This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Re your block of Mt7 (talk·contribs) over Koloman Gögh - are you sure about that 3RR? He made 4 edits today, but the fourth was not a revert for all I can see (mere addition of a new tag). Not that it changes much in his acting as an edit-warrior, but still... Fut.Perf.☼13:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will take strong action to defend other admins who are unfairly attacked. I will also take action when I believe admins have behaved inappropriately, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/PMA for example. I have found two other blocks in the last month where Darwinek blocked editors he was edit warring with. I would be happy to have him acknowledge some error and mend his ways. RFC and RFAR are drastic but sometimes necessary. I also maintain that it is a very bad idea to let editors' "common knowledge" be the yardstick against which vandalism is measured, particularly in ethnic and regional conflicts. (And why adopt Darwinek's notion of common knowledge over someone else's?) This is not much different that the Armenia-Azeri edit warring now in arbitration. (Are the residents of a town Armenian or Azeri's living in Armenia; etc etc.) Also India-Pakistan border issues and the Ecuador-Peru border disputes, both of which have ended up in arbitration. Thatcher13115:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brrr, that was fast. Shudder... And the arbs have already accepted it too. Sad that it had to come to this, but somehow I have to agree with your assessment. - Technically, this probably means we should close down the RfC when Arbcom takes over, right? Fut.Perf.☼22:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expect so, although there doesn't seem to be a close procedure like AfD (unless its new) but we can delist it. Assuming Mt7's translation of Darwinek's Czech-language comment is accurate, we have an admin who can call one editor a Slovak racist and then say he can spot ethnic Hungarians by their appearance in the same comment and without a hint of irony. That can't be a good thing. Thatcher13122:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a good reason why policy states "Except in cases of clear vandalism...". It may seem silly but it was a compromise I offered to solve a situation. [1]. Such solution was in line with Jmabel's comment. However, other side is perfectly happy with current solution (by your endorsement of their favored version), and has showed no will to even comment it. That means that once the pages are unprotected the dispute will continue. -- Vision Thing --19:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sick of these false accusations against me by you, Atabek, and Adil! Everytime I log off and log back on, I am being reported some where for something! I did not revert any of your edits! I merely added dispute tags because sections of the article and the article itself are in dispute! Here are the edits of mine that Grandmaster reverted: [6] and here are the edits I made after Grandmaster reverts: [7] You will see that I did not revert Grandmaster at all, yet re-added the dispute tags taken off while Grandmaster was reverting me, and added to more dispute tags to specific sections. Also, I am well aware of the injunction, why would I break it?
Interestingly, when Grandmaster took off the tags, he said in his edit summary: substantiate the tags on talk
Now lets look at the recent disputes on the talk page: [8] (User Alborz Fallah disputes a section of the article) [9] (I express my confusion with what the article is actually about)
These alone show that the article is disputed. But nevertheless, I re-added those tags after Grandmaster and I had a talk on the discussion page: [10]
Me putting those tags back up was not a flagrant or malicious action at all, and why you would report me for such a minor and reasonable thing such as the addition of dispute tags shows bad faith on your part as well as an attempt to trap me (which actually now explains why you removed the dispute tags in the first place...when it was obvious that parts of the article/the article as a whole were/was in dispute).
I am sick of these attempts of sabotage against me, its now coming to a daily basis where I have to defend myself against false accusations!Azerbaijani22:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about whether you are right or wrong by making certain edits, it is about the fact that you violated your parole. Grandmaster06:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WEA
Would an article in Forbes be reputable enough for the WEA article?? This source was also in the deleted article, by the way... Smee04:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I saw the Forbes article. it certainly supports the narrative that Somary was involved in making a loan to Erhard that he probably shouldn't have, and it details some of the odd terms. It seems like that would be appropriate to add to the WEA article to help explain how it was founded etc. The WEA article doesn't seem to have a history section. You could certainly describe from the Forbes article how Erhard obtained the loan from ICF and how Forbes says he used the money to acquire his old businesses. Of course people mentioneed in other articles are still covered by BLP, but I think that noting that the money to found WEA was loaned from ICF and Somary in an unusual transaction gives the facts without the slanted impression created by a dedicated article just on Somary. Thatcher13104:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you should give the bibliographic reference to the Forbes article (year, volume, issue, page, date) but not the direct link, since the mirror copy is hosted on a third party site and is a copyvio at that site (per WP:EL). Thatcher13104:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this information. However as it is hosted at a non-profit educational site, this is purely an archival purpose. In any event, I will have to see when I shall get around to adding in that citation. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee04:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Have you read his answers, both on the main page and talk page? He does not apologize, or admit to being hasty, or agree that he should ask for assistance with articles that he is passionate about. Basically, he does not do any of the things Piotrus suggests (and as I indicate on the talk page, I agree that if he did those things it would have been enough). Do you really think that if the RFC ran longer that he would change his mind and agree with Piotrus? In any case, I stated up front on RFAR that the RFC was only a few hours old, and the arbitrators were free to reject the case and ask for the RFC to run longer. For whatever reason, they chose to accept it immediately. Thatcher13111:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The case may have been accepted quickly, but arbitration cases typically take weeks to resolve. Darwinek and the arbitrators will all have plenty of time for reflection and deliberation. Newyorkbrad12:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will review, but as far as being optimistic is concerned, I'd rather be nice to someone and later be proved wrong than be mean and later proved wrong. Thatcher13117:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this case (see here), but real-life events slowed me from heading to SSP earlier...I'm inclined to agree with Future Perfect's assessment. -- Scientizzle17:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although Eupator did not violate the 1RR injunction, he did violate other rules such as removal of properly sourced, verifiable evidence, and making false claims (such as that user:Alidoostzadeh supported him, whilst it was none other than Ali who presented the Encyclopedia Iranica link as a proof of Persian origin of Tigranes the Great and his dynasty), and misrepresentation (calling his friends such as user:Davo88, user:Vartanm, user:Artaxiad as "third-party" editors). The evidence was presented in full here [11] and here[12]. While I will add this to the arbitration case, nevertheless, I should note that when an EXACTLY similar complaint was filed by user:Artaxiad against me [13], despite it misrepresenting the facts and giving only 2 carefully selected diffs, admin Teke blocked me for 5 days (which was unblocked by another admin precisely on the grounds of unjustified block, as I was not wrong in my actions). Meanwhile, Eupator is removing and supressing all the verifiable academic evidence for months now, and that should not be allowed. --adil20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd considered something like that, actually. Given how broad the area of dispute is, though, there would be thousands of articles potentially subject to such a probation; so I'd prefer to merely leave the option on the table as a last resort for now. Kirill Lokshin04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Some of them are just other users getting caught in the dragnet, I think; they're being added mostly because certain parties are keen to apply the injunction to as many of their opponents as possible. Kirill Lokshin04:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Darwinek case & Czech statements
You indicated that you wanted a Czech speaker to verify a translation of a Czech statement. I suggest that you approach Mike Rosoft (talk·contribs) about this, if you haven't already done so, since he lives in the Czech Republic (and appears to be a native or advanced Czech speaker) and his involvement in this case appears to be minimal or nonexistent. TML04:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
proposed decision ==
I am posting this here, since you were a contact in ArbCom case. In the proposed decision on sockpuppetry charge with regards to myself, I would like to attract the attention to the decision of User:Khoikhoi[15]. It clearly states that I was a newbie. Indeed, the account Tengri, who was more likely to be my meatpuppet rather than sockpuppet, was established 7 days after I first came to Wikipedia. Obviously, I wasn't well aware of the rules back then, neither was the banned. And the record after that shows that I haven't attempted to create any socks or evade blocks since that case. If it's necessary, I can also ask for user Tengri to contact the ArbCom committee directly, to confirm that he is not me. After being banned, Tengri is no longer active in Wikipediting, but he can definitely confirm that by email. And in general, I don't think that having violated far less rules than some other users (only two cases of revert warring and sock ban due to inexperience), I deserve to be given the same ban as those who have a lengthy record of experience and more serious violations. Thanks. Atabek11:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, it may be just me but I feel that much of Adil's complaints are wholly provocative. While the ArbCom deliberations have been taking place the past few days, Adil seems to be jumping from one Armenian-related topic to another, making edits so controversial and odious that they would almost surely require intervention specifically by an Armenian user. Up until two days ago, the articles Sumgait Pogrom. Battle of Kelbajar (a current GA article), and Capture of Shusha were all stable, either from POV or accuracy. I had been committing my past efforts these few weeks on articles unrelated to the disputes (Ivan Bagramyan, Ronald Reagan and its FAC, etc.) And then, when Adil made those changes, I duly reverted them back because his rationale for removing sources lied solely on the identity of the source.
This natural reaction provoked me, and he exploited this by complaining to me on the Arbitration enforcement board [17]. You waived his complaint yet he went ahead and made similar controversial edits on the Ramil Safarov page just today and, provoking two Armenian users (Eupator and Fedayee), complained about them for violating the ArbCom rulings [18].
Why is he allowed to engage in such conspicuous hit-and-run edits at a time he is being considered for a 1 year ban [19] due to his contributions over the past year? I have had absolutely little to no qualms with Azeri users until Adil's appearance because his edits are so pernicious, so intent on vilifying Armenians that I myself am baited into intervening in his edits. I hope you would take these notes into consideration but he is wearing the patience of both me and those Armenian users who have exercised a great deal of restraint during the ArbCom proceedings and are followed its 1RR ruling to the point. --MarshallBagramyan02:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All those complaints from a few editors trying to paint themselves as saints and angels, while one Adil, over whom they enjoy numerical superiority, as the devil, is just plain funny. Users Eupator, Fedayee, and you should not be using POV sources in the abovementioned pages -- as we discussed in Khojaly massacre page, and had an agreement from Francis Tyers, for one, all the pages you mention, Sumgait Pogrom, Battle of Kelbajar, etc., had POV Armenian links, which are unacceptable. The Armenian side stops at nothing to remove any Azerbaijani and Turkish (!) links from any pages, whilst when the other side does the same to Armenian links, it raises complains. Ironic. Stop violating both the spirit and rule of Wiki. --adil05:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote a notice at the top of Talk:Srebrenica massacre, stating that User:Osli73 was banned by the ArbCom from editing the article for three months. However, as far as I can see, this was not a decision taken by the ArbCom but by you personally, based in some way on the Kosovo decision. Could you please clarify whether you were instructed by the ArbCom in this matter or decided on your own authority? By the way, I'm not disputing the ban. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Osli is placed on probation here, allowing him to be banned from any article he disrupts by any admin. I agree the template is somewhat misleading. I'll see what I can do to clarify that. Thatcher13123:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think User:Aivazovsky needs to provide an explanation of his reverts here and here. On Khojaly massacre he undid all edits by Adil and Francis Tyers without any explanation on talk. Note that those edits had consensus, reached after discussions on talk. According to injunction, the person who made an rv needs to provide a rationale on talk. Grandmaster08:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By UTC time, the first revert was 00:17; the second was 23:09 the same day, two hours too early. The report on User:Aivazovsky is also accurate. Both are blocked. I usually find that adhering to the strict letter of policy to be overly bureaucratic, but in the case of this dispute, letting minor violations slide will only invite further violations and/or be attacked as evidence of bias. Sigh. Thatcher13100:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, are Arbitrators even looking at the talk page? It seems like i've been posting stuff for absolutely nothing. - Fedayee19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi, recently, when i opened main page of wikipedi and wanted to sign in , i got an alert that i have new message, and before i signed in i had to check and found this bizarre think:[22] I do not know, why something happened in september 2006 got now alerted and also, very bizarre I bought this computer[it is not used, but new one] on september 13 2006 and got internet access only after a month in the beginning or midst of october, so clearly this ip address couldn't do any edit in september 2006 because then i hadn't access to internet through this comp, and why this message or alert by a bot was left only now, that is on this day? clearly that was not there yesterday. thanks, and help me find the answer. Elsanaturk00:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and also i made a comment for practical and technical purposes on my talk page without signing in, on my talk page, there my ip address appeared differently [23] I do not know to whom apply, and sorry if i bothered you Elsanaturk01:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IP addresses are provided by your internet connection. Depending on how you connect to the internet, your IP address can change with every new connection (every time you dial in, for example, or whenever you reset your dsl modem). That warning message was meant for whoever made some anonymous vandal edits in September. You apparently live in the same general area so when you connected to the internet that day, you were randomly assigned that IP address and saw the old warning. On other days you are assigned other address from the same pool. It doesn't have anything to do with you and you can ignore it.Thatcher13114:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please be aware that User:HyeProfile is in violation of his parole a number of times already. He has been edit warring on Nagorno-Karabakh article for quite some time now. Please see this evidence presented by the admin User:Golbez to arbcom: [24], and this are diffs provided by Golbez on violation of 1RR by this user on March 27: [25] (specific diffs: [26], [27], [28], [29]; the first two are reverting to a version being edit warred on previous days, the second two are reverting to those versions again). I hope Golbez would not object that I copied part of his evidence here, but urgent measures are really necessary. Regards, Grandmaster04:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in pursuing this at this time. HyeProfile did not start editing the article until the case was well under way, and so far has not been listed on the proposed decision page. Since the injunction will be lifted once the case is closed, and replaced with whatever final remedies pass voting, I don't see any benefit to placing him on parole for a week or two. I think is is unlikely that he will be santioned in this case as he does not have a long history of disruptive editing. Of course, such a case might be brought later if the editors on these articles can't follow wikipedia policies and the proper dispute resolution channels. If you think he is a sock puppet you can file a report at WP:SSP for investigation. Thatcher13114:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thatcher, Richard Malter has let me know that I'm "not welcome" on his Talk page, and has deleted my last messages to him there. So I cannot respond to his comments on his Talk page, and he is banned by ArbCom from posting on Talk:BDORT. In addition, I believe we have addressed, and have responded in detail to, all his concerns in the past. All he seems to be doing is re-hashing the same points over and over, in the hope that we'll eventually give up and let him have his favored WP:COI version. We have already spent countless words debating these issues ad nauseam, and his repeated attempts to rehash the same old issues are becoming very disruptive and WP:POINT. Crum37516:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then just politely ignore him and his talk page. If any third party editors come to the article via the RFC, deal with them politely as well and point them to the talk page archives. I'm not ready at this point to ban RM from his own talk page but my patience is not infinite. Thatcher13116:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Thatcher, I am getting some very bad press from Crum375 as usual. First as I have been told myself the ArbCom did not rule on content but on 'behaviour'. I think there are serious content issues. Please note that my previous strong recommendations for changing the article re BLP, NPOV have nearly all been actually implemented, though against prolonged and heavy resistance - including a very, very serious breach of BLP that caused real world harm to the subject which I did edit against "aggressively" (which is WP policy?!) and had to be speedily deleted at my request by an Admin as such. The points I put on my talk page have not been addressed at all and I am requesting comments on them. I think this is perfectly OK WP 'behaviour'; As an interested party, I am keeping away from the Talk page re the ArbCom ruling etc and just inviting other editors to get involved; and again my actual track record as I note above is excellent in terms of my suggestions actually being implemented (as necessary changes). I reject the "disruptive" claim by Crum375 100% - I think I am only disruptive to certain entrenched POVs, as I have been all along. Richardmalter10:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nagorno-Karabakh
I will, but I want to make it clear that the main person edit-warring it not presently listed as a party on the arbitration and has no remedy yet proscribed for him. I do hope that the Arbcom notices my evidence and statement. --Golbez17:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He can still be blocked for edit warring, 3RR is not an entitlement to revert 3 times. You should probably contact Kiril and Paul August directly, they seem to be doing the most work in analyzing each editor's contribution to the problem. Thatcher13117:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see Grandmaster already mentioned this above. Perhaps a remedy saying that partisans (those who obviously have a bias to one side or another, as all the participants in the arbitration do) are locked to a 1RR limit on related articles? For good, or the next year, or what not? I have little confidence that by dealing with this small group of users, the edit wars will be stopped. Slowed perhaps for a while, but hardly stopped. If I could enforce a 1RR on all partisans on Nagorno-Karabakh, the article would be a much happier place to work. (edit conflict) --Golbez17:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested article probation to Kiril but he thought it would be so broad and encompass so many articles as to be unworkable. I would also make sure to inform HyeProfile of this arbitration and that he is behaving exactly as those editors who are currently proposed for revert parole or banning. Even if he escapes this case because he has only recently become active again, he won't escape a second case, which there almost certainly will be if people don't shape up. Again, Kiril and Paul August seem to be the leads here. Thatcher13117:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Golbez here, edit wars unlikely to stop after this arbcom. HyeProfile has been revert warring on Nagorno-Karabakh while this arbcom has been underway, and he shows no desire to stop. If most of the parties will be placed on parole, and such aggressive editors will not, then they will have an advantage and freedom to revert the articles as much as they want. I actually think that something should be done to prevent edit warring on such troubled articles as Nagorno-Karabakh, as practice shows that edit wars are unlikely to cease after this arbcom, and they will be continued by new users. Such troubled articles as Nagorno-Karabakh have a very delicate balance of words, achieved after many months of debates between the involved parties. I think that such articles as Nagorno-Karabakh or Nakhichevan should have an rv limit of 1 per person per day or even less than that, and only admins should be allowed to exceed it. There are few articles like that, 5 or 6, which a frequent POV battlefield, and something should be done with regard to them. Grandmaster18:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should suggest this to the arbitrators, particularly Paul August and Kiril Lokshin, who have done the most work drafting the proposed decision. Thatcher13118:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Atabek keeps on removing relevant information claiming they are irrelevant even though this balances weight on POV issues he still removes it, [31]Artaxiad22:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the Ilena/Fyslee Arb, I found that you proposed article probation[34]. Do you know if this has been done elsewhere? I think something should be done about the alt med articles, and it's the best proposal I've seen. --Ronz21:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for waiting for my response before closing up the ArbCom enforcement report on Arbustoo. I see the Remedy may be ambiguous; is ArbCom aware of the need to better word Remedies, or is that not an issue? Perhaps I should watchlist ArbCom cases; at any rate, I hope the problem in wording of remedies is highlighted, since edit warring is edit warring, regardless of the article or set of articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom usually considers only a small number of enforceable remedies against editors. Banning (obvious), civility parole (editor can be blocked by an uninvolved admin for incivility) and probation (editor can be banned from any article he disrupts, for an appropriate period of time, by any uninvolved admin). In this case they apparently did not feel that Arbustoo's behavior was disruptive or widespread enough to justify probation. If your complaint is ultimately heard by ArbCom, they will obviously consider his past history in crafting any new provisions. However, you will need to attempt to resolve the dispute through normal channels first. Thatcher13114:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, Thatcher; I didn't know ArbCom was so limited. I don't have a particular dispute with him; I usually just try to avoid articles where he's heavily involved. My approach to him usually involves clicking "Unwatch". Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ping!
Hi Thatcher131,
Thanks for your input here; just to let you know (before the thread is automatically archived again) that I've left a further thought for your (or anyone else's) consideration. Yours, David Kernow(talk)11:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Darwinek's administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means (RfA) or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Darwinek is placed on standard civility parole for one year. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad15:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warren Kinsella
Here we go again. A Kinsella sock has shown up this time to sanitize the entry and add unsourced crap. Does it ever end? Telephon12:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't make any decisions, I am just keeping track of the case as a clerk. You should post a comment to the proposed decision talk page or contact the individual arbitrators whose votes you hope to change. Thatcher13115:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has re-appeared, this time using the account User:Tom Mandel. He appears to have ignored your warning at User:Fixaller. I have filed the relevant CheckUser and ArbCom notices, but I have a question: did the ArbCom ban on his editing science- and pseudoscience-related articles extend to their talk pages? He has started to flame on Talk:Systems theory, and I have no wish for a repeat of Talk:Crop circle. Thanks. Michaelbusch00:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without specific instructions banning him from talk pages I would say that he is allowed to edit them. However, disruptive editing on any page would fall under his probation, and he could be banned from talk pages that he edits disruptively. Thatcher13101:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my place to say. Generally that's about the length of bans issued by the arbitration committee for editors whom they feel will not reform their behavior. Thatcher13102:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this is a matter for consensus. In this case I did what I felt was the right thing to do. Zero's article ban of Zeq was invalid as he was an involved admin and did not post it to the noticeboard for review. Therefore the block was invalid as there was no valid ban to violate. As an independent admin I have reviewed the article and re-applied the ban for one month. If Zeq violates the ban he may be blocked again. I realize that this may seem overly procedural, but I believe that in order for admins to have credibility we should follow procedures wherever practical, especially when it involves editors with whom we are involved in content disputes. Zero really shouldn't have been the one to apply either the article ban or the block, and reversing the ban and re-applying the block as a non-involved admin is, in my opinion, the best way to move forward. Thatcher13122:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Zeq had complained about the ban it likely would have been properly endorsed. In some other quantum reality Zeq is sitting out the full block. If that means that Zeq takes temporary advantage of Zero's mistake courtesy of me, then I'm willing to live with it. Regarding the discrimination allegation, I don't really know what to do with that. I'm not a fan of civility blocks but if you or someone else thinks a block is justified, that would be a separate matter and one I'll probably stay out of. I think Zeq's block is the first admin action I have ever undone without consent of the admin who did it and I do not intend to make a habit of it. Just in this particular case, with this particular article ban and block, it needed to be redone correctly. Thatcher13123:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor am I a fan of civility/pa blocks, but as mentioned elsewhere, I don't feel that accusations of "discrimination" constitute mere incivility; I consider it to be far more serious than telling somone to fuck off or whatnot. El_C23:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Thatcher131. I just want to say that, although I disagree with you on some aspects of this, I sincerely appreciate your effort to find a proper resolution. Cheers. --Zerotalk01:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thatcher, I was reading Zeq's Talk re: the whole recent block/ban issue. You mentioned that what tipped the scale for you was the this is contradicted by the Shaw report part. You should realise that Zeq's position was not "out there", as while he did a disservice to himself by not bothering to find some sourcing, there is quite a bit out there.[36] I don't expect you to change your actions, but if you do run in to him again, keep in mind that the "scales" may have been more balanced than not. Cheers, TewfikTalk02:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a matter of an editor with a long history of disruptive behavior acting disruptively. There are several more appropriate ways that this could have been addressed, including discussing it on the talk page, finding more sources, compromising on how to discuss differing accounts, etc. For now, it's only a month ban and he is still free to discuss things on the talk page. Thatcher13102:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was only unsure if in this case he was more in the wrong than anyone else, and wanted to ensure that his history, while unflattering, wasn't putting him at an unfair disadvantage. I defer to your judgement in any event. Cheers, TewfikTalk03:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do my best. It wasn't a content decision, but the way he framed the content ("I say such and so, which is contradicted by source A", rather than "source A describes the events as ... while source B describes the events as ...). Thatcher13103:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSN and Just H
Looking back that discussion was probably beneficial in the long run. I apologise for calling it a waste of time. – Steel14:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is generally considered gauche for people to edit their own Wikipedia entries, and there have been a small number of cases of public figures being embarassed when it is discovered that they have been favorably editing their own entries, but it is not prohibited. Thatcher13102:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided a rebuttal on all the pages which Catworthy has left a comment. Permit me to add this in support of my position:
The recent material added is all sourced and presents a balanced NPOV.I see that Catworthy would prefer that I add material on the Ontario Lottery matter, subject which is taken up with much vigor by Mark Bourrie on his blog [37],I may add something in a calmer atmosphere.
Interesting,that this recent [38]unsourced entry about Mr. Kinsella was added by Catworthy and the allegations are so similar to those of Telephon[39]an Arthur Ellis sock[40].
Thatch, as much as the rules that the ArbCom decided on must be stringently enforced, it's equally as important to pay attention to Atabek who has been keen on exploiting the loopholes of the ArbCom's decision by making a mockery of it. It's simple for him to make some controversial edit that will guarantee a reaction from the Armenian side to revert the change and then maintain that position to have someone, like Fedayee today, to be banned for it.
All it takes for Atabek is to make small changes here and there, play games with the system by crying foul and then getting off the hook while the unassuming editor gets punishment because of the exploitation of the rules. Adil did the same thing and he was banned for a year, many users, including Azerbaijani, are upset with the lenient restrictions imposed upon Atabek which only allows him to make the same pernicious edits over and over again. Regards, --MarshallBagramyan19:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This certainly is a potential problem. Of course, the correct response to such baiting would be to discuss the changes on the talk page and try to come to some agreement before reverting or rewriting it. If there is agreement for a change then different editors can revert or rewrite the disputed section while Atabek can only pull this trick once per article. You may also wish to keep a record somewhere. If you can show a pattern of baiting across many articles (such as Dmcdevit found for Adil) I would be willing to block and/or approach Arbcom about a more strenuous sanction. However, I can't watch all those articles and even if I did, I wouldn't know what to look for. Thatcher13113:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Thatcher, I think the fact that Bagramyan fell out of ArbCom's attention was a miscalculation. Because he now is clearly is engaged in edit warring with Fedayee on March Days. I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?titexplained my edits clearly on the talk page and even appealed for compromise [41]. But if the matter persists, I think we should try dispute resolution on this page. It's been quite helpful earlier with user Srose as a third party. Both MarshallBagramyan and Fedayee seem to be unwilling to compromise on the talk page of March Days. Atabek20:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Atabek making any baiting, he makes good faith edits to the article, most of which is written by him anyway. Neither MarshallBagramyan nor Fedayee showed any interest in that article before the arbcom, now they both started reverting it and accuse long time editors of that article of baiting. So it highly questionable who is baiting whom. As for Azerbaijani, it is a topic of a separate discussion. Now that Azerbaijani is on parole he cannot edit war across the multiple pages on a regular basis. Still he is waging a slow revert war. Just on 12 April he reverted 3 pages to their older versions. See: [42][43] Here he reverted the page: [44] To this version: [45] And this edit [46] is a partial revert, as he deleted the following line under the guise of adding info: However, official reports from international organizations, such as the leading human rights organization in the European Community, the Council of Europe, paint a favorable picture. This sort of editing is quite provocative. No surprise that Azerbaijani is frustrated, but he is not the one who has a room to accuse others of edit warring. Grandmaster15:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grandmaster, if you think that in the year to come I will try following your reports of every editors with whom you disagree with to find out my name in it, that is not going to happen. It is not true!!! The only reason why Marshall and I got involved with this article was also why Fadix was involved previously...user:Atabek started baiting Armenians with “genocide” here and “genocide” there. Atabek re-inserted his “genocide” version with his various changes to which I reverted him and then tried re-inserting your changes (to find out later that you reported me while I did not have any major disagreement with you). Atabek brought back what all editors, beside banned user:AdilBaguirov and he disagreed with, you did not even comment on it either nor agreeing with him on this. He knew when he added it that he’ll be reverted and on his summary he claimed that it was deleted by the banned user:Artaxiad as if he was the only who opposed it. Artaxiad wasn’t even one of the main editors opposing him. He made various changes and with it made that change for which he knew his changes will be reverted. It was an attempt to game the system.
I am not involved on the Khachkar article, but I am strongly tempted to do it now, since Atabek is continuing to bait Armenians and has not changed his behaviour at all [47] - Fedayee20:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about urgent admin intervention over Atabek? He has baited Armenian editors into not only engaging in edit wars but also engaging in heated debates on the Armenian Genocide which Atabek denies ever existed. [48] It also has become apparent to me that the ArbCom completely looked over the fact that Atabek had a sockpuppet User:Tengri and that he constantly worked in support of User:AdilBaguirov whose actions have led him to be blocked for a year per the ArbCom's decision. I also fail to see how Atabek's condemnation of "the separatism in Nagorno-Karabakh as state terrorism" as espoused on his user page is helpful towards the future Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. -- Aivazovsky19:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aivazovsky, while I don't understand the purpose of your campaign against me here, I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not an Armenian state news agency. As a contributor to Wikipedia I am entitled to hold my own opinion about such matters as Armenian "Genocide" and separatism in Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan (recognized as such by U.N., U.S. State Department, PACE, Council of Europe, EU, Russia and even Armenia itself). It's my right to present my views on my own user page, while those do not violate Wikipedia rules. We are supposed to discuss the topics and come to compromises on articles, and I doubt accusations and blackmailing of myself about my position on talk pages or on my user page will be useful for anyone after ArbCom clearly made its decisions. And with the same token, your separating of NK separatism from those in Georgian provinces, and somehow trying to present one as right (NK) and others as wrong (Abkhazia, Ossetia) on your user page, does not at all contribute to peace between Azeri and Armenian peoples. Territorial integrity is a principle and right of every recognized nation to defend and practice within its recognized borders, be it Georgia or Azerbaijan. Atabek05:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Skult of Caro
"In additiont to the improbability of an unrelated user caring whether or not a troll was misidentified..." Should I be expressing gratitude that I was not blocked as well, since I also pointed out that it was an imposter on the same page at about the same time? Everyking07:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have received an email from Skult of Caro claiming that they are not in fact nathanrdotcom, and that they believe the evidence against them was "circumstantial at best." Skult of Caro stated that they intend to pursue this matter in an arbitration case or a request for comment. As the administrator and clerk primarily involved in this matter, I think this should be brought to your attention. Thank you for your time. —MichaelLinnear22:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the link back; I feel that the active discussion needs to be separated from old ones (once they go stale then we can move them to the case page). I'm not entirely convinced of what I did, though, so feel free to convince me. :) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps06:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't always agree with your concusion but respect your judgment and acting in cool head under intense situation.
I don't think there will be a need to go into the Larouche issues raised by willbeback. Zero has been violating so many Wikipedia policies (both as admin and as editor) and also have been specifically instructed by Fred bauder not to apply probation ban as the first measure of dispute resolution against a user under probation[49]:
:He(Zeq) is certainly a zionist, but as to redeeming features I would disagree. My dialog with him dates from his arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq, and I have found him willing to discuss matters in a reasonable way. That does not mean that I consider him to now be engaged in optimal editing. The link to the article was not good today, so I can't comment on that. I think you assume too much. You say, "Of course he knows it is nonsense". I think that, in fact, he does not know it is nonsense. But I do think he might listen to and understand a patient explanation presented in a courteous way. Now it may be that he will just get worse and probation, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Remedies, will have to be more and more vigorously enforced, but my hope is that he will gradually improve in his behavior. Keep in mind that "He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing." If that is necessary, please ask for it. Fred Bauder 13:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Key word here is "ask": "If that is necessary, please ask for it".
Hi, I found your comment on the LaRouche/Zeq/Zero issue to be very insightful, and I pretty much agree with your sentiment there. I have posted a response to it on the main RFAr page. Basically, when one well-respected administrator could interpret "any admin" the way he did, I think the term needs some clarification. Sjakkalle(Check!)09:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elsanaturk
He is trying to bait me into arguing with him. Look at all the cheap shots he throws at me here, diverting a whole section into an attack on me:[50][51][52]
Basically, he is calling me immoral, uncivilized, uneducated, etc... he also tries to tell me which Wikipedia articles I can and cannot edit, etc... you can just read his comments.
By his comments, it is very apparent that he is leaving or wants to leave Wikipedia and wants to take me down with him. I will not respond to him anymore, but be reminded that this is the same tactic that users Atabek and Adilbaguirov used against me several times in their attempt at character assassination. They have several times tried to make me angry or make me say something for which they can get me banned from Wikipedia. These users have all been warned at one point or another about civility and not commenting on users by other admins.
Just keep cool. There is always the possibility of reopening the case to take further actions if some or all of the involved editors (or new ones) continue to be disruptive. Keep your cool so you don't get dragged along if there is a second case. Thatcher13100:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats it, I'm sick of this user personal attacks, please ban him, he is just asking to be banned with these comments! Here are his newest personal attacks: [53]Azerbaijani22:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thatcher, I am concerned about targetting of myself by group of Armenian contributors and by Azerbaijani. First of all, I didn't even have time to contribute to pages edited by Azerbaijani since ArbCom, so I don't see what he wants from me. I see this only as attempt of character assassination and harassment. About Aivazovsky and Bagramyan, both showed their inability to come to compromise on Qazakh and March Days talk pages. And Bagramyan here [54] is removing sourced information without any discussion. So in their inability to try consensus, both are just concentrated on complaining about me. Please, pay attention especially to Talk:March Days, despite my attempts to contribute and edit the article, Fedayee and MarshallBagramyan are joined in edit warring and targeting me. In tandem with these, socks of user Artaxiad vandalized my user page 5 times. I think this is a harassment campaign rather than objective attempt to disengage from warrior attitude.Atabek05:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't Dacy69 violated 1RR by reverting twice within 7 days in Khachkar destruction? Not only did he revert twice within a week he didn't even write anything in the talk page[55]. His second edit summary said reverting vandalism even though it's clearly a content dispute of which he has a been part of all along.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!15:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a content dispute, it is vandalism by a banned user, i.e. Artaxiad. Reverting edits of banned users is not considered a violation of parole, according to this: [56]. Otherwise the party that uses socks gets quite an advantage by baiting the other party to violate the parole, while avoiding the parole itself. Grandmaster16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine only I don't see a checkuser result or that user being banned thus it's a content dispute since that paragraph created by banned user Adil Baguirov is at question. First time he reverted MarshallBaghramyan, the second time he reverted Torontz. Identical reverts, didn't even write a line in the talk page. It's a violation of arbcom's restrictions.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!17:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Torontz is a sock. I filed a checkuser here: [57] When a user makes his very first edit to such an obscure article and reverts it, there's no doubt that it is a sock account. As for Adil, he made his edits long before he was banned. He did not use a sock to make them, and only edits by block evading banned users are considered vandalism. Grandmaster17:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, reverting the contributions of banned users is not subject to the 1RR limit. The contributions of banned users are simply not welcome. There is of course some danger in doing this before the account is checkusered or blocked by an admin as an obvious sock, as you could be wrong and your actions could be misinterpreted. At least leave an informative summary ("reverting account believed to be banned user Artaxiad" or something). 06:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, anyone doing this needs to be careful, and you need to leave a proper edit summary. "Vandalism by new user" is really inappropriate since it was a content edit, not obvious vandalism. "Reverting sockpuppet of banned user Artaxiad" would be a much better edit summary to use in such cases. And as long as you're right, you're ok. Thatcher13106:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I will provide appropriate edit summaries every time I revert a sock. Of course, I will inform the admins and ask for investigation as well, as I usually do. Grandmaster07:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Important (to me) diff question
Could you explain to me how you got that diff on the ANI page just now? (the one I got wrong?) Since it was archived by a bot I did not know another way. What did you do to get it? Sincerely, Mattisse19:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding diffs, I went to your talk page and clicked the history tab, then the number 500 to see the last 500 edits to your talk page all at once. I used the control-F (find) function of my web browser to look for silk's name. It wasn't there so I clicked on "next 500" and searched again, and it was there. The "last" button brings up the diff of the edit and the edit before, which is usually what you want. Thatcher13102:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a great tip. I never would have thought of that. You have saved me from endless frustration. Tnank you so much! Sincerely, --Mattisse02:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thatcher, could you help me understand? Do you know of behavior of mine that is bad? I know I get very anxious and flustered at times. Could you give me some suggestions? I did have problems with the sock puppets and that did wear me down. But since Blnguyen (bananabucket) shut them down life has been better. I don't have problems in general here, if you discount the sock puppet harassment and the AMA Advocates. I was not aware that I could not post on the MFD pages. How can I get people to tell me these problems they are having with me privately? I received a lot of private email from AMA Advocates that was very positive. So I am confused. Sincerely, Mattisse19:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If I am doing something dysfunctional I want to know. I know I don't always have the best judgment. But I am not trying to hurt or alienate people. With me people seem to fall into two camps. They eiher hate me aor really like me. I am trying to be very civil. I know I probably went overboard on the MDX on AMA Advocate. But the odd part is that all the emails from AMA advocates was supportive. How does one understand this. The person I criticized the most has be so very kind and supportive to me since. I do not understand these things. Sincerely, --Mattisse03:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James, you were edit warring over the solar influence section. You did not violate the letter of 3RR, but Edit warring is still not an endorsed method of editing. It seems to be common practice that large scale edit wars lead to article protection, but that does nothing to actually stop the edit war and prevents non-edit warring editors from contributing. So as described on the article talk page, more stringent measures are being employed. One editor was blocked for edit warring and two more were warned. Since you are under probation, you were article-banned, probably better overall then blocking your entire access. If it looks like reasonable progress is being made on the article and the talk page is being used responsibly, I might consider lifting the article ban early, or you could appeal elsewhere. It may be an imperfect solution to the edit warring that was going on but I know of no perfect solution. Thatcher13103:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I am being treated unfairly because I'm an easier target, than, for example, the people who took out the peer-reviewed reference claiming that solar variation is insignificant, and replaced it with a press release from people claiming it is significant. Please note that William M. Connolley wants solar variation in the causes section, even though he admits that is not the majority view.
I find these continued personal attacks all that much worse without any explanation of what I have done wrong. Perhaps in some circles it is acceptable to just make such accusations with a wink and a nod, but it would be a great deal of help if someone would please say what I have done wrong. James S.15:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you are very busy, and I seriously appreciate all the work you do as evidenced here on your talk page. But would you please tell me which edits exhibited poor behavior in your view? Thank you. James S.13:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are at least four other webpages where the poem is reprinted in it's entirety, including on news organizations. I indicated I would willingly amend the citation to include one or more or all of them.
Hi. I would like to ask your advice. User:Vartanm restored edits of banned sock accounts to Ganja. It is against the rules, as banned users are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. Vartanm did not respond to my request for anyone wishing to readd the section created by socks to quote the sources cited in that paragraph on talk, so that we could verify the accuracy of the claims. I checked one of the sources available online, and it does not say what is attributed to it. I think the issues like this require admin control, as this user’s recent contribs are nothing but baiting other users to edit warring. Grandmaster06:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another rv by Vartanm (talk·contribs): [60] on the same article. Again, he restored the edits of socks of a banned user, who is not entitled to edit wiki articles, and refuses to provide quotes from the sources he restores to the article, despite my repeated requests at talk and his personal talk page. The section that he keeps on restoring to the article was created by sock of a banned user: [61] I would appreciate if you could review the situation, because I don’t think that edit warring and ignoring the talk page is acceptable bahavior. Thanks. Grandmaster11:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Annotation on RFAR
I think it's better to annotate for context than to rely on the statements remaining in the same order in future. People jump in and add comments, and context is easily lost. The simplest solution is usually the best. --Tony Sidaway00:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that was quick! As for my "casting a wide net", please note my attempt here, before posting any evidence, to find out just how wide a scope the arbcom was looking for. I took Mackensen's response as encouragement to post exactly the kind of evidence I then did post. Admittedly Mackensen was a bit vague. Bishonen | talk14:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No worries. I would just like Ideogram not to overreact to your evidence section unless is looks like the arbitrators are taking it under consideration. Thatcher13114:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly Thatch, I'm fed up by User:Dacy69's bait, provoke, insult and switch methods. He continuously reports me and Fedayee for these ridiculous reasons [63] because he still has not grown accustomed to the Talk Page. He's always intransigent, he never accepts compromise with his "my way or the highway" ideology and continuously, just hacks away by provoking us into these shouting matches. Where does the buck stop? This is borderline harassment: he interprets everything that goes against his POV as personal attacks and then reports us, only to be turned away because they are baseless charges. You asked me to keep track of his methods and the above link just about illustrates it. I can't be looking over my shoulder every second to see if I have been reported again.
He was placed on a 1 year revert parole yet cannot help himself to agitate the other editors, attacking us because of our ethnicity and then throwing the blame on us. I've gotten sick of this already....--MarshallBagramyan23:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You would better support your accussations. It is you who put ethnic watershed. You asking me why I am editing ARF page, or Armenian related page. You have not engaged in discussion until I complained. You just blindly deleted edits - not only on ARF page but several others. It is enough to check your contribs.I think we can distinguish content dispute from personal attacks. Diffs I presented speak for themself. I can't work - whenever I touch articles - it is reverted frequently without any explanation. I complaining to this and other admins because there is no remedy thus far against constant attacks. You are pursuing this strategy to force me not to touch certain articles which you deem that you posses them. Go on RfC page and make your comments - not on me, on the content. You are refering to Arbcom parole. yes, I was put on parole for revert wars as well as many others like Fedayee - plus others for personal attacks, not me. Your accusation here about harassing is groundless. You just can't accept any other editor with different ethnic background to your domain. This is a real problem.--Dacy6901:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted you, what better way to support them(I have yet to see where the personal attacks you accuse us are)? I did not discuss because we had already discussed Papazian far before the arbitration started. You embellished it with other alleged sources(which were found to not support your wording) and reintroduced knowing the result. I reverted, knowing that Fedayee will revert you to then violate his 1RR parole for something (Papazian) which previously created a revert war and the protection of the article. You now have enough attention on that article and are claiming to be willing to make concessions and dropping Papazian. You should have thought of this before reintroducing the controversial source without a follow up of the previous discussion. You forced Fedayee into another pointless revert war. Am I the only one who sees the irony in your last remark? I have FA articles, which obviously would have required collective contribution between various editors regardless of their ethnic background. You on the other hand keep calling Armenian contributors as your opponents, and what I have quoted here were your words not mine. This is my last answer, I do not wish to exhort Thatcher on what to do, we are on another person talk page.--MarshallBagramyan01:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your guidance and will take a note of critisim regarding my comment. I hope after your involvement it will be easy to reach solution.--Dacy6915:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your approach to MedianLady case has been disrespectable, immature and utterly inappropriate. You have blocked her, because she was speking of the truth, which you could not handle it – it is a collective punishment, that she did not deserve. You have threatened Ashkani in the same manner, which demonstrates that you are a young and immature character. Thius is your duty as an Admin to go through formal and normal checks to establish that MedianLady and I are not the same people, before accusing her of any wrong doings; - instead you have blocked her based on your personal assumption and conclusion. In the meanwhile I hope you come to your senses and do the right things, i.e. go through formal channels to establish the alleged suck-puppetry, and resolve this matter in a responsible manner. ← ← ParthianShot(Talk) 08:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser has shown that MedianLady was accessing Wikipedia through open proxies. Therefore, no proof or disproof of identity is possible. What you consider "speaking truth" I consider making disruptive racist personal attacks. Thatcher13111:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you cannot prove or disprove, thus you have decided to block her? Where is the reasoning and logic in that? I though the law considers one's innocent until proven guilty! Also what disruptive racist personal attacks? Is this another assumption of yours or do you have proof? Watch out you are walking on a fine line here of accusing me as a racist - either you prove that, or you have to apology immediately. ← ← ParthianShot(Talk) 14:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I accused MedianLady of making disruptive racist personal attacks. [65][66][67] I have changed the block reason and user page tag to indicate this. MedianLady can post {{unblock}} on her talk page to request a review by an independent admin. You are entitled to file a request for comment against me if you wish. Thatcher13115:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although you have done right thing to changed the endorsement form her user page as my suck puppet, but it does not resolve the problem yet. She was blocked not on the bases of any abuse or misbehaviour conducts, but as an alleged suck puppetry; here is you comment on here talk page: (Blocked: Indefinitely as a sockpuppet of ParthianShot(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) evading a block. If you are not ParthianShot, post a comment here and I will be happy to unblock you after your (non)identity has been confirmed by a checkuser. Thatcher131 19:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)). I hold no grudge against you or anybody for that matter, and I only wish to end to this craziness and havoc that has been created by FullStop and Behnam. So please do the right thing and unblock her - let’s call it a simple misunderstanding and everybody would be happy. ← ← ParthianShot(Talk) 15:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also replied to her followup:
If you are not, and if you wish your account unblocked on the grounds that I made a mistake, post the {{unblock}} template on your talk page to have the block reviewed. I would rather not entertain further edits from another user whose main goal is to use a sockpuppet to turn Wikipedia into a racial or ethnic battleground, but I am willing to have that opinion reviewed by another admin.
I still believe that MedianLady is a sock puppet or alternate account of another user, created for purposes of making a disruptive allegation (perhaps to keep her main account "clean"). This is not permitted either. In any case, the next step belongs to MedianLady, to request unblocking and an independent review in her own name. Thatcher13116:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was heavily involved in the article for a while and I dropped out of editing it because of the reasons I outlined in my note. I'm actively avoiding the article due to the behavior of those editors in the EVP article and others. I'll let you decide if that means I'm "involved" or not. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BlueRibbon issue
You wrote:
Please stop pushing the BLueRibbon issue. I can tell you from experience that the members of the arbitration committee are not shy; if there was any significant dissent to Fred's actions to date we would have heard about it. Removing the complaint is not a statement that the complaint was invalid, however, there are some topics which simply should not be discussed publically, due to the risk of bringing harm and disrepute to the project. Since you acknowledge at least the possibility that consideration of the block might not occur publically, it seems pointless to argue that the meta-discussion over removal of the primary discussion was improper. I suggest you e-mail your concerns to any individual arbitrator or to the arbcom-L mailing list. Please do not continue to pursue this publically. Thank you
It is precisely the idea that "there are some topics which simply should not be discussed publically, due to the risk of bringing harm and disrepute to the project" to which i most object. The more I am urged not to puiblicly discuss this, the more urgent I feel public discussion to be, or if need be, public attention being drawn to the matter in non-wikipedia web sites. I don't belive that there is anything so horrid that it can't be publicly discussed. Note that ArbCom does not set policy, and i can see no policy basis for the actions taken to date. This would be at least equally true if the arbcomn endorsed them all together. The major burdent of my compalint is removing (or rather attempting to remove) these issues from public view. It also won't work, such removals simply draw more attnetion than a proper quiet discussion would have done. If the general consensus is that this can't be discussed on wiki, I will seriously consider leavign the project, but i won't do that without having done my best to widely publicize it first. DES(talk)16:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that, as a matter of principle, I will not discuss this out of public view, and if anyone should email me, i reserve the rigfht to publish all such emails, and probably will do so, on wiki or off. DES(talk)16:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"can't comment inside a comment"
Whoops! Thanks. Um... except, if the editor copies the template onto the page as instructed, the original commented-out lines aren't copied, so the internal comment would become just a regular comment again. I don't see why that wouldn't work. Newyorkbrad21:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I try to limit my comments to arbitration matters on arbitration pages. We just need to keep the RFAR page and the case (if opened) clear of similar private communications. ANI can be dealt with at ANI, or you can request oversight if you feel it is important through WP:RFO. A clerk note is not really a good place to address that issue. Thatcher13103:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naming of RfAr
Even as a preliminary naming, the title "Cabalism" is extremely provocative for this situation, in my opinion. Could it be changed to "Hkelkar et al", "Hkelkar 2" or similar, please? Daniel Bryant05:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
