Revision as of 01:25, 22 July 2008

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 WP:AE WP:ARE 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: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and 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: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or 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: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. 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: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and 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-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or 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: 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. 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. 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. 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.

Edit this section for new requests

User:Alansohn

Arbcom decision: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Alansohn restricted.

User:Alansohn is editing and reverting in bad faith on a Misplaced Pages Style Guidelines page, falsely claiming that his edit is supported by a "consensus." It is not.

• Violation diff (page history) .
• See the discussion, particularly in the later part of this Talk page section here

RedSpruce (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that this is an ArbCom Enforcement matter. There is definitely a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Footnotes, and RedSpruce has disagreed with the consensus at the talkpage and has been edit-warring about it. He has been reverted by multiple editors, not just Alansohn. It was probably not wise for Alansohn to engage in the revert war with his longterm opponent RedSpruce, but I don't think that this is a blocking matter. I do think that both Alansohn and RedSpruce should take a step back from this, and let other editors handle the actual guideline page though. Edit-warring is never wise on guideline pages. --Elonka 17:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus was reached after long negotiations on wording supervised by User:Elonka. RedSpruce still appears to be uncivil, however. See his talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Correct, and edit summaries from RedSpruce such as, there is no damn consensus on this issue, goddamnit are not helpful. --Elonka 17:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see any incivility or assumptions of bad faith by Alansohn in the linked edit or discussion. I didn't evaluate whether his claim of consensus is correct or not, but even if he was wrong it isn't a violation of his probation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• AlanSohn has been the model of civility, it is Redspruce being uncivil. There are now three warnings on his talk page from three different people. Redspruce was part of the negotiations leading to the consensus wording for policy on footnoted quotes, he spearheaded the action to create a policy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Gulmammad 2

User:Gulmammad is asking for an unblock and has pointed out some errors in the evidence compiled against him. -- Ned Scott 01:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking over it again, he does not appear to have violated his arbcom restrictions. The only time he reverted twice in one week was here: , but he was actually reverting a vandal. -- Ned Scott 01:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ned, Gulmammad is under the impression that a revert occurs "immediately after it has been added - may be within 24hours". This is not the definition of a revert. According to the policy here "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time". All four of those links he posted were reverts. Furthermore, he exceed his revert limitation in the article Aghbulag as well. See here. That was not a vandal, that was a content dispute, administrator user:Khoikhoi also see it as a content dispute, see here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I see it as a brand new editor breaking the infobox and categories with redlinks, and could easily be seen as vandalism. A similar edit by the user was reverted by someone else here. In the case of the other four reverts, you're completely wrong from a technical standpoint. Two diffs were cited as undoing an action twice, when it was nothing of the sort. -- Ned Scott 01:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And no, trying to pass of two edits which equal a single revert does not count. If I am "reverting" to remove "the end" and I make two edits, one to remove "the" and one to remove "end", I have not reverted twice, I have reverted once. -- Ned Scott 01:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In case of Aghbulag, it was a simple case of POV edit warring. I NPOV'd the article by adding both versions. VartanM (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ned, regarding Aghbulag, it was POV edit warring as Vartan said and Vartan's version is the most NPOV. It was not Vandalism. Vandalism is putting "George Bush is teh ghey!" in the article, this on the other hand was edit warring over who controls a particular village.
Regarding the edits at Sheylanli, Gulmammad reverted back in an image that was thoroughly discussed at WP:RSN and deemed to be unreliable, the image was removed and he reverted it back in out of spite because I dared to add a single inline tag to the article. He then reverted my tag. That is two reverts.
Regarding the edits at Sheylanli tribe, he reverted a content related edit made by an ip address, this was not vandalism but a content dispute. A few days later, he reverted a tag that I added, that is two reverts as well. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced about Aghbulag, but regarding the other reverts, you're simply wrong about how they add up. A limitation of two reverts in a week is to prevent an edit war. You are asserting that if Gulmammad used a text editor, made both changes, then saved (making one edit to the server), he would not be blocked, but would have made the exact same change. Do you understand how ludicrous that is? -- Ned Scott 02:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ned, you might be able to make that argument regarding Sheylanli but not regarding Sheylanli tribe as one revert was made on the 15th and the other on the 20th. Regarding Sheylanli all I can say is that he made the reverts out of spite so it's irrelevant whether he used an editor or not, he was edit warring. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that Gulmammad violated his parole, even if he was outnumbered by a group of editors sharing the same POV. And User:Zinvats uzher shares a lot of blame for the situation. It looks very strange when a brand new user jumps into edit warring on such obscure articles like Aghbulag. Check his other edits too, he promotes very strong POV and was reverted by admins on other articles. I believe Gulmammad's block should be lifted, and the edit warring new user should be warned about the consequences. Grandmaster (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course you don't see anything wrong. In case of Zinvats uzher, I would like to remind you of WP:BITE, and WP:AGF. Comparasion between Zinvats uzher and Gulmammad doesn't stick. One is a new comer, the other is semi-regular editor. VartanM (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocking admin here. Please stand by as I evaluate the issue. I may not be able to do this today because I have a busy workday. Meanwhile, if any administrator finds that I have made an obvious error with this block, I do not object to it being overturned.  Sandstein  10:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the situation again. With respect to Sheylanli and Sheylanli tribe, it is indeed not clear that the edits at issue should count as reverts for the purpose of the editing restriction. But Gulmammad did make two subsequent reverts on Aghbulag: and . In doing this, he violated the editing restriction limiting him "to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism" and therefore, I maintain that the block is justified. (The Aghbulag edits are noted in the enforcement request below, but I forgot to mention them in the block log.) The merits of his edits, or the merits of the edits of other editors, or the conduct of other editors are all irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether Gulmammad violated the editing restriction or not.  Sandstein  10:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Per this explanation, I've declined the unblock request. Mangojuice 13:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan is in the Balkans!

The Balkanian reverting circus has reached out into a geographically surprising location: Burusho, an article about an obscure tribe living in Pakistan. Background: It's one of those tribes whose oral traditions trace their own origin to the armies of Alexander the Great, and now our Balkan editors struggle over which modern Balkan nation gets to reap the ideological rewards of this legendary connection. While the Kalash, another tribe in Afghanistan, have been taken ideological possession of by the Greeks, the Burusho have recently seen advances from the ethnic Macedonians. One Macedonian editor, User:Cukiger, has been pushing a rather tendentious undue-weight account of recent contacts in the articles both on the Burusho and Macedonians (ethnic group), persistently reverting against consensus: , , , , , , (6 rv in 6 days); , , , (4 rv in 4 days). Earlier revert-warring on similar material at Burusho involved User:MacedonianBoy on the one side, and User:The Cat and the Owl, User:Laveol, User:3rdAlcove on the other.

I've done a revert or two myself here, so I'm not uninvolved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• {{uw-sanctions}} warning for editwarring issued to Cukiger (talk · contribs), and warning also posted to the article talk page. I can't see any further arbitration enforcement measures being imposed unless the editors involved now choose to disregard that warning.  Sandstein  07:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The Cat and the Owl (talk · contribs) is also edit-warring on Macedonia naming dispute. Others have joined in on Macedonians (ethnic group). Watch it, guys, or it'll be revert parole for the lot of you. Particularly Cukiger. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Two comments on my part

1)If two reverts of (politically-motivated) nonsense is "edit-warring", then I guess I'm edit warring on 2-3 articles right now. Perhaps we should let the fringecruft pile up in hopes of an admin spotting it.

2)Moreschi's comment here was out of line. Jingiby's edit here used these misspellings and his was PURELY an attempt to bring the "Hunza - Alexander's soldiers" material to NPOV status and stop the "edit-warring". When we comment on something in such a manner, we take the time to find out if we aren't being completely mistaken. 3rdAlcove (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My point was that everybody is so busy wrangling that nobody bothers to fix the obvious spelling and grammar mistakes. That really gets my back up.

Fair enough with point 1. You are correct re the dispute on Burusho. If the conflict continues there I certainly have no intention of sanctioning anyone who reverts the fringecruft. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

John Buscema

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Buscema

I posted a link to the page- which User:Emperor reverted - I reverted the link in order for it to be visible for community discussion, which I initiated on the talk page. The thing is, I feel that User:Tenebrae's reversions and tone of discussion is preventing proper discussion on the question - If someone could take a look at the situation and give some neutral, objective feedback - I'd appreciate it. Isn't it standard community etiquette for a disputed passage to remain on article for it to be visible for discussion pending resolution of said discussion?

Some diffs which I find to be objectionable in tone: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJohn_Buscema&diff=226558335&oldid=226555279

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJohn_Buscema&diff=226559544&oldid=226558335

PS - If User:Elonka would kindly refrain from responding to this, it would be much appreciated.

--Scott Free (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Scott Free neglects to mention that admin User:J Greb indicated on Scott Free's talk page that the link was inappropriate. Scott Free deleted J Greb's posting.

If Scott Free is insistent on the community seeing the inappropriate link, there is no reason he cannot simply place it on the John Buscema talk page in the context of discussion. --151.205.29.44 (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but those were points I was trying to open a discussion on - via the article talk page- my pragmatic problem is that I feel that, if you look, my discussion efforts were being significantly hindered. The question has been resolved, because a very specific guideline page (which I was previously unaware of) has been provided.

PS - If you look at the user talk page discussion between JGreb and Emperor - and also Tenebrae's statements - notice the amount of speculation regarding various machiavellic intentions, according to their theories, I was apparently harboring - (all this before I had a chance to discuss anything -that's something I'm real tired of at this point - to me they're completely innapropriate, unproven, incorrect insinuations and accusations - I wish it would just stop.

--Scott Free (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the burden of proof, see WP:BLP..."The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." Now if by being visible, you mean can it be put on a talk page while discussion is going on, sure. But if it's inclusion in an article is a subject of debate, it should not be in the article until consensus is reached that it should be there (or left out if it's never reached). — Rlevse • Talk • 11:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Some points:

• I looked at the external link after it was first added and noted significant similarities between the article hosted at the link and one that Scott Free has been maintaining on a user-sub-page for almost a year now.
• Knowing a fair bit of the history of the Bescuma article, Scott Free's involvement in it, and the general trend of the interaction between him and other editors actively involved in the article (and I have to note here that that trend is mutual among those editors Free and one other, Tenebrae, were both subject to an ArbCom decision), I posted two simple questions to Free's talk page: "Is NationMaster a wiki?" and "Are you (Scott Free) the author of the Buscema article hosted there?" I did this to get a feel for where the NM article came from and because of concerns over conflict of interest issues.
• I also asked Emperor to take a look, pointing to the diff of the Buschema article where the external link was added, the questions I'd posed to Scott Free, and to the article he's archived. It wasn't until Emperor took a look and pulled the link that I was aware that there is a fundamental issues with NationMaster being just a "mirror" of Misplaced Pages. Something I had been unaware of when I broached the topic with Scott Free.
• At this point I am concerned about Scott Free's tenacity in trying to keep the link in while it was be discussed on the article's talk page. As Rlevse points out, and as per the informal guideline WP:BRD, if a bold edit gets revered out, you don't just re-add it, you discuss it. Generally, yes, I'd say it would be reasonable to re-add, with an appropriate edit summary, the item once. But if that gets reverted, it goes to the talk page before the item gets added again. As a result of Emperor's removal of the link:
  • Scott Free re-added it the link citing "Initiated discussion on talk page-please do not revert until discussion is resolved."
  • At that point Scott Free had not initiated a discussion of the NM link. Nor had he replied to a post regarding it from Tenebrae, a post that was made after the link was removed. Free's response to that post came after the link had been remove for a second time.
• One last thing, the NM article mirrors from this October 2006 version of the Misplaced Pages article, up to and including the image filenames.

- J Greb (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

J Greb asked me to check the link and I deemed it inappropriate and removed it. As I say in the talk page discussion speculating about motive is unnecessary for deciding if the link should be removed, however, it may be important for arbitration enforcement. I can't see any unbiased and uninvolved editor adding such a link, however, this is Scott Free's preferred version of the page (see the version he stored in his user space) and the only reason for adding this in is to try to get around consensus. He then tried to edit war the link back in, until I pointed out all the different ways that the link contravened the guidelines.

I agree this should have been reported here but Tenebrae's action have been reasonable in the circumstances (pointing out how this contravenes at least the spirit of the Arbitration) and it is Scott Free's actions that are the actual cause for concern. (Emperor (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC))

I disagree with the general assumption that the edit was done in bad faith - and I was willing to discuss it and provide arguments and proof to the contrary - but I don't see the point now as I feel that (based on their statements) all three parties had basically concluded in advance that the link is inherently subsersive. (With TB, if you look, the reversion was done 6 minutes after I had proposed a discussion, I simply didn't have time to type in my argument. With JGreb, the questions weren't offensive, it's just that I had asked him several times in the past in order to avoid unecessary conflict to not address my talk page, but rather to address the article talk page or the arb enforcement page - with Emperor, I had no problem with per se, except that I cut the discussion short and conceded the point because there were simply too many assumptions of bad faith).

I reiterate that my main problem is that I feel hampered in discussing content with this group because of too many foregone conclusions, accusations without proof and assumptions of bad faith.

--Scott Free (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you haven't actually explained why you thought linking to an old mirror of the article was a good idea, apart from the fact that it preserved your preferred version (as we can see from the version you have saved in your sandbox) - I can't see why a neutral, independent or uninvolved party would add such a link (and if they did I would have also removed it, so it is nothing personal). Given that this article (and that version) was controversial and taken to the Arbitration Committee both you and Tenebrae should be careful about your edits there, not trying to find loopholes. I am not assuming bad faith, I have just been unable to come up with a good faith justification for including that link (other than the editor not knowing about the problems with the page and not realising it was a Misplaced Pages mirror - which would be that hypothetical "neutral, independent or uninvolved party" but you don't qualify as that) and you've yet to provide one. (Emperor (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

For me it's easier to drop the matter than have to deal with too many preconceived assumptions that I consider incorret - i.e. I say that: - It's not my preferred version (Very different from the versions alluded to - I don't have a preferred version.) - The content of previous versions weren't considered inherently 'controversial' (this is the opinion of one user.) - So-called 'mirror' sites aren't formally forbidden by policy (or even in guidelines.) -I don't claim authorship to any version - it's free content given to Misplaced Pages - etc, etc.

I could only consider discussing content if parties lose the personal suspicions, conspiracy theories, speculation on editors motivations and address the content per se(i.e. does the content of the linked article make a positive contribution to knowledge of the subject?) with a reasonable amount of respect, etiquette, and spirit of compromise and consensus.

--Scott Free (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, you should refrain from looking uninvolved. Sceptre 19:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My name change was done in complete transparency and I fail to see how it hides my previous involvement. --Scott Free (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not looked through the details of this report yet. But for transparency's sake, I do note that it would have been helpful if Scott Free pointed out that he is a rename of Skyelarke, one of the key parties in the John Buscema case. --Elonka 20:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think it necessary, because with a name change, all past editing history is changed to the current name - plus the fact that you have already pointed this out on the article talk page and the arbitration decision page and others have already pointed out the fact several times. I kindly ask you again to please refrain from taking administrative action on this enforcement request for reasons I've explained in two previous messages to you.

--Scott Free (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Xasha

I'm filing this report myself regarding statements made by User:Xasha against User:Olahus because the latter is now blocked for revert-warring and wiki-stalking, and because the statements made by Xasha merit the enforcers' attention.

The two statements in question are here ("I'll revert any edit that calls a Nazi invasion 'liberation'") and here ("Wtf man, every edit made by me is blindly reverted by Olahus (he doesn't even care that he introduces Nazi apologia in the process).") (Note too the incivility there.)

For those who may not be aware, what we are discussing is the Romanian advance into Bessarabia (roughly equivalent to today's Moldova) in summer 1941. The province had joined Romania in 1918 before the Soviet Union forced its cession in June 1940. A year of Stalinist terror followed, and Romanians there naturally greeted the return of their army with relief and a sense of being liberated.

Without passing judgment on the liberation/occupation issue, and without seeking to trivialize the crimes committed by the Romanian Army in the period following June 1941, permit me to state that this is an egregious accusation by Xasha, who has a history of comparing opinions he dislikes to "Nazism". First, it was not a "Nazi invasion" but a Romanian operation, something Xasha likely knows well. Second, and even more damning, Xasha accuses Olahus of "Nazi apologia". Unfortunately for Xasha, the Romanian press (and I mean serious, mainstream organs) routinely refers to this event as a liberation, and no one accuses it of Nazi apologia (remember, it was the Romanian Army that went in, not the German). Examples: from Ziua last month - "Voronin's Communists Lament Bessarabia's Temporary Liberation from beneath the Bolshevik Yoke." From Memoria - "the liberation of Bessarabia by the Romanian Army...they were able to return to Chişinău after its liberation." From Jurnalul Naţional - "...a military administration in the provinces liberated in summer 1941." From Gardianul - "On 22 June 1941 the Romanian Army crossed the Prut to liberate Bessarabia." And, from the Romanian Army's own newspaper - "...the anti-Soviet war for the liberation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina..."

Now, why does all this matter? Well, first, Olahus was clearly not describing a "Nazi invasion" as a "liberation". And second, he was not expressing "Nazi apologia" but a mainstream viewpoint. Xasha is attempting to discredit him, to silence him by raising the spectre of Nazi sympathies. Unfortunately for him, the Digwuren case is very clear: "All editors are warned that future attempts to use Misplaced Pages as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee." Given Xasha's expanding block log, including two blocks under the Digwuren case, I trust the Committee will take appropriate action. Biruitorul 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The town was captured during an Axis offensive (Operation Barbarossa), by combined Nazi German and Antonescu's Romanian troops (with Germans having the main role, according to this Romanian site describing the offensive). What followed was a massacre of the Jewish majority in the city and the whole region(about 150,000 were deported to Transnistria were most of them perished; that's what the Romanian gvt said at least). How low can somebody go to call this a "liberation"? Xasha (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

1. It was an overwhelmingly (but of course not exclusively) Romanian operation; the Germans were busy in Russia. 2. No one here is contesting that Jews in the area were deported and massacred, or condoning the action. However, from 1940-41, Romanians were themselves deported and killed, and Romanians in June 1941, having suffered a year of Stalinist terror, did greet the Romanian Army as liberators (note women throwing flowers before Antonescu), something that is still reflected in the mainstream Romanian press today. 3. Regardless of the precise nature of what happened in 1941, your charges that Olahus was defending a "Nazi invasion" and introducing "Nazi apologia" remain unacceptable, per the Digwuren case - both its special provision regarding Nazi accusations, and more general restrictions based on WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Biruitorul 00:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Romanians who studied it say otherwise. See linked site 2. Do you want to battle in propaganda movies and photos? I could bring tons of em showing Soviet greeted with flowers, both in 1940 and 1944. The traditional kiss is even more suggestive. Also, please stop this nationalist rant... the Soviets where not after Romanians, but anybody whom they considered an exploiter, kulak or counterrevolutionary, be it Romanian, Moldovan, Russian or Gagauz (the most famous of the deportees being a Russian ethnic, Eufrosinia Kersnovskaya). The Jews, on the other hand, were killed because of their ethnoreligious association. 3. They were very factual accusation, and that Digwuren provision has nothing to do with it. That provision says clearly: accusations that "a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies", but I didn't accuse his national or ethnic group, I accused only himself for a very specific matter: the presentation of an abominable Nazi invasion as a "liberation". Per AGF "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice". Being harassed by him quite entitles me to stop assuming good faith. Xasha (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Sure there was German participation, but dismissing it as an "abominable Nazi invasion" is a distortion of the facts that serves to discredit Olahus' views as unacceptably tainted by Nazi sympathies - which is clearly not the case (see the Romanian press quotes). 2. That some greeted the Soviets in 1940/44 is immaterial to the discussion - the fact remains that Romanians, who had just been through a year of Stalinist terror (and calling my description of it as such a "nationalist rant" will not diminish its horror by one iota), were heavily targeted, if not explicitly because of their ethnicity, then because they were the dominant ethnic group, and dominant among the classes the Soviets were targeting. And that they did in fact greet the returning Romanians as liberators, which many Romanians still consider them to have been. 3. You need not assume good faith on every aspect of Olahus' conduct, but you don't go around accusing him of defending a "Nazi invasion" and introducing "Nazi apologia", unless he places a swastika on his user page. You don't link people to Nazism, whatever you may privately think their motivations are. You, however, have chosen to do that, and Digwuren is clear on the consequences. But even if that is not the case, one only has to look at its very next section: "should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." Linking someone to Nazi sympathies in the absence of explicit declarations he is one is uncivil, a personal attack, an assumption of bad faith. Either way, you have violated the restriction and I trust the enforcers will act accordingly. Biruitorul 02:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

While it is certainly true that all sides should tone the debate down a bit, Biruitorul, I think you are overlooking one particular thing in the present instance: Xasha was edit-warring in favour of a term that is objectively neutral ("capture"). Olahus was edit-warring in favour of a term that very very obviously is not neutral ("liberate"). It doesn't matter in the slightest if you or "many Romanians" may have reasons to think it was the latter; everybody with a modicum of intelligence and experience with Misplaced Pages policies must understand the term is unacceptable here. And for Xasha to point out that the unacceptability of the term is due exactly to the (very obvious) fact that it can be understood as Nazi apologia is a reasonable thing to do, even if under more relaxed circumstances I'd expect him to with less of an element of personal insinuation. Given the prior history between the two, I don't see much use in looking at it too much from this civility angle; with this amount of multilateral stalking, harassment and revert-warring, people obviously get hot under the collar. Let's deal with the tendentious editing, which is the root cause of the problems here; the civility issues are secondary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree "liberated" was a poor word choice, and that Olahus' conduct was provocative. Nevertheless, what I see as the crucial point is that Xasha has a history of these Nazi insinuations, and it should somehow be impressed upon him that these are unacceptable. Not only here, but here, here, here and here one sees the same sort of thing. Or here, he described a perfectly good-faith edit of mine as "trying to legitimize Operation Barbarossa" instead of calmly asking me to modify it or doing so himself. It's difficult to edit productively with another party when he's constantly accusing you of harboring Nazi sympathies. Biruitorul 14:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. You want be banned with all costs. I'm an evil Stalinist paid by the communists. Something new? Should I call operation Barbarossa a "marbelous enterprise of our great Fuhrer, one who is on par with the gods, to free our superior white race from those mischievous, good-for-nothing slavs and their Jewish rulers" just to prevent any accusation of Nazi-bashing?Xasha (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. And here I was defending him and thinking it might be a good idea giving him a chance to edit without his opponent for while. But this posting has earned him his next block too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The particular little revert war over Balti may have been sparked by my own sloppiness: The original edit was made by an anon user from a Romanian IP ( probably Bonaparte having fun). As I'm watching that article, it popped up in my watchlist and I promptly reverted it upon seeing the "Soviet occupiers, the genocidal policy", dismissing it as the usual by Bonny. Unfortunately, I failed to notice that popups reverts only one edit, leaving most of the anon's edits intact. Xasha noticed this on the following day and reverted deeper, correcting my mistake. --Illythr (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Olahus has made a statement on his talk page. Instead of copying the rather sizeable piece here, as he asks, I'm linking to it instead. --Illythr (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FutPerf except I want to clarify we can't ignore the incivility. Plus this is getting really old. Maybe topic bans are in order all around? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess topic ban for both plus strict civility parole would be a good thing. Two people permanently at each other's throats can simply not be tolerated. (Reminds me of that situation last year with User:Tajik and User:E104421) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify - would that be Olahus and Xasha or me and Xasha? Because I haven't even edited on Moldova-related matters for a while. Biruitorul 15:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Olahus of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Any opposition to topic bans for Olahus and Xasha, banning them from Romanian-related articles, broadly interpreted? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Expanding Revert Parole on User:Astrotrain

AE regulars will remember Astrotrain from his numerous past visits here. For those of you who have not run into him previously, first, a refresher on him.

Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Astrotrain is on a 1RR/week + civility parole on "Troubles" related articles as part of The Troubles ArbCom case

I have just blocked Astrotrain for 72 hours for disruptive editing/edit-warring on articles like Arthur Chatto (an article that was merged to the article about his mother per an AfD back in April (). Instead of opening a DRV about the article, he just shows up, and reverts the redirect back to a full article against consensus.

Blocks do not work that well against Astrotrain, because he's a habitual edit-warrior on a random schedule. He'll show up, revert a bunch of articles to his preferred version, edit war on a few of them that get noticed, and then disappear for 72-96 hours at a time.

I am asking that, short of an indefblock (look at his block log, for gosh sake!!!), that his revert parole be expanded, and that be placed on a 0RR parole on ALL articles, not just "Troubles" related articles. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that Talk:Arthur Chatto has a link to the first AfD discussion (result: keep) and does not link to the second AfD, so perhaps he didn't know that there was a more recent consensus for the redirect. I would be reluctant to change anything on this incident alone. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that he knew well that the article was a merge, he figured he could just source it with a live article (he was also informed multiple times that there was an AfD that was a merge, he just went on reverting merrily). Also, look at the reason for his unblock request. That should tell you what he's here for. SirFozzie (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I didn't dig that deep into it, so thanks for the additional details. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

NP. I'm somewhat familiar with him, and he's somewhat familiar with me . Sorry, Astro, but if I was the dictator of Zimbabwe, as he is now claiming on his talk page (see that edit), I'd spend a hell of a lot less time on WP :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Support 0RR on all articles. Sandstein declined unblock and extended to a week. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Um, no, just no. No way are we ever putting this guy on 0RR. Hasn't he had enough chances already? The crap he put on his talkpage was vile. So I've blocked him indefinitely. I trust there will be no objections. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do have an objection. We have invested a lot of time and effort keeping Troubles editors with a history of trouble on the project. We have done that by putting them under editing restrictions, despite extensive block histories and plenty of vile language. If we are willing to do that with one editor, we should be at least willing to try to give other editors a similar opportunity. We have nothing to lose by putting Astrotrain on a 0RR. If he is unwilling to adhere to that, then indef blocking is an option. I feel jumping to that now will simply stoke the feeling among editors from one "side" that the other is getting preferential treatment (and, to be fair, they would appear to have a point). Rockpocket 21:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Are there any editors from the other "side" left to complain? If he wants to try and negotiate some unblock terms you go from there, until then this discussion is moot. His block log is a disgrace, his comments every time he's been blocked recently are a disgrace, and his current editing is a disgrace. The onus is on him to show he can improve his behaviour. 15 cans of Stella₃₀₃ 00:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there is (at least from any account that I am aware of) which kind of supports my point, if anything. True, efforts to keep these editors editing presupposes that they are willing to work within restrictions. If not, then it is a waste of our time. I'm not about to argue about the disgraceful nature of his comments or reaction to previous admin action. But that is not particularly unusual in the Trouble's sphere, and hasn't lead to indef blocks when others have said similar (and worse!). But you are right, we should wait to see what Astrotrain has to say for himself before considering alternatives. Rockpocket 01:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Partially. See also Number 50. Fundamentally I disagree with the whole way the Troubles flamewars are being handled. Too many second chances. And third chances. And twentieth chances. It looks weak. It simply gives out the message that if you're Irish or British you can get away with murder. If these chaps were from the Balkans instead they wouldn't last a week. There's also a miserable attitude to the effect that "we can't ban anyone for fear of sockpuppetry". Which is just silly. Obviously unenforceable rules shouldn't exist, but it has been comprehensively shown that we can prevent effective sockpuppetry.

Whatever else has happened, this guy has violated basic community norms to such an extent his time here has to be over. Whatever the wikipolitics of the situation. At any rate, he can hardly accuse me of national bias. I'm as English as they come. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that perspective and for a long time advocated it myself. But the bottom line is that people who have very similar records on very similar subjects are not indef blocked, and instead were given a chance to edit with severe restrictions. Is anyone willing to take such a firm, no-nonsense line with those people too, and incur the inevitable wrath of their noisy supporters? Or are we only enforcing policy when the subject is lacking friends in high places. I would rather we appear weak than biased. Rockpocket 21:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that in doing so we often end up appearing both weak and biased. :) MastCell  21:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"But the bottom line is that people who have very similar records on very similar subjects are not indef blocked, and instead were given a chance to edit with severe restrictions. Is anyone willing to take such a firm, no-nonsense line with those people too, and incur the inevitable wrath of their noisy supporters?" - answer, yes. Besides, appearance of bias is not actuality of bias. I do not see here how appearance of weakness would not also be actuality of weakness. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not object to the indef either. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm - I'm kinda unhappy with an indefinite block of Astrotrain as I don't think we've exhausted all avenues here at all. While his recent behaviour has been atrocious - I've already blocked the guy myself for this two weeks back - but I don't believe he's beyond redemption. As Rocky points out, we've had far worse on the project and they're still editing under clear constraints and conditions. Why can't we negotiate criteria like this for Astrotrain, work towards his buy-in, and let him edit again? Maybe appoint a neutral, non-Troubles mentor? This seems to me to be only fair here - Alison 05:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to explore this. How about terms similar to User:Vintagekits. These never-ending disruptive edit warriors onethnic topics all over wiki are getting old. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with allowing Astrotrain return on restrictions along the lines of what were imposed on Vintagekits. BigDunc 14:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as a 0RR is involved..Astrotrain has too much of a habit of logging on, edit-warring, and logging off. SirFozzie (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How much more stringent can we get? 1RR/week is the maximum revert limitation I can recall anyone ever being under. 0RR would be unprecedented, and perhaps for good reason. If you can't cope with 1RR then surely increasing that to 0RR is just plain silly. It indicates that the sanctioned editor is transparently unfit for editing.

Besides, has anyone noticed that this latest revert-warring was not related to the Troubles? So, will a ban from all Troubles pages really make that much of a difference? Astrotrain looks to me like an incorrigible revert-warrior regardless of topic, and those have no place here. VK is at least a good and constructive editor on boxing articles, or so I am led to believe. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've had limited experience with this user before, and I never had the impression that anything other than indef block would be enough for this user. He almost got it a year ago. I do believe in a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th chance, but there are limits. This user will not reform. If he requests unblock under a promise to live under a 0RR, no sockpuppeting rule, then that alone would be sufficient. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• I recently had experience with Astrotrain, and had warned him that I was considering an extension of his 1RR restriction to all content. After that, I started looking more closely at his editing history, with a mind to trying to develop an individualised editing restriction, similar to that affecting Vintagekits. In the case of Vintagekits, there was pretty clear evidence that he was a useful contributor in at least one specific area, and so the restrictions were tailored to keep him where he was helpful, and keep him away from areas where he wasn't. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a similar area of useful contributions from Astrotrain; it seems he has edit-warred in just about every area he's worked. Nonetheless, like The Evil Spartan, I'd be willing to consider an editing restriction of no reverts, adding information after discussion and consensus on talk pages, no recreation of deleted material (which is why he was blocked this time), and no sockpuppeting. In addition, any allegations that other editors are terrorists or dictators or racists should result in immediate indef block. Risker (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just silly. I would block anyone indefinitely for alleging that other editors were dictators or terrorists pending retraction. That would be a meaningless restriction. Ditto for a "no sockpuppeting" restriction. I've already pointed out that 0RR is overkill. So what's left? We don't have to exhaust every conceivable avenue before we ban someone, we just have to decide that the encyclopedia would be better off if we did. Particularly when many of those "conceivable avenues" are either meaningless or stupid. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the indefinite block and counsel against giving him yet another chance. From my limited experience with Astrotrain - which always involved disruption of some sort on his part - the troubles he causes outweigh any productive contributions he may have made. Labeling fellow editors as dictators, etc. is just not the way we collaborate here.  Sandstein  09:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we please not archive this yet as I've further comments to make here (busy IRL) and I am also waiting for a statement from Astrotrain - Alison 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. There are at least three major paths of options here and we need to reach consensus and it's only fair that Astrotrain have a chance to make his input. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Neptun88=Giovanni33

I also submit that Aliciahjoy (talk · contribs) is an obvious Giovanni sock.

OK, I am reluctant to bring this before enforcement, because I know we will see the same crimineyload of wikilawyering that we saw in the recently closed Giovanni case. However, I believe the connection here is fairly obvious that Neptun88 (talk · contribs) is Giovanni33 (talk · contribs). The checkuser case came up false, but this is not surprising, given Giovanni has been known to edit from IPs stemming from distinct locations around the globe (see below). The evidence:

1. This is someone's sock. The first edit used a common Misplaced Pages edit summary, and the second edit used another Misplaced Pages acronym. The editor's fourth edit was to jump into an edit war: . Giovanni socks are known for doing all this.
2. The user shows the same propensity for edit warring as Giovanni33.
3. The editor is engaging in an edit war on one of Giovanni's favorite subjects, and is engaging in an edit war on a page which Giovanni is sockingpuppetting on (checkuser proven)
4. The editor has a similar style username to a known Giovanni sock who was editing this page (Aquarius28).
5. The editor, like Giovanni, is supporting the edits of other SPA accounts. Cf. with . Like Giovanni, the different IPs mysteriously come from different parts of the world: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence#IPs_that_have_edited_Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States. As one person pointed out on the ArbCom case, "All in all, there is a very disturbing pattern of new users with no prior history at Misplaced Pages arriving and coming to all the pages he edits, agreeing with him on the talk page, reverting to his version, claiming consensus where none exists, and following him to other articles and voting for whatever he votes for."
6. The editor, like Giovanni, exhibits the same propensity for sniping at other edits in a semi-uncivil manner: .
7. The editor uses the same edit summaries that Giovanni uses; cf. [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Liberal_conservatism&diff=prev&oldid=225624420 with Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence#Evidence_by_The_Evil_Spartan. Cf. with the use of "rv" to start an edit summary, and the oft reference to the talk page.
8. The editor, like Giovanni, primarily uses his edit warring to support leftwing philosophy: .

I am pleased to see that Giovanni is finally branching out from only editing as a SPA. I think it's fairly obvious he learned from his Arbcom case that he was a touch too obvious last time. However, it's equally obvious that Giovanni is Giovanni, and he simply cannot keep himself from edit warring on his favorite pages, from using socks to back himself up, and from being mildly snipy. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Aliciahjoy (talk · contribs) seems to have been created specifically to participate in an editing dispute in a manner that advanced Giovanni33's position, and I'm willing to block the account (which has been inactive) on that basis. The checkuser case involving Neptun88 (talk · contribs) is being reviewed - I think this is a likely sock on a behavioral basis, but will await further checkuser results and/or opinions here from other admins before acting. MastCell  17:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

MastCell you have my support. This is highly suspicious and probably blockable on disruption alone. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Some observations:

• Four hours after Spartan's post above, we have this edit from Neptun88: "neutralized left-wing POV, the book had also positive reviews". Also note that the book in question is Mao: The Unknown Story, a subject G33 is very very familiar with (being the source of his 1RR/W). Could this be a covering edit in response to Spartan's post? Certainly seems implausible for him to be suddenly "neutralizing left-wing POV" after so many edits to add left-wing POV. I remember looking through N88's contributions a few days ago and was puzzled by that out-of-place edit, but I didn't know about this AE post at the time. Now it fits.
• We know already from RFCU that Aquarius28 is G33. Does it seem to anyone else for it to be an unlikely coincidence that another aquatic-themed SPA - "Neptun88" - also ending in two letters, shows up in the same area? - Merzbow (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

User:Gulmammad

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. This is for violation of the revert restriction. The mutual allegations about incivility, stalking etc. are too unspecific to be actionable at this point.  Sandstein  08:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC) — Logged.  Sandstein  08:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Gulmammad has recently been warned by administrator User:Khoikhoi of editing restrictions under the terms of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 that he can't make more than one revert per week per page in articles related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and he must remain civil with all his edits.

Gulmammad has exceeded revert limitations

Over the past week he has made two reverts to three articles. These articles are Sheylanli, Sheylanli tribe and Aghbulag.

Reverts to the Sheylanli article

1. 03:06, 20 July 2008
2. 03:07, 20 July 2008

In both reverts the version he reverted to was 21:35, 13 July 2008

Note above his edit summary for the first revert: "No compromise anymore. You removed images I didn't resist with the hope you will stop ruining articles. For removal of the tags, see the talk". I find this very tendentious and I don't find that to be a collaborative attitude on his part. Not also that the images he reverted back in are unsourced images he has taken himself and after an extensive discussion the folks at WP:RSN couldn't determine if the image was what he said it was or just a picture from someones back yard.

Reverts to Sheylanli tribe article

1. 02:57, 20 July 2008
2. 20:23, 15 July 2008

In both reverts the version he reverted to was 05:57, 12 July 2008

Note also above his abuse of WP:TWINKLE in the July 15th edit and referring to a content dispute as vandalism. He has a history of abusing his rollback function and had it temporarily removed but had it added back when he promised to use it for only vandalism. I guess he has now moved from abusing Rollback to abusing Twinkle.

Note also for the July 20th edit he says "see the talk" presumably for an explanation to why he removed that tag but he has yet to provide an explanation in talk.

Reverts to Aghbulag article

1. 13:52, 19 July 2008
2. 03:12, 19 July 2008

In both reverts the version he reverted to was 03:36, 13 July 2008.

Note again his abuse of WP:TWINKLE in both edits and referring to a content dispute as vandalism.

Incivility

In Talk:Sheylanli_tribe#Relocation_to_Aghjabadi_Rayon.3F he accused me of edit warring, disruptive actions and trying to confuse people with incorrect information (diff). This was after I added a source to the article that supports what he edited earlier. I guess no good deed goes unpunished. Note that he has previously been blocked for edit warring on these and other articles related to Armenia-Azerbaijan. Please give the above report it's due consideration. Thanks Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are confusing people because you tagged the source by saying it doesn't even mention Sheilanli, please see this if it indeed doesn't mention. And while I was writing my comment (not uncivil) you probably added that source which of course I didn't see. And yes, previously I have been blocked according to your report and seems you haven't been satisfied with it and been trying to get me blocked again. You don't let people work by keeping them busy. Who can guarantee that behind the IP that wasn't you and Zinvats uzher is not your sock puppet to get me blocked as those articles in wikipedia, I'd say, are known to only me and you. And I didn't understand by uncivil what you mean in this comment.

To the attention of Administrators: I don't mind if you block me but please be informed that the user Pocopocopocopoco has been calumniating many users (including me) who haven't let him to push POV into articles. Just before you click on the block button, please see who is the reporter and what problems he has been having with the reported. This user reported me for the "abuse of the rollback rights" but couldn't get the rollback removed. Then he teamed up with many IP's and reported me on violation of 3RR which I didn't know by that time and got me blocked. And this is another report...Isn't this stalking? Isn't there any rule to stop him. He is the one who is by editing from IP's and puppet accounts gets others violate the rules and then to report them. Please have a close look at the situation. This needs to be stopped. Gülməmməd 05:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.