|
|
Line 13: |
Line 13: |
|
|
|
|
|
:''Add new requests to the top of the page. Old requests will be automatically archived off the bottom three days after the last time stamp''. |
|
:''Add new requests to the top of the page. Old requests will be automatically archived off the bottom three days after the last time stamp''. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Space Cadet == |
|
|
See all under [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FArbitration_enforcement&diff=187442115&oldid=187389999 "Another Eastern European flamer"]. The answer of the user for the notice was a accusation of racism or nazism against the admin. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Space_Cadet&diff=prev&oldid=187485354].--[[Special:Contributions/80.190.200.171|80.190.200.171]] ([[User talk:80.190.200.171|talk]]) 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Highways 2 == |
|
== Highways 2 == |
Edit this section for new requests
- Add new requests to the top of the page. Old requests will be automatically archived off the bottom three days after the last time stamp.
See all under "Another Eastern European flamer". The answer of the user for the notice was a accusation of racism or nazism against the admin. [1].--80.190.200.171 (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2: Does this violate the temporary injunction? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It just looks to me like the editor created subpages for the project for things like participants. I don't see how this is a change in scope or approach; please explain further if you think so. Dmcdevit·t 03:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the page move - is that a scope change? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the page move. In the first Highways case, the issue was a dispute over preferred terminology between "Roads" and "Highways." Is that also an issue in the current case? If so, then the move should be reverted. If you can point to a section of the evidence page or parties' statements showing that terminology is once again part of the dispute, that would help. If no other admin picks up on this, I will come back to it tonight. Thatcher 13:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeesh that's a lot of moves. The moves definitely expands the scope of the Pennsylvania Wikiproject, (as does this series of edits, as "roads" is a larger set that includes "State highways" as a subset. If you want to get technical about the language, the injunction prohibits change the scope of USRD or of adding disputed cases to USRD or its subprojects, but does not prohibit changing the scope of the subprojects. This seems nonsensical to me. If there is a dispute about whether a certain stretch of pavement should be included in a "Highways" project, surely renaming the project to "Roads" completely changing the playing field of the dispute. On the other hand, no one else has edited the PASH in almost 3 months, so there is hardly an active dispute about the scope of the PA project. Does this intersect in some way with USRD so that the moves have a more significant impact than it appears? Thatcher 04:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Including articles in a subproject also includes them into USRD's assessment categories, as articles are tagged for a subproject by using the USRD template with a state parameter. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[2] violated the injunction. --NE2 05:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverted and notified. Thatcher 13:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved requests
- These issues have been resolved, and will be automatically archived after three days. Do not post in this section. Add new reports to the top section of the page. If you wish to continue a discussion that has been marked as resolved, please contact the administrator who marked it closed.
- The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
- Breaches of a user's civility supervision demand evidence of incivility, which the links (there is no specific quoted passage) fall short of demonstrating. The AA restriction do cover this topic in so far as related issues are immediately raised, but I'm pressed to find any problems in that regard here. In short, much stronger, more direct evidence is needed. El_C 04:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I requested Thatcher to double check this closure since I have already recently argued that the filer of this notice failed to substantiate breaches of arbitration supervised civility with respect to another arbitration-restricted user. El_C 18:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
From Thatcher via El C: I do think that if Eupator is going to keep a page of historical evidence proving his point, it would be in the best interests of all involved that it not directly reference one particular admin who questioned it. "Here is evidence summarizing my position" is more compatible with an open editing environment than "Here is why admin:Smith got it wrong." And I disagree with User:Pocopocopocopoco that the article is not subject to the ruling; Eupator admits to editing from the Armenian point of view and the ruling is meant to be broadly interpreted. It's not really enforceable at this time but I would like it to go away by itself, please. Thatcher 02:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC
)
Eupator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I am requesting that an uninvolved administrator review the recent activities of Eupator ( Ευπάτωρ ), who is currently under ArbCom restrictions from Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, specifically, Civility supervision (formerly civility parole). If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses." He is also subject to supervised editing and "... may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues"
For the last few weeks, Eupator has been engaging in a dispute at the Franco-Mongol alliance article, specifically as regards the definition of Armenia's involvement in relations with the Mongols. As part of this, he has made what I regard as assumptions of bad faith. On December 21, he accused me of "bullying" at ANI.[10][11] More recently, he has created a subpage in his userspace with negative comments about me: User:Eupator/Mongol historians.[12] There is absolutely no need for this personal commentary about other editors. If he wishes to make his points, he should comment solely on article content. This is true of any editor, but particularly of an editor under such a stringent civility parole. --Elonka 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On 14th of October Elonka left the following message on my talk page after I had awarded another user with a barnstar. [13]. The purpose of her message was not quite clear but the entire message was a comment on another editor. I found that quite odd. As a result of Elonka's message on my userspace I started reading the dispute that she had initiated regarding the aforementioned article. My comment in December was in response to user PHG's request: "I am asking you (Elonka) to apologize for your bullying." Elonka responded nicely on the article talk page but left a seemingly threatening message on my talk page:[14]. I did not respond back as I did not wish to escalate the matter any further. Most recently, once again she left another message on my talk page with yet even more inaccurate assumptions [15]. I think I have remained quite civil in all of this but I do acknowledge commenting on user Elonka in my userspace here and not just on content. This was an honest attempt at displaying background info regarding my involvement, not some sort of a rant against Elonka though I do acknowledge that the last sentence is not really necessary. If you take a look at the talk page for Franco-Mongol alliance you will immediately notice how much of the discussion is regarding editors. A good portion of user Elonka's comments there are regarding other user(s) and not content. It is often necessary to discuss a users actions, if it's done civilly it should not be a cause for stress so I fail to see why she is applying double standards here. Also please note the following edit by Elonka on a recent AFD:[16]. She's not commenting on content or my vote, she's making a bad faith assumption instead. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 23:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My uninvolved, outside opinion: Complaining of being bullied is most certainly not uncivil or, in the context of Elonka's first link above,[17] an assumption of bad faith ("This does look like bullying" is a comment on the content, not the contributor, and seems to be supported by the prior paragraph) and there is no assumption of bad faith anywhere in User:Eupator/Mongol historians. The second link given by Elonka above[18] is merely a request for someone else to step back, and goodness knows we have plenty of people recommending wikibreaks each day without assuming bad faith. I would go so far as to say that anyone being accused on such weak evidence is indeed being bullied. MilesAgain (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My completely uninvolved completely outside opinion: I found out about this entry because I was following the "I am Dr. Draken" section below however I am familiar with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 and I think it's a huge stretch (to put it mildly) to invoke Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 on this type of article. IMHO the intent of that arbcom decision and the prior decision was to cool the edit warring between Armenian and Azerbaijani editors that were occuring primarily in articles related to Nagorno-Karabakh. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.