Old talk at /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive4, /Archive5, /Archive6, /Archive7, /Archive8, /Archive9, /Archive10

I've been thinking about it, and I agree. I'll do it. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review my edit of the history section on the Pottery article? It's currently at User:Brunnock/Pottery. --Sean Brunnock 18:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a redirect page at User:Uriah923/ON to fix redlinks on pages such as Talk:Conventional warfare. I suppose this would help an SEO attempt a tiny bit, but I don't think its a problem.

How do you like Reed? I'm thinking about applying. Is the reputation for "extreme academic workload, a sink-or-swim social ethic, and a reputation for heavy recreational drug use" (Reed College) accurate? I don't mind a "reputation as politically left-wing," but are other viewpoints encouraged and welcomed? And how did you get your parents to let you go to such a crazy place? You can email me or reply here. Thanks, TheJabberwock 04:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: could you do something about 24.97.210.40, who keeps adding useless, nonnotable info to Corn nut? I've already reverted his edits 5 times in the past few months. TheJabberwock 04:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You moved this into the "motion to close" section on Template:ArbComOpenTasks, but you have not actually moved to close the case. Thanks, Johnleemk | Talk 11:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, Mindspillage confused me by motioning and then reverting herself. :-) Dmcdevit·t 19:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the release -- appreciate the prompt attention. Best wishes. WBardwin 08:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should I just say "Ditto?" Thanks for keeping me on your watchlist. Best....... WBardwin 07:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... forgot to check the AOL ranges. Thanks for unblocking it. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Only proposed enforcement 1 passes." I believe it only has five supporting votes and two opposes, requiring seven for a majority. I deduce from the voting patterns and comments that there is some feeling that an enforcement clause would be somewhat superfluous in my case. If this isn't the case, those who opposed should perhaps reconsider their votes. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling sanctions against me into this matter in this fashion is out of process,

• I am not a party to the matter
• The proposed sanctions are not on the Workshop page, so I am barred from even defending myself
• Some of the causes of action you describe are not even tangental to this matter

...and as to the specifics on vandalism...

• Several dozen people refer to MarkSweeps actions as vandalism, which makes a significant consensus
• it is a proposed finding of fact, are you considering sactioning anyone who supports it?
• I have criticized actions, not people, so this cannot be a personal attack

...and on UPP...

• There is no stated policy to prohibit my messages to 43 UN Wikipedians, save one, which I have acknowleged
• The action in the sanction is misdescribed, and in any even merits a finding of fact to support it
• I have exhaustively allocuted to my actions
• In light of the uncivil comments directed at me by several opponents, this scarcely bears mention. Specifically, for you to allege that I was attempting to stack a vote would itself be a failure to assume good faith, and by your standards, a personal attack

If you really want to do this, which I recommend against, bring it as a separate matter yourself, rather than proscecuting from the bench. Be advised that you are treading on several Foundation issues and will likely be the subject of an appeal.

StrangerInParadise 08:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed a party, and have involved yourself quite extensively at this point. Several of your points are clear-cut wikilawyering. I don't need a policy to declare something that is wrong wrong. You may indeed defend yourself on the workshop right now. That "several dozen people refer to MarkSweeps actions as vandalism, which makes a significant consensus" is unsubstantiated (and sounds very exaggerated), most definitely not what consensus means, and we don't declare undesirable edits "vandalism" by consensus, anyway. Calling people vandals and thugs is most certainly commenting on people, not actions. There is no question that you were stacking the vote. Please don't waste our time with accusations against me and idle threats. I propose what I do for no other reason than that after a careful review of the evidence and your own contributions, I have decided this is the necessary action. The process for the Arbitration Committee is the Arbitration Committee's process. I am not out of process. Rather, I suggest you take criticism to heart and act both civilly and not disruptively. Dmcdevit·t 19:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Tony's explanation, I see how this bypassing the workshop page is not strictly out-of-process, though I still maintain that it is bad process. My question remains: for what possible reason would an arbiter bypass an active workshop page, except to bypass discussion?

I am unaware of having made an idle threat, could you clarify? Also, you should not take my comments as an accusation in any but the most rhetorical sense: if you are so certain that to conclude vandalism is a failure to assume good faith (despite the evidence), is it not possible that to conclude that vote-stacking is similarly a failure to assume good faith? You may deplore what I did, as I deplore what MarkSweep did. Either we should speak freely of our convictions, or be consistent in withholding judgement. I'd opt for the former. BTW, a minority consensus is still significant, and in the case of the perception of vandalism, it is much, much larger than you allow. I could do a poll- no names of course- on WP:CENT and see what others say. I do not claim that MarkSweep's actions are vandalism because many others say so, or would say so, I claim it because they were destructive, out-of-process and in clear bad faith. You should consider whether you are seeking to punish me for a legitimate difference of opinion.

BTW, when I say prima facia bad faith, are you clear on what I mean? I have been wondering.

Also, "after a careful review of the evidence and your own contributions, I have decided this is the necessary action", you wrote and voted on a decision before I ever presented evidence, so how do you figure that you've made a careful review of the evidence? How presumtuous of bad faith is it to call my submissions wikilawyering? I am interested to know to which ones you are refering. Have you considered that I am doing ArbCom for the first time? Few appear to be following the rules at all, how should I infer what is supposed to be argued. I have had several shots of vague innuendo directed at me (under the title of evidence no less!), and you want to take only me to task for describing MarkSweep's actions- on hard evidence- as vandalism?

As to UPP, I have written a first-draft of a defense, I can only say that you should read carefully and keep an open mind. I will break it out onto the evidence page. Please ask questions.

StrangerInParadise 09:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to spam your talk page, but this seemed serious enough to directly put on your talk page. I have evidence that AiG has actively had employees push their POV on the AiG page and possibly on related pages. I have added a new evidence section in the Agapetos arbitration to that effect, explaining the evidence. Due to the very serious nature of this accusation and its possible implications for Wikipedia, I decided to directly alert all of the ArbCom members. JoshuaZ 01:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit of yours apparently deliberately alters my comment on a talk page with the specific intention of breaking a link. I believe that even a cursory examination of my contributions will make it clear that I am not a linkspammer. I'm sure you are aware that, in general, editing other people's comments on talk pages is bad form. Is there a specific policy of which I am unaware that we may not link to OmniNerd, even in a discussion of plagiarism by a Wikipedian of an OmniNerd article? If so, then your edit was legitimate. Otherwise, I ask you to revert at least the part that altered my comment. Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"…As for breaking a link: if you are talking about User:Uriah923/ON, that was a silly oversight of my using the find-and-replace and a redirect was created.…" No, actually, I was talking about breaking the external link I put on a talk page, pointing to an article in OmniNerd that some other Wikipedian had apparently plagiarized. I thought that merited indicating from where they had plagiarized. Yes, I understand that OmniNerd was linkspamming us, and I'm of course happy to be rid of the spam, but I don't see why that means that we cannot link to them in a circumstance where a link would normally be there. Again, is there a policy that they are never to be linked to, or what? - Jmabel | Talk 21:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't read closely enough the first time. Fine. - Jmabel | Talk 21:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit, i come to you for help in settling a dispute between myself, a non-administrator, and [User:Cyberjunkie], an administrator. I recently published an article on the Portuguese Discovery of Australia, a topic of importance to australian culture. Cyberjunkie believes that this topic is not worthy of its own page, and has deleted the article. i am doing all i can do avoid wikidrama, but feel the need for my article, which i put considerable effort into and is backed up by legitimate sources, to remain present on the wiki network. sincerely, √αzzρεr 05:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it dude, √αzzρεr 00:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a brief description. Here is the "last straw". It includes incivility, personal attacks, threats of sockpuppetry and even some legal threats. Enough. We've given him multiple opportunities. I protected his user and talk pages due to the threats. He can email us if he wants to comment. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This particular user sent me an email saying that he was banned for linkspamming. He has mentioned in his email that he was banned by you, though his blocklog shows that he was banned by User:172. He pleads ignorance of Wikipedia's policies, and would like to continue as an editor. Is there any scope? --Andy123(talk) 22:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time! --Andy123(talk) 12:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to do it using AWB because the normal bot software (of pywikipedia) refuses to run this job. I think there's about 1000 edits to do, sorry about that massive delay in starting the task, it should be done in an a couple hours :) -- Tawker 06:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: All done :) (I think), let me know if I've missed a big string of them / if there are any problems -- Tawker 13:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Mistress_Selina_Kyle

I disagree that that confirms that she'll never be acceptable. Just because Bob, Just Bob is her and she evaded a ban doesn't warrant an indef ban. Just an extension of the ban. Since the ban is up now, I wonder whether its really relevant to have a ban at all. 59.167.131.8 19:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted two boxes from the user space. There is no rule that allows you to do so, and the page had already been recreated by an administrator because of this. While templates can be deleted for divisiveness, there is no such rule for the user space. I cannot even see why asking for a trial should be "inflammatory". Please do not abuse your powers. De mortuis... 20:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That page was a validly deleted template. Moving the identical content to a user page and transcluding it (which is ssentially what a template is) in order to claim that it can't be deleted is appeal to mere technicality. It's the same thing. The proper way to address a disputed deletion is on WP:DRV, where the issue is already being discussed, with a rather strong showing for deletion, and certainly not repeated recreation. I'm deleting it again, and this time I'll be protecting it. Dmcdevit·t 22:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule that allows deletion of user subpages, and it was already unprotected and recreated by an admin before. You violate wikipedia policy. De mortuis... 00:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it backwards: "Violating policy" means doing something that the policy says not to do, not doing something that the policy doesn't say to do. Repeatedly recreatig validly deleted content, on the other hand, violates both policy and the spirit of the policy. Have you seen the discussion on DRV? Tell me how you can think what I did was wrong when it was clearly Good? Dmcdevit·t 00:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the talk pages of what you deleted. Admin Mike Rosoft explained there why you have no right to delete it. As this can also be seen from the discussion you are referring to you apparently choose willingly to ignore wikipedia's rules and I will file a complaint against you. De mortuis... 00:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat that you seem fixated on rules rather than what actually is good for the encyclopedia, but the funny thing is that here I have violated no policies at all. Please read WP:CSD if you are unsure. The original templates were deleted by the templates criterion. They were then recreated under a different name, and I deleted them citing two deletion criteria: both the template criterion and G4, for recreated content. The issue should have been concluded on DRV, not circumvented with a recreation. And speaking of which, there is a sizable consensus in favor of the deletion at deletion review (which is where you would have taken my deletion if you disputed it and it wasn;t already there), and so the deletions were firmly within policy. And a good idea. Dmcdevit·t 07:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, getting a bit tired of this. Really cannot see why I shall be censored while all sorts of other opinions are allowed. As there were already administrators who agreed with me that the deletion was out of place I think you should try to get a general rule on things like this rather than delete in one case and claim you know what is best for wikipedia. ROGNNTUDJUU! 10:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your response to mixvio's request for arbitration, your response was, "Reject, though if there are arbitrable conduct issues, like personal attacks and edit warring, they should be presented as such and I'll reconsider." I have three questions. 1) If a personal attack is made against everyone (in some cases named, in others not) who disagrees with an individual's point of view, is that considered a personal attack? 2) Is characterizing the motivations of those who disagree with one's opinion in vulgar or offensive terms a personal attack? 3) If so, is it possible to attach a complaint against mixvio for conduct issues to the current complaint, or should a separate complaint be filed? I really hesitate to do this, and we've been trying to be patient with mixvio, but there comes a point when something must be done so I'd like to understand my options. Thanks. -Jmh123 21:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a request in my talk page.--Inanna 05:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you care what i say because i'll do everything until my username deleted.--Inanna 12:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that your decision to block User:Rgulerdem for one week was justified. I'm familiar with his editing and he's been in conflict with a great number of editors since his earliest days of editing on WikiPedia. see Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Fethullah_Gulen. He came into conflict over the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy where he repeatedly removed the cartoons despite super majority editor support for their display and was repeatedly blocked because of it. His involvement with WikiEthics has been particularly contentious and in an effort to gain himself support he's previously resorted to internal spamming, see WP:AN#Extensive_internal_spamming.3F. Although not directly related you might take note of this self-nom RfA to gain a larger perspective on who User:Rgulerdem is. Netscott 09:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dmcedvit. Thanks for ruining my record as a civil and amicable editor. I notice you didn't bother replying to my explanation of my position and why you were mistaken in blocking me. You didn't bother unblocking me, nor stepping aside so the admin objecting to your block could unblock me. You ignored requests by other users and an admin to ease up. I explained to you precisely why I found it desirable to be unblocked -- To clear my name.

Which is all too late now. And though that may not mean anything to you, I made it clear it means something to me.

I hope you try to realise that wielding a big stick ruthlessly has it's consequences. Working in an environment with editors like Rgulerdem is hard enough at the best of times. But to then cop a bludgeoning from you is beyond reasonable expectations.

I'm thoroughly disillusioned with wikiprocess and authority mechanisms on wikipedia, in relation to both writing an encyclopedia, and internal management. I've left wikipedia.

Think about it. Rgulerdem is still here, and you've driven me off. Truly, a fools preference. Compare our article contributions and you'll see how in this instance your overzealous excesses contribute miserably to the fundamental goal of writing on an encyclopedia. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 02:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Metta Bubble has blanked his talk page so to follow the logic (which I agree with btw) about how User:Rgulerdem arrived at +3RR and Metta Bubble didn't please see this version of MB's talk page. Netscott 06:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inanna has recently been using the sockpuppet 81.214.217.214 (talk · contribs). She's trying to empty Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of -Inanna-. What should we do? --Khoikhoi 17:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately she's on a dynamic IP. All we can do without causing too much collateral damage is revert-on-sight and hand out short blocks when she comes back. Leave a note n WP:AN/I if you catch sight of her evading the ban. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 02:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the advice. --Khoikhoi 02:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you're clarifying the remedies, maybe it should say "banned from editing Wikipedia" instead of "banned from Wikipedia"? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your comment on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Space_Cadet. This user seems to has gone Molobo's way. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful response. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, a while ago you made an edit on the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline. I am proposing a revision to the guideline and I'm soliciting your comments. You can find the link to my rewrite at Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms -- cmh 01:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As I see it (and as I remember a discussion some time ago), setting a page to a prior state is something anybody can do. Admin-Rollback just makes it easier. I agree, it degrades the value of the rolled back edit. In the case of Molobo and SpaceCadet, however, I will continue to use rollback as I see necessary, since they also leave no/wrong/insulting edit summaries, and many of their contributions border on disrupting wikipedia. Especially with Molobo, any discussion is like talking to a wall (not that I and many others have tried). I hope you understand. -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Chris. There is a golden rule: don't feed the troll. It's quite useless to discuss anything with trolls, because it's exactly what they need. Molobo and SpaceCadet may be likened to battering rams used by Polish editors to spread their POV. We've been all over the same things again and again - check the history of Simon Dach, for instance, where for two months they reverted Konigsberg to an obscure Polish name despite a mounting protest from scores of editors. In the case of Molobo, discussions have a collateral damage, as he has an obnoxious habit of pasting huge chunks of copyrighted stuff in the discussions without acknowledging their authorship, sometimes in the middle of your own comment. See [1], [2] for example. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 qurasitons.

1: How long is the barrign me from editign her page for?

2:Can I challenge the verdict?

3: You do relaise you have just been played, right? I didnt threaten to post Liable, I threatened to post an artilce I had written. I also didnt post the material several times, and had not tlake don it for months.

James list of evidence was itsslf ridiculous as most of it was not relaly aimed at the point of arbitration, and one can just as eaisly come up wiht a long list of evidence agsint him.

The bit abotu her son, and how low I was to brign him into it, is also ridiculous. I posted that her son had been kidnapped, and returned to her. This was after she posted a news article on it on her own website. ( And is thus not liable and was verifiable.)

Look at the below. Tell me htis is not Bias, and not vandalism.

How am I disruptive in revertign it?

At least one critic and various detractors from the apologetic camp have claimed her work is based on poor scholarship, with little primary research and heavy reliance on outdated or fringe sources, and shows ignorance of the topics on which she writes, in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. Nevertheless, there is much original research in her work, especially in "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled," her follow-up to "The Christ Conspiracy."

The Bold sections are Biased. Saying that she has only oen Critic and several detractors fromt he apologist Camp is Biased. Calling her critics detractods is biased. Saying that she "NEvertheless has origional research" is bais. It is nto WIkipeidas palce to determine if her owrk is origional or not. Her critics say it is not. (Critics, not detractors.)

Sayin that it is as a point-of-fact is a bais.

Acharya S has been described, by her own books, and website, as well as the Paranoia Magazine website, as a historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist(she speaks, reads and writes several ancient and modern languages), and archeologist with moderate undergraduate experience in Archeology. Internet essayist John Kaminski describes her as "the ranking religious philosopher of our era".

The Kamanski quote exists only to further boost her image. The statement baotu spekaign more thna one language is not rlelay relevant, and the Omisison of the reason WHY she is claimed ot be " A Historian, Religiosu Shclar, Archeologist, and Lingust" is not preasent. ( Ys you say she speaks multiple languages. But no other explanaiton rellay eixts.)

It is entrley promotional.

The ommission of the fac thtat she hodls no trianign in any of these fields, and is only these thigns "By DIcitonary definition", the argument her supporters made her to forc the ridiculosu list in the encyclopidia int he firts place, is biased. Youd o nto want hte reader to know she hodls no degree and try to sway the readers opinion.

She has received rave reviews from readers across the spectrum, from those on the edge of doubt about their religons to those having some familiarity with the unhistorical nature of religon generally. Her books have become popular with avid "truth-seekers" from around the world, eliciting interest from the average person to the professional and academically trained thinkers.

THis entire paragrpah is promotional, and thus shoudl not be in the encyclopedia. It exosts only to firther her views.

It is also of import that it claim as a fact that religion is Ahistorical, which is not Wikipeidas palce.

It also seems not to be vrified form any known source, and is just a form of marketing.

The Omisison of the link to King David's website was doen soley for the sake of preservign her knoeldgable image. In the exchange, she filed ot rellay defend her views, and so it servs the interests of her legiosn to rmove it.

These are the problems.

As to the version I reverted to, no problems are even listed.

Hey there,

I thought the 'revert parole' idea was good. I was just wondering about this RfA, how long does the process take? Much thanks, -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I see that you have proposed to put me on probation which I think is very unfair. I guess I will try to get an advocate to help me with this case so I can prepare an statement on all the efforts I have made to resolve the issues before engaging in what you have called 'persistent edit warring'. These efforts include almost every possible way there is on Wikipedia to resolve a matter, such as Notice reports, Mediations, Several RfCs, contacting many admins and trusted members to come and try to resolve the case, trying to engage in a civil discussion with editors (Aucaman and those suggested by ManiF below), etc etc (Some of the evidence I have already collected can be seen at the top of User:Khashayar Karimi/sandbox.

The first time I was blocked it was unjustified - "blanking Talk:Iranian peoples", ([3]). What I had infact done, was to archive the talk page and gather all the disputes and put them in the talk page again. So my experience with Wikipedia has not been the most pleasant and the way I have been dragged in to this is unfair in my opinion.

I also don't believe I have engaged in "consistant edit warring", my "consistant" contributions to Iranian articles are much appreciated by some [4] [5]. While at the same time I am targetted by hateful personal attacks in Persian by anonymous IP right after engaging in a dialogue with Aucaman (See here). - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 11:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, can evidence be presented against one of the "semi-involved" parties in that case? --ManiF 06:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you have included me in the arbitration case decision, without me even knowing that I'm part of the case to present evidence for or against the case up until now. However, if the case is to be extended to cover the larger conflict which I'm sure you've been studying, then I think other users who have been constantly edit waring on behalf of or on side of Aucaman, should also be included in the case. Namely, User:Zora, User:Ahwaz, User:Heja helweda, and User:Xebat. For example, please take a look at this body of evidence against User:Zora. --ManiF 08:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you check the history page of the Iranian peoples article you can see the User:Xebat has been a huge part of the dispute as well. --Khoikhoi 08:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to gather some evidence tonight, but I don't think one night is enough time. If you have been going through the evidence, there is a clear pattern of these users, particularly User:Xebat, User:Ahwaz, User:Heja helweda, and User:Zora assisting/backing User:Aucaman in all of his adventures on Iran-related pages. Accordingly, some of them have been blocked by administrators for personal attacks and 3RR on several occasions. Whatever Iran-related page User:Aucaman has been involved in or disrupted, he has seeked these particular users' help [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] knowing thier stance on Iran-related issues. --ManiF 08:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, would the proposal be changed if we provide evidence for these people? --Khoikhoi 08:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same question as Khoikhoi, would the proposed decision be changed if we provide evidence for these people, especially now that another ArbCom member has voted on it? I find it very unfair that all of the editors who have have been involved in a dispute with Aucaman, are being included in the arbitration case's proposed decision without a prior notice, while users who have been edit-warning on behalf of Aucaman, assisting his efforts, are simply getting off the hook here. Here is just a sample of this particular group of users' conduct. In order for justice to be done, I think either editors who weren't officially a participant in the RFAr should be excluded from the proposed decision or the the proposed decision should be widened to include all parties involved on both sides of the wider conflict. --ManiF 11:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your message here. Lukas appears to be on a Wikibreak, so I'm going to be presenting the evidence. Could you give me some time to prepare these? Say, 5-7 days? Aucaman^Talk 08:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user should be banned. He has made derogatory comments, intentional fabricated controversial and untrue material into articles, and deliberately disturbed both order and balance in the Wiki-community. He has been in numerous exchanges with other users. User:Acuman also applies double standards he says one thing for others and sees himself above what he demands and ascribes to other editors. He has upset the following articles in a long list of articles tied to Iran; Kurds, Kurdistan, Persian Gulf, Persians, Iran, Iranian peoples. The editors he has allies himself with are also irrational and uncompromising racists or bigots. I demand he be disciplined. I have seen the list of controversial and flat our provocative edits and fictional claims he has made and ask that he be closely watched by administrators, all editors, and the whole community. He has acted in a distasteful manner and has not respected the rules and demands of the community. 72.57.230.179 08:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding your proposal here[12]; I respect whatever decision the committee may hand-out, nevertheless, it hurts me to see after avoiding any further controversial editing, and my compromise with others, that I too may be banned from contributing to the topics which I am familiar with. If you need some evidence that point towards my attempts at compromise with other editors, kindly let me know. It has been weeks since I have reverted Iranian people (I only added some picture lately), or the Persian people articles, and since the suggestions by some admins, which I took to heart, I have not engaged in edit-warring, since early March, and I will not do so anymore. Although, Aucaman was blocked four times in the past month, and to this day continues his disruptive behaviour. I also feel it is appropriate that other users be put on probation, however, I wish that the committee had looked into Zora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)`s contributions as well; see here please[13].. At any rate, here are some diffs showing my successful attempts at compromising with various other editors, some whom had engaged in revert wars with others (in some cases, such as the Persian Gulf article the long edit wars ceased after I intervened)[14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. I would hope that you re-evaluate my contributions for the past month and a half, and you commute the decision regarding me to a probation, rather than a topical ban. Please let me what you think. Thank youZmmz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I was asked to add a comment here by Zmmz. I would generally say I have an opposite POV on the articles where I have come into contact with Zmmz, but in the cases where we have had serious conflicts we have been able to compromise. Zmmz definetely has a stong POV, but I think it would be wrong to block him from editing these articles since on the whole I think he makes useful additions. I think it is kinda strange that out of all the Pro-Iranian editors it is Zmmz that has been picked on, since he is easily the most reasonable and not to mention courteus of all of these users.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto to most everything Moshe just said. In my case, I had a brief conflict with Zmmz a couple months ago when he was brand new on the scene here, and still did not know all the ropes - but we were indeed soon able to reach a compromise that was satisfactory to everyone, by each giving a little... From what I can tell, he seems to have adjusted to becoming a "wikipedian" remarkably swiftly; and since this here is the first time I have ever commented on any arbcom case in any way, it could be said that he is more experienced than I am in certain areas! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zmmz has asked me to comment as I watch Persian Gulf. I'm unfamiliar with most of the details and certainly with the arbcom case. I will say he does seem to want to work constructively on the Gulf page. One thing he has not done is involved himself with the never ending flameposts on the talk page, which would be tempting if he has a strong POV. That's all I feel competent to comment on. Cheers, Marskell 15:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I'm going to propose a less strict remedy instead that would allow Zmmz to edit in most of Persia-related articles under probation. If you'd like to offer evidence against another involved party, do it at the evidence page, not here. Dmcdevit·t 18:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zmmz has stayed out of the revert wars, but from my POV, he continutes to be a profoundly disruptive editor. He still does not GET the concept of NPOV; he believes that he has no POV whatsoever and that anyone who admits to one is thereby disqualified from editing. See this lecture to me on my talk page: [21]. I don't know how this could be done, or what rules would apply, but anything that could get Zmmz to agree to live and let live, to allow other POVs as long as his was represented, would be appreciated. Zora 23:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. With all due respect, if I'm going to be put on probation for edit warring on articles like Jami, then Mel Etitis should be put on probation as well considering his behavior there [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] and false accusations against me on Talk:Jami#Personal-attack_edit_summaries.2C_etc.. And he was blocked for 3RR on that article [28]. And on top of all that, he's an admin. People have been stripped of their adminship for this type of behavior. Take care, SouthernComfort 15:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just wanted to let you know, ever since my last block, I have made a vow to follow the WP:1RR, hence I haven't really gotten into any edit wars. Would that make a difference? Also, does probation every expire? —Khoikhoi 19:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious as to your justification for deleting the {{User Objectivism}} and {{User No Objectivism}} userboxes, considering the multitude of philosophical movements represented in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion. -Objectivist-C 21:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a widely known and established philsophy to me. Are you proposing to delete every philsophy userbox less well known than this one?? Ansell 23:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]