Right, uncivil edit comments, as well as behavior issues, lead to the warning. When you respond to a move quoting "Please stop this nonsense. There is no "Turkics" in English, leave it alone in the world" with this, that's downright disruptive and uncivil. I cannot judge on the Adil sockpuppet issue since I'm not a CU and I prefer those who are more experienced to research. I'm merely reinforcing the ArbCom ruling (and yes, I was the clerk on the case, so you can stop pointing fingers at me.) If you haven't realized, Atabek is also under restriction. I placed VartanM under A-A 2 restriction because of that article alone; if you have other issues to bring up, you need to bring them to my attention, seeing that I don't know which pages are being warred over. - Penwhale | 04:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Whats uncivil about this? "Fair enough, then this article will be about Azerbaijanis not Turkic people". Note that the word Azerbaijanis was not placed in quotation marks, it was my failed attempt to make it look bold. VartanM (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't like something, so you went ahead and removed a huge section of the article without reasonably explaining on the talk page. I consider that an assumption on the bad side and uncivil. - Penwhale | 04:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That something was added by another Armenian editor which included renaming of an article. Let me bring you an example. This would be same scenario if I were to add information about Urartian's into the Armenians in Turkey article. The material I removed made no sense to be there with that title. VartanM (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That article is a minefield; you know better than dive into it. I'm not understanding your behavior except that the article is nowhere near stable; you're at the center and your edit comments made it that much worse. I got an opinion from someone else when I went to give the restriction and they agreed with me.

I'll give you this, though: the other side has been escalating it (but short of being uncivil for me to restrict them). - Penwhale | 05:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Would that someone at the same rank as this. Also your claim that the other side was short of uncivil is not correct.

"I had asked you, prompty and politely, in a standard and coherent variety of the English language, which both of you seem to be conversant in"

"I think my message was clear enough for you"

"Your inattentiveness is wasting both of our time."

"I specifically included that one last bit so this absurd discussion can be over."

"Eupator's statement "a significant population of Tatars (related to modern Azerbaijani)" is preposterous."

User:Parishan on Azeris in Armenia article. You don't see incivility there, but you do when I say that the article should correspond with what it covers? VartanM (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen him making statements like this, claiming that people of certain ethnicity have bazaar mentality: Grandmaster (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That was the result of Atabek comparing NK to NAZI's. How civil was that? VartanM (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Grandmaster stalked me to here, and I consider his above comment harassment. VartanM (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to post on other people's talk pages? If I stalked you, so did Eupator just before me. Grandmaster (talk) 09:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If you try to turn my talk page into a battleground... Be nice, play nice. Get along, or you won't have dessert. >.> - Penwhale | 09:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention to battle with anyone, and I want dessert :) Grandmaster (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the first time either. VartanM (talk) 09:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Other stuff

Fork substitution

As a previously interested party, I draw your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Rhodesia&oldid=175026836#More_irrational_reverts and I seek your acquiescence in the edit I propose.

You may also wish to comment here, if you choose: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Alice.S&oldid=175027524#Edit_war Alice.S 10:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Protected WP:SPOILER

Hi. You protected WP:SPOILER for 2 weeks. Why? From November 25 to December 7, there were no edits to the page. I have been discussing changes on the talk page. I added {{disputedtag}} and other editors claimed it's guideline status was not disputed. Another editor added the {{disputedtag}} and another editor claimed it's guideline status was not disputed. I added the {{underdiscussion}} tag and another editor claimed the guideline was not under discussion. The {{underdiscussion}} tag was then re-added to the page. I have been discussing proposed changes to the guideline on the guideline's talk page. The current version of the guideline does not have consensus. On September 13, 2007, Kusma proposed a new version here. Around 3 1/2 hours later, Kusma rewrote the guideline. The current version of the guideline differs little from what Kusma wrote on September 13, 2007. I have been making proposals on the talk page but certain admins have just been editing the guideline page and reverting any changes to it. The edit-warring on that page has been going on since May 15, 2007, after an admin suggested on the WikiEN-l mailing list that all spoiler policies be "nuked." and another admin suggested on the WikiEN-l mailing list that people remove Template:Spoiler from every article. I don't think editing of the guideline should only be limited to admins, since a previous mediation case named multiple admins and a request for arbitration was made naming multiple admins. Edit-warring by admins is the problem. The current guideline does not have consensus. Could you change the page protection to a shorter period of time? If you think the page should be protected for 2 weeks, could you replace the page with just the {{underdiscussion}} template? Thank you for your time. --Pixelface (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the matter of revert warring-- it was brought up at RFPP. Since some of the reverts were by admins... I think that consensus takes time to change, so 2 weeks sounds alright for me to build consensus. - Penwhale | 05:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If some of the revert warring was by admins, how is the situation improved by making it so only admins can edit it? --Pixelface (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It'd be abuse of admin tools if they continue doing it. (i.e. more scrutiny when it's full-protected) - Penwhale | 00:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

KABC-TV/RPP

Thanks! :) - NeutralHomer 08:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Petrino

Please lift the protection from Bobby Petrino; by the time you protected it, the dispute had been resolved (negated by the ongoing events) and the full protection request had been revoked by the requester (who was over-reactive in asking for it in the first place). Thanks, AUTiger » talk 16:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Gaming 3rr

Could you explain exactly what "gaming the 3rr" means especially in contrast to the behaviour of SqueakBox in this case, so I can learn to behave as properly as he (given that he wasn't blocked)? Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

When I issued the block he hasn't reverted you (i.e. your 4th revert was the newest version). Gaming 3RR in this case means that you do 4 reverts just outside a 24 hour window (say my 1st revert was noon on Monday and I revert a 4th time at 12:01pm on Tuesday; technically isn't 3RR, but that's called gaming the system). - Penwhale | 01:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But I was 3.5 hours outside the window, not just one minute. And SqueakBox did a 4th revert about 9 hours outside the window. Is that the difference between gaming and not gaming? Or would you say he could have been blocked too? Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason why the 3rr rule is there is to prevent edit-warring, so, yes, he could've been blocked too if I noticed it (which unfortunately I didn't). At this point, though, since it's been a day and a half since his 4th revert, in addition to the fact that the article was full-protected, it does not make any sense to block him at this point. - Penwhale | 13:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd have more sympathy with Bramlet if he would make edits other than to revert me and generally to take an interest in articles other than those of members of the wikipedia foundation. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc

I've started a discussion about unblocking Callmebc, per a discussion I've had via email with him. There's a thread here which you, as a blocking admin, might want some input in.--Haemo (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia

user:Andranikpasha is insisting on removing sources. What should I do? -- Cat 14:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I do think user:Andranikpasha could be a sockpuppet given how many had been circling around over Armenia-Azerbaijan related rfars. -- Cat 14:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not good at researching these type of stuff. Sockpuppet claims is one thing I don't touch since I'm not good at reading patterns. Regarding ATMG, Picaroon (a fellow ArbCom Clerk) has spoken on that talk page, so I defer you to him while I reserve my opinions. - Penwhale | 21:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)