Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:13, 19 October 2007 editVartanM (talk | contribs)6,453 edits →Parishan← Previous edit Revision as of 07:33, 19 October 2007 edit undoCirt (talk | contribs)199,086 edits →Edit this section for new requests: Using sockpuppets to avoid user:COFS/User:Shutterbug article topic ban?Next edit →
Line 4: Line 4:


=Edit this section for new requests= =Edit this section for new requests=
== Using sockpuppets to avoid ]/] article topic ban? ==
#] AKA ], per admin ] is ''"You have been pagebanned for 30 days from editing scientology-related articles and their talkpages, per the terms of Article probation"''.
#From this ] page, it appears that ], among other editors, is a sockpuppet of ] AKA ] and is editing from Church of Scientology computers.
#{{user|Misou}}, , the sockpuppet of the user that is "pagebanned" from "scientology-related articles", gets to continue to edit those selfsame articles ?
What am I missing here ? Does this seem to you like a way of using multiple user names to avoid a ban and get around Arbitration Committee decisions ? I would appreciate your advice before doing anything else.

*I wanted to check to make sure this was the right place to post this troubling issue, but {{user|ChrisO}} did suggest that this was the right spot to see what other Arbitrators and Admins think of this. ] 07:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

==]== ==]==
{{user|Behenuir}} appears to be a sockpuppet of ] user Hkelkar, going by the set of articles edited and the nature of the edits - mostly undiscussed reverts in support of a ] pov or on ]. ] 12:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC) {{user|Behenuir}} appears to be a sockpuppet of ] user Hkelkar, going by the set of articles edited and the nature of the edits - mostly undiscussed reverts in support of a ] pov or on ]. ] 12:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:33, 19 October 2007

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts

Please use this page only to:

  • request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
  • request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
  • request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
  • appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

  1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

  • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
  • The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
    • the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
    • the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

  • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
  • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
  • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

  1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
  2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
  3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

  1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
  2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
  3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
  1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
  2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

  • Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
  • When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
  • Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
  • More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

  • Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
  • Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
  • You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
  • Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives
1234567891011121314151617181920
2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
341342343344345346347

Edit this section for new requests

Using sockpuppets to avoid user:COFS/User:Shutterbug article topic ban?

  1. User:COFS AKA User:Shutterbug, per admin User:Bishonen is "You have been pagebanned for 30 days from editing scientology-related articles and their talkpages, per the terms of Article probation". Banned by Bishonen, per Arbitration
  2. From this Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS page, it appears that User:Misou, among other editors, is a sockpuppet of User:COFS AKA User:Shutterbug and is editing from Church of Scientology computers.
  3. Misou (talk · contribs), Misou contributions, the sockpuppet of the user that is "pagebanned" from "scientology-related articles", gets to continue to edit those selfsame articles ?

What am I missing here ? Does this seem to you like a way of using multiple user names to avoid a ban and get around Arbitration Committee decisions ? I would appreciate your advice before doing anything else.

Hkelkar

Behenuir (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of banned user Hkelkar, going by the set of articles edited and the nature of the edits - mostly undiscussed reverts in support of a Hindutva pov or on Timeline of antisemitism. Doldrums 12:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Note I've requested a checkuser here for Behenuir. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Blocked, fails the duck test. Obviously a troll even if the checkuser does come back negative for some reason. Probably is Hkelkar, but IMO a lot gets pinned on him that may not be his fault. Moreschi 19:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Parishan

Parishan is an involved party to both Armenia-Azerbaijan arbcom cases and has been wikipedian since July, 2004. After I rightfully added Armenian and Persian names to the Ganja article. The city was part of the Persian Empire and the name itself has Persian origin. The city has had a significant Armenian history, was part of Greater Armenia Kingdom of Armenia, number of notable Armenians are from there etc... After seeing my edit Parishan added the Azeri name to every Armenian city.

His phobia of Armenian language was covered in the last arbcom case when he searched the word Armenian and added the Azeri just because Armenian was there. His not Assuming Good Faith, his making a |Point]] and retaliating, non of which are constructive. VartanM 08:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a long standing dispute with Armenian users, who keep on adding Armenian names to Azerbaijani towns and places and remove Azerbaijani names from Armenian places. See for example Syunik, where Azerbaijani name was completely erased, even though I added it back in 2006 I think there should be some sort of a decision made as to whether Armenian names should be included to Azerbaijani places and vice versa. Otherwise this dispute has no end. I even filed an RFC back in April 2006 with regard to this issue, see: Unfortunately it generated no interest. I don't think Parishan violated any rule by his edits, but there's a naming dispute that needs to be addressed. Grandmaster 10:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It is also worth mentioning that VartanM reverted all the above edits of Parishan and removed Azerbaijani names from all those articles without any discussion. Such massive reverting also requires attention. Grandmaster 11:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that VartanM added a name to one city by which it has been known throughout most of its history. So obviously that name is relevant. Parishan retaliated by violating WP:POINT and WP:AGF with an overkill, adding names with no history or relevance to a plethora of articles.-- Ευπάτωρ 17:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not a great surprise to meet like a false claim. VartanM is shooting his heel at nomination paragraph;Ganja..has had a significant Armenian history, was part of Greater Armenia.., Selfexplanatory, Greater Armenia is a Pan-Armenian, irredentist allegation..(see article). All the cities which Parishan added Azeri names, have very deep historical relations with Azerbaican,Turkey and Turks.Parishan is not violating any rule here, but VartanM did. Grandmaster's solution is suitable to stop dispute.Regards to all.Must. 17:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That is absolutely false. First of all Greater Armenia is the name of a historical state that covered all those cities, it was known so in contrast to Lesser Armenia. It has nothing to do with Greater Armenia (political concept), but you know that very well since you are familiar with both topics. Second of all Parishan has no excuse to add those names wikiwide to Armenian cities in retaliation. They have no historical or etymological value, not to mention that a good chunk of them don't even exist and have been just been made up. The Armenian names on the other had existed before the Azerbaijani people, their language or alphabet existed.-- Ευπάτωρ 18:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see any logic here. Armenia as an independent state stopped existing in the 4th century A.D., and Ganja was founded in the 5th century A.D. Therefore Ganja could not be a part of Greater Armenia, whatever meaning you put into it. As for the Azerbaijani names, they are well documented in the Russian sources, most of the above locations were given present names after 1918. The article on Vanadzor even admits existence of the name of Qarakilisa. So why is it OK to add Armenian names to Azerbaijani cities and not the other way around? Grandmaster 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Greater Armenia ceased to exist in 428 AD when it was annexed by the Sassanid Empire. That's in the fifth century and it didn't change names or populations. The fact remains that the Armenian name of the city is the exact same name of the city when it was founded: Gandzak. That alone is notable. Some cities in Armenia had contemporary Turkic names during Turkic occupation periods (mostly under Safavids), obviously the language of the occupiers was in common use. Some of them could ahve been founded under their rule. That doesn't make it Azeri but Turkic. I don't think anyone has ever objected to including historical names of cities regardless of their origin. Adding an Armenian name to Baku makes no sense even if it was once dominated by Armenians but adding an Armenian name to Ganja is absolutely required because we have early medieval and later Armenian sources that refer to it and its Armenian significance. This doesn't change the fact that Parishan clearly stepped over several boundaries here.-- Ευπάτωρ 20:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This is again not related to Parishan's behaviour but again if and when we add relevant Turkic names to Armenian cities, they must be added only in the ARABIC or modified Persian Arabic in some cases but never in Latin.-- Ευπάτωρ 20:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This was already documented in the last arbitration cases. It is obvious it continued since the Arbitrators did nothing about it. Most probably when they saw the long list of evidences they didn’t even want to read it.
Grandmaster’s justification actually shows that his intention here isn’t for the better of Misplaced Pages. It has been explained to him and Parishan that Armenian names have etymologic value in those articles and Armenian name preceded Azerbaijani names even in the case of territories now part of the republic of Azerbaijan. Armenian names were used even in British historic documents. On the other hand Azerbaijani names are modern, the Azerbaijani alphabet is modern. Parishan adds the Azerbaijani term in those articles when those regions were never called by any Azerbaijani name… not in the past, nor now. The Azerbaijani names are either Turkic derived also shared from Ottoman Turkish OR Persian derived.
When those regions were not yet part of the Armenian republic, there was no Azerbaijani alphabet, no standardized modern Azerbaijani language. In short, what Parishan is doing and unacceptably supported by Grandmaster (and I don't know what this is if it is not POV pushing) is adding a modern word which was never used to call those regions. It is the equivalent of adding the Chinese word for that region.
This sort of retaliatory measure is unacceptable, just because Armenian words are in some article for regions part of Azerbaijan or Turkey, without understanding the context Parishan has again wiki-wide retaliated. If we read the evidences of the last Arbcom we could see the extent of Parishan’s POV pushing in this case. He had, in the past, Wiki searched Armenian words to add for each of those Azerbaijani words without understanding the context. One funny example was the article for Jerusalem, where Parishan added the Azerbaijani word because the Armenian word was there. He even justified it, when it was explained to him that the reason why the Armenian word was there was because Old Jerusalem has an Armenian Quarter, dating over a millennium ago, and that the Armenian word had a scripted value, while the Azerbaijani modern word was simply the Islamic word. I think something must be done to stop Parishan’s POV pushing.
Also, Grandmaster’s argument about Ganja is ridiculous; in the 5th century there was an Armenian nation right on that area with a written language and with its distinct name for that place. He claims that an Armenian state ceased to exist in the fourth century, when there were continuing Armenian Kingdoms such as the one reinstated in the 9th century, admitted by scholars that he himself uses to support his arguments. In the 5th century there were no Azerbaijani people or languages.
And Grandmaster still repeats why Armenian names could be there and not Azerbaijani. Well, we have been explaining this hundreds of times. Prior to the Azerbaijani republic or modern Turkey, those places were mostly called by their Armenian name; Armenian names were mostly the origin etymologically of those words. The Azerbaijani name has never been used to call places now part of Armenia. They were either Persian or Turkic, the modern Azerbaijani language has no connection. - Fedayee 20:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me start with commenting on Vartan's edit to Ganja. Ganja was never part of the Armenian Kingdom, regardless of its ethnic composition. It made no contribution to the development of Armenia as a state, and certainly did not change the course of Armenia's history. So why should the Armenian name be there? If you wish to go by ethnic presence, then let's add an Azeri name to Yerevan as well: not only is it in the immediate vicinity of the ethnic Azeri homeland, but Azeris at one point were outnumbering even the city's Armenian population. The Azeri community of Yerevan flourished and produced important personalities in many fields, which proves its great sociocultural role in Azeri history. So... why not? And given the fact that Azeris once populated "...almost all of Russian Armenia" (phrase taken straight out of Brockhaus and Efron), more than one article on the Armenian cities should undergo such edits.

I don't think the example with Names of Jerusalem was "funny", as Fedayee referred to it. What was funny is the fact that none of my opponents managed to convince me, why the Azeri name shouldn't be there. The claim of "historical linguistic relevance" could have worked; too bad, my opponents' double-standard attitude prevented them from being able to account for the presence of Persian, Urdu, Hindi, and Old Norse variations of "Jerusalem." In other words, if one can agree that the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, or Armenian name must be present due to their cultural influence within the city, languages such as Persian, Urdu, Hindi, and Old Norse must not, because none of them has been traditional to Jerusalem throughout the centuries. Just like Azeri. However VartanM and Eupator chose to pick on Azeri only. Which is why it seems strange to me, that they are the ones blaming others for assuming bad faith.

Now let's get onto the issue of the day. It looks like VartanM has not made as thorough research on the Armenian cities, as he has on Ganja and its history. Let's see how these cities "have never been called by Azerbaijani names", shall we?

  1. Vardenis (until 1969 - Basargechar) is an urban-type community and centre of the Armenian SSR's Vardenis rayon.
  2. Kirovakan (Soviet name for Vanadzor - P.) (until 1935 - Karaklis; renamed after S.Kirov) is a city in the Armenian SSR.
  3. Tsakhkadzor (until 1947 - Darachichag), Kechanis, is a city in Armenia.
  4. Abovyan, Armenia Page. Other names: Elar
  5. Maralik, Armenia Page. Other names: Molla Gekcha, Molla Gëkcha. . Also check Vardges Petrosyan's Армянские эскизы where he uses the name Molla Gekcha and mentions that it is now known as Maralik.
  6. Yeghegnadzor, Armenia Page. Other names: Mikoyan, Yeghegik, Keshishkend, Yekhegnadzor, Keshishkent . Keshishkend is also mentioned by Simon Yerevantsi in Jambr.
  7. Spitak is a city in Armenia. In the past the village of Amamlu. Renamed in 1948.
  8. A right turn from modern S Highway leads to Masis (formerly Zangibasar, Narimanlu and Ulukhanlu villages) used to be a main transportation depot of the S. Caucasus.
  9. Ijevan is a city in Armenia. After being granted the status of a town in 1961, it was renamed from Karavansaray to Ijevan.
  10. Soon afterwards, he returned, and moved to Echmiadzin (Uch Kilisa) and stopped at two farsakhs' distance from Ashtarak (Hashtarak).
  11. Dilijan, Armenia Page. Other names: Tilichan, Dilizhan, Delijan, Tili, Dili Pʼokʼr, Dili P'ok'r, Dilishan, Delishan, Dilichan, Delizhan, Hin, Dili
  12. The town of Noyemberyan (until 1938 - Barana) is situated in a distance of 185 km from Yerevan.
  13. Kapan. Other names: Qafan, Katan, Kafan, Madan, Ghap'an, Ghapʼan, Zangezur, Kafi.
  14. The name Kyavar for Gavar is even mentioned in the name of the city's Internet portal: http://www.kyavar.com/
  15. Berd, Armenia Page. Other names: <...> Tovuzkala, T'ovuz, Tʼovuz, Taua Kale.
  16. Artashat, Armenia Page. Other names: Kamarl, Kamarlu, Kamarlyu.
  17. Ararat, Armenia Page. Other names: Davalu.

The argument that the names "aren't Azeri but Turkish and Persian" is comic. It's like saying, all cities in Portugal have Spanish names, given the similarity between the two languages. I do understand the urge to attribute Azeri heritage to as many surrounding cultures as possible, but even that should be done with a certain degree of adequacy. The place names in the medieval era weren't defined and administered by government committees, like they are nowadays. Villages were referred to by whatever name the local population called it. There was little or no Turkish or Persian ethnic presence in our area of interest. It was the Azeri ethnic presence that ensured the usage of most of these toponyms, and it was the Azeris that used those names in the Azeri language to refer to the respectives towns they once populated. As far as the alphabet is concerned, yes, it is a good idea to show the name in Arabic script, and I'm volunteering to do that, but the Latin script must remain, as a) It is the only literal form of Azeri nowadays; and b) It is conventional on Misplaced Pages, as you see with the Kurdish names in Arbil, Mosul, Sulaymaniyah, etc. Parishan 02:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This board is not for content disputes. I reported a WP:POINT violation. An administrator is yet to comment on it. VartanM 03:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, the content dispute demonstrates how disruptive your own mass reverting of my edits was. Parishan 03:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't change the fact that you yourself started that disruption. The correct response to my edit was to revert the article and start a discussion in the talkpage. VartanM 03:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
STOP IT! I have addressed Parishan’s POV pushing, including Jerusalem here.
Persian and Urdu are all dating languages which have scripture values, unlike the modern Azerbaijani which was introduced in the 1930's. Parishan’s wiki-wide POV pushing has been covered in the last arbitration case, added by TigranTheGreat, and I followed there.
The fact is that if administrators check the last contributions by Parishan they will see that Parishan retaliated just after Vartan added an Armenian name which preceded Azerbaijani and was etymologically valid considering the modern name, for one single article. This was clearly against the WP:POINT. The retaliation was done on various articles and ironically closing all this by finally reverting Vartan.
THE FACT is that region wide before the Azerbaijani language even existed most of the names were etymologically Armenian. Those places were never called in Azerbaijani, they were Turkic with Arabic scripts for a while when Turkic populations invaded them. Parishan has to accept the fact that Armenian is an older language than Azerbaijani, its alphabet exists since the beginning of the fifth century and that Armenian terms on various occasions were the etymology of the modern current terms. Turkic and Persian for some places true, but not modern Azerbaijani.
Parishan is still continuing on the line of battle ground mentality by calling those with who he disagree with as his “opponents”. He doesn't seem to have learned anything from the two last arbitrations and if there was any doubt still remaining that the decision to include him in the restriction was a mistake, there should not remain any such doubts anymore. - Fedayee 03:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Fedayee??? Parishan was not included, even though his behavior doesn't seem to have stopped and I hope that administrators take note and at least warn him.VartanM 04:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The argument that modern Azerbaijani language cannot be used for the Armenian places holds no water. All those places have Azerbaijani names, and the Azerbaijani language exists in a written form at least since the 13th century. Azerbaijani population left those places during the deportations of 1988, and most of those places were renamed in Soviet times, so I don't see why we cannot use Azerbaijani language to transcribe Azerbaijani names for those locations. For example Azerbaijani name of Basarkecher was changed to Armenian Vardenis in 1969. By the same token Armenian name for Ganja is not justified at all. The city was founded either by Sasanian Persians in the 5th century or (which is a more prevalent version) by Arabs in the 9th century, and the name is of Persian origin. The city never had an Armenian majority population or was part of any Armenian state. Tell me then why Armenian spelling of Ganja needs to be included? This is a very long dispute than continues for years. I think it is time to attract the attention of wiki community to this issue. Grandmaster 04:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Only after the community pays attention to Parishans disruptions. VartanM 04:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If he was disruptive, you were even more disruptive with massive reverting over multiple pages. Grandmaster 04:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Again I didn't start this. I only added one word to one article. In return Parishan disrupted 20 articles. I also did not violate any rules by reverting him. While he violated wp:Point VartanM 04:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. The nationalist undertones in VartanM's original report and several of the resulting responses are despicable. I know there haven't been too many blocks since the conclusion of the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ArbCom case, but the mere discussion of potential ArbCom violations has become disruptive. I don't know how far it extends into the real world, but this dispute (whatever it's about) is appearing increasingly petty. -- tariqabjotu 04:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Its pretty simple I add one word to one article, Parishan adds 20 words to 20 articles then reverts my edit. The rest are just frustrated users. VartanM 04:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
He made 1 rv, and you made 20. Sorry, but I don't see how he is more disruptive than you. Your claims that Ganja had anything to do with the kingdom of Armenia have no grounds. It is a well known fact that Armenia lost the territories south of Kura to Caucasian Albania in 387 A.D. The scholars date foundation of Ganja to the 5th century at the earliest, so it is still not logically possible that Ganja was part of the kingdom of Armenia. Yet you made your edit and reverted Parishan, whose edits had more basis, because most of those locations were renamed in Soviet times. Grandmaster 05:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You do understand that I broke no rules while he made a point by disturbing wikipedia. My reverts would have been disruptive if I reverted Ganja article as well. Like I said this whole situation would have been taken care of professionally if Parishan used the talkpage of the Ganja article instead of disturbing 20 different articles. VartanM 05:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You made no use of the talk page either, and 20 rvs is nothing but edit warring, considering that Parishan's edits were not vandalism and had factual basis. Grandmaster 05:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I made use of this noticeboard. Disturbing 20 articles in retaliation to one edit is very disruptive and might make cool headed users do things that they normally wouldn't. Those reverts wouldn't have been necessary if he used the talkpage. VartanM 06:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
User blocked by Durova for one week. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson. I was involved with a discussion with Chris at Talk:Michael Vick about the way that we should list information in the infobox. Chris was asking me some hypothetical questions about how to do the infobox if certain things happen in the situation. I kindly told him that I didn't feel the need to respond to hypothetical questions because that wasn't something we need to concern ourselves with at the present time. He continued to ask me the same hypothetical questions, to which I continued to respond by saying that there was no need to respond to them at the present time. In this edit, he made what I viewed as a personal attack, which is against the ruling of the ArbCom (personal attacks aren't allowed anyway, but this was outlined in the ruling).

Also, recently, Chris made this edit at User talk:Durova, yet another personal attack. Ksy92003(talk) 02:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; I believe that the block was implemented before I submitted this report. Ksy92003(talk) 03:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Durova doesn't mess around!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Anyeverybody

Please see this edit for Anyeverybody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly User:Anynobody) focusing negative attention on me (User:Justanother) in violation of the "harassment ban" imposed as a condition of the COFS arbitration. Anyeverybody is turning a discussion on sourcing and verbage into an attack on me. Please see decision and related remedies and enforcement. --Justanother 02:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This was actually the edit, provided for easy access to the links within:

If you feel harassed, then report it to the arbcom, but you haven't been very helpful in resolving the disputes here. Almost from the start you have displayed a negative attitude and not observed WP:AGF. (This despite insisting we all do so toward you. Q:...would you please provide a better link? A:WP:AGF my friend....)
You've made irrelevant comments about points to other editors. And all but refused to commit to any position, as this response which ignored the issue at hand helps illustrate. Yet another example was provided after I asked a reasonable question to help resolve the Personality section issue, you also ignored.

The point being made is that he is not really trying resolve disputes, either by ignoring simple questions to gain a consensus or adding remarks which are unrelated to the issues at hand. Anynobody 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It continues in direct violation of the terms of the arbitration in which Anyeverybody is subject to increasing blocks for making negative comments about me is various forums. It continues in this forum right here with his trying to remake his case against me above and it continues at Talk:L. Ron Hubbard with comments such as "As to the negativity aspect, it brings me no joy to point out behavior which disrupts the discussion here." It brings him "no joy" but he violates the spirit and letter of the arbitration anyway. --Justanother 13:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Nrcprm2026

Repeating my comments here from WP:ANI because I don't know which board will work faster:

3 clear sockpuppets in violation of probation/block on Nrcprm2026

User Nrcprm2026 (James Salsman) was 2-month-blocked 9/19 for sockpuppet LossIsNotMore in violation of ArbCom probation. About 9/28 his 1-year-old puppet BenB4 was blocked. Last night I testified that 1of3 was also a clear 1-year-old sockpuppet, which was used hot and heavy since 9/29. Being relatively new myself to WP policy, I'd be really encouraged to hear that this is ripe for indefinite ban. Thanks! I ask because it's really inconvenient to see a POV tag get added to the Ron Paul article every week or two over basically a single objectionable sentence (which sentence is usually immediately cut and does not appear the majority of the time the POV tag stands). This appears to me as serious article hijacking. Please also alert my talk page, thanks.

BTW, just in researching this, I happened to search on "WP:pov tag" in the main namespace and, would you believe, "Ron Paul" came up third. <rolling eyes> Just to illustrate the seriousness of this issue. John J. Bulten 14:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As previously noted, also see Acct4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Andy r2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). - Crockspot 16:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

  • 1of3 was indefinitely blocked 10/18 by Morven
  • Acct4 was indefinitely blocked 10/3 by Tariqabjotu
  • Andy r2 was indefinitely blocked 10/18 by EliminatorJR

Admins, there are more outbreaks, please keep up with WP:SSP for latest, thanks for all your help. John J. Bulten 17:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a section of the same title on this page back circa September 29 dealing with this same user. He has previously stated that his interpretation of WP:IAR calls for him to continue to create accounts and edit, in spite of his ban. This issue will probably be ongoing for some time. - Crockspot 17:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Nikola Smolenski and Gazimestan speech

A dispute has arisen between Nikola Smolenski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and three other users, including myself, concerning a paragraph in the Gazimestan speech article that he has repeatedly sought to replace. The wording proposed by Nikola is regarded as a clear violation of NPOV by the other editors of the article, but repeated attempts to find a compromise have failed and the article has seen a slow-motion edit war between Nikola and the other editors (see history). This and other Kosovo-related articles are currently under article probation following an earlier arbitration.

I would appreciate it if uninvolved editors could drop in at Talk:Gazimestan speech#Request for comment to advise on the proper application of NPOV to this article. -- ChrisO 11:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Zeq - edit warring, tendentious editing, removing sourced content, reverting under Misplaced Pages:article probation

Zeq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Allegations of Israeli Apartheid is a frequent site of edit warring, and the subject of a current ArbCom matter.

user:Zeq is subject to the terms of probation:

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeq#Zeq banned from articles he has disrupted and placed on Probation states that "Zeq is banned indefinitely from 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Palestinian exodus, and is placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans and the reasons for them to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeq#Log of blocks and bans."

Also, Zeq was warned as part of the same decision:

3) Zeq is cautioned to avoid removing information backed by reliable scholarly sources.

The article had seen little editing in the few days previous to this edit by Zeq. After being reverted, Zeq's reverts in a two step edit (making the revert harder to see: . He edit wars over a fact tag: Tendentiously edits: Removes sourced material, and wars over it: with a misleading edit summary

At the same time time he was reverting, Zeq did open a new section on the talk page. However,

I have yet to see any of the reverters addersing the issue raised here on talk. Please use talk instead of just trying to win by being a larger group of reverters

understandably did not lead to any sort of cooling off/discussion. The page was just fully protected.

Could an admin look this over and see if in fact this is a violation of Zeq's probation? Jd2718 01:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

1. This is a very problematic article. The issues were raised on talk (by at least 3 editors) and there was absolutly no response (until the protection) to the issue raised. The article is now protected in the version that the reverts wanted it so they have no incentive to engage in talk.

2. Accusation that I used misleading edit summary are foundless: the article was tagged with "too many quotes" for month and I have revoved (in an NPOV fashion) quotes from both sides that were not eneclopedic making the artiocle a bit readable.

3. I have tagged some claims in the lead with a {fact} tag - but instead of providing source the reverters removed the tag.

all together, what takes place in this article is relativly minor, it is unfortunate that instead of tryong to help resolve the issues (I don't think the disagreement is so large) there is only intervention to protect it. Instead I suggest that all participants will be encourage to use talk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Concerns_with_lead_paragraphs

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Policy_analysis_section_--_lead

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#Accuracy

Zeq 05:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again I pose the question to you that you have thus far refused to answer...how is it that you think you can swoop in and delete a section of the article without discussion, and when others reverse that you demand that they discuss that reversal first? Tarc 12:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
See Help:Reverting#Do. You should discuss the edit rather than just jumping right into reverting it. Yahel Guhan 17:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Zeq's wholesale content deletion without discussion amounts to simple vandalism, and can and should be reverted until he provides justification. But this ANI report isn't about me, so unless you plan to file a separate one, try to keep focus. Tarc 00:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Tarc, you are the one that reverted, you are the one that should provide justification. I have explained very clearly that the article included too many quotes (it was tagged this way for 5 months) and since there was no known objection I deleted some quotes. Stop calling good faith edits "vandalism" - this is something you do ofetn and you were requated to appologize. I suggest next time when you object an edit you discuss it on talk and appologize those you call vandals. Zeq 04:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe much justification is required to restore sourced content. Tarc 18:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Anyeverybody - 6RR and tendentious editing under article probation

Anyeverybody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (AKA User:Anynobody) has been reinserting a highly one-sided POV "Personality" section into the article on L. Ron Hubbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the objections of multiple editors (User:Wikipediatrix, User:Misou, myself, User:Gscshoyru). The Scientology articles are under article probation as a condition of the COFS arbitration. A look at the history shows four reverts in 24 hours and six in not much more than that, over multiple editors and against talk page advices. He has also been warned on the talk page against edit warring in an article that is under probation. I apologize that I am the one to report this but I figured that clear violation of 3RR and article probation where I am one of the "victims" of the edit-warring is an allowable exception, i.e. I am not going out of my way to be "interested" in Anynobody and, if I cannot report this sort of stuff, then I am at a disadvantage and effectively being punished. --Justanother 13:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, when I went to let AN know about this I see that he has a 6-hour block for 3RR violation. I will not comment further. --Justanother 13:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is the section under dispute: Personality. Using WP:RS already which included:
I started a section to discuss Hubbard's personality, since it is discussed in several sources. Misou and Justanother reverted text which had valid information, which is specifically something not to do when reverting so Help:Reverting says:Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
Essentially, the Scientologists are trying to prevent other editors from using reliable sources in an effort to artificially create an illusion of neutrality in the name of their confused understanding of WP:NPOV. What they are doing would be the same thing as a person removing information about Hitler which makes him look bad by arguing that all the sources are biased. They might be, but second guessing on our part seems like it would be going into original research. Justanother and Misou might not like the information, but it comes exclusively from sources. They seem to be confusing the sources with my personal opinions, despite the fact that I use <ref>s. Anynobody 02:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You are leaving out the vital information that those references are in the article since about a year or even longer and used for other parts of it. You did neither locate nor put them in, you are trying to "recycle" them in a POV-pushing way and created a new chapter with the sole purpose adding a derogatory section to the article. Just as you did on the LRH/Military section some months ago. This is absolutely unnecessary. Just as your snide remarks on "Scientologists" (re-read WP:NPA for that). Shutterbug 03:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
To address your concern about my use of the word Scientologists, it wasn't meant to be snide. Aren't you, Misou, and Justanother Scientologists? As to the rest of your post, I've tried to explain several times to you how POV actually works. User talk:Shutterbug#A quick point about POV and me, so I honestly don't feel another attempt on my part would do any good. Anynobody 03:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

?s about harassment, NPOV

I had actually wanted to bring this issue here sooner, but was concerned it would be interpreted as more harassment since it involved Justanother. I see this as several biased editors removing valid information they don't like because it is about about someone near and dear to them.

The way I understand Misplaced Pages to work is based on what we can reference. In this case most references only discuss "negative" aspects of the subject, as I understand it we should write what can be sourced regardless of whether it talks about him as a hero or crook. If we were to wait for some "positive" info from a RS before adding "negative" info from a source or sources just as reliable, many articles would find a majority of their content should be removed. (Naturally if a RS says something positive about him, I'd recommend including it. Also, positive or negative it should be assumed that the information is relevant.)

So, would it have been harassment to have brought my concerns here? and What is NPOV, am I even close? Anynobody 03:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (PS, I'm only asking so that I can abide by the ruling and policy, not because I plan on accusing anyone of harassment.) Anynobody 01:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)