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

see stmt by Grandmaster

There's a bunch of anonymous IPs who have been engaged in disruptive acitivity for quite some time now. The recent ones are 70.21.139.214 (talk · contribs), 149.68.31.146 (talk · contribs) and 69.125.221.82 (talk · contribs). All 3 have been attacking Azerbaijan related images in wikipedia (check their contribs) and commons: [1] acting as a tag team. The IPs in 149 range appear to be related with banned Azerbaboon (talk · contribs), see this CU where they are listed: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Azerbaboon. One of the IPs in that range uses the same ethnic slur as used by the banned user: [2] In addition, these IPs might be related with User:Erkusukes, who according to cu on Azerbaboon edits from open proxies and "has a few edits from a business in the same vicinity". The IPs have been reverting the article Caucasian Albania in support of Erkusukes. [3] [4] This coordinated activity deserves investigation, and I filed a CU here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Erkusukes. However, the activity of IPs deserves the attention of the admins right now, as they continue edit warring on various articles and bait users restricted by arbcom parole. Here's the latest revert by anon IP without any discussion on talk, which resulted in removal of a large chunk of information from the article: [5] --Grandmaster (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser proved I am neither Ersekules nor some banned user you imagine me to have been banned years ago. Let us stay focused on the issues of copyright violations and obscure original research of some users. I doubt this has anything to do with ethnicicty but basic human condact and stealing the work of others.149.68.31.146 (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CU has not been performed yet. Grandmaster (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CU results are available now, please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Erkusukes. Urgent action is required. Grandmaster (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check 85.211.4.163 (talk · contribs), another sock IP gaming the system. It made 2 rvs without any explanation. Grandmaster (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another one: 85.211.2.204 (talk · contribs). He follows me and reverts my edits. Grandmaster (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was dealt with, see [6] Grandmaster (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lokyz blocked 24 hours by Krimpet, then released a couple hours later by Deacon of Pndapetzim after discussion. Parties advised to try talkpage warnings and reminders about sanctions, before filing AE complaints. --Elonka 19:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject since mid-December to a general civility "don't create a battleground" sanction (the "Digwuren sanction"). The user has been rather inactive till mid-March, when he became more active and since than he has posted many inflammatory posts. Having recently posted accusations of "antisemitism, polnish revanshism, making idiot of people" and most recently of "justifying of mass murder of civilian people (including children)" - which I believe qualify as being "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith" - I think it is high time that the above sanction is enforced and civility restored to related discussions. Please see below for the list of offensive diffs. PS. Please consider whether one diff from March 13 may need to be erased via oversight per WP:LIVING. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• March 13: edit summary of a revert: "wikipedia is not a place for antisemitic propaganda, even if it is disguised as polnish revanshism"
• March 13: edit summary: "Lossowski is known to be blind on obviuos non-patriotic facts" - this may fall under WP:BIO as the edit summary is highly offensive to a respected Polish historian, Piotr Łossowski
• March 15: "instead of dealing false occusations could you please visit nearest library and read material on the subject?" ... "request - would you please try to act more like Encyclopedist, not a prosecutor or, as sometimes seems persecutor for the articles you seem not to like."
• March 15: "Please stop disrupting humanitarian sciences as a whole, making idiot of people"
• March 18: I've read some really disgusting "patriotic" thoughts by the author we're discussing now. But well, if such tone of the articles fits you - de gustibus non disputandum, i do not intend to violate WP:LIVING and create an article to destroy image of author you do not know, and do not have a clue about.
• March 18: . I'm once again surprised what "reliable" sources Halibutt and Piotrus are using, no less i'm surpised that such rubbish is considered a WP:RS, and I'm raher sad, that such porpaganda is allowed in Poland (as .pl domain suggest)
• March 24: Is this a P. civilization downfall? (P. presumably for Polish)
• March 25: accuse others of adding antisemitic references
• March 25: next, of using holocaust denial sources
• March 26: "installing Polish newspaper scrap"... "Remember, this is still English Wikipedia, not Polish."... "you did interpret and twist them them without any supporting evidence"... "what you did in this article, is a justification of mass murder of civilian people (including children). Think about it, and think how other people would think about you after such statement"

I can only say, that I was expecting this. Recent quite heathened discussions on few topics, and User:Piotrus accusation, that whole Lithuanian historiography is "biased" let me expect this. This is not the first time, Piotrus tends to transfer content dispute into civility issue.

I was disgusted by edits like this "The reprisal action of 23-27 June has succeeded in cowing the Lithuanian authorities, as it demonstrated that AK will react to further persecution of Polish civilians and answer with deadly force", and until now I do think this is justification of mass murder.

I was also inflammated by comments where slaughtered children were labeled as "child soldiers".

As for antisemitic sources - holocaust denier Dariusz Ratajczak claims were used as trusted source, it was discussed on talk page. It was not the firs time. .

To make my answer more comprehensive I'd like to have two days, as I do not keep backlogs on other persons, so I'll need to check with my edits history.--Lokyz (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Piotrus maintains a black book on multiple contributors off-line, something he refused to stop when asked as late as a week ago. The cherry-picked collection of best hits over extended time may make anyone look devilish or saint. The aim of this meticulous record-keeping followed by unloading to AE is to "win" content arguments through achieving the sanctions of the opposite side. This was done before at PAIN, RFI and CSN before they were shut down (to Piotrus' protestations) by a wide community consensus. Now this board is being turned into the Wikpedia:Block my opponent just as the ones above were.

Also a disclosure that may matter. As far as I am aware, Piotrus, unhappy with the lack of quick action was seeking for a friendly closure at #admins today. Hope this helps. I hope this will not end up by rewarding the side in the argument that is simply more devious. --Irpen 21:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis[edit]

Now looking at the diffs:

• March 13 diff1 "wikipedia is not a place for antisemitic propaganda, even if it is disguised as polnish revanshism" is a comment placed in response to the antisemitic cartoon being added to the article.
• March 13 diff2: "Lossowski is known to be blind on obviuos non-patriotic facts" - Lokyz expresses opinion of the source used by Piotrus. Piotrus spoke worse of the sources he did not like
• March 15: "instead of dealing false occusations could you please visit nearest library and read material on the subject?" ... "request - would you please try to act more like Encyclopedist, not a prosecutor or, as sometimes seems persecutor for the articles you seem not to like." First comment expressing the wish for opponent to read books and use them rather than go to google books to shop for cherry-picked quotes and slap them into the article. Second quote, a little over the board but anyone arguing with Piotrus about articles would have the same opinion of his conduct, even if it is withheld out of the fear to get an additional entry in Piotrus' black book
• March 15 diff. hardly acceptable even though Piotrus attempted to use Dariusz Ratajczak as an WP:RS (!)
• March 18 diff. Again, not worthy of any mention
• March 18 diff2. Again, a comment on the opponent's using the works of a dubious author to support their views in the WP article
• March 24. Unclear
• March 25: "accuse others of adding antisemitic references", well the references are either antisemitic indeed or they are not. Take a look for yourself.
• March 25, diff2, Same as above
• March 26. How should a concerned user react if the antisemitic sources are repeatedly and persistently being used with persistence. The matter at hand is not the comment but the source on which it is made. If the source is indeed antisemitic, there is nothing wrong with this comment. If it is not, than it is out of line. Look at the source and decide for yourself.

More coming. --Irpen 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Lokyz for 24 hours, as his language as expressed in the diffs above does seem quite inflammatory and attacking, against the restrictions from the ArbCom case. krimpet✽ 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions. Which of the above diffs were the basis of your block, and did you become aware of the case thru IRC (the controversial Wikipedia instant messaging page, for those not acquainted with WP acronyms) or IRC for admins? Novickas (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that Irpen is right in much - but not all - of what he says. And as you can see from the message above this, already the kitten would be happy: yes, we do have MOAR DRAMA. I think any point that needs to be made has been made, so I'd like to see Lokyz unblocked now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If another admin feels an unblock would be appropriate, I would not object. I simply know that Eastern Europe articles are a vicious battleground here, and support rigorous enforcement of the ArbCom restrictions (on both sides) as a final measure of keeping this part of the project functioning, as dispute resolution seems to have gone continuously nowhere, hence I feel a block was necessary. :/ krimpet✽ 03:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krimpet's block was not unreasonable. However, with two other admins expressing concerns, with Krimpet's lack of objection and especially considering unblock of Piotrus last week after a clear violation of WP:3RR, the good of reconciliation and common sense of justice would be better served with a warning rather than a block. I am sure Piotrus would prefer this too. I am therefore lifting Lokyz' block. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Piotrus would prefer is for Lokyz to stop accusing him of spreading of antisemitic propaganda, holocaust denial, disrupting "humanitarian sciences", making an idiot of people, and justifying massacres of innocent civilians (including children). I don't care how this torrent of personal attacks is stopped, but judging by Lokyz's post above, warnings and reports don't seem to convince him to change his ways. Of course, if the consensus is that such accusations are a perfectly acceptable method of discourse, I will adjust my ways accordingly.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen's analysis show that many diffs indicated by Piotrus are quite good (like removing a Holocaust denier used as a reliable source). If anything their mentioning by Piotrus in the blocking context warrants a warning by an uninvolved admin to Piotrus for assumption of the bad faith. Other diffs are less than ideal but still relatively mild. If we assume to uniformly apply those requirements we might find 3/4 of the editors involved into Eastern European topics to be banned. Myself and Piotrus will be certainly included. Do we need it? Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not dug deep into this dispute, and frankly, the constant bickering between some of the Eastern European editors tends to just exhaust me. Since Krimpet did look though, and has been challenged, I thought I'd take a relatively uninvolved look. I understand that there have been other recent complaints, and other ArbCom cases and I'll freely admit that I have not gone into them in detail. I feel that there are so many disputes, that reviewing every single incident involving these editors would be a fulltime job, and it's not where I want to be spending my time on-wiki.

Just looking at this particular complaint though, I have reviewed the diffs that Piotrus supplied, as well as Irpen's response to them. I don't feel that Piotrus's complaint is "clean". Some of his claims of incivility, do not look uncivil to me, they look like reasonable civil comments that are being used to discuss sources that are regarded as unreliable. I am also concerned that Piotrus came straight to AE, rather than first warning Lokyz at his talkpage. Per the Enforcement ruling, a block can be issued, but only after the editor is first warned. Now, it is true that a warning was given by Ioeth to Lokyz, but this was back in December. So that makes things a bit sloppy. I don't feel that it's fair to give someone a warning one month, and then block them the next. Even for someone under sanctions, I feel that they should be given a "warning shot across the bow" to let them know that they're on a problematic course. In other words, each time that Lokyz made one of the statements above, I think that whichever editor felt that it was a violation of sanctions, should have stated so right then and there, like, "Lokyz, I feel that your above comment is a violation of your ArbCom sanctions from <case>, specifically <quote wording>. Please try to avoid these kinds of actions, so that further enforcement is not necessary." Then, if Lokyz continued, then whichever editor was offended could post at Lokyz's talkpage, same language, and diffing the infractions. I think that this would be far more effective at addressing the behavior, rather than saving up a few weeks of diffs and then dumping them all here at AE.

Now, having said, that, I do still have trouble with some of Lokyz's comments. This one in particular concerns me,[7] as it's clearly targeted at other editors, with uncivil language ("rubbish"). There were also personal comments directed at Molobo here.[8] This edit does not specifically target an editor, but is uncivil ("making an idiot of people").[9]

Ultimately, I agree with Krimpet's analysis that the Eastern European articles are a vicious battleground. If a block de-escalates the situation, then I think a block is appropriate. However, I still think that this situation could have been handled better, as I said above, and before any further requests for AE blocks are made, I would like to see that all the editors involved do their best to abide by the sanctions, and to communicate clearly to each other when they feel that sanctions are being violated, so that further administrator action is not needed. --Elonka 04:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that the last few sentences of paragraph two there constitute extremely good advice, and I hope it is followed. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This discussion has probably outlived its usefulness. Further clarifications, if needed, can be taken to the admin overseeing it (PhilKnight). If anything new happens, but only then, this report may be reopened. Thanks. El_C 20:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title says it all. Just two days after his one-week topic-ban expired, Jaakobou promptly initiated at least two edit wars:

• Israeli-Palestinian conflict: While a bunch of us (mainly User:Sm8900, User:Nishidani, User:Michael Safyan and User:GHcool) were discussing (quite productively, mind you) a part of the historical outline, User:Jaakobou barged-in, without touching the discussion, and forced his own version unto the text (here and here). Fortunately, User:El C stepped in and protected the page, nipping this edit-war in the bud.
• Avigdor Lieberman: This one is a real gem for those who have seen User:Jaakobou's editing on Gideon Levy, Saeb Erekat and other WP:BLPs. User:Jaakobou didn't like some of the unflattering yet well-sourced quotes on the Avigdor Lieberman page and promptly edited them away (here and here). User:Nickhh and I quickly intervened, unleashing a cascade of thinly veiled reverts (here, here, here and here).

Furthermore, his crusade to excise the term Palestine from Wikipedia continues (and again here).

What bothers me here is not the substance of the disputes (in which I am involved) but the tone of the discussions (here, here and here on another recent issue, no edit-war though, since I'm following WP:BRD).

User:Jaakobou does not follow WP:BRD, forces his preferred version during ongoing discussions, assumes bad faith and is borderline uncivil. This is not the editing style I would expect from someone who is under close supervision in a controversial area of Wikipedia. His previous topic-ban has taught him nothing.

As for what is to be done, I am at a loss. I leave it up to responsible admins to deal with.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 28.03.2008 07:52

Actually, on second thought, I'm not at an entire loss... User:Jaakobou's problem seems to be reverts, so I suggest a WP:1RR restriction, maybe even only one revert per week or even WP:0RR. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 28.03.2008 08:06

It might not be a bad idea for User:Jaakobou to impose on himself a WP:0RR in all his editis in wikipedia. I think he can become a better editor this way and this will force him to write edits which will be acceptable to others. Zeq (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Jaakobou[edit]

• I honestly don't have the time for this accusation, esp. considering the bias and persistent POV pushing of the person making it.

• Currently Pedrito (talk · contribs) happily violated WP:BLP by tag-team reverting with Nickhh (talk · contribs) who specifically told him to game the system:
  • "Pedro, your turn next if he does it again ;}" Nickhh, 22:18, 27 March 2008
  • "WP:BLP is a serious violation - DO NOT REVERT AGAIN without using the talk page and achiving consensus." Jaakobou, 22:21, 27 March 2008
  • "reverted removal of well-sourced, referenced material." Pedrito, 07:16, 28 March 2008
  • See BLP explanation from talk below.

• Previously, Pedrito (talk · contribs) has forced months of conversations over allowing the word "hostage" in the Gilad Shalit (abducted Israeli soldier, held with hostage demands for 650 days already) article and disappeared from the mediation after rejecting 18 reliable sources and presenting an WP:OR statistics found on the false statistical assumption that "hostage" (situation) should appear more often than "captured" (in a raid).
  • User:Jaakobou wants to introduce the word "hostage" in the lead. In order to avoid undue weight, he must show that this term is the preferred term. - [Pedrito, 15:17, 5 February 2008]

I actually believe Pedro and Nickhh should be sanctioned for tag-teaming to include BLP, and for purposefull waste of time - following me around into a number of articles and making WP:POINT reverts. However, I don't have time or special need to file anything more. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, just in case it's as unclear to anyone else as it is apparently is to Jaakobou, the "your turn next .." edit summary was a joke, specifically intended to refer to your prior WP:AGF breaching accusation that we were tag-team editing. --Nickhh (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins,:

This "joke" promoted edit warring to reinsert a WP:BLP violation and was accommodated with a couple of snide personal remarks.

• "You couldn't explain anything clearly if you tried." Nickhh, 22:51, 27 March 2008
• "I wonder whether you even understand 20% of what you read or write here" Nickhh, 22:45, 27 March 2008

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC) clarification added 14:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On an interesting side-note, notice how User:Jaakobou edit-summarises "DO NOT REVERT AGAIN without using the talk page and achiving consensus.". This only underlines his gross misunderstanding of bold-revert-discuss: He edited-out a bunch of quotes (bold), I reverted (revert) and now he has to take it to discussion (discuss)... Not revert to death and insist that somehow his (new) version has to stay up until I can prove by exhaustion that it is incorrect. This is the same approach User:Jaakobou follows in all edit wars.

I couldn't have provided a better illustration myself. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 28.03.2008 09:07

Pedro's ignoring the talk page discussion (and the edit summary notice) and reverting has reinserted the content explained in the 'BLP Explanation' and also a non encyclopedic libelous rant by a political adversary of the article's subject; the encyclopedic value of which is dubious at best.

Numerous out of context quotes (like 90 percent ..[Israel's Arabs].. would "have to find a new Arab entity"^[34]) are an example to clear misrepresentation of random (or vaguely sourced) quotes taken out of their source context - and used in synthesis to soapbox.

with respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. According to the timestamps, you went to discuss after re-reverting. That's not the way WP:BRD works, but it is typical of the way you try to block articles in your preferred version with endless discussions. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 28.03.2008 10:24

WP:BLP Explanation:[edit]

copied from here: [35], Summary: misrepresentation of source material to post "flashy" quotes that make a living person seem like a genocidal, racist monster.

Nickhh, I disagree with your recent revert [36]. The text was mucked up with misuse of sources and needed an NPOV rephrase.
Source 1: independent.co.uk

• (a) Source is misrepresented within the article - per "Mr Lieberman urged that Palestinians be told to halt all terror activity or face wide-ranging attacks." being POV presented as "At 8am we'll bomb all the commercial centers..."
• (b) Source does not establish notability and relevance of racism allegations or "controversy".

Source 2: haaretz.com

• Source uses a vague 3rd source for the inflammatory "prisoners should be drowned in the Dead Sea" claim registered within the wiki article - find that original source or at least a few other reliable sources that support this, otherwise this is WP:BLP.

Source 3: Reuters

• Source is misrepresented within the article - per "[Avigdor Lieberman], said he was ready to evacuate his West Bank settlement home to achieve his [population transfer] proposal." being POV presented as 90 percent of Israel's one million Arabs would "have to find a new Arab entity"

I'd appreciate an explanation on why you believe that despite your revert reinserting these misrepresentation of sources, that it was the correct move. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm... Jaakobou? This is not a content dispute. It's you reverting like a mad-man and not following WP:BRD or any form of WP:CIVIL. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 28.03.2008 08:57

Absolutely. And that debate is documented on the relevant talk page. Please stop trying to re-run it here, only quoting your arguments and not including the responses you received regarding the context, notability and BLP issues you are trying to bring up. --Nickhh (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro's assertions have been less than accurate on the Gilad Shalit mediation and here also (my talk page contributions can be examined). He has a clear misunderstanding of core policy such as WP:BLP and WP:GAME, both now and also in the past.

(Sample: asking a page be reverted to his version and protected [37])

To admins,

1. I've already raised a request that tag-team reverts would be put under the microscope and this is a great opportunity to reiterate this request.
2. I believe Pedrito (talk · contribs) and Nickhh (talk · contribs) have violated and continue to violate the Purpose of Wikipedia using it as a ramming advocacy tool.
3. Pedrito also did not make a single talk page comment even when directly addressed [38]; and went on to revert a BLP violation into the article a second time following his friend's edit war "joke". However, he repeatedly suggests that he follows WP:BRD.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Pedro has now also canvassed a number of friends. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC) clarify purpose of wikipedia issue. 14:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "number of friends" I informed of this enforcement request is 2: User:Nickhh and User:Eleland, who are both involved in the aforementioned disputes. I suggest you go read WP:CANVAS and delete that last accusation. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 28.03.2008 09:57

• There doesn't appear to be anything sanction worthy here. Yes, Jaakobou doesn't follow 1RR or BRD, however that isn't sanction worthy. Also, the edits by Jaakobou shown in the diffs are reasonable enough, removing what could be considered an unduly sensationalist quote from a BLP for example. If ArbCom had wanted to restrict articles or editors to 1RR or BRD, they could have, and obviously didn't. If a pattern emerges of having to protect articles, because of edit warring, then maybe sanctions could be imposed, but on the current evidence, I don't believe this is required. PhilKnight (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • You think that redirecting "Palestina" to "Israel" is "reasonable enough?" You think that removing entirely well-referenced information about highly notorious comments made by a public figure is covered under WP:BLP? These were not Ronald Reagan we-begin-bombing-in-5-minutes jokes, PhilKnight, the man has a long track record of threatening Arabs with terrorism and ethnic cleansing, and Jaakobou is edit-warring to erase that from the record. <eleland/talkedits> 21:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Eleland, please don't [[[WP:SOAP|soapbox]]. Use your time to find legitimate sources that repeat these sentiments/position. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can't present this as a sourcing issue, Jaakobou. The sources were already provided in the article and discussed on the talk page. You kept claiming that they were misquotes, vague, or not reliable, but you wouldn't say why.
        • You want more sources? Here's a head start:[39]"CBS News correspondent Robert Berger reports Avigdor Lieberman has some controversial views. In 2002, he called for the bombing of Palestinian gas stations, banks and commercial centers in response to suicide bombings. He has also called for the execution of Israeli Arab parliamentarians who met with leaders of Hamas."
        • International Herald Tribune headline: [40] A hard-line Israeli official, Avigdor Lieberman, stakes out extreme positions
        • Jerusalem Post headline: Peretz: Israel Beiteinu 'racist party' (Peretz is Amir Peretz, at the time the leader of the mainstream Israeli Labour Party)
        • This constant obstructionism and obfuscation has to end. <eleland/talkedits> 22:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Notes and question by Jaakobou:
  • (a) Pedro has made both of his reverts without any talk page discussion while his friend was sure to note to me that he believes "[i] couldn't explain anything clearly if [i] tried." and "jokingly"(?) encouraging Pedrito to edit war a BLP violation into the article.
  • (b) I tend to believe that my talk page explanations were not deserving of such commentary (or edit war games) and just recently I've been given a week's vacation (topic ban) for responding poorly on talk pages to a longtime (months of) ongoing barrage of similar activity.
  • (c) This provocation would have been waved off with a "p.s. I repeat my request that you desist of making snide personal remarks." (see talk link) if it weren't for the attempt to have me sanctioned "for BRD violation" by someone who does not adhere to BRD or follow the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Final_decision arbitration principles] himself much, being that he and his friend managed to ignore 'Purpose', 'Decorum', and 'Editorial process' all in one go.
  • I am forced to ask if there are any thoughts about the tag team "joke"? I find this a common phenomenon that could/should really be addressed in some form. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want jokes about tag teaming Jaakobou, then please don't make accusations of it minutes before. By the way, you were given a topic ban following complaints about an anti-Arab racist rant and your mocking of other another user's mourning notice, which they had posted on their user page in respect of the killing of 100 human beings, not for "responding poorly" or whatever Newspeak you think describes it best. But of course having made those points, this isn't about any of that, or about your counter-complaints as above. It's about aggressive edit-warring and 3RR reverting on specific articles, and constant POV pushing on pages that are subject to an ArbCom decision. ps: PhilKnight, on one of the content issues, Lieberman's statements often are sensationalist, that's the point of referencing them. --Nickhh (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing a diff that shows Avigdor Liberman is not the only article on which you and Pedrito have both "collaborated". The rest of your comment is inaccurate mudslinging, just as your previous snide commentary was. removed non germane note. 00:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

On point, Randomly selecting sensationalist quotes out of their article/relevant context to mudsling and change the context of something said by a living person is a WP:BLP violation. Furthermore, requesting collaborators to ignore policy and edit war, a request Pedrito has responded to - is bad form to say the least. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about now? You're a funny guy --Nickhh (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, the removal of reliably sourced content from a biography of a living person isn't exempt from 3RR. I've protected the article in the wrong version, to prevent the edit war, but obviously won't object if another admin removes the disputed content. PhilKnight (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note you've struck out some of your last comment Jaakobou. But as an aside it might be worth thinking about the possiblity that when you find yourself in dispute with two - or sometimes several more - editors about article content, it may be that you are clinging on to a pretty hard to defend position, or behaving in a way that appears disruptive to others. Not that those editors are secretly "tag-teaming" or "collaborating", or ganging up on you. --Nickhh (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The flaw in your argument is that these are not random anonymous editors but rather the same clique again and again. If there is something unclear with an argument of mine, you can ask that I will rephrase it. However, my arguments are not so far fetched that I've managed to achieve consensus on a wide number of these arguments and sometimes even a mediation or two (Samples: long discussion on Israel -- a featured article -- resulted in a new 3rd paragraph; mediation on Gilad Shalit resulted in allowance for both 'hostage' and 'abducted'). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have made positive contributions, but also, in addition to the 1 week ban, you've been blocked 5 times for edit warring. I'm not going to impose a 1RR restriction at the moment, however if this pattern continues, then it could be reconsidered. PhilKnight (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You got it wrong, out of those 5 times, only 2 were justified (above 3 hours) and I served my time for them and changed my editing behavior considerably. I can't believe how no one made a comment regarding the tag-team behavior to insert a BLP violation. To remind 3RR doesn't count when BLP is in question and tag-team behavior, when Pedrito has not made a single talk page contribution, is not in the least bit pro-active. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobou, I am not going to debate this with you indefinitely - if you can't grasp that your conduct is a problem, and you continue to edit war, then I'll impose a 1RR restriction for a month. I suggest you carefully read the WP:BLP policy - it doesn't say "3RR doesn't count when BLP is in question". Your edits to the BLP were not exempt from 3RR, because at least some of the content you removed was reliably sourced. However, because some of the content wasn't sourced, I've protected the article instead of blocking you. PhilKnight (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PhilKnight,

1. I accept that making 3 reverts, despite removing 3 BLP violations -- sourcing on all 3 are 'very poor' at best, agreed upon by Momento -- could, and will be in the future, handled differently.
2. Best I am aware, 3RR policy is not only about 3 reverts but rather includes the concept of preventing edit warring. To remind, Pedro has opened this complaint trying to have me sanctioned for edit warring (with him and his friend to remove a BLP violation) and for not following WP:BRD when he has not made a single talk page comment. His friend, has not only edit warred, but also been in violation of 3 out of 4 of the arbitration final decisions by making uncivil commentary, ignoring the purpose of wikipedia and promoting edit warring.
3. I want to thank you for recognizing that 'at least' some of the material was not well sourced (in violation of Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions) and therefore not blocking me. However, I disagree with the descision to keep this poorly sourced smear campaign on the article and ignoring the edit war (Pedrito: (1), Nickhh: (2), Nickhh: (3) "Pedro, your turn next", Pedrito: (4)) to keep this violation in the article.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your civil reply. Obviously, the page protection wasn't intended to endorse the current version of the article. Finally, I hope the talk page discussion will develop a consensus on how to proceed before the page protection expires on the April 2nd. PhilKnight (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

topic ban 2 months by Moreschi

• Arbitrations Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan and Wikipedia: Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
• Atabek (talk · contribs)

Atabek has been edit warring, gaming the system, refusing to read what others are writing, engaging in OR, POV pushing, attempting to turn wikipedia into battleground, misquoting and misrepresenting sources on several indirectly Armenian related articles for quite some time now, since February 14 he engaged on King Agbar and several articles relating to him to continue the POV pushing in accordance to the fringe claims of Azerbaijan International on which Church of Kish article was based on. And one of Adil Baguirov's battles, (see Adil's letter here)

Please note Atabeks statement here: [41] He states: So, misinterpretations of historical scale like 1) "Armenian genocide" is the first genocide of 20th century - ERR, NOT TRUE - see Herero and Namaqua Genocide, 2) Armenia was the first Christan state (as if that's supposed to mean anything or have influence on Western public opinion) - ERR, NOT TRUE - see Osroene/ Edessa, Mesopotamia,

• Herero and Namaqua Genocide - adds "first genocide of 20th century" to the article. Many scholars refer to Armenian genocide as the first genocide [42] This evidence is presented to fully document his battleground approach in his childish attempt to minimize anything related to the Armenians.

• Osroene - adds "the first Christian state". Thats another first Armenia claims. You can refer to 35+ academic sources that Fedayee provided in the talkpage that support that claim[43]. Atabek's reply to the 35+ sources: " It does not matter, the reference are obviously wrong because there are many other, actually expert, references citing Osroene as the first Christian state. And the fact is that Osroene was the first Christian kingdom because its kings adopted Christianity prior to Armenia. Now, there is one way out of deadlock is to take out your POV out of this article to Armenia-related articles, rather than disputing the references related to Osroene." [44] Atabek engages in original research by dismissing over 35 sources provided by claiming those sources to be inaccurate, while he failed to provide adequate source to support his contention contrary to what he claims by his "because."

He reverted the Osroene article on February 29[45], March 8[46], March 17[47], March 24[48].

• Edessa, Mesopotamia On February 27 he spread the edit conflict to Edessa, Mesopotamia[49]. Reverted the same day[50], another revert on March 20[51], then another on March 29[52].

He has gone further by doing the same on Agbar IX entry [53]. That edit was a deliberate falsification as prior Agbar V edit here shows that he knew the origin of the claim is based on a legend.

All this is based on few misquoted and misrepresented sources. Two sources from 1905 and 1913, an uncritical non-history book on "Hagiography of Saints" which is supported to contain legends. He then quotes a google book from 1840 about Armenia and Christianity which he misinterprets, as it was already explained to him that the conversion of the Armenian king was not the legend but rather the healing by Gregory(the source he used speaks of Gregory, and Atabek also ignored a prior explanation refusing to read) The latest one he found to misquote is called "China in World History"! Finally, a book from 2000, which he again misquoted. It actually states as it was explained to him: "But Abgar the great is remembered not so much for his lavishness or even his ambitious building program, as for his reputed conversion to Christianity in about 200. If true, this makes his kingdom the world's first Christian state". [54]

Even though the author is not sure if it is true, Atabek adds it as a fact! Finally I would note that Atabek's behavior violates the Arbcom junction that Wikipedia is not a nationalist battle ground. Yet Atabek's statements speak otherwise. For example: [55]

I will just quote a few of them: "MarshallBagramyan, there are many edits with Armenian POV pushing on a number of topics that I disagree with." "Not sure why you're jumping right at reverting the fact that Osroene was first Christian state apart from anything else, just pushing Armenian POV on irrelevant topic page." "Tigran showing 25 sources with POV based on Armenian sources does not disprove another 25 sources presented from neutral sources citing Osroene as a first Christian kingdom." (Actually none of the sources provided were Armenian, and they were not presented by Tigran but Fedayee)

"I still fail to see why Tigran is pushing Armenian POV, when Abgar had nothing to do with Armenia." (note here, that Osroene had been a vassal of Armenia prior and had something to do with Armenia, Atabek has actually attempted to remove any mention of Armenia from the articles lead.)

"So it's incomprehensible as to why Armenian contributors are getting so zealous over the subject very remotely related to their history, on Osroene page?" (IMPORTAN NOTICE: Atabek claims that he innocently attempted to add information unrelated to Armenia which Armenian contributors attempted to remove. Atabek's action is actually a continuation of what went on the Church of Kish. The claim on Osroene is one of Adil Baguirov's real life battles. As you'll note on his letter here and here.

"And frankly, it's still comic as to how Armenian contributors are fighting basic material from sources on this page, essentially portraying attempts to purge out historical information for purely modern nationalist interests" "Conversely, if the Armenia article does say so based on some references, then I don't see why Osroene article should be purged out of similar references by Armenian nationalist POV."

To not have to deal with his restrictions, Atabek has also several times gamed the system by reverting just a week after his edits. See here for exemple: ([56] and [57], notice the 7 day interval), I am just wondering how many arbcom junctions Atabek has violated. After two Arbcoms and multiple blocks, he still believes and acts as if Wikipedia is a battle ground. VartanM (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this belongs to WP:DR. It is nothing but a content dispute, which you are trying to present as POV push by one of the parties, while the other party is guilty of the same in much higher proportion. And I don't understand what Adil has to do with this whole story, and why he is mentioned every time you report someone to the admins. Grandmaster (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree. Atabek has been disruptive, upon a review of the evidence. This is highly tendentious editing - typical nationalist-battleground stuff. I've had other complaints concerning his conduct on this little set of articles as well. Therefore, I have applied a topic-ban - details here. Moreschi (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unblocked swiftly after consensus that this was a case of oversensitivity. — Coren ^(talk) 13:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a civility parole per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist_restricted. ScienceApologist recently made two edits [58] [59] in violation of that restriction, after being blocked on many occasions for prior violations. I therefore request that ScienceApologist be blocked for an adequate period of time, consistent with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Enforcement_by_block. John254 19:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John254, I do not yet have any opinion on whether this is or isn't a valid complaint, but could you please supply a diff or two showing that ScienceApologist has been cautioned at his talkpage (and/or at the site of the infractions) about these sanctions? --Elonka 19:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since ScienceApologist has been blocked on many prior occasions for violation of the sanction, I believe that he is aware of it. Here's the most recent block notice: [60]. John254 19:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 72 hours for incivility, mostly for this, but also this assumption of bad faith. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Put up or shut up" isn't even vaguely rude; in fact, it's a very good summation of WP:V! The second diff is vaguely curt, probably could have been phrased more diplomatically, but isn't even worthy of a warning let alone a block! — Coren ^(talk) 20:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Coren. Best to unblock. Keep powder dry for real incivility. Jehochman ^Talk 20:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblock. That isn't rude at all. Mønobi 20:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Let's discuss this further. If we have missed something, the block could be reinstated if there is agreement. Jehochman ^Talk 20:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what may be going on here is that User:Ryan Postlethwaite is not familiar with American colloquialisms. I suppose if you had never heard the phrase "put up or shut up" before you might think that it was rude. After all, "shut up" in many households is considered inappropriate speech. I use the phrase all the time in polite company. If I am curt or rude, I apologize. I will rephrase the offending remarks. It would be wonderful if people would just tell me when they are offended so I can fix the remarks rather than running off here each time. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will freely admit that I am unfamiliar with ScienceApologist's case, but I have to say that his request sounds reasonable, and indeed, I would like to see all enforcement complaints follow this pattern. If someone does something that is a violation of their sanctions, tell them about it, right there, on the spot, i.e., "SA, I feel that your above comment is a violation of your ArbCom sanctions from case <name>, specifically <quote remedy text>. Please reconsider your actions." Then if the sanctioned editor keeps on with the behavior, post a similar warning at their talkpage, with diffs. Then if there's still no improvement, bring it here to AE. But I think that "peer" reminders could often be just as effective as a full AE complaint, and would often be much less disruptive. --Elonka 20:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, I could kiss you for this recommendation. I've wanted something similar to this for a long time and even asked explicitly for it only to be told "you should know when you are doing wrong" and "if we let you fix your mistakes, you won't learn". You don't know how hard it is to be under civility probation and be blocked for an uncivil comment without even knowing that someone took my comment to be uncivil. I actively edit literally dozens of articles/subjects at any given time. I'm deeply involved in many disputes. I recognize that people sometimes think I'm being uncivil. I want to be able to refactor my comments so that they are not uncivil (isn't this a wiki, after all? Can't we be allowed to correct our mistakes?) I guess that some people just think that if this courtesy were to be extended to me, I'd just go around cussing out ever other user on the 'pedia and with the intention of fixing it later. Talk about assuming bad faith, right? I'm seriously not trying to game the system. I'm just asking for a little bit of courtesy to be extended my way when someone is offended by something I write. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its probably worth pointing out that in every case I've seen where someone asked SA to remove or refactor his comments, he has done so and even apologized if someone was offended. Yet people keep rushing back here... Shell ^babelfish 20:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like for a neutral party to read the current discussion at Talk:Eric Lerner and explain to me how to interpret the situation in some way so that User:John254 can be extended as much good faith as possible. Right now, as I read it, he just seems to want to include material that he hasn't personally read for reasons that seem to me to be entirely vindictive. This report itself strikes me as very tendentious. Why is he harboring a vendetta against me? Can someone contact him and ask him? Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SA, remember my hint. Step away and don't look back, you've got much to lose and little to gain. — Coren ^(talk) 20:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not a request for arbitration enforcement, guidance given to filing user on talk page

Landon1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been refusing to read what I have written and keeps wanting to edit a single item without use of WP:Common. He refuses to go along with the compromise made in the article already. The article's compromise was made and he made edits afterwords to the band's genre. He also threatened me by saying he was going to report me, which I do not mind if someone reports me, but the fact that he threatened with it was just uncivil. Also, he may be a sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer of User:TheRedPenOfDoom (also unregistered), as they are editing the same article. here is a link of the fued: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Family_Force_5#Regarding_Genres and a link of his actions on my discussion page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IronCrow#Landon I tried being civil and telling him to avoid too strict of an interpretation of policy (he completely disregards WP: Common sense and dissagrees with the sources already established, so he removes them), but he just doesn't listen. Please help out, I would like tog et this situation fixed so I can continue editing the article in conflict without having to to face his POV of the atricle. he is technically "gaming the system." He neglects to edit anything except the band's genre. I asked for a third party, and none has yet joined except the suspected sockpuppet (they have the same style). He constantly states relibable sources are "unreliable." Here's a link of the final edit before he arrived: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Force_5&diff=202557094&oldid=202452018 and here's the one after the warring began: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Family_Force_5&diff=202575062&oldid=202574974

Thank you in advance. IronCrow (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This board is for where there is a prior, closed Arbitration Committee case with applicable enforcement provisions. Does one apply here? If not, I think you are looking for an RFC or a third opinion, which should be done elsewhere. GRBerry 21:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know. I'm not seeking a third party anymore, no one officially came. I'm seeking arbitration on the grounds of a dispute that cannot be resolved, and there's sockpuppetry possibly at work. IronCrow (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tulkolahten added to list of editors under editing restrictions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren --Elonka 07:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Arbitration: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, namely Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#List_of_editors_placed_under_editing_restriction
• Tulkolahten (talk · contribs)

He accuses me of vandalism by reverting my recent edits (which were no reverts) with comments like "rvv" and the like, e.g.

• rv of unexplained revert, please discuss it (followed by an apparent comment on his prior revert simple reverting without any reason is a vandalism)
• rv, not far from vandalism,
• and about 10 reverts marked simply as "rvv", see his recent contribs

or as "nonsense"

• nonsense
• nonsense.

or as revert of "POV"

• rv POV

Tulkolathen reinstates (invalid category removal) two Czech categories for an 19th Century person explicitly described as Austrian in the only reference given [61], thus exposing his Czech nationalist POV - or at least anti-Matthead POV. As collateral damage in his revert spree against me, he also reintroduced an inexplicable "Czech composer" category for a Slovene, again with his trademark rvv.

Regarding the German noble laureate Peter Grünberg, it was also Tulkolathen who introduced an totally unsourced statement (which since showed up in Wiki mirrors) into the article. And it was also Tulkolathen who removed the fact that Grünberg's father died in Czech imprisonment and was in buried in a Czech mass grave [62].

I'm tired of having my work blindly negated by a stalker who e.g. shows up at articles soon after I have created them [63]. Please include him at least in the list of editors placed under editing restriction, too. Thanks in advance! -- Matthead  Discuß   20:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I reverted these changes [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72] as far as I see in Matthead's edits a complex form of vandalism where he tries to find a plenty of Czech (or Bohemian) people and institutions and at least deletes mentions about them being bohemians. Like for example here [73]. He behaves similarly in the articles about Poles, he was warned by the administrator Ioeth for his disruptive behavior [74]. The revert [75], he worked in Bohemia and Moravia also and thus that category is perfectly valid, the reason I reverted it was your addition of Holy Roman Empire, why? Administrator Antandrus agreed that mentioning Holy Roman Empire is redundant and a base for claims he was Austrian (another Matthead's attempt) ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Antandrus, whose edits had also been "rvv-ed", made two entries at User talk:Tulkolahten you accuse me of vandalism? This is good and Slovene: yes. It's hard to imagine that "Administrator Antandrus agreed that mentioning Holy Roman Empire is redundant" with these comments, Tulkolahten surely refers to something else. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We did discuss it with Antandrus that I didn't revert his edits. You are not saying whole truth, you know that, you just pick what you need! You also didn't mention that administrator Antandrus offered us a third point of view, which I accepted, but you probably rejected (evidence: [76]) ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I probably rejected? Is that your way of assuming good faith? -- Matthead  Discuß   21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My addition to Peter Grunberg is sourced (info.plzen-city.cz/attach/1002670080314124444.doc):

Nejrozšířenější (seriózní) německé noviny, deník Süddeutsche Zeitung, označují Petera Grünberga za „rodilého Čecha“. K tomuto závěru je zřejmě přivedl fakt, že fyzikův otec, dipl. ing. Fjodor Grinberg, původně carský důstojník a uprchlík před bolševiky, získal v roce 1936 československé občanství. V roce 1940 se však přihlásil k německé národnosti (jeho druhá manželka Anna Petrmannová patřila k sudetoněmecké menšině) a získal občanství říšské. Tehdy si také změnil příjmení.

Translation:

German newspapers, Suddeutsche Zeitung, marks PEter Grunberg as born Czech, but they were lead to this statement probably by the fact, that physics father Fjodor Grinberd, originally russian officer and refugee from the bolcheviks, gained in 1936 Czechoslovakian citizenship. In 1940 he became German (his second wife Anna Petrmann came to Sudeten Germans) and gained German citizenship. He also changed his surname.

Any member of the WikiProject Czech Republic can confirm this source and provide verification or better translation. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a completely uninvolved user who speaks Czech. Here is a more contextual translation: "The most widely distributed reputable German news daily, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, identify Peter Gruenberg as 'born as a Czech'. They apparently conclude this based on the fact that the physicist's father, Fjodor Grinberg, originally a czarist military officer and a refugee from the bolsheviks, gained Czech citizenship in 1936. In 1940, however, he claimed German nationality (his second wife Anna Petrmannova belonged to the German sudetenlander minority) and thereby obtained Reich citizenship. At that point he also changed his last name." Hope this helps, I am ignorant of the issues in this case and will not get involved further. Martinp (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A document about an event in March 2008 can reference an edit made in October 2007? The CV provided at info.plzen-city.cz includes "Rodiče: Dipl.-Ing. Feodor A. Grünberg a Anna Grünberg", which apparently was translated from P. Grünberg's official CV. Its also funny that they add a comment discussing names, citizenships, and the Süddeutsche Zeitung, but forget to mention the fact that father Grünberg died in a Czech prison and lies buried in Pilsen, while the future Nobel Laureat was expelled. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources, especially printed ones, precedes online, this is the online material I've found ... ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to confirm Tulkolahten's translation, this is really complex! I think that most of his edits were in fact justified but Tulkolahten should refrain from calling the edits vandalism or nonsense. Even if they were deliberate bad faith edits, they shouldn't be called vandalism unless they are blatantly obvious. The source does in fact identify this individual as Czech-born and I would call it a reliable source, but the tone of the paragraph also suggests that he wasn't officially Czech, but Czech born should be enough for the Czech related categories to stay in the article. The Dominator (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not bother to compile a list with wrong-doings (other apparently do so), but a quick look in the history of User talk:Tulkolahten shows rv personal attack, a summary with which Tulkolahten removed a comment with many diffs from his talk page, critizing his edit summary habits. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a Scurinae's reaction that I got a barnstar by the administraotr Ioeth, that I assumed as a personal attack and I removed it from my talk page. And yes, among the 6,000 edits you may find some that are problematic ... But I always offer a friendly cup of coffee to discuss, and you got it too [77]. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tulkolahten, you just accused my of being very uncivil -- Matthead  Discuß   22:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did and I will sign it again, as I explained it here [78] and I still assume it as uncivil. You pulled out one year old arbcom case in the discussion about old maps for no obvious reason? Why did you do that? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These things can all be avoided by simple discussion. I'm not going to bother to get involved because even if I learned the entire situation, there isn't much I can do as I'm not an admin. I don't know who started reverting, but I think that after one revert, discussion should start, because if the next person reverts, we have an edit war. I think you two should go on a talk page and talk things out. Tulkolahten does indeed need to watch his edit summaries, but all I see from both of you are good faith edits. The Dominator (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dominator, for your input, I appreciate it. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think neither of you are editing in bad faith; you are, however, edit-warring, and have gotten angry at each other. I answered at greater length on my talk page. Compromise here is not only possible, it is desirable, and seems to be within reach. Antandrus (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have noted above, Matthead has been put on general sanction w/ regard to EE topics, please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. This should be considered. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are sitting in a glass house, Piotrus, as you have been on that list before being removed by the very same admin who added me following the request made by you, titled Another Eastern European flamer. Piotrus, against how many editors have you successfully (?) made charges here, usually with meticulously compiled lengthy lists of diffs? And how often have you got away, like getting recently unblocked, a rather dubious case anyway? -- Matthead  Discuß   02:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classic content dispute, no issue here. Also I don't know why this complaint was posted on arbitration enforcement noticeboard. - Darwinek (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I offered him a cup of coffee a few days ago but he didn't react. Instead of that he continues to wipe out all mentions about Czechs and Poles on the Wikipedia and attempts to proof that every important person in the history of the Eastern Europe was German or no-nationality. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.. and yet another jewel regarding WP:AGF by Tulkolahten. Also, right here on this page (in the case of his longtime wikifriend Darwinek which was removed), Tulkolahten wrote that "Darwinek explicitly called a Commie by Matthead" in regard to this this comment by me. I feel offended by the statements and blatant false claims made by Tulkolahten. Regarding "wipe out all mentions about Czechs and Poles", the article on the painter Daniel Schultz is less than 2400 bytes long, yet contains 5 times "Polish" (1 courtesy of Tulkolahten) and 3 times "Poland", but no single mention of German(y). Also, while Tulkolathen removes the contemporary Austrian Empire German-language names of places in a article on a 19th century Czech nationalist who had published faked documents, he leaves in the Czech translation "Zelená Hora", referring to a place which was for centuries Grünberg in Schlesien (since 1945, Zielona Góra, Poland). That is the kind of POV which is pushed on English Wikipedia by a small, but very active and cooperating group of Slavic editors. Reminds of the tit-for-tat voting pattern in the Eurovision Song Contest. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of cooperation: see also proposal for a West Slavic WikiProject, intended also for the 60,000 Sorbs in Germany [79]. According to Molobo (talk · contribs), who had been blocked for a year, Faced with extinction due to Germanisation, Sorbs plead for help to President Kaczynski. -- Matthead  Discuß   03:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in a discussion with another editor, Hexagon1 (talk · contribs) just wrote You can't really give in to Matthead's revisionist nonsense. I am so sick that certain editors not only repeatedly offend me (and others), but repeatedly get away with that, while others were added to the Digwuren list quickly, with two admins each adding half a dozen users without much further ado. Very different standards are applied here, which is not acceptable. Either add all culprits, or remove me and others. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing. There's a lot here to digest, and since I'm "uninvolved" it's taking me some time to come up to speed. I should have a decision this weekend though. --Elonka 06:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead I have no idea why do you put here diffs of edits made by Hexagon and by Molobo? And why do you mention Eurovision Song Contest pattern in voting? Uff ... And yes, Darwinek is my Wikifriend and I do not feel shame when I mention it. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yes Matthead, you called Darwinek explicitly a commie here [80], you mention there he was born probably in the communist country and it implies, from the context, that his opinion is less accurate probably lowered by the communist propaganda ? And here [81] you use his parole to get down his arguments and invalidate his arguments in the following discussion. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC) User Matthead obviously has breached civility and acts in inproper way, Tulkolahten edits seem very productive and enrich Wikipedia, he sometimes comments in normal language rather then encyclopedic, but I think seeing Matthead actions that Tulkolahten occassional lack of encyclopedic style can be understood.--Molobo (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've taken an uninvolved look at the above comments, the related complaint regarding Darwinek,[82] and the histories of several articles and talkpages, mainly from following the contributions of both Tulkolahten (talk · contribs) and Matthead (talk · contribs).

I agree with what has already been said by Antandrus and The Dominator. I am disappointed with how both Tulkolahten and Matthead have been handling things. Tulkolahten reverts Matthead's as "vandalism", and does not engage in discussion. Matthead took the time to post an elaborate complaint about Tulkolahten here at AE, but Matthead never posted his concerns at Tulkolahten's talkpage.

The most recent message that I saw Matthead post to Tulkolahten was on March 16, about edit-warring at a university article. Tulkolahten, to his credit, did post a message on Matthead's talkpage on March 17 offering to discuss things,[83] but as near as I can tell did not receive a reply. Then after multiple days of not talking to each other except for an exchange at an AfD for a Prague university, their main interaction seems to have been Matthead making changes to multiple articles, especially on March 23, and Tulkolahten reverting them without discussion, usually referring to them as vandalism. Tulkolahten was challenged about this by Antandrus,[84] and Tulkolahten did engage Antandrus on his talkpage,[85] which thread Matthead joined into,[86] but an hour later Matthead came here and dumped a load of diffs at AE.

Matthead does have a point that Tulkolahten's reversions were a violation of WP:CIVIL, as Tulkolahten changed pretty much every single one with an edit summary of "rvv", even when the change was obviously nothing even close to vandalism (example). But at no point that I could see, did either one of them engage on an article's talkpage. They just weren't taking the time to even try and talk to each other. The list goes on: Even though they were talking a bit at the AfD, when Matthead made a change to Charles University in Prague, Tulkolahten reverted it,[87] but again, no engagement on the article's talkpage.

I have absolutely no opinion on the content dispute, as to whether something is called Czech or German or Polish or Austrian or Viennese or whatever. But my instructions to the parties involved are:

• Stop with the edit-warring
• Never refer to something as vandalism, unless it is 100% blatant
• TALK to each other. If there's a disagreement about how to handle an article, take it to talk, see if you can find a compromise. You are both smart people. You have article talkpages, WikiProject talkpages, and each other's usertalk pages. Figure it out. To be clear: When you just revert each other without explaining on the talkpage, it is disruptive.
• Lastly, as I have said at other AE threads: If anyone sees someone doing something that you feel is a violation of ArbCom sanctions, tell them about it, in a civil manner, right there on the spot. Example: "I feel that your above comment is a violation of the sanctions from <case>, specifically <quote wording of sanction>." If that doesn't seem to help, then take it to the editor's talkpage, with the same wording, and include a diff. Try this before coming to AE.

I am not issuing any blocks. However, I am adding Tulkolahten to the list of editors under General Restrictions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren.[88] I also specifically note that Tulkolahten has received numerous complaints from other editors and administrators(diffs) about his tendency to refer to things as vandalism that are not. This behavior must stop. Aside from being a violation of WP:CIVIL, it makes Tulkolahten look bad, and it tends to just escalate what is already a volatile situation. If Tulkolahten does it again, I would support an immediate block. Tulkolahten, if you believe that Matthead's actions are disruptive, there are venues for addressing that. But calling his edits "vandalism" or "nonsense" is not the way to go.

Matthead, I specifically note to you that you must try harder to engage in discussion. Try, even as just an experimental exercise, to assume that Tulkolhaten cares about improving Wikipedia just as much as you do, and that there may be a compromise that everyone could live with. If discussion doesn't work, well, it doesn't work. But I'd like to see both of you at least try. :) --Elonka 11:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I disagree with the result of review as I think I didn't do anything bad and that I was civil. On the other side I think that my comments and objections here were not taken under advisement. I disagree with my placement under general editing restrictions coming from the Digwuren and I request that to be reviewed by another administrator. I thought Elonka is completely uninvolved in the Czech-Polish matters until I've found this [89] that places it completely under the different light. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion neither you nor Matthead were incivil enough to be put on the civility list. What I frown upon seeing is that you first asked her to review, not having had the worst of relations to put it carefully, then when you didn't get the result you wanted, questioned her neutrality (see comment above) and integrity (see her talk page). Sciurinæ (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I contacted her, because I thought she is uninvolved, and I agreed with the result until I've found that page about the Polish cabal, then I changed my mind of course. There was a serious backlog at this page so I was seeking uninvolved independet administrator, what apparently she is not. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge I have had no substantial contact with Tulkolahten or Matthead prior to this, and have never participated in the editing of any of the related articles. It is true that back in 2006 I was a participant in a Medcab case started by Piotrus,[90] but I fail to see how that makes me "involved" in this particular case. Tulkolahten, you were even the one that asked me to come and take a look at this.[91] I assure you that I had no preconceived notions on it, that I spent several hours going through everything in detail, and that I have no opinion whatsoever about the content issues, I was just looking at the conduct involved. I feel that I was neutral and fair. I'd also point out that my decision basically echoed what was already said by The Dominator and Antandrus. However, if any other uninvolved admin wants to review my work, I would welcome a second opinion. --Elonka 00:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Specific reasons for my disagreement:
• I was questioned regarding this case [92] all questions has been answered politely explaining everything here [93].
• I am punished for reverting changes that I assumed as vandalism. If they are just content dispute is that so wrong if you recognize them as a vandalism wrongly?
• The other side was not questioned at all.
• I am accused of ArbCom rules violation retrospectively [94], specifically because I mentioned some uncivil behavior here and not on the user talk page first. But I was not under any ArbCom parole!
• Despite disagreements I showed a good will to the other side [95], without reaction
• After this case and Elonka's recommendations I showed good will again [96] but I got a negative reaction [97], I am urged to speak to the other side as he is a graduate respectable professor, but that I feel as derogatory.
• Antandrus offered a 3rd party view [98] but before he could do it this ArbCom enforcement has been filled, I repeat I was not under any ArbCom parole so there was nothing to enforce.
• I raised some objections about the civility but they were completely ignored

So I am not unwilling to accept consequences but what I expected is a fair acting, now I feel punished for nothing. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 01:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but regardless of whether or not you're willing, you have to accept the consequences. You were reverting things, some of which were clearly not vandalism and calling them all vandalism -- this is not acceptable behavior and this has been pointed out to you many times. You're obviously having problems being civil both to this editor and now to Elonka; claiming that an old mediation makes Elonka "involved" is really just silly. The list Elonka placed you on simply requires you to be civil, refrain from personal attacks and assume good faith -- that's really not much of a restriction, since you should be following those policies by default. Shell ^babelfish 03:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am the one who closed this the first time, but not the second (PhilKnight t did), but I was going to do so moments before. This is the note I was about to add: I, myself, find it a bit difficult to follow what happened. I suppose an intensive review would provide answers, but I, at least, don't have time to do that. I consider it the responsibility of the individual appealing the topic ban to provide us with a concise report that presents the pertinent body of evidence in a way where an hour-long review could turn into five or ten minute read (i.e. we are all volunteers here and our time is scarce; mine at least is). But, I should stress that even if this was to be undertaken, we have no procedure in place for overruling another admin. Thus, only the Arbitration Committee, acting as a body, has the authority to lift this —indefinite, I presume— topic ban (unless, of course, the admin who put it in place reconsiders). Thx. El_C 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This started as a subthread of a closed report about the Matt Sanchez article, which is now archived here.

I apologize for not being fully aware of the best way to show that I have offered to not only watch for possible incivilities but also provided the article's own archives as evidence of my actions. The entire thread above was in reference to Durova's stated concern about WP:COPYRIGHT problems yet they even concede that the material should be sourced to the original publisher rather than Youtube which I readily agree with, again. I also wonder why this route was taken rather than just working with other editors to fix the issue, instead of fixing the reference Durova told me to shop the idea at Reliable Sources Board which I think is inappropriate, if they knew the original sources should have been utilized then they could work with others to fix the problem. I don't believe the topic ban has been given fair consideration and being extremely new to this venue would like some uninvolved admins to consider offering opinions and advice as I feel Durova may have a COI being not only involved with the military project but also mentoring Sanchez is some fashion. Durova's offer to filter my insights on the article are interesting at best and I think it's fair to say would effectively silence my involvement altogether as I now feel little good would come of engaging that talk page, at least for a while. I fully support wikipedia's policies and have stated that above. I also don't appreciate the assertion that I want to compromise on article quality either. As for the anon IP vandal, the timing is interesting but is also simply par from the course with Sanchez and I'm well used to these attacks and the anon IP's contributions seemed to match that of Sanchez or a meatpuppet of some sort, sometimes we only have a gut feeling, i can't help that this anon feels to me exactly like a Sanchez sock of some sort, regardless of where the IP is located. I've asked nicely for that to be added to the Log of blocks and bans. Benjiboi 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the anon IP actions on your talk page to be an irritating red herring. Ultimately, they are irrelevant to the decision as to whether you should be topic banned.

I would not have closed the report above had I not concurred with JzG's action in topic banning. This board is a very low traffic board; for a more thorough review I suggest you first 1) discuss with Guy and 2) if and only if that discussion has occurred and failed take it to a more public forum. I concurred with his topic ban because my review of the article talk page led me to believe that it was more likely than not that the process of reaching a policy compliant consensus on the article would be aided by the topic ban. GRBerry 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the IP assessment. I appreciate your response but am still puzzled. The issue was removing content because the sourcing was faulty, if the sourcing was addressed to the original source rather than a secondary source and had been clearly presented as "we need to change to the original sourcing" I would have readily agreed. Instead I'm being painted simply as someone who's trying to disrupt which I'm not. Many of the improvements to that article have been my work. This ban will effectively end my wikipedia career as I don't feel that I should edit anywhere if I'm not suitable to edit. I will take your suggestion to discuss with Guy and appreciate your input even if we disagree. Benjiboi 21:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi, the copyright issue was separate from the reliable sources issue and concerned different citations. Maybe you got confused because Eleemosynary insisted on copy/pasting an unrelated discussion into the thread about copyright. Either way, if you don't want to work with me you're welcome to use the option JzG provided. And as several people have discovered (including Matt Sanchez), when I support a ban it's a policy matter with no prejudice toward the individual. I've given barnstars to people who were banned. So go ahead and use the noticeboard instead. All I intended to do was give you another option where your concerns could get swifter attention than a low traffic board, and firsthand interaction would ensure that if the concerns that led to the page ban stopped being an issue I'd be on the ball about getting that restriction lifted as swiftly as possible. I juggle a lot of things and the Matt Sanchez article isn't a top priority. The door remains open if you choose to suppose I can be taken at face value. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 22:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please just find another article to edit. Your presence on that article is offensive and inflammatory to the subject. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova I appreciate that clarity as I never supported adding material about the subject's "adult entertainment" that wasn't quite RS'd as I knew it would simply be removed anyway. My concern was the copyright issue being used to remove content and felt that we should instead simply used the original source which would indeed be an improvement.

Guy, Sanchez has found every LGBT editor and those who he thought were LGBT and those he perceived to be in some way against him on the talk pages "offensive and inflammatory". I'm happy to follow policies but banning editors based on what the subject of an article wishes? That seems peculiar. Benjiboi 22:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any attempt to stop just LGBT editors from touching his articles would be absolutely out of line--the day BLP subjects get control, or even implied control of such a thing on their articles is the day that anyone trying to enforce such wishes would be on a fast track to losing their sysop bits for trying to enforce them, and the WMF wouldn't even dare to do such a thing. I think it's your history there on your own that Sanchez sees as inflammatory. Guy can correct me if I'm wrong, but if it's just because you're gay: if that is Sanchez's claimed reason, then Sanchez's reasons can be discarded as rubbish. Lawrence § t/e 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that Sanchez has targeted myself along with all others he perceived to be LGBT or otherwise against him. And even if Sanchez does find me in some way offensive or inflammatory that still doesn't seem to support a ban. Benjiboi 23:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanchez' objection is down to the tone of your edits and comments. He doesn't seem to have a problem dealing with other editors who I know are gay. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I agree that Sanchez's editor preferences are immaterial. Anyone who acts as a neutral Wikipedian is welcome there as far as I'm concerned whether their tastes are for men, women, or barnyard animals. ;) Seriously, I did not inform Matt Sanchez about the AE thread until after Benjiboi articulated suspicions that the trolling might have originated with Matt. Durova^Charge! 23:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anon has stopped for now. Here is the last talk page postings as all the unresolved topics were archived. I have been painted as "filling up the talk page AE thread with irrelevant comments" and ignoring policies which sounds really bad. I hardly claim to be an expert but neither was I saying we must violate our policies to include _____. Instead I have continued to try to improve the article by raising what I saw as POV problems (many of which others agreed with) and pretty much remained civil and on-point with few exceptions. I also worked hard to clean up the talk page and archives to help keep the discussion constructive. Benjiboi 00:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just find another article to edit, please. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I have found lots of other articles to edit but feel a ban against me was unneeded so would like it reversed. I believe I have shown respect not only for the subject who attacked me directly and indirectly, repeatedly, but also tried to show respect for policies and protocols, at least when I was aware of them. I have even tried to show respect for this process. I was never warned, although technically that may not be required, nor was I notified of this thread involving me until I was banned and came here to seek it being reversed. I am still looking for that. Benjiboi 09:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing of this article causes distress to the subject, please just leave it alone. It should be no big deal. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, with respect, all sorts of editors who didn't ascribe to his wishes and views cause(d) him distress, I just happen to be one of the current ones. As noted above it doesn't seem like we ban editors from articles because it causes the subject distress. And it's a very big deal to me to be banned just as I consider it a big deal to work at getting any other editor banned from editing wikipedia in part or whole. I have in the past advocated for Sanchez in various ways and still think he could return as a good editor. Benjiboi 10:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the subject's prejudices (such as they might be), any reasonable person would be distressed by an editor who strongly defends using negative material referenced to third party blogs and other problematic sources. To be clear, he has not expressed a specific complaint about you to me, and to the best of my knowledge he was not aware that a page ban would be proposed against you. Matt has not been pulling the strings to get you banned, and all I asked for when I started this thread was the removal of some contributory copyright infringements. Matt wasn't even aware that I'd be posting here. Durova^Charge! 17:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi, I suggest you accept it at face value: the subject has stated that he finds the content of your edits and the tone of your comments distressing, and those of us who have looked into it have concluded that your input is causing more pain than gain on that article. You seem unprepared to walk away without a formal topic ban, so I'm afraid that's what we have had to do. There are over two million more articles out there, so honestly I don't see why this should be such a problem for you. There are plenty of eyes on the article and looking to ensure it remains properly comprehensive and neutral. Allegations of "proxing" and the like are unhelpful, as are assertions that you feel you have been properly respectful to the subject - he doesn't, and that's what matters. It really isn't the kind of thing worth fighting over, I would say, but if you absolutely insist on appealing the ban, which I hope you will not, then you'll need to request it at WP:RFAR because I'm afraid I'm not budging on this at this point. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I accept what you state, period. Although my instinct is that something may have been amiss I'm willing to assume good faith as I actually doubt Matt would have been foolish enough to try to engineer these proceedings, I don't think I suggested that but if I did I apologize. Regular comments from Guy have suggested that Matt has mentioned me specifically so that plus the anon homophobic vandal is possibly where I was connecting those dots. The third-party blog in question was a posting of Sanchez's own video and I would have readily agreed to sourcing it to the original publisher had that been suggested, it doesn't seem to have been and instead I sensed you were telling me to forum-shop when we had a handful of admins there who knew better. Knowing what I do now i would have suggested that we simply amend to the original publisher as that would seem to have resolved the issue. Similar for the YouTube sources that started this whole thread, you didn't suggest sourcing them to the original broadcasters until almost the same moment you started this entire process. Had you started with "we need to convert those sources to the original publishers per WP:RS" I think everyone would have agreed, including myself. Instead that seems like it was the last consideration.

Guy, you may be confusing me with Eleemosynary, I didn't suggest this process was rigged, they did; I also shouldn't have assumed that Durova's mentoring Matt elsewhere was a sign of ulterior motives and that was a leap of bad faith. It shouldn't have happened and i was out of line. I don't think I was called on it and I should have remained civil even if no one mentioned it until now. This remedy seems to be more punishing than resolving and the sourcing issues all could have been resolved by working towards correctly sourcing to the original publishers, which now seems to be the focus on the talk page. As I see it talk pages are to discuss improvements to an article and I have continuously advocated for letting the reliably sourced words of the subject speak for themself. I'm unaware that we ban editors from articles based on the subject's wishes, if so a warning months ago would have corrected my path. I'm sorry you won't budge on this but I feel my future involvement at Wikipedia hinges on others treating me with good faith and having trust in me as an editor. I see no reason why they should trust me on all other articles but _____. I will have to consider my options as what next steps are appropriate. Here again I ask that this topic ban be lifted as I feel all the concerns have been addressed and I'm more than willing follow policies including assuming good faith. If there are any outstanding issues that haven't been addressed i welcome the opportunity to resolve them. Banjiboi 00:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that sounds reasonable enough to me. I'll leave it up to the admins how to take it from here. Durova^Charge! 03:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, Benjiboi has been a little tenacious at times, and too quick to assume bad faith of the administration of this article[99], but his contributions to the article have been acceptable, for the most part, based on my recollections of monitoring the article as of the time the arbcom case started. While I would not entertain the idea of Eleemosynary ever being permitted to edit this article again, the above statement by Benjiboi demonstrates that he is willing to start AGF and so I think that this restriction can be lifted, especially as the article is protected at this stage, so he will have ample time to demonstrate good behaviour on the talk page before the protection is lifted. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone close this subthread please? The parent thread has been closed for so long that it's gond into archive. Durova^Charge! 03:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It can be closed as soon as Benjboi concedes the sanction or takes the appeal to ArbCom or an arbitrator comes here to rule definitively one way or the other. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, I wasn't warned, which I would have taken to heart, nor was I made aware of these preceedings (notified only of a ban after initial thread opened and decisions made). A warning would have been more appropriate, I issue them almost every session against vandalism so find it a bit ironic that I wasn't given one. I also wasn't given any notice that I was being considered for a topic ban until i was simply given notice that I was banned. I have sought to have my ban lifted and my hope is that I will not have to further this by taking it to Arbcom. If there is something further I should do to solicit an arbitrator please let me know as I have generally been at the mercy of those who seem to be veterans of this process. If there is some other venue where I should ask for advice or support on this then please share that with me as well as I feel I'm being treated rather poorly at this point. Banjiboi 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have re-opened this per instructions as I am convinced this ban should be lifted as nicely requested several times. I have asked for instructions on what steps to take to solicit an arbitrator in hopes to avoid taking this to Arbcom as well as asking for assistance if there is some other venue I should seek support from. Banjeboi 13:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While there may be some arbitrators who watch this page, it is rare for one to participate here. This is the venue for editors to alert uninvolved administrators to probable violations of ArbComm imposed sanctions. The usual venue for getting clarifications and modifications from arbitrators is WP:RFAR, where you have said that you don't want to go - though it wouldn't be a full case, it would be a clarification. If you aren't going to go there, you could try one or two arbitrator's talk pages, but I'll be surprised if muc comes of it. GRBerry 15:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not to open an Arbcom case as I feel my ban simply could have been lifted and replaced with a warning, my understanding is that these things are to be preventative rather than punishment, so I aim to simply resolve this here. If I am unable to get an arbitrator to come here then that is probably my next step unless I get good advice to take other steps instead. Banjeboi 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if you're awfully determined to edit that article, and the subject says he finds your presence there problematic. That's a really bad combination. Really, I don't see why it is such a big deal to you. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no huge interest in that particular subject any more than other articles I've heavily invested time into investigating what sources have to say and working to improve the articles to be accurate and encyclopedic. And has been stated before the subject has found all sorts of editors presence "problematic" and, in part due to his actions and statements against many editors there, he earned a ban after many incidents. Despite his personal attacks against me I have generally remained civil and constructive towards him and the article. It's a very big deal to me to be banned from any article, especially in the manner that this all occurred. Banjeboi 17:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No action taken. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings, Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is subject to an enduring restriction prohibiting him from editing any article which is substantially a biography of a living individual.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heather_Mills&diff=prev&oldid=202664800
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=prev&oldid=201770197
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paulos_Faraj_Rahho&diff=prev&oldid=198043459 - recently deceased, covered by WP:BLP

The restriction makes no exceptions for reversion of vandalism. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already subject to RFAR review here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification: User:Privatemusings for a clarification. Community consensus, which can change sanctions, so far seems to be vandalism/BLP reverts are exempt from the prohibition, so far. You should weigh in there. Lawrence § t/e 20:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three arbitrators have spoken out against these edits being blockable reverts. Can this be considered resolved? Risker (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first two are clear vandalism reverts, and no administrator using sound judgment would take any action regarding them. The third is on the article of someone who was dead before the article was created, and has never been a BLP article. (It is also a good edit.) Contrary to Guy's assertions, WP:BLP does not apply to material about deceased individuals, nor has it ever. No action should be taken. GRBerry 20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history of PM certainly ther first 2 look substantially positive edits and really he should eb congratulated for "turning over a new leaf". Thanks, SqueakBox 20:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close this, based on feedback above and from the Arbitrators here. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

see statement

Closing admin statement: I've spent 2-3 hours looking into this today to resolve it somehow. There are at least Jehochman, Durova, Akhilleus, Rocksanddirt, Coren, and Nsk92 calling for mentorship of PHG. This seems to represent the consensus on this issue. There are many users concerned about PHG's use of unverfied sources, two of whom are User:Aramgar and User:Kafka Liz--the unsourced and inaccurate info postings seem to still be ongoing, and there are others. Other areas of major concern are derogatory comments about other users (though he did strike one after it was brought up), towit the "midwest christian" and on this page "females from the US Midwest", which offended the mentioned users (see PHG's 01:07 7 Apr posting). There also seems to sourcing and accuracy issues ongoing with PHG in Louis XIV of France, Talk:Christian_Polak#Phillipe_Pons_and_Le_Monde:_Needs_to_be_Verified, Talk:Christian_Polak#Latest_edits, Talk:France-Japan_relations_(19th_century). As for the AFD issue, PHG inserted questionalbe material into the article during the AFD. Through all this PHG has shown a consistent pattern with little or no change with multiple respected editors showing significant concern who are about at the end of their patience. In short, User:PHG has almost exhausted the patience of the community. I think Akhilleus summed much of this up quite well in his 15:41 06 Apr post. In essence, PHG's editing behavior is causing undue disruption. Unfortunately, PHG has shown no willingness to change nor does he seem willing to accept a mentor. There is enough concern that at Wikipedia:RCAM it appears his restrictions will be tightened. I feel I have no choice but to block him for the maximum allowed by his arb restrictions, 1 week, and strongly encourage him to accept a mentor. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG (talk · contribs) appears to be making unverifiable claims about an individual winning the Légion d'honneur. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak#Convenience break 2. PHG claimed that they won the honor in 1989, but there is no evidence at Catégorie:Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur , nor at List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name, nor via Google search, including book search. It appears that the messages from the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance have not been taken to heart. I think PHG immediately needs to cease editing until a mentor is found to check for compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:V. Thoughts? Jehochman ^Talk 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is clear gaming. PHG appears to be deliberately attempting to introduce misinformation, either in continuance of the pattern that earned him a topic ban in the first place or to make a point. Given the clarification thread where it appears that the arbitrators are on the way to widen the restriction, and this latest disruptive editing, I am blocking him indefinitely until arrangements for mentorship, or some other form of close supervision, can be taken. — Coren ^(talk) 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point he's trying to toss everything he can find in Google at the article hoping to get it kept because this gentleman's significance is the only claim for the material in another article he's writing. See here where some else had to remove information that clearly was not even about the same person. Shell ^babelfish 21:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC) - Sorry, this information was inserted by someone other than PHG. Shell ^babelfish 22:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Keep in Un-Resolved section, for now. Since it was initiated, the AfD should be allowed to take its course without the discussion, and energies of the participants, being fragmented. Report may be reopened based on the result. El_C 21:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Keep in Un-Resolved section, for now. Since it was initiated, the AfD should be allowed to take its course without the discussion, and energies of the participants, being fragmented. Report may be reopened based on the result. El_C 21:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: indefinite block by Coren should be lifted immediately. I am likely to do it myself in a little while; at the very least, I'd like to see how the AfD is concluded before drastic action is taken (otherwise, what's the point of having an AfD?). Thx. El_C 23:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Addendum 2: Okay, I unblocked PHG (I did, in fact miss the block having been issued when I wrote the first On-hold note above). I again ask that we wait for one structured discussion (AfD) to formally conclude before moving to the next. El_C 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were it not for the timing, I would have opposed the unblock because I do not beleive PHG's behavior depends on Christian Polak's notability. Simply put: at best, PHG has used a source he did not properly understand in order to make an unsupportable claim. If that had been an isolated incident, I would have made nothing of it— but as it is, he was found by the Arbitration Committee to have habitually misrepresented sources, and he was strongly admonished not to do this again. Given that he has been brought again in front of the AC for that same problematic behavior, and that he nonetheless persists, yet another obvious "error" in comprehension was strictly unacceptable.

As it is, the most good faith we can stretch to cover PHG's citation practices is that he is extraordinarily careless in selecting and citing sources, so much so that any putative value he introduces to the encyclopedia is canceled by the fact that every single assertion he writes needs to be double and triple checked by other editors.

I don't beleive PHG has a future as a contributor on Wikipedia unless he is strictly and competently guided, and unless and until he agrees to mentorship. — Coren ^(talk) 00:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You went on at such length and yet, inexplicably, failed to respond to my main objection: the afd was still open, so in theory it could go either way. I expect you to address this. El_C 00:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put: I beleive it's entirely besides the point. Whether the AfD determines that there is consensus that the article's subject is notable enough to retain it or not has no bearing on the citation practices of PHG. He is at best negligent and at worst disingenuous in the way he makes citations from difficult (or impossible) to verify sources, and shows no effort or intent to correct those damaging practices. — Coren ^(talk) 00:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, how the AfD closes matters, because we expect it to also touch on that area (and if it doesn't, then we move on). El_C 01:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate Coren has unarchived this report; now we have competing discussions. I really tried to avoid this from happening. El_C 00:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be held anywhere else, if that's your worry. — Coren ^(talk) 00:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what that means. My worry is your methods. El_C 01:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El C, considering that you and I have been involved in prior disputes,[123][124] I question your impartiality here. --Elonka 01:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a stretch. Also, there was no objection when I took administrative action unfavorable to PHG.^[125] El_C 01:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what on earth the AfD has to do with whether or not this incident warrants a block? This isn't about someone's behavior in one AfD, this is about a contributor who habitually misrepresents or outright falsifies sources -- that he happened to do so again on an article that is up for AfD is completely beside the point. Shell ^babelfish 01:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should be shown in the AfD, since it already started. We don't need multiple discussions, and he should be allowed to participate. El_C 01:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The status of the AfD is irrelevant. The block was appropriate because PHG violated sanctions. I wasn't really involved with this discussion since I don't read Japanese, but Google translation has been extremely helpful. In a nutshell:

• During a contentious AfD on the article Christian Polak (which PHG had created), PHG added information saying that Polak had "received the Medal of the Légion d'honneur (Chevalier) in 1989."[126] The source given was http://necom.cool.ne.jp/book0206.html .
• The listed source is in Japanese, but a Google translation to English is available here.[127]
  • What the source shows is that:
    • For one, it is a very weak source. It is obviously a self-written speaker bio, which is not allowable as a source for claims of notability (see WP:SELFPUB)
    • Even allowing for the above, the source doesn't say anything about the Legion d'honneur award. Instead, it mentions a National Order Award.
    • Further, PHG added to the article that the award was given in 1989,[128] but this is not confirmed in the source that he added.[129]

When challenged about the information at the AfD, PHG did back down, remove the source, and change the name of the award. However, that he added the information at all, with such a weak source (and a misinterpreted source at that) appears to be clearly in breach of the ArbCom ruling, specifically Finding of Fact #2:

In numerous edits to a series of articles concerning medieval and ancient history, including but not limited to articles relating to the alleged Franco-Mongol Alliance, PHG has cited scholarly books and articles for propositions that the cited works do not fairly support. Typically, PHG has isolated on a particular statement or quotation within a work and taken it out of context without fairly presenting the viewpoint of the source taken as a whole. Some examples of this have been presented by the parties here. Arbitrators' independent review of several of PHG's sourced edits versus the content of the original sources confirms that several sources have been cited in a misleading or distorted fashion. Although we continue to assume good faith with regard to the intent of PHG's editing, its overall effect is problematic.

And Remedy #2:

PHG is reminded that in contributing to Wikipedia (including his talkpage contributions, contributions in other subject-matter areas, and contributions after the one-year editing restriction has expired), it is important that all sourced edits must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the cited work taken as a whole.

In other words, despite the ArbCom cautions, PHG has continued to use weak sources, and/or cited them "in a misleading or distorted fashion." As such, a block was appropriate. --Elonka 01:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was actively investigating the above. That's why I put the AE report on hold. So we can have one investigation restricted to one place. The block seems to have cut it short, however; while I expect PHG principal opponents to support the block, wouldn't they rather have a more substantive, and transparent, basis for it? I might have been ready to support it soon. El_C 01:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It comes across as too eager for immediate censure. All of you should have just let me place this report on hold. Allow the AfD to close (any day now — I would have done it myself and had time to look at it had it not been for these distractions), then, if the citation methodology was shown to still be problematic (which it may well be), we could have made arrangements for mentorship or whatever. But this seeming concerted must-be-censured right-now mentality is not what we want to turn Arbitration Enforcement into. There's no rush. El_C 01:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely that there is no rush, and will be happy if El C reviews the AfD carefully and provides an opinion. El C has an excellent understanding of history. Jehochman ^Talk 01:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no trouble with El C offering an opinion at the AfD, but I strongly disagree that El C should be using his admin tools here. --Elonka 01:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, Elonka had no trouble when I took administrative action that favoured herself in this dispute,^[130] but now there's suddenly a problem? Because she is not being automatically supported? It doesn't work that way. El_C 01:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El C, your protecting that page did not "favor me", and for the record, yes, I had a problem with you getting involved with that one too, but it was a minor issue so I didn't say anything. But now you've gone and overruled another admin, which is a very different matter. You should not have gotten involved. There's also the issue of your relationship with Jehochman, but that's a more complex issue. Some of your comments on Coren's talkpage were also inappropriate. To be clear: El C, I would prefer if you no longer used administrator tools in any situation involving me, as I do not trust your impartiality. It would also be nice if you deleted that subpage in your userspace devoted to me. --Elonka 02:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what Elonka is talking about. I don't see how everything PHG-related pertains to her. My relationship with Jehochman is perfectly normal (what I missing there?). My comments on Coren's page are, in part, a followup of other, unrelated issues regarding similar premature action. Elonka, Shell and Coren who are still fairly new admins, do not appear to fully appreciate how blocks are not punitive. PHG can be told not make similar edits, but to restrict him from an ongoing discussion is not in the spirit of how do things around here. Now, I don't at all mind letting another admin handle this, if only to reduce some of the increasing tension. But I would prefer that it be overseen by an admin who, like myself, is experienced in attending to arbitration enforcement matters. Many thanks in advance. El_C 02:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not lump me in the "new admin" or "supporting the block" categories - I just asked what on earth the AfD had to do with whether or not PHG was violating his restrictions. Shell ^babelfish 02:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done here. El_C 03:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, that patronizing attitude will most certainly not win you any friends. I am hardly a "new" admin, and nobody here is questioning the amount of AE work you have been doing. A block until mentoring can be found of an editor whom I estimate to be damaging to the encyclopedia (and I am very obviously not alone in this evaluation) is most certainly not punitive, regardless on how you personally care to call it. — Coren ^(talk) 03:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not here to win friends, it's unfortunate you keep reading what I say as patronizing (again, such is not the intent); you are fairly new, and quick on the block button, still. Regards, El_C 04:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for additional input[edit]

Would several other uninvolved editors please weigh in on what we should do about this situation. We do not have a consensus yet. Jehochman ^Talk 04:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by PHG

Thank you for your kind support on this during the time I was peacefully sleeping in Paris. I do read and write Japanese quite fluently (I spent quite a few years there), and I basically never use a translation tool such as Google for Japanese. Unfortunately, I am not an expert of the Japanese names for French medals though. When I saw the information about Polak's medals on the Japanese website, I did think that 国家功労賞 was Japanese for "Legion d'honneur". I asked a Japanese national (who speaks fluent French), who could not give me the French name for 国家功労賞 either. The Japanese site used for the source is an online publishing house [131], which I thought should be fair enough as a (first) source. A few hours later and some Googling, I realized 国家功労賞 was Ordre National du Merite (mainly because I couldn't find other mentions of Polak's Legion d'Honneur as well). So, I was wrong with the denomination of the medal, and when I realized that I corrected it right away ("Ahhh, 国家功労賞 seems to be Ordre national du Mérite. シュバリエ is Chevalier (the first rank), オフィシエ is Officier (Officer, the second rank). Would somebody have access to the list of recipients of the Ordre national du Mérite? PHG (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)" [132]). By the way, the Japanese site was not so bad, as it was confirmed by French official sites [133]. Sorry for the mistake, but sometimes Japanese/French/English translations can be tricky, although I think I would rank as quite good at it. Best regards to all. PHG (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you reinsert this poorly sourced material into a biography of a living person? [134] Jehochman ^Talk 13:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, because I think it is quite well sourced, since it is an article from the Monthly Letter of the French Chamber of Commerce in Japan [135], and I added the original French quote as J.Reading had requested. Best regards. PHG (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of transparency, could you use the web site's domain name instead of the IP address? Also, this looks like a cached copy of the document. The cache link is unreliable and could go dead. Can you link to the live copy of the document instead? Could you endeavor to use {{cite}} templates with as many of the fields completed as reasonably possible? I do a lot of citing and cite checking. Errors are less problematic when cites allow others to check and correct the information. I have created a plugin for Firefox, wpcite.xpi, that partially automates web citations. You might find this useful. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... which is my whole point. Why did you insert material you did not understand into an article? If you didn't know what 国家功労賞 stood for, it was not appropriate to insert a reference to a guess in the meantime (especially one that is so trivially verifiable as false). I am making no inferences about your motives or intent from this, but at the very least you are being careless— which is compounded by the fact that you have been repeatedly told that your sourcing practices are problematic. — Coren ^(talk) 15:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith, as reasserted by Arbcom. I wrote that 国家功労賞 was "Légion d'honneur" because I thought it was (over-self-confidence: I am quite fluent in Japanese, oral and written). When I realized it was Ordre National du Merite, I immediately corrected it. Best regards. PHG (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a simple request for PHG to better comply with policy on verifiability. As has happened many times before, when editing problems are identified to PHG, he invokes WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and continues as if nothing has happened. Jehochman ^Talk 18:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG, you have posted several times on this page since I made the above request. Are you willing to improve the quality of your sourcing, or not. Thank you for answering directly. A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have always been highly compliant with Wikipedia:Verifiability, and intend to continue doing so and even improve further in the future. Best regards. PHG (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. There an arbitration finding of fact, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#Misrepresentation of sources that shows your contributions have failed to meet standards of verifiability expected by Wikipedia. My complaint here is that you have not improved your methods. Do you still deny that there have been problems with the verifiability of your contributions? If you will agree to make improvements, and follow through on the commitment, that might resolve my complaint. Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the Arbcom clearly states: "we continue to assume good faith with regard to the intent of PHG's editing". I am indeed editing in good faith, and consider my edits are highly compliant with Wikipedia:Verifiability, and again, intend to even improve further in the future. I will not respond to further provocation on this subject. Best regards. PHG (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your intentions do not matter. The effect on the encyclopedia is harmful due to the addition of unverifiable information, and your edits definitely do not comply with verifiability. I am expressing a concern, which has been endorsed by other editors, and you are ignoring the concern. This is exactly the problem that brought us to arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I believe you are not here to replace Arbcom or to modify its rulings. I have been highly compliant with the Arbcom ruling, and my contributions have been made clearly outside of my editing restrictions. For example France-Japan relations (19th century) is properly sourced and highly complies with verifiability. Rather than rethorics, if you have specific issues, please highlight them. Best regards PHG (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, again, you refuse to acknowledge your problem and simply wikilawyer your way around the wording of the AC finding. Did it occur to you there is a reason why the arbitrators are already considering widening the scope of their previous ruling? — Coren ^(talk) 00:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) PHG's misrepresentation of the Japanese language website is all too typical of the problems with his use of sources. He is long past the the point where he can afford to pass off the deficiencies of his research as simple mistakes. He has never shown any understanding of the issues which led to the Arbcom censure and as a result his problematic behavior continues. His most recent activities constitute a clear violation of Remedy #2. He has abused our good faith for too long. Aramgar (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(followup request) This thread has now been here for a week, and the corresponding motion at WP:RCAM (requests for clarification and motions) has been there since March. Both threads have been inactive for a couple days now, and I would hate to see it archived out of apathy or "stale-ness", as it is my impression (granted, I am involved) that several editors in good standing have indicated a strong desire for action of some sort. I think that everyone here is being very patient, but that doesn't mean that the problem has gone away. Could someone please provide some kind of an update? Thanks, --Elonka 04:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka is not the only editor who would like to see this issue resolved. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic and religious provocation[edit]

I think the following remark[136] by PHG reveals his agenda:

... Christians might resent material showing exchanges, agreements and goodwill between the Popes and the Mongols for example, although it is historical reality. The people whom I have encountered (and who attacked me relentlessly at Arbcom) and who have always tried to play down these relations, remove original letters etc... typically seem to be from "heartland America" (Christian Midwest).

— User:PHG

PHG was reminded of the need to collaborate with other editors at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#PHG reminded: collaborative consensus. Baiting with ethnic/religious provocation is not collaborative; in fact, it is quite disruptive. Jehochman ^Talk 13:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know, it's just a Talk Page discussion, basically a statement of facts, as a response to a worry of User:Appletrees about the reactions of Korean Christians to his planned translation of Franco-Mongol alliance (here). Don't worry, it is not a question of "agenda": I am Christian myself, it's just that I am of the European kind, which means that I am probably quite tolerant in my outlook. Quite a few people have called me "French", or "pro-Buddhist", or whatever, and have even suggested that I should go and write on some other language Wikipedia: I don't consider it "Ethnic and religious provocation" or whatever, and I don't think describing that some users are "Midwest Christian" should either. Best regards PHG (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I do think that your systematic accusations are quite disruptive however :) Cheers. PHG (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I request you to strike all of your remarks that are enthnic or religious stereotypes. It is not appropriate to presume that somebody is biased because of where they live or what religion they practice. Jehochman ^Talk 13:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC) (added 14:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Again, this is not about stereotype or claim of "bias", but a simple presentation of fact on a Talk Page discussion, to answer to the worries of another editor. Best regards PHG (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is stereotyping to say that Middle-American Christians are biased. Here we go again with the bold denials of what is plainly clear. I have tried to discuss this with you, but you refuse to listen to any sort of criticism. Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said, anywhere, that "Middle-American Christians are biased". This is serious misrepresentation. PHG (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG's statement is plainly derogatory and relies on an offensive stereotype. What's more, if we consider which users have been in conflict with him, and their geographic origins, it's clear that PHG has one particular editor in mind as a "Midwest Christian". This is an offensive statement, and PHG should refrain from making such statements, even on his talk page. I don't normally recommend blocking users for things they say on their talk pages, but PHG's militant cluelessness is straining my patience, as is his refusal to recognize that there are any problems with his use of sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so if this is indeed perceived as such, I will strike my statement: [137]. My apologies for this. PHG (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"perceived as such" is a textbook example of a non-apology. You persistently act in a disruptive manner, then refuse to acknowledge the nature of the problem (see above, where you have repeatedly been asked to acknowledge your exceedingly poor referencing but deny the existence of the problem even in the face of an Arbitration Committee finding). — Coren ^(talk) 16:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that my statement was only a statement of fact, and in no way constitutes a claim of bias or in no way has a derogatory intent. A user (User:Appletrees) said he was worried by the reaction of (Korean) Christian editors, and I just answered there were indeed reactions in the past from (Midwest) Christian editors (here). I do apologize if this generates bad feelings, which is why I striked my comment. Best regards. PHG (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) PHG's comments about Midwestern Christians are reminiscent of the delusional ravings of Geir Smith and Dr Boubouleix. Need we state again that many editors had concerns about his Franco-Mongol alliance because he misrepresented sources to advance a novel interpretation of history. The suggestion that he is the victim of some sort of religious prejudice is absurd. It is a breach of civility, no matter where it was written, and constitutes a personal attack on User:Elonka (and perhaps User:Ealdgyth also). How much longer will the Wikipedia community allow a single disruptive user to waste our time? Aramgar (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that folks who participated in the ArbCom case are Christian is a bit of a stretch. You don't know if I'm Christian or not. (The fact that I edit bishops in no way has any bearing on that, nor the fact of where I live). Assuming that I because I live in the American Midwest that I must be Christian is a stereotype. Would you like it if I stereotyped French editors on some similiar basis? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment of PHG placed was originally left at my Talk page, so isn't it a courtesy for anyone to let me know of this? I feel obliged to comply with this endless accusation on PHG because every time I say something to PHG, he gets some unfair punishment or blame. (Legion d'honneur, image warnings, so-called religious "agenda")

Well, I highly recommend PHG to use E-mail if he wants to chat casually with somebody. That is not an ethnic and religious provocation or agenda or whatever. It is simply chatting. I think someone may accuse me of suddenly jumping into this matter, but I'm primarily a Korean Wikipedian who has translated over 300 articles (mostly about Western culture and history) into Korean and Commons editor, so I've acknowledge PHG for his accomplished contribution on Commons, especially his photography related to Asian art and history in which I am getting very interested.

In my short response, I told him about Korean Wikipedia's situation briefly but he caught a hidden meaning well. The Wikipedia has barely over 50,000 articles, but holds considerable amount of articles related to Crusader and Christianity. The number of articles is double of Chinese Wikipedia and almost similar to Japanese Wikipedia (170,000 articles and 450,000 articles in total respectively) That means when I translate those kind of articles, I should be very careful not to exhaust myself to deal with some editors, honestly to say, who don't get respect by the community. Even though I'm a Christian, I do think that anything violating WP:UNDUE to look the religion or people unnecessarily glorified should be out of the Wikipedia. Anyway, I don't know what ethnicity PHG or other editors have, but I don't think PHG explicitly implied Elonoka. Before PHG created Franco-Mongol alliance, did he ever get blocked for any disruption? No, but the article is strongly associated with religion, so he may think as such. That is not a derogatory slur or anything. This unfair accusation is an attempt to block him permernantly which is really beyond good faith. I am also very disturbed by Elonaka's attempt to accuse PHG's photography of violating the image policy.[138] [[139]] I checked his earing image and one presented by her with Photoshop software, but that is really his picture. I think Elonka's activities against PGH is really disruptive and makes her unwarranted more.--Appletrees (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone who has been following this dispute for the duration, User:PHG's mention of editors from the "Christian Midwest" is a transparent reference to User:Elonka. Elonka's religious background and geography are in evidence on her userpage. Moreover, Elonka's Catholicism is a favorite talking point of PHG's allies [140] [141]. In short, we have heard this all before. Aramgar (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So? Even if PHG really intended to imply her, I would not know if you guys tell this at here. The page is also my private place and he was delighted for my future translated article in other language Wikipedia, and we briefly talked about situation around the article. However, is following his every step somewhat like a stalking? Elonka falsely accused him and got him blocked in the last case, so I really understand his feeling about her.--Appletrees (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Appletrees. Elonka is not stalking PHG but exercising appropriate oversight in tracking the edits of a user with a continuing history of problems regarding misuse of sources. As someone unfamiliar with the extent of the dispute, you are missing a lot of the background that would clarify things. Please don't misunderstand me: I am not saying that your opinion is unwelcome, even if I disagree with it, but I just wanted you to be aware that there is a bigger picture here. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. according to your page, you're related to Aramgar. Sorry, I don't misunderstand anything. What I speak here is from what I've seen the Abicom case and Elonka's several time complaints about PHG on Thatcher's page for over one month. I was at the AFD and his translation error is I think, minor and not intentional, because I know translating from an Asian language to English or vice versa is tricky per my experience. I don't believe that his error is deliberately committed as Jehochman's assertion. I was rather shocked at his not-so-good-faith report and threatening.(I thought he is a very rational and calm admin). My impression on Elonka is not from one day or two weeks observation. You did not explain Elonka's attempt to accuse of PHG's possible copy infringement. Well, I'm knowledgeable of photography and image softwares, so her attempt to nail her firm belief on PHG is really annoying me because it is from bad faith. --Appletrees (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the person in question would write off Mircea Eliade, an Orthodox Christian who taught in Chicago, in the Midwest, as well? Judging people by their location is, or even implying judgement of people by their location, is something which I believe cannot be considered anything other than deliberately offensive. I sincerely urge the party in question to refrain from any and all such prejudicial statements in the future. And, yeah, I'm from that area too. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no offense intended, and thank you so much Appletrees for your support. It was just a personal exchange between me and Appletrees about possible Christian reactions to an article (here), and I think we have the right to talk about that. I already apologized however to anybody who might take offense. It has been indeed quite puzzling to me that most of my staunchest opponents for Franco-Mongol alliance have been females from the US Midwest: User:Elonka, User:Ealdgyth, User:Shell Kinney. Again, just a statement of fact, and pardon me if my geographical definition might be a bit blurry. I am French, and Appletrees is Korean, we are both Christian, and I don't think we'll take any offense if that is mentionned :) Best regards. PHG (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A sexist attitude as well... PHG, we have formed our opinions about you based on the quality of your edits alone. Please refrain from unhelpful and simplistic speculation about motives. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What on the earth is "sexist" about saying that these three editors are female? As far as I know "female" is a simple descriptive, but calling me "sexist" is an outright personal attack. Regards PHG (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG, you are being extraordinarily clueless. You already know that several different users find your statements offensive; why do you continue to repeat them and elaborate upon them? It's hard to believe that you don't understand *why* people find what you're saying offensive, but by calling people "Midwest Christians" you seem to be saying that they're motivated by religious bias rather than legitimate intellectual concerns; that's a personal attack. By mentioning that these users are female, you imply that their gender somehow biases them against you--it sure looks like you're blaming their opposition on feminine irrationality, rather than legitimate concerns with your contributions. That's sexist.

My advice to you is to stop contributing to this thread. When you find yourself trying to explain why an offensive remark isn't offensive, it means that you're in a hole, and you need to stop digging. Please try to realize that nearly every contributor to this thread thinks that your contributions are problematic because you misuse references, and that ArbCom has confirmed this, and seems poised to restrict your editing even further. These findings have nothing to do with anyone's national origin or religious beliefs, still less their gender--they have everything to do with you and your behavior. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilleus, you took the words right out of my mouth. I couldn't have said it better myself. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. I objected, but he never responded. Although I didn't suppose when it happened that it was particularly aimed, this current thread does lead me to wonder. It isn't all that hard to find out that I went to graduate school at the Cinema-Television division of the University of Southern California. Was PHG calling a group of editors bigots collectively, or was that coded language directed at me in particular? Either way, an apology is six weeks overdue. Durova^Charge! 01:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory mentorship[edit]

I strongly recommend that PHG (talk · contribs) be prevented from editing until such time that a mentor can be found to guide and oversee his edits. Because of El_C's unexplainable decision to unblock him previously, I am not in a position to enforce this without descending into wheel-warring. — Coren ^(talk) 16:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your move to block me was in reaction to a translation mistake (from Japanese to French) I had made in good faith (and corrected as soon as I uncovered it), which is really a poor reason to block someone (again a request by Jehochman). Arbcom has stated that my edits are done in good faith, and that's really the case. I am grateful that many users came to my defense, including El_C (here). Just because I am under Arbcom restriction doesn't mean I should be blocked everytime somebody accuses me of something. If you have specific issues with my edits, I will be glad to discuss them. I am quite proud of the quality of the work I have done since my Arbcom restrictions came into effect: France-Japan relations (19th century), almost an FA-level article, or Tokugawa Akitake‎, Guillaume Courtet, Gustave Duchesne de Bellecourt or Johann Caspar Horner. Best regards. PHG (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was in reaction to your introducing erroneous information in an article, again. Whether you do so because you are careless or disingenuous has now become quite immaterial; you are being told, over and over, to be careful and you simply maintain your position without even acknowledging that there is a problem. As isolated incidents, those would not be worth more than a notice, but it is a constant pattern which you fail to correct (or even admit exist). — Coren ^(talk) 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is untrue. As soon as I identified the translation mistake, I apologized. And I will gladly acknowledge my errors and apologize anytime I do make a mistake. On the other hand, if I believe I am being accused unfairly, I will always defend myself. Please note that I have been contributing a lot to Wikipedia (over a period of 4 years, 26.000 edits to date, 8 FAs, thousands of photographs), so it is a statistical reality that there will be some mistakes sometimes. Look, France-Japan relations (19th century) is already 30k-long, so I guess you're bound to find one or two errors in it. Everytime this happens however, I gladly acknowledge and correct. Best regards. PHG (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Coren that PHG has exhausted the communities patience regarding his use of sources and uncollegial communication with other editors. In my mind, PHG is one step from a complete article space ban, and two from full site ban. While I understand ElC's position, I disagree also. PHG as lost whatever good faith an editor normally gets. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you should think that, dear Rocksanddirt. I am glad to announce you that the Christian Polak article has just passed AfD, and has thus been accepted by the Community as a proper Wikipedia article, inspite of all the dirt that has been thrown about it. May I suggest you just actually take a look at my contributions, such as the France-Japan relations (19th century) article? Best regards. PHG (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the result of the AfD was "no consensus" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak), which defaulted to "keep". Nsk92 (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Talk:Christian Polak#Bibliography problem, you will see evidence that the bibliography of this businessman-academic has been inflated and spun to enhance his purported notability. This is very troubling and may be grounds for a deletion review, especially because the falsifications only came to light after the AfD was nearly completed. The fact that this article was kept shows that community processes, like AfD, are easily subverted when sources are misrepresented. This is a good reason for the Arbitration Committee to reconsider the current remedies which appear insufficient. Jehochman ^Talk 20:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Coren that PHG needs mandatory mentorship. I participated in the Christian Polak AfD until the Légion d'Honneur blow-up, after which the AfD discussion degenerated into a contentious battle. I think that PHG's edit adding the Légion d'Honneur info with a reference to a Japanese source, without providing a translation, was, at best, very reckless and imprudent. WP:V contains a section dealing specifically with non-English sources, WP:RSUE, and its requirements were not followed here. It is not enough for PHG to dismiss this episode as a "translation mistake". PHG may be fluent in Japanese but most of the rest of us are not. That is why the WP:RSUE section of WP:V exists and requires that: "Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." WP:RSUE is meant to prevent exactly the kinds of mistakes PHG made here from leading to erroneous info being included in Wikipedia. I have read through the above discussion as well as through the original AfD thread. I personally do not believe that PHG intended to deceive when he introduced the Légion d'Honneur info and reference. But it is clear to me that PHG does not sufficiently appreciate the requirements of WP:V and does not understand the need to critically and carefully examine sources, especially when they support his point of view, before citing them in Wikipedia. I think he gets over-enthusiastic when he finds some source that supports or appears to support his position, then rushes to include this info on WP (thinking, OK, now will they finally see my point?) and often ends up overstating his case in the process. This is exactly the kind of attitude that requires mentorship, and, given PHG's history and his lack of acknowledgement of his past and current problems, this mentorship needs to be mandatory. Nsk92 (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like you have come to the heart of the problem. Can you reference these remarks at the ongoing discussion at WP:RFAC. Hopefully the ArbCom will endorse this proposal. Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Nsk92 (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]