week per article, and he has to explain his revert. He reverted the Safavids article, and in his edit summary he said that he was reverting vandalism, however, what he removed was not vandalism at all. Furthermore, he did not explain his revert on the talk page as required by the arbitration parole: [22] Azerbaijani 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Not only did this decision come a day after Dacy69 violated his parole (therefore it doesnt apply, as Dacy committed the violation prior to any decision), but the only reason this decision even happened was because Atabek misinformed an administrator about this users actions, and I have commented on the Admins talk page: [25]
Is it not peculiar that both Grandmaster and Atabek have run to Dacy69's defense so quickly? Also, note that once again Atabek made a false report against me (here you can also see the false accusations made against the anon): [26]
Interestingly, these users contend that the Safavids article is a sensitive issue and that the anon is messing up the consensus version of the article, but these users themselves have violated a consensus agreement which they themselves agreed to on the History of the name Azerbaijan article and have traded reverts so that they wouldnt break parole. Azerbaijani 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I fully trust to Arbcom members to judge on this case. Just fyi - On that page Mammed Said Ordubadi user:Azerbaijani insulted me and called me a liar - then and I came up with important document on page History of the name Azerbaijan to prove my case which was accepted and inserted in the article. You, Azerbaijani, should change attitude to other editors' opinion and not try to revenge, and moreover, use sockpuppets to evade restrictions. I made also checkuser request and wait for final desicion.-- Dacy69 16:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The anon IP belonged to Tajik, who used it to evade his parole. Tajik has been blocked indefinitely. [39] I think this closes the issue. Grandmaster 07:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Freedom skies ( talk · contribs) has been placed on standard revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Freedom_skies.
In particular he is required to discuss content reversion (excepting obvious vandalism) on talk pages of articles. This has been violated in two cases.
In both cases, he failed to discuss it on talk pages, calling it reversion of vandalism.
Reported by: -- Knverma 20:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The decision ruled that Freedom skies is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism.
"Knverma" asked for redirect on 07:48, 8 May 2007 and went ahead on 07:49, 8 May 2007. It took him less than two mins to blank a well sourced article. Arrow740 said that "We should delete and merge into Buddhism and Hinduism." Knverma blanked the excellently sourced article and did not merge it; I merged it today.
"Knverma" blanked Patriarch (Buddhism) and redirected it to Lineage (Buddhism), a completely different conept. He blanked content elsewhere.
Those actions amount to vandalism.
Freedom skies| talk 20:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually sir,
I have good reasons to assume that "Knverma" is vandalizing those articles.
Kindly take a look into the past actions of the user:-
That material was from peer reviewed journals. I'll provide numerous more examples such as these in which the user has shown the tendency to simply blank mateial in the past.
Knverma is an editor who would like to have every mention of Bodhidharma removed from this encyclopedia for his own reasons.
He removed the neutral narrative as mentioned below from here; he could have requested expansion and I, for one, would have responded. Removing an entire concept with such scope for expansion is improper.:-
A patriarch in Buddhism refers to high members of the sangha who were not only succesors to the historical Gautama Buddha, but were also leaders of their respectful sect. Bodhidharma, for example, was considered the first Zen (Ch'an) patriarch, and the twenty-eighth successor to the Buddha. In Jodo Shinshu it refers to seven Indian, Chinese and Japanese masters before its founder Shinran. In Theravada the term is used for the Sangharaja.
He completely blanked Yoga and Buddhism and did not merge it. I had to perform the merge myself.
A patriarch is the one to whom the founding principles of a religious school are attributed to, in this case the Buddha (in India) and Bodhidharma (in China) [1] and Lineage refers to the concept of Dharma transmission which traces it's origin to the one patriarch.
I'm sorry for the delay in the reply; If you'll take a look here you'll see that I have not worked since 21:00, 12 May 2007. I was involved in a minor accident and may not be able to contribute in the near future as well.
The patriarch article should be expanded using KÅ«kai and HÅnen ShÅnin. I'll try do it myself using only the best sources available. This merge was proposed only by Knverma and carried on only by Knverma.
You'll notice that only Knverma carried out the blanking of Bodhidharma from this discussion.
Any objections to the merge? -- Knverma 08:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Merged. -- Knverma 11:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Regards,
Freedom skies| talk 09:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Closely related complaint Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Andries. Vassyana's complaint about me reg. my edit on 6 May was based on the unsourced information that Kkrystian added to the article Shirdi Sai Baba on 17 May. Andries 20:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
diff 17 May 2007 Adds unsourced positive information about Sathya Sai Baba in the article Shirdi Sai Baba which violates. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Kkrystian_reminded
The information about Sathya Sai Baba that Kkrystian added that is unsourced and on which Vassyana bases his complaint about me is as follows
Notification of Kkrystian and more details [45]
See http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/shortnews/Mumbai%20Mirror.htm
Andries 20:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Closely related complaint
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Kkrystian.
Andries 20:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Andries (
talk ·
contribs) was
topic banned by ArbCom from "editing
Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages". Andries edited
Sai Baba of Shirdi on 6 May 2007.
[47] It can explicitly be seen that this is a
related article. Additionally, Andries has been endorsing edit wars as a solution to content disputes on a guru article.
[48]
[49] Thank you for your time.
Vassyana 13:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
:It appears that the Arbcom ban went into effect on 6 May 2007, only a short time before this edit. If
Andries hasn't edited since and continues not to, I would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt on this one and assume Andries wasn't aware of the ban at the time. "Endorsing edit wars" is a separate matter. Best, --
Shirahadasha 15:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification_from_user:Andries_reg._Sathya_Sai_Baba Andries 19:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I will try to keep this brief to avoid further cluttering this request. I apologized to Andries, as my lapse was unintentional. [52] One of Shirdi Sai Baba's main disciples claimed Sathya Sai Baba was foretold by Shirdi Sai Baba, and accepted Sathya's claims of reincarnation. Andries comparisons to broad topics and Jesus, etc are inappropriate and misleading. Báb and Bahá'u'lláh would be more apt comparisons. Please note that Andries called this rebuttal "mere propaganda by the Sathya Sai Baba movement". [53] Vassyana 19:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
See
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/shortnews/Mumbai%20Mirror.htm
Andries 08:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Reddi ( talk · contribs) is back after what I am told is a one year probation on editing science-related articles. His arbitration case can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2 with a final decision in arbitration case that was a finding of Disruptive editing, 3RR violations, Uncommunicative, Edit warring.
New examples are:
Halfblue 03:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing ( talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting simple vandalism. However he reverted edits of other users to Sutton Coldfield four times in 10 minutes.
The admin who dealt with the AIV report did not class the edits as simple vandalism, as can be seen here. One Night In Hackney 303 12:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Eupator ( talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Eupator_placed_on_revert_parole. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. However he reverted legitimate edits of other users to Paytakaran twice in less than 7 days.
Reported by: Grandmaster 07:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
In addition to my statement below following our ArbCom case, I feel that User:ScienceApologist is now not constructively building consensus by cooperating with other editors.
While I appreciate that ScienceApologist wishes to improve the article, it is not for one editor to decided that text is no longer disputed, nor that consensus is not require, and that they solely decided the version of text for an article. -- Iantresman 18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Per ArbCom decision, User:Aivazovsky is under a revert parole and is required to leave comments on the talk page for the edits he makes. However, User:Aivazovsky has recently moved [94] the category Turkophobia to category Anti-Turkism without any discussion on the talk pages. I would like remind here that Turkophobia is an accepted scholarly term. Moreover, User:Aivazovsky has also recently edited [95] the article Varoujan Garabedian, removing the new Anti-Turkism (old Turkophobia) category from the page about a person convicted of terrorist attacks against civilians, again without any discussion on the talk page. He has done the same at ASALA, [96], again without any comments on talk page. And a 3rd one, at Askeran clash here [97], again no comments. That's 3 pages! Please, enforce the decisions of ArbCom with regards to User:Aivazovsky as the earlier leniency, such as here [98] did not help to solve the problem of editing or reverting without discussion. Atabek 04:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
User:ScienceApologist has just called me "a complete dick" [99], again. [100], contrary to No personal attacks and WP:CIVIL.
Despite the ArbCom caution, [102] ScienceApologist subsequently:
And just recently:
I was wondering how many personal attacks, incivility, cautions and warnings, need be reached before some positive action is taken? -- Iantresman 17:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Administrator response: I regret that this report was not addressed earlier. ScienceApologist is strongly cautioned to avoid abusive language, irrespective of his opinion of other editors' conduct. Newyorkbrad 03:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Dacy69 has violated his parole:
Dacy69 is on Arbcom parole, stating that he has to accompany ever revert with a comment on the talk page: [114]
He violated it on Armenian-Tatar massacres. He reverted [115] yet left no response on the talk page: [116] Azerbaijani 23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I should not leave message if this is vandalism or edit by newcomer who destroyed the page And it is obvious that edit was done in violation of wiki stadard on page you mentioned-- Dacy69 14:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Selket issued a warning [119] but says he is unsure what response another admin may have. Azerbaijani 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to continue here. Please see Church of Kish - both Grandmaster and Dacy69 reverted back twice already in past 2 days each on the article I think. I suspect it is violation of paroles.Sincerely Hetoum I 04:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
diffs (I am not understanding this term) you reverted and then re-added same info after parishan. Funny that you as a parolee should accuse me of edit warring Hetoum I 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Just check kish history, ; ) Hetoum I 04:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Infinity0 ( talk · contribs) started to make reverts without discussing them on talk pages. On May 24 he made three such reverts 1, 2 and 3. Two of them were on anarchism related pages. His arbitration case can be found here.
Also, he created an account called AnarchoKapitalismus just for mocking anarcho-capitalism. I'm not sure whether that can be put under "inappropriate insertion of anarchy related material", but I think it violates WP:NOT and constitutes disruptive behavior. -- Vision Thing -- 13:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Infinity0 has continued to revert ( 1, 2) content without discussion contrary to the terms of his revert parole which explicitly states that he must accompany every content revert with discussion on the relevant talk page. -- Vision Thing -- 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sysop response. Infinity0 has been blocked for 24 hours, with diffs and a link to the ArbCom case provided. Vision Thing has been encouraged to discuss significant reversions and large article changes. Vassyana 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Tajik ( talk · contribs) has been banned indefinitely by the admin: [123] and the arbcom case is on a voting stage to formalize his permanent ban. [124] Despite that, Tajik is editing Safavid dynasty and other artcles under anonymous IPs and sock accounts. The checkuser request that I filed confirms that the suspicious accounts indeed belong to User:Tajik, please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik. -- Grandmaster 05:42, 8 June 2007 (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.
Final admin response. This matter is now closed. Bucketsofg 18:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The user page of this user is probably in violation of an arbcom ruling which applies to them: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi#Laundry_lists_of_grievances which states that "Tobias Conradi is prohibited from maintaining laundry lists of grievances". This page contains a list of the users grievances with the Arbcom decision, in violation of their ruling. It is probably also in violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, since the user is using it as a page advocating his right to maintain lists of accusations against admins. ( ShivaIdol 21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC))
This user is a almost surely a sockpuppet of banned multiple puppet and puppet master User:BryanFromPalatinepermabanned during the Free Republic case. His first edit was to Free Republic and within minutes he was editing Democratic Underground. Both these articles are on probation. He already 'knows'WP, all the issues and long-time editors. Just like socks Bryan and Dino Hinnen, he claims he's been 'lurking' and studying up on WP. Highly doubtful Please investigate. 64.145.158.163 21:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
1. Admin Zero0000 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was advised by ArbCom and committed "not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq, including but not limited to enforcement actions under their prior arbitration case, and admonished that so long as an editor, including one on probation, is not restricted in their editing of a page or area they are entitled to be accorded good faith and be treated with respect and courtesy when they edit in those areas. " [131].
Despite the ruling and his commitment to ArbCom (as well as previously on AN/I board) he overruled another admin action [132], [133] without discussing it with the admin involved and deleted - without review, without proper tag and without justification - an article I created. The deletion is an admin only action - he was not supose to take such action based on ArbCom rulling.
It also seems to be a violation of WP:AGF and violation of WP:NPA in edit summary [134].
2. Zero0000 ( talk · contribs) has done that after I found that he misrepresented a source - please see bottom part of Talk:East_Jerusalem
All requests to address any of those issues did not got any response from user Zero000. Zeq 20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Islam_and_antisemitism describes this trope--nearly nearly 1400 years old--in a three paragraph section, and devotes a second section to the interpretation by scholars. Expanding the subject into an article of its own is feasible and legitimate. The most prominent Islamic website discusses the subject in seven pages, the use of this epitheton by contemporary Islam prompting 53000+ google hits. Properly dealt with, there's nothing wrong with that lemma. Its not up to Zero to define and enforce the loaded term Islamophobia, as he did in the deletion summary. A speedy would have been the proper process. -- tickle me 08:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't view the deleted article, but I'm at a loss to determine why Zero would have taken this decision upon himself despite the very clear and tightly-defined (Zeq only) ruling of the Committee Proabivouac 08:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
All is written. It is an advice and for a "good" or a "bad" reason, he decided not to follow this. Given Zeq is sincerely interested by this article and is eager to fill in with good sources, all can be solved in "re-establishing" that article and reminding Zero not to take care any more about Zeq. Alithien 07:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I will also be on a wikipbrake for few days Zeq 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not violated my probation. You may dispute the article content but that is not the issue here. Read the probation terms and find out for your self. In any case the issue here is Zero admin actions. The article was already reviwed by one admin who decided not to speedy delete it. Zero over-rulled that admin decision and took the action himself. There are process for what he did and should just have followed them - instead he took an admin action himself. Zeq 04:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It was not and I am not going to deabte the content of the article here. If you think the article is not appropriate -please conduct an orderly deletion review. The only issue here is Zero Admin behaviour and it seems that yet again you are going to reward his behaviour. I created an article in good faith. Don't pick on me just because I am in probation. there is nothing wrong in the article itself and the best thing is to create it and put it to AFD if you think it should be deleted. I will accept an AFD after everyone has an opportunity to see the article (no one can since it was speedy delete without due process)
Also note that since ArbCom had the opportunity ro review my edit, my probation etc...and decided on the action you should not now issue any bans that are not even in my probation. You are way over reaching your authority here.
Zeq 14:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Copied from [136]
Thanks! -- Zero talk 09:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)I found an article called something like "pigs and monkeys" which consisted of rabid anti-islamic filth. No attempt at context, no attempt at identifying the content as refering to an extreme fringe, no mention of the background of the groups that bring us this "information", no redeeming features at all but just pure islamophobic pornography. I reacted with the "delete" button in a fit of anger, just as I would if a Nazi came along and wrote a similar article about "some Jews". When I cooled down, I remembered the ArbCom ruling; reading it again now I can see that I broke it. So I have to plead guilty.
Zero admitted to have taken the wrong decision as he feels, among Nazi allegations, that Zeq should have attempted "at identifying the content as referring to an extreme fringe," which is clearly his OR on the topic. A speedy was warranted at best, to have others evaluate what is an edit conflict. Discussing action against Zeq without even knowing the content of his article except by Zero'S hate spewing summary is unjustified. Violating Godwin's law when defending oneself for having broken an arbcom decision--being an admin-- is appalling, that other admins don't mind is a sign of pc going way over the top. -- tickle me 16:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Admin only below this line, please. Bucketsofg 01:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It may also be worth noting this thread on the proposed decision talkpage in the recent case. Newyorkbrad 02:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Iianq and User:Qaka are both Instantnood sockpuppets. I don't have time to spell it out well. Here is what is obvious Qaka was designed for stalking Huaiwei, and Iiang was designed for stalking me. Both are exhibiting classic Instantnood behaviors of changing the spelling of Macau to Macao, revert warring, and stalking.
Qaka edits that mirror previous Instantnood edits: [140], [141], stalking Huaiwei: [142]. Then screws up and uses the Qaka account to revert me, gaining my attention: [143]
Iianq came to my attention after I made a minor spelling change in Lists of Casinos by changing the structure in one of Instantnood's favorite ways [144], then revert warring to keep it [145] [146] [147]. Though in this instance the Macau/Macao spelling change is correct, since he noticed I made the change once, he went whole hog on it, as Qaka did before, [148]. Looking deeper in the history the ID as 'nood became more apparent with edits like these: [149], [150], [151], and more stalking [152].
I sat on pointing these out as socks before they directly engaged me because the edits were so suspicious. A few days ago I pointed it out to Huaiwei, and he had independently come to the same conclusion. Then the socks went into revert warring activity this weekend. I can't just "be suspicious" anymore. SchmuckyTheCat 18:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Atabek broke his 1rr parole on | Azeri cartoon controversy, by moving the page 2 times in 1 day. He is a revert parol from the Aremnia-Azerbaijan case. He's reverted/moved "Azeri Cartoon Controversy in "Iran" Newspaper " 2 times today, both times unilatreally. Here is his edits: [ [153] [154] -- behmod talk 15:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
. I am kindly requesting admins to check this case. User Grandmaster and User:Atabek are trying to change the subject. This is an obvious case of breaking the 1rr parole.-- behmod talk 14:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, here is Atabek's parole: [177]. Why are you guys attempting to divert this parole violation report to someone else (me), when that other person did not even break the parole. Read my statement, I did not break parole in any way, shape, or form.
Atabek, stop making false claims. I am not edit warring in that article at all, and look at the bottom, does it say that that collage is linked to any articles? No, because I personally removed the image myself replacing it with the original. I will not help these two users in their attempt of diverting the attention of the administrators with their false accusations not based on any evidence.
I will have the administrators note that Atabek has been very disruptive lately, and I have tried every other means of avoiding an arbcom with him, including making a peace proposal to him (which he did not accept), but it looks like this user wont change his attitude, adn the only solution may be an arbcom. He has not only insulted me (as well as other users) personally and made false accusations (administrators User:Thatcher131 and User:Tariqabjotu both know about this and this users behavior), but has also made Wiki retaliation threats, saying that he will assault Iran related articles. Notice how these users are trying to divert attention from Atabek's parole violation by bringing up completely unrelated and false accusations against me, based on no evidence. I have made my points very clear, have proved my innocence without a doubt and will not feed into the diversion these two users are attempting. Good night. Hajji Piruz 05:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Koavf is already in violation of his revert parole. On June 5, the day he was unblocked, he made a revert at Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Sahara that was not marked as one: [182] (note the arbitration ruling, "Each revert must be explicitly marked as such") and did not give a talk page rationale (for clarity's sake, he was reverting this edit: [183]). Further, he reverted back to that version less than 24 hours later: [184]. This is stale, but he violated parole again multiple times today, continuing the same edit war, reverting to the same version, again with no rationale or stating that it was a revert in the edit summary, and then reverted a second time just hours later: [185]. He also reverted twice in under 30 minutes at List of unrecognized countries, 1, 2 (with a further revert yesterday as well: [186]). Dmcdevit· t 02:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Here he calls an editor dishonest and purposely misconstrues his name. This is exactly what he was admonished for in the ArbCom ruling. Logs of the enforcement should be logged here. He is on parole for a reason and he seems to be spiraling more and more out of control. This and this were two almost identical attacks cited by ArbCom. -- Tbeatty 17:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing ( talk · contribs) has previously been banned for one year and also limited to one edit per article per week for a further year and remains under perminant probation (see WP:PROB). Under this clarification, it has been confirmed that his revert parole runs until 25th January 2008 (see the admin's response here), where it was also stated that as he was not warned and the revert parole was not clear, he would not be blocked on that occasion (regardless of the fact that the edits cited breached WP:3RR), but that he may be blocked in future.
He has now made two reverts to article Birmingham in a week. One of these was a "sneaky revert" to my mind, in that he waited on the second occasion for further changes to take place, and disguised it by also changing the clarification of the disambig header. These are:
L.J.Skinner wot| I did 21:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Also here [191], pushing his revert parole in a way frowned upon at WP:3RR - Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisskinner ( talk • contribs)
See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt. As I've questioned some of his edits rather than summarily reverting and blocking per remedy #1, I'll submit the issue here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked 1garden ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for editing as a proxy of Richardmalter, but it seems to me that he has violated his restriction by trying to edit by proxy [192], and by pitching into disputes on BDORT ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [193]
I tis clear that his influence is both present and disruptive despite the restriction. Guy ( Help!) 15:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Tajik ( talk · contribs) has been banned indefinitely by the admin: [194] and the arbcom case is on a voting stage to formalize his permanent ban. [195] Despite that and numerous blocked sock accounts and IPs, some of which are recorded here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik, Tajik is editing Safavid dynasty and other articles by using anonymous IP 82.83.137.125 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) Urgent attention of the administrators is required. Grandmaster 07:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Azerbaijani ( talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Azerbaijani_placed_on_revert_parole.
Azerbaijani has been placed on revert parole and limited to one revert per page per week. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. [1]
However, he reverted Nakhichevan article: [2] (replaced South Caucasus with Arran), and made no use of talk page, which is a violation of his parole.
Reported by: -- Grandmaster 04:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Aivazovsky ( talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Aivazovsky_placed_on_revert_parole. Aivazovsky has been placed on revert parole and limited to one revert per page per week. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. [3]
However, he reverted Greater Armenia (political concept) article more than once: [4], [5], and provided no explanation of his reasonings for content reverts on the article's talk page, which is a violation of his parole.
Reported by: Atabek 17:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing ( talk · contribs) has been placed on indefinite probation and is under an enforcement rule that he "may be blocked for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses, should he... excessively revert any page. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year." The final decision is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing. He has since been blocked between 5-7 times (depending on how you count), including a 1-year block approved by the ArbCom.
He has now engaged in disruptive reverting here (April 30 through May 13), here (May 10 through May 13), and here (May 10 through May 13). Makemi describes the events at WP:ANI#Infoboxes.
Reported by: Fireplace 02:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Atabek ( talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee: [9]
He can only make one revert per week per article, and he has to explain his revert. It is suspected that he was using suckpuppets to edit war on the fallowing articles Monte Melkonian, Drastamat Kanayan, Nagorno-Karabakh and House of Hasan-Jalalyan. The following suck account were used
the following is his IP address, which he accidentally used couple of days ago.
[10]
Compare edits made by Atabek [11] with edits made by User:Zipirtich [12], User:Earthdream [13], and User:Drastamat [14]. -- VartanM 05:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Per Dmcdevit's checkuser finding (see Grandmaster's link), no apparent violation. Newyorkbrad 23:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Aivazovsky ( talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Aivazovsky_placed_on_revert_parole. He has to discuss every single revert that he makes on the talk page.
However, User:Aivazovsky blatantly continues to violate his revert parole, and keeps making reverts without any discussion. Here is his latest revert without any discussion whatsoever on the Demographics of Armenia article:
[16] (revert to the version [17]).
(the history of edits for the article is here: [18])
He made the revert just 23 minutes after he was warned on his talk page by an administrator about his continuous violations of his revert parole ( [19]). Such behaviour shows complete disregard of his parole, of administrators, and of the Wiki community in general.
The user has been blocked repeatedly for violating his revert parole. The number of his blocks is astounding (at least 6 violations of his revert parole: [20]). Clearly, short-term blocks do not work to change this user's disruptive behavior. Therefore, I suggest that User:Aivazovsky be blocked indefinitely.-- TigranTheGreat 21:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Dacy69 ( talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee: [21]
He can only make one revert per week per article, and he has to explain his revert. He reverted the Safavids article, and in his edit summary he said that he was reverting vandalism, however, what he removed was not vandalism at all. Furthermore, he did not explain his revert on the talk page as required by the arbitration parole: [22] Azerbaijani 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Not only did this decision come a day after Dacy69 violated his parole (therefore it doesnt apply, as Dacy committed the violation prior to any decision), but the only reason this decision even happened was because Atabek misinformed an administrator about this users actions, and I have commented on the Admins talk page: [25]
Is it not peculiar that both Grandmaster and Atabek have run to Dacy69's defense so quickly? Also, note that once again Atabek made a false report against me (here you can also see the false accusations made against the anon): [26]
Interestingly, these users contend that the Safavids article is a sensitive issue and that the anon is messing up the consensus version of the article, but these users themselves have violated a consensus agreement which they themselves agreed to on the History of the name Azerbaijan article and have traded reverts so that they wouldnt break parole. Azerbaijani 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I fully trust to Arbcom members to judge on this case. Just fyi - On that page Mammed Said Ordubadi user:Azerbaijani insulted me and called me a liar - then and I came up with important document on page History of the name Azerbaijan to prove my case which was accepted and inserted in the article. You, Azerbaijani, should change attitude to other editors' opinion and not try to revenge, and moreover, use sockpuppets to evade restrictions. I made also checkuser request and wait for final desicion.-- Dacy69 16:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The anon IP belonged to Tajik, who used it to evade his parole. Tajik has been blocked indefinitely. [39] I think this closes the issue. Grandmaster 07:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Freedom skies ( talk · contribs) has been placed on standard revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Freedom_skies.
In particular he is required to discuss content reversion (excepting obvious vandalism) on talk pages of articles. This has been violated in two cases.
In both cases, he failed to discuss it on talk pages, calling it reversion of vandalism.
Reported by: -- Knverma 20:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The decision ruled that Freedom skies is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism.
"Knverma" asked for redirect on 07:48, 8 May 2007 and went ahead on 07:49, 8 May 2007. It took him less than two mins to blank a well sourced article. Arrow740 said that "We should delete and merge into Buddhism and Hinduism." Knverma blanked the excellently sourced article and did not merge it; I merged it today.
"Knverma" blanked Patriarch (Buddhism) and redirected it to Lineage (Buddhism), a completely different conept. He blanked content elsewhere.
Those actions amount to vandalism.
Freedom skies| talk 20:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually sir,
I have good reasons to assume that "Knverma" is vandalizing those articles.
Kindly take a look into the past actions of the user:-
That material was from peer reviewed journals. I'll provide numerous more examples such as these in which the user has shown the tendency to simply blank mateial in the past.
Knverma is an editor who would like to have every mention of Bodhidharma removed from this encyclopedia for his own reasons.
He removed the neutral narrative as mentioned below from here; he could have requested expansion and I, for one, would have responded. Removing an entire concept with such scope for expansion is improper.:-
A patriarch in Buddhism refers to high members of the sangha who were not only succesors to the historical Gautama Buddha, but were also leaders of their respectful sect. Bodhidharma, for example, was considered the first Zen (Ch'an) patriarch, and the twenty-eighth successor to the Buddha. In Jodo Shinshu it refers to seven Indian, Chinese and Japanese masters before its founder Shinran. In Theravada the term is used for the Sangharaja.
He completely blanked Yoga and Buddhism and did not merge it. I had to perform the merge myself.
A patriarch is the one to whom the founding principles of a religious school are attributed to, in this case the Buddha (in India) and Bodhidharma (in China) [1] and Lineage refers to the concept of Dharma transmission which traces it's origin to the one patriarch.
I'm sorry for the delay in the reply; If you'll take a look here you'll see that I have not worked since 21:00, 12 May 2007. I was involved in a minor accident and may not be able to contribute in the near future as well.
The patriarch article should be expanded using KÅ«kai and HÅnen ShÅnin. I'll try do it myself using only the best sources available. This merge was proposed only by Knverma and carried on only by Knverma.
You'll notice that only Knverma carried out the blanking of Bodhidharma from this discussion.
Any objections to the merge? -- Knverma 08:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Merged. -- Knverma 11:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Regards,
Freedom skies| talk 09:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Closely related complaint Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Andries. Vassyana's complaint about me reg. my edit on 6 May was based on the unsourced information that Kkrystian added to the article Shirdi Sai Baba on 17 May. Andries 20:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
diff 17 May 2007 Adds unsourced positive information about Sathya Sai Baba in the article Shirdi Sai Baba which violates. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Kkrystian_reminded
The information about Sathya Sai Baba that Kkrystian added that is unsourced and on which Vassyana bases his complaint about me is as follows
Notification of Kkrystian and more details [45]
See http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/shortnews/Mumbai%20Mirror.htm
Andries 20:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Closely related complaint
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Kkrystian.
Andries 20:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Andries (
talk ·
contribs) was
topic banned by ArbCom from "editing
Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages". Andries edited
Sai Baba of Shirdi on 6 May 2007.
[47] It can explicitly be seen that this is a
related article. Additionally, Andries has been endorsing edit wars as a solution to content disputes on a guru article.
[48]
[49] Thank you for your time.
Vassyana 13:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
:It appears that the Arbcom ban went into effect on 6 May 2007, only a short time before this edit. If
Andries hasn't edited since and continues not to, I would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt on this one and assume Andries wasn't aware of the ban at the time. "Endorsing edit wars" is a separate matter. Best, --
Shirahadasha 15:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification_from_user:Andries_reg._Sathya_Sai_Baba Andries 19:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I will try to keep this brief to avoid further cluttering this request. I apologized to Andries, as my lapse was unintentional. [52] One of Shirdi Sai Baba's main disciples claimed Sathya Sai Baba was foretold by Shirdi Sai Baba, and accepted Sathya's claims of reincarnation. Andries comparisons to broad topics and Jesus, etc are inappropriate and misleading. Báb and Bahá'u'lláh would be more apt comparisons. Please note that Andries called this rebuttal "mere propaganda by the Sathya Sai Baba movement". [53] Vassyana 19:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
See
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/shortnews/Mumbai%20Mirror.htm
Andries 08:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Reddi ( talk · contribs) is back after what I am told is a one year probation on editing science-related articles. His arbitration case can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2 with a final decision in arbitration case that was a finding of Disruptive editing, 3RR violations, Uncommunicative, Edit warring.
New examples are:
Halfblue 03:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing ( talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting simple vandalism. However he reverted edits of other users to Sutton Coldfield four times in 10 minutes.
The admin who dealt with the AIV report did not class the edits as simple vandalism, as can be seen here. One Night In Hackney 303 12:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Eupator ( talk · contribs) has been placed on a revert parole by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in his case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Eupator_placed_on_revert_parole. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. However he reverted legitimate edits of other users to Paytakaran twice in less than 7 days.
Reported by: Grandmaster 07:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
In addition to my statement below following our ArbCom case, I feel that User:ScienceApologist is now not constructively building consensus by cooperating with other editors.
While I appreciate that ScienceApologist wishes to improve the article, it is not for one editor to decided that text is no longer disputed, nor that consensus is not require, and that they solely decided the version of text for an article. -- Iantresman 18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Per ArbCom decision, User:Aivazovsky is under a revert parole and is required to leave comments on the talk page for the edits he makes. However, User:Aivazovsky has recently moved [94] the category Turkophobia to category Anti-Turkism without any discussion on the talk pages. I would like remind here that Turkophobia is an accepted scholarly term. Moreover, User:Aivazovsky has also recently edited [95] the article Varoujan Garabedian, removing the new Anti-Turkism (old Turkophobia) category from the page about a person convicted of terrorist attacks against civilians, again without any discussion on the talk page. He has done the same at ASALA, [96], again without any comments on talk page. And a 3rd one, at Askeran clash here [97], again no comments. That's 3 pages! Please, enforce the decisions of ArbCom with regards to User:Aivazovsky as the earlier leniency, such as here [98] did not help to solve the problem of editing or reverting without discussion. Atabek 04:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
User:ScienceApologist has just called me "a complete dick" [99], again. [100], contrary to No personal attacks and WP:CIVIL.
Despite the ArbCom caution, [102] ScienceApologist subsequently:
And just recently:
I was wondering how many personal attacks, incivility, cautions and warnings, need be reached before some positive action is taken? -- Iantresman 17:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Administrator response: I regret that this report was not addressed earlier. ScienceApologist is strongly cautioned to avoid abusive language, irrespective of his opinion of other editors' conduct. Newyorkbrad 03:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Dacy69 has violated his parole:
Dacy69 is on Arbcom parole, stating that he has to accompany ever revert with a comment on the talk page: [114]
He violated it on Armenian-Tatar massacres. He reverted [115] yet left no response on the talk page: [116] Azerbaijani 23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I should not leave message if this is vandalism or edit by newcomer who destroyed the page And it is obvious that edit was done in violation of wiki stadard on page you mentioned-- Dacy69 14:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Selket issued a warning [119] but says he is unsure what response another admin may have. Azerbaijani 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to continue here. Please see Church of Kish - both Grandmaster and Dacy69 reverted back twice already in past 2 days each on the article I think. I suspect it is violation of paroles.Sincerely Hetoum I 04:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
diffs (I am not understanding this term) you reverted and then re-added same info after parishan. Funny that you as a parolee should accuse me of edit warring Hetoum I 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Just check kish history, ; ) Hetoum I 04:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Infinity0 ( talk · contribs) started to make reverts without discussing them on talk pages. On May 24 he made three such reverts 1, 2 and 3. Two of them were on anarchism related pages. His arbitration case can be found here.
Also, he created an account called AnarchoKapitalismus just for mocking anarcho-capitalism. I'm not sure whether that can be put under "inappropriate insertion of anarchy related material", but I think it violates WP:NOT and constitutes disruptive behavior. -- Vision Thing -- 13:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Infinity0 has continued to revert ( 1, 2) content without discussion contrary to the terms of his revert parole which explicitly states that he must accompany every content revert with discussion on the relevant talk page. -- Vision Thing -- 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sysop response. Infinity0 has been blocked for 24 hours, with diffs and a link to the ArbCom case provided. Vision Thing has been encouraged to discuss significant reversions and large article changes. Vassyana 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Tajik ( talk · contribs) has been banned indefinitely by the admin: [123] and the arbcom case is on a voting stage to formalize his permanent ban. [124] Despite that, Tajik is editing Safavid dynasty and other artcles under anonymous IPs and sock accounts. The checkuser request that I filed confirms that the suspicious accounts indeed belong to User:Tajik, please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik. -- Grandmaster 05:42, 8 June 2007 (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.
Final admin response. This matter is now closed. Bucketsofg 18:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The user page of this user is probably in violation of an arbcom ruling which applies to them: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi#Laundry_lists_of_grievances which states that "Tobias Conradi is prohibited from maintaining laundry lists of grievances". This page contains a list of the users grievances with the Arbcom decision, in violation of their ruling. It is probably also in violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, since the user is using it as a page advocating his right to maintain lists of accusations against admins. ( ShivaIdol 21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC))
This user is a almost surely a sockpuppet of banned multiple puppet and puppet master User:BryanFromPalatinepermabanned during the Free Republic case. His first edit was to Free Republic and within minutes he was editing Democratic Underground. Both these articles are on probation. He already 'knows'WP, all the issues and long-time editors. Just like socks Bryan and Dino Hinnen, he claims he's been 'lurking' and studying up on WP. Highly doubtful Please investigate. 64.145.158.163 21:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
1. Admin Zero0000 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was advised by ArbCom and committed "not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq, including but not limited to enforcement actions under their prior arbitration case, and admonished that so long as an editor, including one on probation, is not restricted in their editing of a page or area they are entitled to be accorded good faith and be treated with respect and courtesy when they edit in those areas. " [131].
Despite the ruling and his commitment to ArbCom (as well as previously on AN/I board) he overruled another admin action [132], [133] without discussing it with the admin involved and deleted - without review, without proper tag and without justification - an article I created. The deletion is an admin only action - he was not supose to take such action based on ArbCom rulling.
It also seems to be a violation of WP:AGF and violation of WP:NPA in edit summary [134].
2. Zero0000 ( talk · contribs) has done that after I found that he misrepresented a source - please see bottom part of Talk:East_Jerusalem
All requests to address any of those issues did not got any response from user Zero000. Zeq 20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Islam_and_antisemitism describes this trope--nearly nearly 1400 years old--in a three paragraph section, and devotes a second section to the interpretation by scholars. Expanding the subject into an article of its own is feasible and legitimate. The most prominent Islamic website discusses the subject in seven pages, the use of this epitheton by contemporary Islam prompting 53000+ google hits. Properly dealt with, there's nothing wrong with that lemma. Its not up to Zero to define and enforce the loaded term Islamophobia, as he did in the deletion summary. A speedy would have been the proper process. -- tickle me 08:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't view the deleted article, but I'm at a loss to determine why Zero would have taken this decision upon himself despite the very clear and tightly-defined (Zeq only) ruling of the Committee Proabivouac 08:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
All is written. It is an advice and for a "good" or a "bad" reason, he decided not to follow this. Given Zeq is sincerely interested by this article and is eager to fill in with good sources, all can be solved in "re-establishing" that article and reminding Zero not to take care any more about Zeq. Alithien 07:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I will also be on a wikipbrake for few days Zeq 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not violated my probation. You may dispute the article content but that is not the issue here. Read the probation terms and find out for your self. In any case the issue here is Zero admin actions. The article was already reviwed by one admin who decided not to speedy delete it. Zero over-rulled that admin decision and took the action himself. There are process for what he did and should just have followed them - instead he took an admin action himself. Zeq 04:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It was not and I am not going to deabte the content of the article here. If you think the article is not appropriate -please conduct an orderly deletion review. The only issue here is Zero Admin behaviour and it seems that yet again you are going to reward his behaviour. I created an article in good faith. Don't pick on me just because I am in probation. there is nothing wrong in the article itself and the best thing is to create it and put it to AFD if you think it should be deleted. I will accept an AFD after everyone has an opportunity to see the article (no one can since it was speedy delete without due process)
Also note that since ArbCom had the opportunity ro review my edit, my probation etc...and decided on the action you should not now issue any bans that are not even in my probation. You are way over reaching your authority here.
Zeq 14:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Copied from [136]
Thanks! -- Zero talk 09:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)I found an article called something like "pigs and monkeys" which consisted of rabid anti-islamic filth. No attempt at context, no attempt at identifying the content as refering to an extreme fringe, no mention of the background of the groups that bring us this "information", no redeeming features at all but just pure islamophobic pornography. I reacted with the "delete" button in a fit of anger, just as I would if a Nazi came along and wrote a similar article about "some Jews". When I cooled down, I remembered the ArbCom ruling; reading it again now I can see that I broke it. So I have to plead guilty.
Zero admitted to have taken the wrong decision as he feels, among Nazi allegations, that Zeq should have attempted "at identifying the content as referring to an extreme fringe," which is clearly his OR on the topic. A speedy was warranted at best, to have others evaluate what is an edit conflict. Discussing action against Zeq without even knowing the content of his article except by Zero'S hate spewing summary is unjustified. Violating Godwin's law when defending oneself for having broken an arbcom decision--being an admin-- is appalling, that other admins don't mind is a sign of pc going way over the top. -- tickle me 16:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Admin only below this line, please. Bucketsofg 01:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It may also be worth noting this thread on the proposed decision talkpage in the recent case. Newyorkbrad 02:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Iianq and User:Qaka are both Instantnood sockpuppets. I don't have time to spell it out well. Here is what is obvious Qaka was designed for stalking Huaiwei, and Iiang was designed for stalking me. Both are exhibiting classic Instantnood behaviors of changing the spelling of Macau to Macao, revert warring, and stalking.
Qaka edits that mirror previous Instantnood edits: [140], [141], stalking Huaiwei: [142]. Then screws up and uses the Qaka account to revert me, gaining my attention: [143]
Iianq came to my attention after I made a minor spelling change in Lists of Casinos by changing the structure in one of Instantnood's favorite ways [144], then revert warring to keep it [145] [146] [147]. Though in this instance the Macau/Macao spelling change is correct, since he noticed I made the change once, he went whole hog on it, as Qaka did before, [148]. Looking deeper in the history the ID as 'nood became more apparent with edits like these: [149], [150], [151], and more stalking [152].
I sat on pointing these out as socks before they directly engaged me because the edits were so suspicious. A few days ago I pointed it out to Huaiwei, and he had independently come to the same conclusion. Then the socks went into revert warring activity this weekend. I can't just "be suspicious" anymore. SchmuckyTheCat 18:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Atabek broke his 1rr parole on | Azeri cartoon controversy, by moving the page 2 times in 1 day. He is a revert parol from the Aremnia-Azerbaijan case. He's reverted/moved "Azeri Cartoon Controversy in "Iran" Newspaper " 2 times today, both times unilatreally. Here is his edits: [ [153] [154] -- behmod talk 15:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
. I am kindly requesting admins to check this case. User Grandmaster and User:Atabek are trying to change the subject. This is an obvious case of breaking the 1rr parole.-- behmod talk 14:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, here is Atabek's parole: [177]. Why are you guys attempting to divert this parole violation report to someone else (me), when that other person did not even break the parole. Read my statement, I did not break parole in any way, shape, or form.
Atabek, stop making false claims. I am not edit warring in that article at all, and look at the bottom, does it say that that collage is linked to any articles? No, because I personally removed the image myself replacing it with the original. I will not help these two users in their attempt of diverting the attention of the administrators with their false accusations not based on any evidence.
I will have the administrators note that Atabek has been very disruptive lately, and I have tried every other means of avoiding an arbcom with him, including making a peace proposal to him (which he did not accept), but it looks like this user wont change his attitude, adn the only solution may be an arbcom. He has not only insulted me (as well as other users) personally and made false accusations (administrators User:Thatcher131 and User:Tariqabjotu both know about this and this users behavior), but has also made Wiki retaliation threats, saying that he will assault Iran related articles. Notice how these users are trying to divert attention from Atabek's parole violation by bringing up completely unrelated and false accusations against me, based on no evidence. I have made my points very clear, have proved my innocence without a doubt and will not feed into the diversion these two users are attempting. Good night. Hajji Piruz 05:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Koavf is already in violation of his revert parole. On June 5, the day he was unblocked, he made a revert at Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Sahara that was not marked as one: [182] (note the arbitration ruling, "Each revert must be explicitly marked as such") and did not give a talk page rationale (for clarity's sake, he was reverting this edit: [183]). Further, he reverted back to that version less than 24 hours later: [184]. This is stale, but he violated parole again multiple times today, continuing the same edit war, reverting to the same version, again with no rationale or stating that it was a revert in the edit summary, and then reverted a second time just hours later: [185]. He also reverted twice in under 30 minutes at List of unrecognized countries, 1, 2 (with a further revert yesterday as well: [186]). Dmcdevit· t 02:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Here he calls an editor dishonest and purposely misconstrues his name. This is exactly what he was admonished for in the ArbCom ruling. Logs of the enforcement should be logged here. He is on parole for a reason and he seems to be spiraling more and more out of control. This and this were two almost identical attacks cited by ArbCom. -- Tbeatty 17:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing ( talk · contribs) has previously been banned for one year and also limited to one edit per article per week for a further year and remains under perminant probation (see WP:PROB). Under this clarification, it has been confirmed that his revert parole runs until 25th January 2008 (see the admin's response here), where it was also stated that as he was not warned and the revert parole was not clear, he would not be blocked on that occasion (regardless of the fact that the edits cited breached WP:3RR), but that he may be blocked in future.
He has now made two reverts to article Birmingham in a week. One of these was a "sneaky revert" to my mind, in that he waited on the second occasion for further changes to take place, and disguised it by also changing the clarification of the disambig header. These are:
L.J.Skinner wot| I did 21:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Also here [191], pushing his revert parole in a way frowned upon at WP:3RR - Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisskinner ( talk • contribs)
See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt. As I've questioned some of his edits rather than summarily reverting and blocking per remedy #1, I'll submit the issue here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked 1garden ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for editing as a proxy of Richardmalter, but it seems to me that he has violated his restriction by trying to edit by proxy [192], and by pitching into disputes on BDORT ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [193]
I tis clear that his influence is both present and disruptive despite the restriction. Guy ( Help!) 15:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Tajik ( talk · contribs) has been banned indefinitely by the admin: [194] and the arbcom case is on a voting stage to formalize his permanent ban. [195] Despite that and numerous blocked sock accounts and IPs, some of which are recorded here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik, Tajik is editing Safavid dynasty and other articles by using anonymous IP 82.83.137.125 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) Urgent attention of the administrators is required. Grandmaster 07:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)