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 information

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,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346

Edit this section for new requests

User:RaffiKojian

According, to the recent ArbCom decision [1], remedies in the case "shall apply to any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility". In addition, the principle of the same ArbCom, states [2]: " Armenian, Azeri or other local sources are subject to the same requirements of reliability as any other scholarly or journalistic sources." Recently, I noticed that article Fizuli was using a POV Wiki Armeniapedia.org, created by Raffi Kojian, as a source on the article related to occupied district of Azerbaijan. While editing the article with other, non-neutral sources [3], I indicated the fact that Raffi Kojian is not a scholar and not a neutral source, so his website is not a reliable or encyclopedic source for Wikipedia. In return User:RaffiKojian as attacked and insulted me on my user page [4], saying: "You apparently either do not know how to click on a link to see what the linked to page says, or you do not know English.... That is a fact, whether you accept it or not, and your insulting me will neither get you back Fizuli, Varanda, nor your self respect." I don't see what such harsh words and assumptions of bad faith have to do with content of Fizuli article. Atabek 02:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you mention unreliable and unencylopedic sources for Wikipedia when you constantly use and spread them. [5]. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are not on Khojaly page, but they were YouTube videos, not an external non-neutral POV Wiki created by Wikipedia contributor. But most importantly, I didn't attack contributor by questioning his self-respect or saying he can't read English. Please assume good faith. Atabek 03:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube videos are reliable and encyclopedic now? All I saw was a bad movie with what seemed to be rubber dolls. How can I assume good faith with someone who promotes such material on Wikipedia?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats really funny Atabek, I hope you did not forgot, how you were questioning my morals, and implying that I don't have any. I did not even got an apology for it. Not that I need for any. --VartanM 08:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vartan, indeed, I was even blocked for it. Perhaps, the application of rules should be even handed, don't you think? Atabek 10:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't want to bring up the past, the hope for the bright future is much more appealing to me. But I found your statement that you didn't attack contributor by questioning their self-respect very hypocritical. I don't think your case can be compared to Raffi's, after all you were the one who "threw the first punch". And by punch I mean an uncivil comment[6] about him. That was an assumption of bad faith and bait on your part. You did not expected a barnstar from him did you? You can't expect for people to be polite when you're insulting them. Have a good night. --VartanM 11:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, yet again assume good faith. Stating the fact that source author is not a scholar and is not neutral source is not an insult. I believe this lengthy thread of discussion is needless because the AE case is opened for a specific clear violation by User:RaffiKojian. If you have disputes regarding my words, please, open a separate AE case, and I will be glad to see how calling a source POV is supposed to be an insult and how accusing someone of insult in retaliatory manner is indeed an assumption of bad faith. Atabek 12:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right Atabek, your behavior certainly calls for a report. --VartanM 12:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Atabek, but I consider called POV an insult. In this case it was totally out of order and the one thing cited from my page, is that Fizuli is called Varanda now by the existing government of Karabakh, which excersizes control over the land. Everything else on the wikipedia Fizuli page was taken from another site, and referenced that site, but Atabek made a special point of saying that RAFFI KOJIAN IS NOT A SCHOLAR, and HIS SITE IS POV. If anyone needs arbitration it is him, because nobody could be expected to consider that "in good faith", thank you very much! --RaffiKojian 09:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raffi, POV stands for point-of-view, is it insulting? If you think you're a scholar, you're welcome to dispute that with evidence at the relevant location, such as presenting a list of publications in referenced journals or conferences. Atabek 10:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what POV is as you know I do from our Askeran clash, so again, please don't insult my intelligence. And yes I consider being called POV an insult. I have not claimed to be a scholar, so why would you remove a link to Armeniapedia stating Raffi Kojian is not a scholar? You may not be a rocket scientist, but I do not remove your edits stating Atabek is not a rocket scientist. And in this case it was a simple fact that is at issue, not something open to interpretation. So again, you are instigating things here, and try as I might, I cannot assume good faith in your actions or words. --RaffiKojian 03:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, also your source asks nothing about "Fizuli is a raion of Azerbaijan, partially under the military control of Armenian forces". it only asks "Karabakh Armenian forces take Agdam, then push south toward the Iranian border, occupying the Qubatli, Jebrayli, and Fizuli districts" [7]. "Karabakh Armenian" not "Armenian", "Fizuli district" not "raion" (of Karabakh, of Azerbaijan?), nothing about "partially military control". is it an original research? Andranikpasha 10:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andranik, please, present material to prove that Fizuli is not under Armenian control at the relevant page. This thread is to discuss the assumption of bad faith and personal attack by Raffi Kojian on my talk page. Atabek 10:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me point out first of all Atabek that YOU edited the article. I never touched the article, nor even once disputed your edit - something I would have done if I was POV. And yes, I KNOW what POV means, and yes, I consider it an insult that you consider me and my site POV. I may be ethnically Armenian, and happily so, but I do not let it blind me to the truth as best we know it. I am not one to sit and try to hide what other people of my ethnicity have done. What they've done, they've done, and I try to document it as cleanly as possible. So since I have not even edited an Armenian or Azerbaijan related article, and you have - and insulted me in the process, the only person it seems up for ArbCom is you. I've said my piece however, and I could care less about wasting other peoples time on this further. Just stop attacking me and my website, and preaching for Vartan and me to assume good faith, and instead actually practice what you're preaching. --RaffiKojian 16:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raffi, I don't think calling me to have self-respect, for saying that your POV website isn't appropriate for referencing, is good faith editing. Just the opposite it's personal attack. And yes, you have edited Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles, here is just one [8] to refresh your memory, where you even used to edit war back in May. So please, assume good faith and stop attacking me, address your content POV on the relevant content page. Thanks. Atabek 20:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, I did not call on you to have self respect. What I wrote about self respect was clear so I will not rehash that. Now as I said, you have reported me for "editing an Armenian-Azeri related article". You reported me yesterday. I have not edited the article you are referring to (on Fizuli) except for a small, undisputed edit in January. For you to now mention an edit of mine in May to a third article, where I was cleaning up your POV edits as the real reason you are now reporting me is quite dishonest. I assume good faith with new users. If YOU want me to assume good faith about you, then play honest, stop baiting and insulting, and actually work in good faith. Otherwise your cry for us to all assume your good faith is getting tired and old. --RaffiKojian 03:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek

After baiting and insulting User:RaffiKojian here, Atabek reported him to this noticeboard. His edit summary violated WP:BAIT, WP:NPA, WP:CIVILITY

He then reported User:MarshallBagramyan to User:Moreschi [9]. What was he reported for? a simply reverting an article. He was not revert warring (That was his first and only edit in the article for over a month), he was not uncivil nor did he violated any of the Wikipedia policies.

He then reported me, first to this board[10], then moved the report to ANI[11]. 3 different users reported in last 24 hours, just because they disagree with him, is an assumption of bad faith and poisons the atmosphere. I don't see how any of us could assume good faith with him. --VartanM 13:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He violated the #14 principle of Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ArbCom case [12].

When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate.

User:RaffiKojian was having a dispute about inclusion of his site as an external link in the Armenian Genocide article. Atabek provoked him by his edit summary here[13]. which escalated into an argument between the two users and a subsequent report to Arbcom. --VartanM 13:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure that Atabek was aware that Raffi was a registered user here. He only noted that Raffi was not a neutral and authoritative source, which none of us is. It was neither a personal attack nor provocation, just a comment about a source used as a reference. Raffi's comment was absolutely uncalled for, but I think there's no need to escalate this any further. But Raffi should adhere to WP:NPA even without any arbcom rulings in the future. Grandmaster 14:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, aside from the fact that I do not consider myself or my site to be POV, and have been welcoming both here of Turks to go and edit it themselves in a NPOV manner, and have on my site strictly demanded it of others, the simple fact is that his edit only removed a reference to my site which simply was used to refer to the fact that the name of Fizuli has been changed to Varanda by the Karabakh government which de-facto controls it. We're not talking about a genocide, not talking about shades of gray, we are talking about simply whether the de-facto government of Karabakh has changed the name of Fizuli to Varanda or not. The comment about me was a personal attack, it was over the top and unnecessary (as was raising this issue here, like an innocent victim), and all of this is now a great waste of time for us all. --RaffiKojian 16:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was about the source (which was you and your website), and I don't think that mentioning the fact that you are not a professional scholar was a personal attack. If you want some info included, it is better to find a better source than a personal website. Regardless of actual merits of your work outside of Wikipedia, I think it is beyond any reasonable doubt that websites such as yours cannot be used as references here, see this: [14] So I suggest you try to back up the info you want to add with third party sources, in that case there will be no situations such as the one we are discussing now. Grandmaster 17:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Raffi's website is reliable or not, is a different issue. The fact is that Atabek attacked his personality and has reported 3 different Armenian users within the last 24 hours. His battleground approach is very disruptive and unacceptable. --VartanM 18:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why User:VartanM is again grouping users into war along national lines right above. What's paradoxical is that my edit comment has nothing to do with User:VartanM, User:Andranikpasha or User:Eupator, it was their choice to respond to this thread further accusing me. It's interesting to note that I got attacked by User:RaffiKojian here [15] for absolutely no valid reason, and yet we have User:VartanM appearing at AE, assuming even more bad faith [16] and even accusing me under the same thread. Looks like User:VartanM has already been warned at least three times for his assumptions of bad faith [17], [18], [19]. Perhaps after three notices during and after ArbCom case, to which User:VartanM was a party, and his new round of accusations against me [20] his continuous assumptions of bad faith should be finally reviewed, just like for any other user. Otherwise, it looks like it's fine to attack me, call me to "gain self-respect" and then have User:VartanM, who used to call my edits [21] idiotic and accuse other editors of nazism [22] in past, appear here and accuse me of baiting. If he has some kind of privilege to violate Wikipedia rules left and right, and then continue in the same fashion without any restriction, then we should know about it. I think the fact that User:VartanM feels important to respond with bad faith to just about any thread I post on noticeboards, including the ones absolutely unrelated to him or his contributions, should speak for itself. He finally must be encouraged to assume good faith. Thanks. Atabek 19:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek you did report 3 Armenian users all during the last 24hours did you not? You reported MarshalBagramian for simply reverting you. You reported RaffiKojian because he responded to your remark about him not being a scholar. Whether you were stating a fact or not is not relevant. The fact is that it was your remark which started this dispute. Addressing your query about why I felt the need to respond, I explained that already. As for responding to you in other thread, That was a report against me, the least I could've done was to respond to you.

About the diffs of my assumption of bad faith. They have been already addressed in the previous Arbcom cases. If we are going to dig deep into our histories, then perhaps I can bring your not so pleasant comments, but like I already said I would much rather look into the bright future then the gloomy past. Escalating this into another exhausting arbcom case is not what I'm looking for.

And since were talking, can you please explain [23] why I was told to assume good faith by you, when my previous edit was to welcome a new user to wikipedia. And you haven't been active on that talkpage over a month. If it is something I did or said please let me know so I can be aware of it. --VartanM 21:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin response

Saying "Raffi Kojian is neither a scholar nor a neutral news source" is not a personal attack. Armeniapedia.org is not a reliable source, because it is a public wiki. I agree with Grandmaster that Atabek might not have even been aware Kojian was an editor here; was he? Next, who runs and writes armeniahouse.org? Anna and Karen Vrtanesyan, as it says at the bottom? Who are they? Unless it turns out they're academics associated with mainstream universities or research institutes, their site might well be unreliable too. Raffi, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Picaroon (t) 18:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picaroon Raffi and Atabek are both part of Wikiproject Azerbaijan and Raffi has been an editor since 2004. Your response only addressed the first report. I would like you or another administrator to address my concerns. --VartanM 19:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On reporting you for assuming bad faith, I agree that was not helpful. I don't think assuming bad faith alone is something we sanction users for, and the conflict between you guys has gone way beyond the realms of a good-faith dispute anyways. As to reporting the revert to Moreschi, has Moreschi asked to be notified of such things, or was it just shopping for an admin? If the former, I see nothing wrong with it; if the latter, Atabek is hereby warned that admins find forum shopping very annoying. Atabek's report here was acceptable. Picaroon (t) 19:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picaroon, thank you for looking into the issue and I am sorry for taking your time for this. I don't shop for admins, as I posted only to one admin, who was specifically familiar with this dispute. Please, review my response above because I am frankly tired of being attacked, reporting specific violations to ArbCom and yet having VartanM appear in cases, which don't even involve him trying to turn the report against me. Why aren't Kojian's insults against me, which are subject of this report, addressed at all? Why does VartanM feel free to accuse me of baiting while specifically told by ArbCom to assume good faith? Thanks. Atabek 19:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why you have missed the first part of the comment which was: removed non-encyclopaedic POV taken from armeniahouse.org and armeniapedia.org. It fails human understanding and comprehension the way Atabek’s strategic picking of words is not understood by admins. Atabek is well aware that armeniapedia.org is meant to be an encyclopaedia, non-encyclopaedic POV was a comment calculated to bait Raffi and this soon after Raffi's website was removed from the Armenian Genocide page. Atabek was AGAIN!!! searching for trouble, is it a personal attack to say this? And for your information Picaroon, Raffi's website is not only a Wiki, it is the merging of the material he had on his prior site cilicia.org, which included at the time the largest collection of digitized materials on the web on and about Armenians. He moved the material to armeniapedia.org, and the use of armeniapedia.org on Wikipedia was mostly for the non-wiki information, which were digitized materials. No one had any problem previously when cilicia.org was included. As for armenianhouse.org, this site is without question reliable, it only contains digitized works from materials which copyright has been waved, even user:Dacy69 has used it previously.

If the few lines above are too long to be read, let’s just say that Atabek’s removal of those two links (which was soon after Raffi's site was removed from Armenian Genocide page) was calculated to bait a user. He didn't have any problem with it previously; he did it when it was debated on the Armenian Genocide talkpage NOT BEFORE! Also, funny, since the reason his site was used was for something which could be considered as general knowledge on the renaming of a place by a local government. Raffi already wrote a work on the region, that he is biased or not, doesn't change the fact that the information wasn't even a point of dispute. - Fedayee 02:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Fedayee for this excellent summary. I think this summary and that of VartanM show Atabek to be a clearly POV and bad faith editor. To report me for editing an article that I did not even edit is particularly rich, and something our admin did not even bother point out. That the admin also did not note that the info on my site that Atabek attacked was so simple and black and white, no POV could even enter it, and to simply cast aside a well monitored a site with hundreds of NPOV sources I think is an indication that the site has not even been given a cursory inspection. Oh well, at least we can stop wasting our time here. --RaffiKojian 03:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like it or not, neither armeniapedia.org nor armenianhouse.org are good sources for use here. There are many similar Armenian and Azerbaijani sources, but those sources can be used only to reflect positions of both sides. In case with the above two, they are not even news agencies to be used for reflecting anyone's position, and they have no official status to represent any governmental views nor are scholarly publications. So I beleive the information that you want to have added should rely on better sources. That's what the problem is about, and there's no need to take it to the personal level. Grandmaster 04:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin response Mark 2

No, I don't mind being notified of the latest episodes of Armenia-Azeri wars. Helps me keep on top of things, I guess.

Ok, here's my take on things: 1 revert is not the end of the world, fighting over trivialities is a a right pain (so that's basically this whole thread), and calling into question the reliability of sources is not a personal attack. Please use always reliable sources at all times, and God help you if you don't; I will handing out the blocks and bans for violations of this.

Now, please all go away, and only come back to this noticeboard when you have something important to fight about. Cheerio! Moreschi ^Talk 12:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys don't seem to be even serious when reading our concerns. Atabek removed those links something like a day after Raffi's website was removed from the Armenian Genocide article with a finger at Raffi questioning the encyclopaedic nature of his encyclopaedia. His particular aim was to provoke him. Why do administrators even bother answering when they don't seem to care about what is happening here? On September 28, Atabek took a short break until October 3…dear admins, what is his first edit after days of absence? He fills another checkuser. [24], the following edits of his will have something to do with it other than the one single edit on Safavid dynasty. He then baits Marshall by adding redundant information which is elsewhere in the article [25] to report Marshall's answer to you. [26] He spreads it to another article. [27] he even deletes the accurate figure from the Israel-Azerbaijan relations article which even De Waal admits, the author who Grandmaster excessively used. It is then that he baits a second member (Raffi) after doing so, he reports this second member here.

And for the second time, no one ever questioned armenianhouse.org, did you even bother checking the site in question, I laugh at Grandmaster’s remark when he questions it now. The site does even not have anything they have published or hasn't given their opinion once. It contains a collection of digitized works, nothing more, it is a virtual library. What is not credible on that site? It's a library!!! As for Raffi’s site, while Raffi could be biased, he won't be more than NK local government declaring the renaming of a place. Is he? No one ever questioned the local government renamed the place, and we could have used NK government websites it would not have made a differences because the information in question was about their position. So Raffi’s website’s potential bias would not have excluded it in this particular case. Neither was Atabek removing it because of that, he removed it to bait Raffi after witnessing his reaction when his site was removed from the Armenian Genocide article. Atabek was AGAIN searching for TROUBLE!!! - Fedayee 18:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the principles specifically mentioned by the last arbcom: [28], I suggest you abide by it. Grandmaster 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, are you telling us that Atabek removed Raffi's site and called him and his site "non-encyclopedic POV taken from armeniahouse.org and armeniapedia.org - Raffi Kojian is neither a scholar nor a neutral news source" I'm sorry but there is nothing good faith in that edit summary. I don't have to assume anything if its obvious that the other party is clearly not acting in good faith. VartanM 04:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not just Grandmaster, it's actually 2 administrators telling you that above.Atabek 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least the admin agreed that Atabek's report was basically laughable, and that this game of his is a big waste of time. Also, it seems Grandmaster and Atabek have learned well the Turkish government strategy of simply repeating something infinitum in the hope that third parties do not look deep into the facts, and until people start to believe you. What can I say? it seems to work as often as not. Grandmaster, I CAN take offense to being called POV, it is my right, and my site CAN be included, as even your links show, because the rules leave some space for actual intelligent analysis on a case-by-case basis. My site does not work (managerially) like any other site in the world I know, and I think that fact, as well as the content can be judged on that basis. So do many others. --RaffiKojian 03:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raffi, I don’t think this requires any further discussion. Two admins told you that Atabek’s comment was not a personal attack, just questioning the reliability of the source, which is OK. I think your comment on Atabek’s talk was incivil, and the admins said that it was OK that he posted a report here, but the admins think that no action is necessary at this time. I think this puts an end to this story. Further escalation will lead nowhere, and your analogies of me and Atabek with some alleged Turkish government strategy are another bad faith assumption. I’m not going to post to this thread anymore, since it was recommended that we let it go. I suggest that the admins close this thread, or it will go on endlessly. Grandmaster 05:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually finished Grandmaster, but now that I read your response, I want to apologize to you about the Turkish government strategy comment. I did not mean Atabek and you, I meant Atabek and Denizz. I'm sorry about that. --RaffiKojian 16:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, I hold no grudges. But I don't think you should make such comments about other users either. Grandmaster 16:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raffi, your analysis associating me with Turkish government strategy is appreciated but is nevertheless irrelevant for Wikipedia and is a clear WP:SOAP. So, please, stick to encyclopedic or board-relevant topics and the rest you may reserve for Armeniapedia.org, perhaps. Thanks. Atabek 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hkelkar

banned user editing using IP socks 70.112.73.74 (talk · contribs) 128.83.131.215 (talk · contribs). evident from the addresses, previous CU, articles edited and the edits themselves, most of which are reverts. Doldrums 11:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked both IPs, if they come back, do let me know. Moreschi ^Talk 11:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chrisjnelson again

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

User was blocked for 24 hours. Thatcher131 14:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson, Chrisjnelson is "limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page".

On Template:New_England_Patriots_roster he reverted twice within about 13 hours. First Revert [29] and second revert [30].
It should be noted that I am on the opposite side of the debate as him, but its clear he hasn't been paying attention to his editing restrictions.
Sasha Callahan 21:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the two edits are not the same, seem correct, and are well explained in edit summaries, I'm not sure this is an obvious breach of the ruling. But I have warned Chris to be more aware of the restrictions around his editing, as they were not arrived at lightly. Neil ム 12:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh, and while you were doing that I was blocking him and getting an edit conflict while trying to say so here and close this out. The comment I'd intended to leave in closing was, "While the user did stop after two edits he was just warned about this a few days ago. He is obviously making an effort, but needs to work at it a bit more. Placed a short block." I'll leave this open for more discussion. I make no determination of whether the edits were 'correct' or not as it truthfully isn't relevant, but they were clearly reverting the same text in the same way even if the exact form differed slightly. --CBD 12:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the two edits were the same. The second revert just had a few additional edits made to it, which just disguised the revert. This user admitted that he did it, and said "guess I deserve a block" which serves to prove that Chris knows about this restriction, and yet still violated it. He was only warned about it about a couple weeks ago.

The restriction also doesn't make a ruling about whether or not the edits were correct. Unless it's obvious vandalism, the edit needs to be discussed on the talk page and be limited to one revert. Chris began the discussion after he had made two reverts. I wasn't aware that there were exceptions other than vandalism. What other exceptions are there? By Chris' own admission, he violated it and was open about receiving a block.

One more time: the two edits were the same, and they were disputed, so it wasn't just obvious vandalism. Ksy92003(talk) 13:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:Saladdays violating article probation of Arbitration Committee

Saladdays (talk · contribs), is removing (16) references from this article Scientology and Werner Erhard, over and over again. It appears that this is in direct violation of probation from the Arbitration Committee, from a notice at Talk:Scientology and Werner Erhard.

Request a stern warning or a temporary block of this user to avoid (16) citations being removed from the article, it is disruptive and in direct violation of the probation from the Arbitration Committee. Thank you for your time. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, Saladdays has reverted to his preferred version 3 times in the last week or so while you have reverted to your preferred version 4 times, and neither one of you has made any attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page. Simply removing references by itself is not a problem. There are many true things that can be referenced that editors may decide as a matter of editorial judgement do not belong in an article. The two of you should discuss this issue or you could both end up being banned from the page for a while. Thatcher131 22:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deeceevoice

Deeceevoice has been sanctioned in the past against having offensive material on their user page. The current page contains some material which can be considered offensive by some of the editors. For relevant discussion on this issue, use the links below:
Admin noticeboard, discussion 1
Admin noticeboard, discussion 2
Neil's talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk • contribs) 15:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to post this here. The relevant Arbitration ruling is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Offensive_user_page_prohibition. Neil ム 15:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly a rant against Wikipedia, and I have removed the name of one editor she singled out for attention. However, I do not believe the content is "calculated to offend," especially compared to the content at issue in the Arbitration case. The same kind of rant has been made by other editors concerning articles they are passionate about, for example by recognized experts in certain fields who find themselves frustrated at a system that gives the same weight to a board certified specialist and to a high school kid who just took a health class (to paraphrase one such complaint I read once). The language in some places is less moderate than I would be, but I am not passionate about this issue and Deeceevoice is. I don't find that the rant crosses the line from immoderate to offensive and it is certainly not deliberately offensive. Nor are the links to humanitarian campaigns "offensive" in any sense of the word. I do concur with the removal of the email from a banned user. Thatcher131 17:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will further comment that whether the humanitarian links contravene user page policy (for soapboxing, perhaps) is not a matter for Arbitration enforcement, but should be dealt with as all questions about user pages should, i.e. calm discussion with the user, followed by a possible MfD nomination if the parties can't agree. Thatcher131 17:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the recent MFD Raul654 and jpgordon (both current arbitrators) commented keep, quite strongly. Now, I haven't compared the page then to now to see if it's significantly different, but that does seem to be of some relevance. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Content that does not fall under the Arbitration remedy should be dealt with via the normal mechanisms. It seems like an MfD has already been attempted and withdrawn, so (excepting the email from a banned user and the personal naming of another editor, since removed) I think this is a closed issue. Thatcher131 17:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing anything originating with a banned user, even if posted by somebody else in the course of making their own point, makes me a bit uneasy, as it brings to mind Orwellian "unperson" or Scientologist "suppressive person" status... is a "salt the earth" attitude towards any ideas, viewpoints, or opinions associated with a banned user really appropriate or healthy? *Dan T.* 17:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the policy, and there are arguments for and against. This seems like an issue to be raised on Talk:Ban policy or the Village pump. Thatcher131 17:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a banner template I have seen (on some talk pages that seem to get a lot of edits from socks of banned users) saying that edits from banned users are not wanted, and making them on behalf of banned users is not permitted. I can't lay my hands on it now despite having seen it earlier today! it looks sort of like Template:BannedMeansBanned... but if this policy does get changed that banner certainly would need changing too. It might explain why many people are pretty certain that banned editor contributions are to be reverted on sight. ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the userpage template to the top of the page. It's certainly soapboxing, but editors get some leeway in user space. The important thing is to make sure visitors don't mistake the thing for an article. Durova^Charge! 18:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shutterbug formerly User:COFS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There's really no point in prolonging this discussion. If Shutterbug violates the 30 day article ban, make a new report. Other issues can be dealt with through the appropriate channels if needed. Thatcher131 23:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shutterbug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) "...appears to be working towards a pro-Scientology point of view at the expense of NPOV." -Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS#Findings of fact.

Continuing the same behavior:

Removed reference with edit summary:lie removed. this well known to be out of a finance series for church organizations and about the fact that you go bankrupt if you don't have any income.
Removed several WP:RS used elsewhere in the article with edit summary: NPOVed. if you feel it is impossible for you just to state a simple fact without the need to slant it to something overly slanderous or overcritical, then please refrain from editing.
Removed {{fact}} requesting reference for assertion about critical acclaim, with edit summary:it's "literature" critics)
Removed citation and replaced with {{fact}}(Anynobody 07:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The arbcom debated a 30 day block for previous behavior like this, which I still feel is a bit too harsh. However some kind of block, or very explicit warning, seems to be in order considering how recently the case was decided. Anynobody 05:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as funny that the editor who added in outright falsehoods in the article is now screaming for punishment of the one who reverted his POV pushing, probably after realizing that he has no Wikipedia policy to back up his POV. But find out for ourself, however please follow the whole route through the article history and talk page discussion about the above, as well as the ArbCom discussion (which ended with putting the article under probation) on the subject. Anynobody as a part of the ArbCom decision ultimately was warned not to harass another Scientologist editor (Justanother) or be blocked. I feel he just turned the page and now runs after me. Shutterbug 06:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to turn this into a battleground by replying to every comment, but I will say that what Shutterbug has identified as POV pushing is simply what the references say. Anynobody 06:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct. On the money one your text is an interpretation of the ref - and an incorrect one at that. On the critics one you deleted a valid ref yourself which I put back in and on the NPOVed one you threw the lead section off balance by inserting repetitions of the same idea to push your viewpoint, i.e. violation of WP:UNDUE and I shortened this convolution of one-sided opinion to a true statement of facts, in alignment with WP:NPOV. Anyway, this does not lead anywhere, so can someone not involved in the Scientology discussion have a look and say something? Shutterbug 06:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: This is turning into a mass deletion of cited text. Stop it, Anynobody, just get your fingers under control. Shutterbug 07:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you hadn't reverted over cited text so many times, but it's forced me to also report violating WP:3RR. WP:AN3#User:Shutterbug reported by User:Anynobody (Result: ) Anynobody 07:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shutterbug banned from editing scientology-related articles and their talkpages for 30 days

I agree that Shutterbug is behaving disruptively at L. Ron Hubbard, especially in the sense of creating and keeping alive quarrels through aggressive edit summaries which focus on editors rathers rather than edits. Here's a typical one, not quite as overt an attack as the examples Anynobody cites: "reverting back to NPOV titles instead of POV pushing wording put in by F451" [31] It's from September 26, just three days after the article was put on probation, and led to an angry debate on the talkpage. What is the need for routinely using edit summaries to provoke other editors? That's not what edit summaries are for, and there's no possible constructive purpose in such creation of bad blood. I'm not interested in who's right or wrong about the "POV" of the versions being reverted between; my point is that it doesn't matter, when reverting something, if it's (in Shutterbug's view) POV pushing or not. His/Her reason for reverting is presumably a quality of the text (=the quality of being POV), not an assumed intention of the editor who put it there (=the quality of being POV pushing). Therefore, write (if you must) "reverting back to NPOV titles instead of POV wording", lose the "pushing". Honestly, how hard is this principle, how many times has it been explained? Don't attack people, stick to editing the text, use edit summaries to explain why a change is made. I've only looked at the Hubbard article, but from his/her behaviour there alone, Shutterbug is being continually provocative. Anynobody has some even worse examples above.

Per the article probation that scientology-related articles is on, I'm hereby banning Shutterbug from editing those articles for 30 days. This includes talkpages. I hope the arbcom will let me know if including talkpages is inappropriate, but Shutterbug is a disruptive and quarrelsome presence on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard. (Today's header posted by S: "Vandalism by Anynobody.") I will assume good faith and not state that s/he is trying to provoke other editors into inappropriate behaviour, but s/he's certainly having that effect. (It's for instance easy enough to provoke Fahrenheit451.) Finally, I'm quite unimpressed by Shutterbug's attempt above to cadge a ride on the arbcom decision re Anynobody/Justanother. Bishonen | talk 09:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I do not understand two things: a) you were part of the ArbCom procedure and involved yourself in the fight between Justanother and Anynobody/Anyeverybody etc. I don't know why you are involving yourself now. It might be possible by WP policy though. Not really important. b) Your judgment resulted in the addition of a couple of POV statements in the article. May be that I do not understand the job of an Admin, may be. I thought you would guard the application of Wikipedia policy to reach a correct/verifiable article. After all this is an encyclopedia not a social club or soccer game in need of a referee. Content control, correct application of NPOV etc. is what I thought would be key here. If that is not your product, what is it then? I do understand that I was too noisy and stupidly got myself provoked by continuous inclusion of falsehoods. The talk page ban however is not in alignment with the ArbCom decision at all so I do have a problem understanding your punishment decision. Shutterbug 17:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Added later as no answer was received: Bish, last but not least may I remind you of what the ArbCom decided: "The above arbitration case has recently concluded. COFS (now Shutterbug) is asked to refrain from recruiting editors whose editing interests are limited to Scientology-related topics. Anynobody is prohibited from harassing Justanother, and Justanother is urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions. All Scientology-related articles are placed on article probation. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)". Shutterbug 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not trying to provoke this behavior. The simple fact is that Shutterbug's strong feelings have clouded her ability to edit Scientology articles in a WP:NPOV way as defined by the policy.

With all due respect, focusing on her edit summaries entirely misses the problem, removing or altering cited text and trying to invoke mistaken perceptions of what NPOV is. Take the Time's use of Hubbard's quote about money, Shutterbug thought I had put it in the article out of context, when I actually used exactly the same context as the Time article. "Make sure that lots of bodies move through the shop," implored Hubbard in one of his bulletins to officials. "Make money. Make more money. Make others produce so as to make money . . . However you get them in or why, just do it." is the closing sentence of several paragraphs discussing Hubbard's financial motivations. Anynobody 01:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it is a falsehood, you know it but put it in the article anyway. It's not a bulletin, it's not "to officials", it's not a correct quote, it's out of context, it's not part of doctrine and it is interpreted and embellished by you personally - not covered in the ref - with a 100% POV statement. In the absence of actual article probation control - CONTENT CONTROL for the sake of a correct Wikipedia article - I agree that my mistake is to be so noisy that I seem to attract the attention personally instead of getting the attention on POV pushing and the inclusion of outright false information in articles. Attacking me for provoking god-knows-who is an interesting approach, given your own consistent behavior. Shutterbug 16:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anynobody, you need to re-read Bishonen's post. She topic banned Shutterbug, not you. Hello, she's siding with you, and you are complaining. That's odd to say the least. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman I guess you missed the fact that her meltdown started as a result of my edits to L. Ron Hubbard. Being that I'm also on probation it seemed appropriate to reassure the arbcom that this was unintentional on my part. (This is the arbcom enforcement board, right?)

Also, I'm sorry to confuse you but I wasn't "defending" myself from accusations Bishonen didn't make. If I had thought Bishonen was suggesting this was my doing, I'd of directly addressed her on that. Anynobody 23:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience when somebody pre-emptively defends themselves, that behavior correlates with guilt. When somebody makes unfounded accusations (e.g. Shutterbug's RFCU on ChrisO and Anynobody), it's a sign they may be doing exactly that thing. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well in this case I've been found to be harassing Justanother without knowing how, just to be on the safe side and prevent that from happening again I thought I'd mention my participation/intentions. Anynobody 01:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Shutterbug disruption

Shutterbug has posted this frankly insane request for checkuser, in effect accusing Anynobody of being a sockpuppet of myself (or vice-versa). This strikes me as a blatant attempt to retaliate against Anynobody for this topic ban. It's certainly a general waste of time all round. Given that it occurred after Bishonen had banned Shutterbug for aggressive editing directed at other users, I believe it indicates a continued willingness to engage in disruptive conduct. I propose that the ban should be extended for another 15 days (for a total of 45 days) to reinforce the ArbCom's message that disruptive conduct and willful attacks on other editors are unacceptable - Shutterbug clearly hasn't got the message yet. -- ChrisO 18:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More punishment drive! But you got the time wrong, the ban came later. There goes your retaliation accusation (but what exactly are YOU doing here right now?). And, for an Admin running an anti-Scientology hate site I would really recommend that you leave this up to neutral people. Thanks. Shutterbug 18:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chris that the CheckUser request is quite frivolous. But my topic ban did come later, so I'd be inclined to let its 30 days cover that frivolity as well. If I'd known about the CU at the time of the ban, I reckon I would still have set the ban at 30 days (a hefty pageban)—not at 45. However, I should mention upfront that I'm concerned by Shutterbug's phrasing here about "meddling with anti-scientology editors," something s/he seems to think s/he's going to indulge in now that s/he's banned on scientology talkpages. Not sure what "meddling" means, but if it should refer to pestering or harassing editors, think again, Shutterbug. Nothing like that will be tolerated. As for "punishment", nothing could be less interesting to me than to "punish" you. My whole concern here is to keep the scientology articles editable and collaborative, which is the goal the remedies of the arbitration committee were directed at, especially the article probation. Bishonen | talk 22:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I read that as an intention to harass editors s/he disagrees with. Shutterbug knows that neither Anynobody nor I are sockpuppets, so there was absolutely no justification for posting a bogus RCU. If this is an example of how Shutterbug intends to interact with other editors, I'm not impressed; we don't need editors who engage in such tactics. -- ChrisO 22:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shutterbug, unless you believe that ChrisO and Anynobody/Anyeverybody are actually the same person, which is certainly unsupported by any evidence adduced thus far, then I suggest that you withdraw this checkuser request. Newyorkbrad 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the hint, Newyorkbrad. Suspicions about this strange twinship of Chris and Anobody are not new. They started eight or more months ago when both of them did exactly the same as now. That time the L. Ron Hubbard article had a military section and "both" feel to be specialists on LRH/WWII (they got their own article in the end). ChrisO has written a very opinionated, pulpy bio on Hubbard, allegedly with data from his ex-profession (which he will have to fill you in on) and strangely it reads very much like what Anynobody writes. Chris' reaction is just strange. Can any one here explain how a checkuser request can be so "outraging" that I am being called "insane" and "frivolous"? It's just a simple procedure with uncertain results. Shutterbug 00:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'd kinda support going through with it, when it comes back that we aren't, at least she'll know for sure. Anynobody 23:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She already knows - it's a very obvious attempt at bureaucratic harassment. Checkuser time is limited and would be better used on genuine requests. -- ChrisO 23:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know she knows, and the harassment attempt seems consistent with a noisy investigation strategy. However, using deductive reasoning based on what sources say about the church, they are likely to use a decline to investigate on our part as a point to make us look "biased". We know that Shutterbug, has edited from Church IPs under the name COFS, which I personally think makes it reasonable to consider the possibility her actions are part of an official attempt to control public perception here.

If I'm wrong then at least Shutterbug will not be able to make the accusations without somebody providing a link to the case in response. It's win/win, j/k I realize wasting checkuser time to reassure one editor is more of a win/win/lose. If I am right, then that's proof to anyone interested that we aren't biased. Anynobody 23:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the terrible twins for letting me know what I supposedly know (which I don't know, which is why I ask for it, and will continue to do so, in spite of ChrisOs rather persistent WP:NPA violations. What a Man, what a Fighter, what an Admin!). Otherwise see above. Shutterbug 06:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are truly confused by the rules here. ChrisO is not making personal attacks, clarifying a misunderstanding with another editor is not recruiting [32], and NPOV is mostly about the sources and how we use them.

Somebody not involved with this dispute needs to explain to Shutterbug both why she's under a temporary ban and her accusations are baseless. She expects ChrisO and myself to justify our actions, so to her we're only giving excuses, in other words she won't listen to us. Anynobody 07:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anynoobody, you're hardly the paragon of impartiality in this matter. Please stop throwing fuel on the fire. Let the community handle Shutterbug. You worry about yourself. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope things have settled down here. Anyway, I think the results of the checkuser will verify that ChrisO and Anynobody are two different people living in two different countries. If anyone is interested, on 27 Sept 07 I received an email from Shutterbug that had nothing to do with Wikipedia and was Scientology-related. If any administrator is interested, I can forward this to you.--Fahrenheit451 23:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Probation decision on Scientology articles

In light of the recent ArbCom decision, how may editors request placement of a Probation template on a Scientology-related article, and who may place the template on a given article? Thanks. HG | Talk 15:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The decision says it is placed on the talk page of the article. Seems rather mandatory, or not? Shutterbug 06:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All articles related to Scientology are placed on probation. As long as there is no disagreement about whether an article is "related to Scientology" or not, any editor may place the {{Article probation}} template at the top of the talk page. If there is a disagreement, ask an admin to make a determination. Thatcher131 07:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your input. Pursuant to the comments above, I've placed the Article Probation tag on Talk:Psychiatric abuse. The Scientology connection is noted in the article (though the editing there has been volatile) and its Talk page. I also left a brief explanation about my placement of the tag. Thanks again. HG | Talk 14:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisjnelson (2)

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

User already blocked for another infraction. Newyorkbrad 19:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson, Chrisjnelson is "limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page". Well, he may have violated this by not discussing his reversion to 2007 New England Patriots season (initial edit [33] reversion [34]). Its been over an hour, and he hasn't discussed it on the articles talk page, or contacted the user who's edit he reverted. He also reverted without discussion on Derrick Johnson (intitial edit [35] reversion [36]) Sasha Callahan 03:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Chrisnelson is discussing the reversion to 2007 New England Patriots season on its talkpage. Sasha Callahan 02:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator response: As noted, Chrisjnelson did discuss the reversion on the talkpage, although in the future he should post there before or immediately after reverting. Not clear that a block is warranted on this report; but I see that in the meantime Chrisjnelson has been blocked by another administrator for 24 hours for incivility issues anyway. I hope this editor will get the message soon as he has good information to add to Wikipedia, but he's not going to be able to if he continues his current style of contributing. Newyorkbrad 11:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Hajji Piruz

User:Hajji Piruz, formerly User:Azerbaijani, was placed under parole under the remedy by the first ArbCom case [37], and further placed under supervised editing per remedy of the second ArbCom case - [38]. After a 10-day break, which included a 48-hour block due to edit warring at Template:Literature of Azerbaijan, User:Hajji Piruz, formerly User:Azerbaijani, is back to reverting and edit warring on other pages related to Azerbaijan without properly discussing. Below are his reverts in first day of editing after 10 days:

Iran-Azerbaijan relations - [39]
Caucasian Albanians - [40]
Safavid dynasty - [41]
Shirvanis - [42]
Azerbaijan Democratic Republic - [43]
Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan) - [44]
Azerbaijan - [45] - changing the text sourced directly from CIA World Factbook, without proper discussion.

Please, check his history [46], during the day of September 27th, all of his article edits were reverts on Azerbaijan-related articles. Thanks. Atabek 15:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that he is required to discuss any content reversions on the relevant talk pages. Moreschi ^Talk 16:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I violate parole? I have been involved in discussions in all of these articles, and put comments for every single revert. I was gone for a period of a week and a half, of which certain users took advantage to insert POV, OR, and remove large amounts of sourced information.[[User:Hajji [Piruz|Hajji Piruz]] 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's true that you have not violated your parole directly (or not that I can see), and on every occasion you do seem to have used the talk page. This is commendable. What is not so commendable, however, is that you walk away for ten days and then come straight back with a pile of reverts in one day across multiple related articles. That is highly dubious conduct, to say the least. Consider this a stern warning for the future. I'm undecided as to whether any further action is necessary. Moreschi ^Talk 19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I add, that one of his edits [47], is actually removing sourced text wording taken from CIA World Factbook 2007, and replacing it with sourceless POV. Actually, he never discussed this particular edit on the talk page [48], but repeated general non-edit-specific POV comments. I think the ArbCom remedy refers to leaving comments/discussing specific reasons for reverting particular content, not just any comment. Atabek 00:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s Hajji Piruz’s latest comment, threatening with an edit war on FA article Azerbaijani people. [49] Hajji Piruz makes POV interpretations of sources that have no support from other editors, and not only those who are party to this arbcom case, but also such respected members of wikipedia community as User:Tombseye (who wrote that article up to the FA standard). [50] However Hajji Piruz keeps edit warring over inclusion of that particular edit in a number of Wikipedia articles despite lack of consensus. Grandmaster 04:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted an undiscussed page move by Hajji Piruz as well as a large rollback of some massive POV changes he made. Here. TBH there doesn't even appear to be the slightest attempt at consensus discussion with that edit. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first instance of Hajji Piruz making such controversial moves with any consensus. See this: [51] And Swatjester's edits were reverted by Pejman47 (talk · contribs), [52] [53] who was a subject of discussion here: [54] Pejman47's contribution history consists almost exclusively of reverts on controversial articles. Grandmaster 05:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true at all! A) the page move was never contested, B) the opposition section contains information which is about a completely different people and subject.

This is really ridiculous. I suggest that the administrators do not take the word of one party of the dispute who has had a continuous history of disputes with another party. My absence is simply being taken advantage of to completely undo everything in order to push a certain POV.Hajji Piruz 21:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has been blocked for reverting and moving again at Iranian_theory_regarding_the_origin_of_the_Azerbaijanis for 1 month (given the history above). ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the ArbCom ruling on the block duration for the first five parole violations, I have reduced the length to 1 week. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:MaplePorter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

MaplePorter has been indefinitely blocked by Picaroon as discussed below. MaplePorter may appeal to ArbCom. Thatcher131 16:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (HK) was involved in three ArbCom cases. In the course of them he was discovered to be using sock puppets so expertly as to almost elude detection. One of the cases includes a ban enforcement provision that resultd in a one-year ban: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Ban enforcement. Since then the ban has been reset twice due to further sock activity. MaplePorter (talk · contribs) (MP) has edited with the same POV as HK. Recently, MP uploaded an image, claiming that it had been scanned by her boyfiend,[55] who she claimed had never edited Wikipedia before.[56] The photo, Image:DennisKing,ChipBerlet.jpg, is an identical copy, pixel-for-pixel, as a photo uploaded by HK three years ago, Image:King berlet.jpg. It is techically impossible for a scanned photo to exactly match another scan done on a different scanner years apart. The image is not readily available on the web, but MP does not claim she obtained it there anyway. The logical conclusion is that MP has lied about how she obtained the photo, and the likeliest reason is that MP is actually a sockpuppet of HK. I request that the MP account be banned as a sockpuppet and that the ban on HK be reset. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If MP and HK were the same person, why would MaplePorter be uploading that image again? I don't even understand why MP would lie about the source of the image... there's another one available so why does it matter? -- tariqabjotu 21:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image uploaded by HK had been deleted long ago. I restored it for the purpose of this comparison. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I received this image as an attachment to an email from a friend of mine. I had the impression that this person had aquired the image by scanning. However, I have now spoken on the phone with this person, and he informed me that he was unable to get a satisfactory result by scanning, so he used an image that he found on the web at this location: http://www.biocrawler.com/w/images/8/89/King_berlet.jpg. I hope this solves one mystery. The other, unsolved mystery is why is this such a big deal to Will Beback? There are many real problems at Wikipedia that could use attention by an administrator. --MaplePorter 23:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also puzzled about how Will's "logical conclusion" that I was lying is consistant with WP:AGF. --MaplePorter 23:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image first appeared in a LaRouchite publication which was copyrighted. All other sources are stolen from this copyrighted publication, unless the original LaRouchite photographer wants to come forward and release it into the public domain, which itself is dubious, because it probably was a work for hire. The only reason it was reposted was to continue a campaign of cyberstalking.--Cberlet 23:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, images used under Fair Use are typically copyrighted, but not considered "stolen." And featuring photographs of notable individuals on Wikipedia is not typically considered "cyberstalking." --MaplePorter 23:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears plausible that the image was scraped by biocrawler.com before it was deleted. They have boatloads of scraped images at http://www.biocrawler.com/w/images/. Thatcher131 00:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that MaplePorter volunteered that it was scanned, responded when requested that it was scanned, and then specifically said it was scanned by her boyfriend, I find it remarkable that she suddenly changes her story when confronted. I did a long search on Google Images to see if I could find the image on the web, but to no avail. How ddid MaplePorter's friend find the image? What links to it? I am still dubious. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is obvious that MaplePorter is either a sockpuppet for HK, or in violation of the intent of the arbcom ruling on editing LaRouche-related pages, or both. At what point is it not obvious that the primary role of MaplePorter is to delete material critical of LaRouche and add material favorable to LaRouche in the same manner as previous editors banned from editing? Just look at the contributions page.--Cberlet 02:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind as to cite the arbcom ruling that you think Maple is violating? My read is that it says references to LaRouche should not be added to articles where they are inappropriate. Are you talking about something different? Please specify. --Marvin Diode 14:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation is that Maple is acting as a sockpuppet or proxy editor for Herschelkrustofsky, which would be grounds for blocking or banning. Thatcher131 14:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... Cberlet said that "it is obvious that MaplePorter is either a sockpuppet for HK, or in violation of the intent of the arbcom ruling on editing LaRouche-related pages, or both." My question concerns what is meant by "the intent of the arbcom ruling" in the event that it is not the same as "Maple acting as a sockpuppet or proxy editor." --Marvin Diode 23:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Will on this one. The series of events according to Maple are difficult to believe. Additionally, Maple's statement regarding "the other, unsolved mystery" and the small comment following that seem to me to be pleas to divert attention away from anything that may be uncovered upon further scrutiny of him. -- tariqabjotu 05:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it simply means that I have been involved in numerous content disputes with Will Beback (who has edited with the same POV as Cberlet) and I think that he is engaging in a bit of harassment to intimidate me. --MaplePorter 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify the situation by giving us the link through which the biocrawler image was found? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The likely explanation is that MaplePorter is a puppet of Herschelkrustofsky. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what's our conclusion here? I see MaplPorter hasn't asnwered questions about how this obscure image was found. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She provided a web address that checks out. What policy is being violated here? --Marvin Diode 05:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation is sock puppetry to avoid a ban. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how does the fact that she, or her boyfriend, was able to find an image on Biocrawler support this theory? --Marvin Diode 13:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the current claim. In order to prove it I've asked MaplePorter repeatedly to clarify how the image was found. Apparently MaplePorter refuses to substantiate her story. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked to see whether the image at http://www.biocrawler.com/w/images/8/89/King_berlet.jpg matches the one she uploaded? Either it does or it doesn't. If it does, her story is credible. The fact that you have been involved in numerous content disputes with Maple is troubling, and you might want to consider recusing yourself (the same goes for Tom Harrison.) --Marvin Diode 00:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know where MaplePorter claims to have obtained the image. The question on the floor is how was that image found? MaplePorter has already given conflicting answers. Unless a more plausible explanation is given then I think it's likeliest that it was obtained from HK, and that MaplePorter is HK. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are substantial holes in your theory. Is there any evidence that HK is connected in some way to Biocrawler? Did he put the image there himself? If not, how would he have any particular insider knowledge of how to find it there? As far as Maple giving conflicting answers, she says that she got the image from her boyfriend, and that she thought it was scanned, but then learned that it came off the web. Assuming good faith, the initial report that it was scanned could be an honest mistake, as she says it was. I don't see any other inconsistencies in her story. And I still wonder whether you, who have quarrelled with her continually over article content, are entirely objective and impartial in this matter. --Marvin Diode 20:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed to be impartial. Nor have you. MP repeatedly assured me that the image had been scanned. When confronted with the impossbility of that assertion she came up with an incomplete second explanation. She refuses to make any further statement clarifying how she obtained this image that was originally uploaded by HK. Rather than you and I debating each other, I'd like to hear from MaplePorter and from uninvolved editors. HK has used sock puppets many times before and maintains a steady interest in Wikipedia. Flouting ArbCom bans disrupts Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing as it may seem, I have real life concerns that keep me from editing continuously at Wikipedia, so I am just now seeing these recent comments. Will Beback's assertion that I am "refusing to make any further statement" is just one more indication of his bias. I will ask my friend what the search criteria were -- is that what is being requested? --MaplePorter 07:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the question is ignored while other edits are made to Wikipedia I assume that it is ignored intentionally. The question is how was the image obtained? Was there a link that led to it, and if so what's that link. Or was it a search function, or what? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to his best recollectin, he did a Google search (not image search) using search words "King Berlet jpg." That brought up Indopedia, which had a blank image called "king_berlet.jpg." Then he did a Google search for "King_berlet.jpg" and found Biocrawler. --MaplePorter 20:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you got a file named "king_berlet.jpg" it seems odd that you'd rename it "DennisKing,ChipBerlet.jpg", and it seems odd that your boyfriend would have gone to all that troubel to search for the file, and then tell you he'd scanned it. Can you upload one of the scans he performed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez. Why don't you just apologize to her and move on? --Marvin Diode 23:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only one who has expressed incredulity about MaplePorter's various explanations for this image. Once we're all satisfied with the answers the matter will be settled, one way or the other. Until then, interjections like that don't help further the matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback or Cberlet, can you provide some examples in the forms of diffs showing Maple Porter and Herschelkrustofsky pushing the same point of view? The photograph story is suspicious, but is not evidence of sockpuppetry itself. I'd like to see more examples of similarities between the two. Picaroon (t) 23:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a comparison of the edit summaries, grammar, and points of views of these two users, and have determined they are most likely the same user. Therefore, I have blocked MaplePorter indefinitely as a ban evading sock. Picaroon (t) 20:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of "evidence" seems flimsy and circumstantial if you are taking such a radical step as an indefinite block. MaplePorter has made valuable contributions to a number of articles.--Marvin Diode 21:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not commenting on the merits of the ban, the evidence suggests sockpuppetry, and sockpuppets of banned users are blocked, indefinitely. You may petition the committee for an annulment of the ban so Herschelkrustofsky may contribute constructivly under his main account if you wish, but the fact that this account may have made valuable contributions does not nullify the fact that it is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Picaroon (t) 22:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...except that there is no reliable evidence that MaplePorter has any connection whatsoever with Herschelkrustofsky. This whole affair reminds me of The Crucible. --Marvin Diode 14:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I maintain that I'm pretty good at comparing non-technical traits and drawing conclusions from them, I nevertheless consulted a checkuser on this issue. He said "Based on checkuser evidence, I think it's fairly likely that MaplePorter is a HK sock". Picaroon (t) 20:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are talking dynamic IP numbers, which means more circumstantial evidence. I find it depressing that at Wikipedia an unscrupulous editor who wants to get his way in a content dispute can get his or her opponent indef-blocked, just by making a half-plausible allegation of sockpuppetry. This sort of thing will ruin Wikipedia's credibility. --Marvin Diode 14:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the checkuser information was not divulged, we don't know if the MaplePorter account was using dynamic or fixed IPs. Please be careful about describing other editors as "unscrupulous" as that could be seen as a personal attack. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Diode, you are not privy to the relevant checkuser data, so you probably shouldn't be trying to draw conclusions regarding them. Now, let's recap the evidence. Two involved users, Will Beback and Chip Berlet, who are familiar with Herschelkrustofsky, think MaplePorter is the same editor. Three uninvolved admins (Tariqabjotu, Spartaz, and I) agree with them. The accounts uploaded the same image, and the latter account has spun an unconving excuse that has changed at least twice. The two accounts edit the same subjects, have the same point of view, and have similar style quirks. And to wrap it all up, they are editing from similar IPs; a checkuser says the connection is

Likely, based on technical evidence alone. Please explain how all this evidence is faulty, without resorting to calling it "circumstantial" again and again. I'm open to being convinced that I made the wrong determination, but you're not convincing me. Picaroon (t) 00:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MaplePorter's story about the image changed only once by my count. But otherwise, I'm afraid we've arrived at a deadlock, because my objection does come down to the simple fact that the evidence is circumstantial. That, and the fact that I have noted no serious conduct problem with MaplePorter's editing, and a lot of constructive contributions. It disturbs me that the two "involved users" that you mentioned are users that have been engaged in protracted content disputes with MP. If a user who had no axe to grind were to come along and point to an editor who was disruptive and unproductive, and then present evidence that suggested sockpuppetry, I would say that a ban is in order. But in this case, it seems like a serious overreaction. I find the whole affair disturbing and disheartening. --Marvin Diode 06:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with two experienced editors raising concerns - especially concerning the possibility of a new sock from a serial sockpuppeter. If nothing else, the editors most likely to recognise a sock are those editing the article in question. Neither took admin action themselves and waited for uninvolved admins to review the edidence and make a decision. Fron your argument we would never be able to deal with serial socks because everyone who knew anything about them would be disbarred from raising concern. There is a more then reasonable case that MaplePorter is HK and providing an incorrect explanation for the origin of that image did not help their cause. HK is banned and any reincarnation even as a productive user is not allowed unless they can have the ban rescinded. As you say, we appear to be at an impasse, you don't agree with the block but the consensus is that this was the right thing to do. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

[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.

[a]

[b]