Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Biruitorul

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Biruitorul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Biruitorul ^Talk 16:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: [1] — topic ban on "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted" reset to 7 May 2011, instead of original expiry date of 22 December 2010

Administrator imposing the sanction: Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Biruitorul

I believe the extension of my topic ban by over four months is unduly onerous. It's true that, prior to May 7, I interpreted the stipulation allowing me to revert obvious vandalism a little too broadly on a handful of occasions. (I hasten to note this was an honest mistake and I never willfully violated the ban.) But now that that ability has been removed, and now that I've learned a very clear lesson, what exactly is the purpose of the reset? I've done plenty of good work in this topic area, and the only practical result of the reset is that the resumption of my productive contributions has been delayed by months. WP:BLOCK says quite clearly that "blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". No one, not even the user filing the request, claimed I had damaged or disrupted the project through my edits. As you can see, I have made no such edits for 11 days, and will not for the next 100 or 1000 days if need be. Also, if you read the discussion leading up to the reset, you will find that one administrator was willing to let the matter drop entirely, having seen no serious violation and having accepted by pledge to abide by the ban more strictly, while another did not speak of a reset.

In sum, I would say the reset is unnecessary, unproductive, and unjust, and that it should be annulled. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein says my "reasons given for the appeal are unconvincing". Not wanting to pointlessly delay the onset of many hundreds of productive edits by close to half a year sounds fairly convincing to me. But regardless, I wonder what the reasons for the reset are. Tellingly, none was ever offered. It's obviously not "to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia", since the idea I'd do that is absurd, so what is it? To punish me? Not allowed, per WP:BLOCK. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

It appears that only my reset of the arbitral ban is being appealed, not my removal of any exceptions pertaining to vandalism etc. that the arbitral ban may have had. The reasons given for the appeal are unconvincing, but I refrain from discussing the merits of the appeal here, because the appeal is at any rate premature. Undoing the reset of the ban now will have no practical effect, because the arbitral topic ban will still remain in force until 22 December 2010. For these reasons, I recommend that this appeal be declined. Biruitorul is free to appeal it again on 22 December 2010, at which time editors will be in a better position to determine whether his conduct up until that time merits a lifting of my extension of the ban. Sandstein 17:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Biruitorul

I concur with Sandstein's response; there is no point whatsoever in determining this matter now. Recommend reraising the appeal at the start of December, by which time we can see intervening behaviour. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Biruitorul

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nipsonanomhmata

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: <http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nipsonanomhmata>

Administrator imposing the sanction: Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: I have been notified. Sandstein 21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nipsonanomhmata

The severity of the penalty is over zealous. I have been given a one year restriction on editing articles in a region called the Balkans (that's several countries) for an alleged 3RR (for 3 reverts well outside a 24 hour period) and I have hardly edited in the Balkans over the last 3 months. I have also been accused of being "aggressive". Where exactly have I been aggressive? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein is right. It's 3 months instead of a year. But why have restrictions been placed for several countries for 3 months for one half baked 3RR? 3 months is still a severe penalty. Moreover, I have been banned for 1 year from a page that I was not editing on when this dispute was raised. Personally, I don't mind the ban on the Ali Pasha article because I had no intention of ever going back to that article again because everything that I had ever contributed to that article has been indiscriminately napalmed and nuked by Fut Perf. It's still not fair to put a blanket restriction on me for the Balkans though. Not even for 1 day. How did that happen? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle, it should be the other way around. Innocent before proven guilty. Not guilty before being proven innocent. This isn't Guantanamo. I am being penalised for Fut Perf's badger baiting. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

Nipsonanomhmata is mistaken: his 1R/week restriction lasts three months, not a year. Only his topic ban from the subject Ali Pasha lasts a year. See the sanction in the section above. I recommend that this appeal be declined and refer to my rationale for the sanction under appeal. Sandstein 21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf.

Note that Nipson is revert-warring again, at {{Summer Olympic stadia}}. He is again re-hashing a POV agenda about an issue that was already debated to death elsewhere, and about which he was fighting stubbornly and isolated against unanimous consensus for months. Having lost his case on the relevant main articles, he just transfers the same edits to other, less-watched pages, starting the same debate all over again. I can see no reason for considering an appeal at all with this editor. He has never shown any insight into why he was sanctioned, no recognition that any of his conduct was problematic, and no willingness whatsoever to modify his approach. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nipsonanomhmata

While I am mindful of an echo chamber effect among the few admins who frequent here, I don't think the sanctions issued by Sandstein were unduly onerous. My suggestion would be to appeal them again in a month or so having demonstrated good behaviour in the meantime. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what is probably a blatant endorsement of Stifle's observation, I am usually in agreement with Sandstein's actions. But in this case my opinion is that the sanctions applied to Nipsonanomhmata were a little severe. I would look to moderate them if doing so would be supported by a consensus of administrators. I would also look to place any other editors involved in the dispute with Nipsonanomhmata on 1RR. He clearly wasn't edit warring with himself, and the general failure to take the disagreement to dispute resolution concerns me. AGK 15:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Nipsonanomhmata

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Appeal of the sanction against Aregakn

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Aregakn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Aregakn (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Ban on referals to any editors' edits as "Possible Vandalism", "Vandalism" etc. (if not 3RR violation or other obvious cases); imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hittit; Log: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

Administrator imposing the sanction: Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Administrator notified: User talk:Stifle#Please be notified of an AE Appeal Aregakn (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aregakn

The appeal is for the sanction lift. Introduction:

In the AE for the editor Hittit, that was failing to comply with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 according to the request, I found valuable to present references to additional multiple violations. This decision was based on the will to be constructively contributing to articles of Wikipedia, rather than uselessly spending time to prevent violations of rules and/or the integrity of articles and so Wikipedia as a whole. In the last (#7) of the violations I thought relevant to the case, I wanted to bring to the attention of the ruling administrator, that a deletion of a cover-page of the NewYork Times paper , stating "Million Armenians Killed or in Exile" and other similar, was deleted in only one [2] of the multiple identical edits [3], [4], [5], [6] of the heavily biased editor. Bringing it to the attention for the authorised person's consideration, as a reason for it I mentioned a "Possible vandalism", meaning a possibility of Sneaky Vandalism. The latter was clarified in the appeal to the sanction on my talk-page. Unfortunately the appeal for lift was denied and only reduced to 1 month from 1 year.

The reasons for the appeal:

Considering my will to preserve valuable time of mine and other editors to engage in value-adding activities to Wikipedia, rather than "warring" in one way or another, to preserve Wiki-integrity, with editors that are here most possibly for other purposes, I was, in good faith, bringing the very many evidences on how our work is disrupted on Wikipedia. I cannot consider any rational reason (or recall an existing rule) to sanction somebody for trying to bring violations into consideration, with quite a possible reasoning of why (s)he does it. I consider the sanction as irrelevant, lacking rational bases (and personally disappointing for a constructive editor). Aregakn (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the AE was given in the "Sanction being appealed" section: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hittit, until it was removed/archived by MiszaBot II after that. Now it is in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Hittit.

1) Though the purpose of why Stifle considered this sanction is clear to me, as I have stated, I see no bases and reasons for why it would be issuing (to put it very roughly "corpus delicti").

2) Once again, there was no direct accusation of the editor! The AE was about the conduct of the editor and there were very many cases that showed his conduct is disruptive for the work of Wikipedia. That was the place where those edits should have been considered, wasn't it? So this is where I brought to the attention one of many I suspected in Sneaky vandalism. That very edit (deletion of content in a sneaky way) could not have been made neither in accordance with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 restrictions nor in good faith or in any way appropriate for the article The Armenian Genocide. In addition, if anybody thinks that somebody would make Sneaky Vandalism by blanking whole pages or paragraphs, I do not. Neither this edit could anyhow be viewed as quote: "...an effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". Deleting a factual newspaper page just to hide the title of it is in no way a desire to improve the encyclopedia, is it?

3) With the above in mind, I don't consider that bringing this very case to the attention of the admin for his/her consideration, with no direct accusation, as "throwing about the word "vandalism"" as Stifle calls it.

4) I would not justify in either way A sanction against an editor that are based or referred to as "I rather doubt that this small sanction will have any serious impact on Aregakn's editing of the encyclopedia." This isn't the way Admins are intitled to act, as I know.

5)If I have to comment the below "This appeal is ridiculous..... That isn't even a restriction." I want to be asked so by an uninvolved admin once again. Aregakn (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see, that Sandstein has made a vote for a decline with reasoning, that shows he has not familirised himself with the case. For isntance: [7]. I could mention others but think this is enough. An appaling action from an Administrator, when considering cases, I think. I hope that other rulings/votes/comments of his have not been made in this manner! Aregakn (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT NOTE. I am not appealing the whole ruling of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Hittit. It is only the sanction against me I am applying to be appealed. Aregakn (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The AE case that sanctioned me s linked correct. Here, in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Hittit -> in the paragraph Result concerning Hittit, along with others concerning Hittit, is the sanction against me:

Hittit (talk · contribs) and Aregakn (talk · contribs) are placed on an editing restriction in the following terms for one year. Should either describe any edit in the area of conflict (construed widely) as vandalism (including, but not limited to, in edit summaries, talk page posts, and AE requests), other than an edit, reverting which would be exempt from the 3RR, they may be blocked for an appropriate duration by an uninvolved administrator. This includes, but is not limited to, references to vandalism with a qualifier such as "obvious", "simple", or "possible"." end of quote.

Aregakn (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT NOTE. Unfortunately the Title of the appeal was, I think, mistakenly removed and this is why the whole case seemed irrelevant to the AE I mentioned. I am just noticing it [8]. I shall revert that change so everything is clear. Aregakn (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by NovaSkola. It is obvious, that he doesn't even read where he puts his comments. He has been asked once not to push malicious calumnies against me. He calls this process declined in ANI and now here, when it is yet in progress. He also claims I have been blackmailing users he calls Azeri, when the notifications on their talk-pages were inviting and linking to discussions started on certain article talk-pages. Aregakn (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stifle

One of the main issues related to this arbitration enforcement request was users throwing about the word "vandalism" to refer to edits with which they disagreed, rather than genuine damage to the encyclopedia. I rather doubt that this small sanction will have any serious impact on Aregakn's editing of the encyclopedia. Nevertheless, if there is a consensus that even the greatly reduced sanction I imposed after the appeal was excessive, then let it be lifted. Stifle (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Sandstein: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Hittit. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information: Aregakn is not subject to edit summary parole; that's Hittit. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Aregakn

Although I have edited on the "Armenian Genocide" in the past I have not been involved in this particular issue. I just wanted to say that Aregakn has done a lot of good work on Armenian issues in an impossible environment where he is outnumbered by people with extreme right-wing opinions. I just wanted to say that he deserves that you go easy on him. He is doing a great job in an impossible environment. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aregakn, please link to the request or discussion that led to your sanction, or we cannot review your appeal. Sandstein 07:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This appeal is ridiculous. So, he has been told not to refer to other people's edits as "vandalism" when they aren't? That isn't even a restriction. Nobody is allowed to refer to other people's edits as vandalism when they aren't. This sanction is merely a reminder of a behavioral norm that goes for everybody; it doesn't restrict his editing in any way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offtopic personal attacks by Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs) and ensuing discussion removed. Continued attacks of this sort will be sanctioned as disruption. Sandstein 15:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was neither offtopic nor a personal attack. I feel like I am communicating with aliens. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be quiet, Nipsonanomhmata. Your comments are wholly unhelpful and you are quickly losing any sympathy I may previously have had to the pending appeal against your sanctions. AGK 21:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline appeal. The appealed sanctions are a reasonable exercise of administrator discretion. The edit summary parole forbidding Aregakn from using misleading edit summaries is justified by the evidence given in the decision, and the editing restriction forbidding Aregakn from referring to non-vandalism edits by others as "vandalism" is within the scope of the normal rules of etiquette that every user must follow anyway. Sandstein 15:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is truely very sad to see how both of the commenting admins have refused to go into the sense of the appeal. I get the impression, that some become admins to feel the power of suppression and not for protecting Wikipedia integrity.

User Aregakn has been trying to prevent Articles from obvious disruptive edits of Hittit by bringing up his actions. For this, he has been sanctioned. He had not been accusing anybody constantly in vandalism. He just said 1 action could be vandalism (which obviously was). And for this he is sanctioned? And somebody yet agrees to sanction a good editor for nothing wrong? You have made a beurocracy out of Wikipedia! IsmailAhmedov (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled as to why Aregakn is appealing a general sanction that he has yet been proven to have violated. The message behind that is that he is seeking permission to actually use inaccurate edit summaries; and on that basis, I am opposed to reverse the ban. The subject of the sanctions used a misleading edit summary for multiple changes. For instance, on 08:01, 18 April 2010, he implied that the change he was reverting was inaccurate because 'Holocaust' is not the correct phrase to use. But that phrase in fact had nothing to do with the edit in question; indeed, the disputed material does not at any point mention the phrase 'Holocaust'. Furthermore, his claim that 'genocide' is a term only applicable to Nazi Germany, and to no other historical event, is clearly false—even to somebody like myself (with no familiarity with the subject area). Lifting this ban would be to condone poor editing habits, so I say we keep it. Decline appeal. AGK 15:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We would get a lot further if you linked to the AE case that sanctioned you, rather than to irrelevant cases. AGK 19:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that Aregakn was sanctioned in the course of a thread that was titled as concerning Hittit. I didn't pick up on that until Aregakn set me straight on my user talk page. I will offer a more extended comment shortly. AGK 21:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Where precisely was it Aregakn used a misleading edit summary? I cannot find any evidence that he did so. I did see evidence of limited edit warring back in April, but obviously that was not what he was sanctioned for. Comment by Stifle, as the administrator who passed the sanction, is especially solicited. AGK 12:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment dated 07:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC) by NovaSkola removed.) AGK 12:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, this section is reserved for constructive comments by uninvolved editors. AGK 12:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Aregakn

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Sciologos

Sciologos (talk · contribs) blocked for a week.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Sciologos

User requesting enforcement: -- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Sciologos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

12:56, 16 May 2010 Violation of sanctions imposed by admin Stifle (talk · contribs) at 09:23, 15 May 2010.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

09:24, 15 May 2010 -- Original sanction imposed by Stifle (talk · contribs) from a prior WP:AE thread.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): The administrator that imposed the original sanction stated, "Violation of this topic ban will result in a block of up to one month for a first infraction (up to one year thereafter) and the topic-ban being reset, as well as the possibility of further sanctions." The account Sciologos (talk · contribs) has violated the original sanction.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

16:47, 16 May 2010. -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Sciologos

Statement by Sciologos

Comments by others about the request concerning Sciologos

Result concerning Sciologos

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Clear violation. Blocked for a week without waiting for the user's statement, since the violation is unambiguous and Sciologos did not react to the previous AE request concerning them. Sandstein 17:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Ліонкінг

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

Ліонкінг and Tuscumbia topic banned for 1 month, placed on 1RR p/week for 4 months. AGK 01:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Ліонкінг

User requesting enforcement: Tuscumbia (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ліонкінг (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: # [9] I do apologize for inconvenience but since this is my first time requesting arbitration enforcement, I might not have requested the action on the proper page. After seeing a comment by another editor [10], I decided to place the request here, as well. Having said that this link is the direct link to AN/Edit-warring which contains my earlier comment as well as the comment by the reported user and other non-involved users. For ease of reading the original request from AN/Edit Warring, I am placing the same Comment below, in Additional Comments section:
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): # [11] Warning by Brandmeister (talk · contribs)

[12] Warning by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
[13] Warning by Tuscumbia (talk · contribs)
[14] Warning by Tuscumbia (talk · contribs) at the time of filing the request at AN/Edit-warring

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban, Revert restrictions, etc.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: The user Ліонкінг (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in extensive edit-warring for quite some time. The above articles are about cities/towns/regions of Azerbaijan currently under military control of Armenian forces as a result of Nagorno-Karabakh War. The territories are thus under de-facto rule of self-proclaimed NKR which has claimed the autonomous region of NKAO of Azerbaijan in 1988 but eventually occupied more than the claimed territory - 7 surrounding regions of Kelbajar, Zangelan, Lachin, Qubadli, Jabrayil, Agdam, Fizuli (last two partially). These regions along with the regions within the Azerbaijani NKAO were incorporated into unrecognized NKR and their names were changed by the unrecognized authorities. The self-proclaimed country is not recognized by any other countries and any international organization from UN to EC to OIC, etc. Similarly, the Armenian names given by the de-facto regime are not recognized either by any country. The international community recognizes their legitimate names by de-jure government of Azerbaijan. All proper and internationally recognized names are noted by GEOnet Names Server in these articles above in References sections.

The user Ліонкінг tries to override that reality by imposing the Armenian names in Wikipedia by inserting the Template:NKR created by him into these article with different names, unsourced by neutral websites and legitimate bodies, thus misleading the reader. For instance, Zangilan is presented as Kovsakan in his template, Lachin as Berdzor, etc.

The user keeps edit-warring while the issue of this template has been taken to the relevant board for discussion on deletion: [15]. Moreover, the user who tries to reach his aim, reported me here [16]], rather unsuccessfully. My statement is here explaining his objectives: [17] As soon as the case was closed by the admin as inactionable obviously to his surprise, the user Ліонкінг proceeded to his edit-warring 12 minutes later once again reverting all those pages: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], now taking it a step further by actually inserting unrecognized names into the articles. This can be similarly classified only as a case of music piracy when the songs are appropriated, altered, their names changed but still are unrecgonized as a violation of copyright laws.

Here he disregards WP:AGF sarcastically referring to some defeat, not sure which, but apparently referring to support from Armenian users on deletion discussion:[30]. Here he apparently takes an advantage of 3RR rule and reverts again (apparently unaware that I've done 2 reverts when 3 are allowed): [31] Tuscumbia (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, apologies for not placing the request at the proper location earlier.Tuscumbia (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [32]

Mostly offtopic bickering collapsed. Sandstein 20:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to MarshallBagramyan: While I applaud your trick to lure me into 1RR along with the reported user continuosly disrupting the articles with POV and thus causing continuous reverts by others, I have to request your provide concrete wrongdoings by me at Battle of Kelbajar, Armenia–Azerbaijan relations and Stepanakert Air Base on talk pages of those articles, where you kept removing sourced data as much is Fedayee and others users try to remove or add POV data. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ionidasz This user edits talk pages having no article contribution history whatsoever and appearing out of the blue always aware of what's going on in arbitration or discussion pages (Eg.[33]). Apparently you're either an established user or a blocked one using this account to post as "neutral" and non-involved user. As far as your baseless accusations are concerned, the block of messages you posted make no sense and are irrelevant. The Human Rights Watch source does say the Russian troops were involved and MarshallBagramyan went on to delete the text without a consensus, for a number of times. I included the general link to HRW source with search results because the various sentences from Battle of Kelbajar throughout the whole text refer to that source. Those references are taken from pages 35-54 of HRW report and are properly linked to the article. An editor assuming good faith does not need to delete the citation. He should have just searched for the information within the provided link if he was so interested in finding the actual quotation. It's very easy. In Google Books, there is a search window in the upper left corner. You can enter the searched item such as 128th Regiment, for instance and it will bring you the expected results. Try it some time.

Regarding the Armenia-Azerbaijan relations - Even though you're trying to mislead the administrators, you won't succeed. First off, I did not use the link [34] as you claim. I simply reverted the edit by Fedayee to the previous version because: 1) His version is pretty POV-based because Armenian citizens are allowed in Azerbaijan (Hit google search with any key words on Armenian diplomats, religious leaders, athletes, public diplomats, journalists, etc visiting Azerbaijan. I'm sure you'll find a lot. If not, let me know I'll be happy to post the links here); 2) He provided no sources watsoever backing up his claim. Anything else I can help you with?

Reply to Ionidasz: 1) Read all results [35] and find relevant data about Russian involvement; 2) Re: In an attempt to end the hostilities, U.S., Russia and Turkey reiterated the call for withdrawal of Armenian troops from Kelbajar region of Azerbaijan on May 6, which would be followed by formal peace talks. And? What's your point? Yes, that's a sourced information and yes, I added it to the article. Everybody knows Russia has supplied Armenia with weaponry with $1 billion supply being the noisiest to date. So? At the very same time, Russia also brokered peace in Bishkek and left weaponry to Azerbaijan in 1992 after the Tashkent treaty. I don't quite see anything ironic; 3) Yes, I reverted Fedayee because the information he added was not sourced. If you find a valid source, you're more than welcome to make an edit.

Reply to MarshallBagramyan: The trick is, Marshall, you're one of the edit-warring editors yourself and you tell me about my "sort of mentality"? When the edit is good-faith one I do cooperate and come to consensus. When the editor goes on a revert-rampage such as in case of the reported user and does not want to discuss anything on the talk page before making controversial edits, I fail to see those edits as good faith. You should review Ionidasz's contribution history to see why he appears in the heat of a debate all the time. Actually, considering your off-wiki communication, it's not hard to guess [36]. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ліонкінг I never filed any complaints because you violated 3RR since I am aware of the rule unlike you who thinks the 3rd revert constitutes a violation. My report is on edit warring and addition of POV data without any consensus. I only reverted you to previous versions in those articles requesting to discuss the issue at hand on the talk page(s) and only after reaching consensus, make the corresponding edit. You did express your willingness to communicate at times, however, you preferred to re-add your template or POV information and only then go on with the discussion which is not a sign of good will cooperation. As far as the addition of census information is concerned, I never told you your Soviet based information was invalid per se. The information you presented was from 1989 Soviet census thus leaving out 1989-1993 until the regions were occupied. The information I incorporated as an addition was based on census data from Ministry of Statistics combining the data from all those years. This is an extensive discussion which can only be done on the talk page to avoid overstretching this page. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Ліонкінг

Statement by Ліонкінг

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't read everything what here is written by others. Not because I don't respect somebody, but just because I don't have enough time. Everything I wanted, I've already written on the other page where Tuscumbia make a claim. I want just remind that I have not done 3 reverts, both of us (Tuscumbia and I) make 2 reverts. More than that, after his second revert I've reminded him on his talk page that he has done already 2 reverts. During this reverts we have got a discussion about the deleting of template which started Brandmeister. Speaking about request Tuscumbia warned me before 2 minutes, see diff. While I've warned him earlier and both of us made 2 reverts.

I want to remind that since wright begining of my activity users Tuscumbia, Brandmeister and NovaSkola started harassment against me. And it is well organised. You can see as on the Martuni talk page we were discussed the main name of the article. During this discussion User:NovaSkola twicely moved the name of the page. More than that he make a request for protection of this page after his second move. Now the page is protected and pro-Azeri users more don't take a part in discussion as they have made unhonest think and they don't need more discussion. After that this user has tried this system (moving and making request for protection even not participating in the discussion) with an article Mardakert.

Another situation with this users is that in the articles about NKR-controlled Rayons I've changed a mystery number of population which has claimed Azerbaijan (Azerbaijan don't control this teritory and can't know the population of this teritories) and filled the results of the census in 1989 (there was census of 2005, made by NKR, but I've decided to fullfill undoubtfull number for both parties), but Tuscumbia reverted all my edits and said that I'm a nationalist and I support Armenian propaganda. You can just compare the edits. My edit, his revert. He has deleted template "citation needed" where link doesn't works. My neutral link of the all-Soviet census (1989) he has deleted and changed on the Azeri source where are no information where are from this numbers (there were no census after 1989, except NKR census of 2005) and even no info about the year of this facts. He just reverted me edits, because he don't like them. I have not changed Azeri links on Armenian, I've just changed unverificated source on neutral verificated. And so on in the other articles: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41] and some others. On my warning he answered that my statements are nationalistic, while I have not used even any Armenian source, but I used recognised from both parties USSR census. After that Brandmeister make a claim against me.

Who organised this three users act You can see for example here.

All in all if according to the ruls I must get a punishment (for my 2 reverts if there is punishment for it), such punishment also must get Tuscumbia as he has done similar with me number of reverts.

In my opinion, all these lawsuit filed against me lately are just a dirty way to deal with opponents. --Ліонкінг (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly offtopic bickering collapsed. Sandstein 20:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respond to Tuscumbia. Tuscumbia what do You mean by consensus? When we were discussing the name of the article on it's talk page while NovaSkola rudely moved the name don't taking a part in discussion. After neutral user Golbez has mentioned that NovaSkola made a rudely move and after he make a notice on NovaSkola's talk page, NovaSkola has written that he never noticed this talk page but all in all he moved the article secondly and make a request for protection on it. Since that time You don't participate in discussion. If consensus for You is this, I disagree with You.
About sources I've said everything and I have nothing to add. Just compare the USSR census of 1989 and mystery estimate of 1993 and You will be shoked as during the 4 years of war population was increased in a 25%.
And the last ting is Your phrase "a sign of good will cooperation". If You've got such will, You wouldn't act in this way harassing me and reverting my edits. In Your POV, You can edit what You want and I should receive the agreement from You? My edits are elementary edits which are making wikipedia more neutral, veryficated and comfortable encyclopedy. --Ліонкінг (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to compare sources.

	My source	Your source
Link	http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng89_reg1.php	http://www.mct.gov.az/?/az/cities/view/386/
Name of link	Demoscope	Ministry of culture and Tourism of the Republic of Azerbaijan
Place, where link is situated	Russia	Azerbaijan
Type	Official census in USSR	Not mentioned
Year	1989	Not mentioned
Neutrality	Neutral	Unneutral
Recognise	Recognised from both parties	Claimed by Azerbaijan

So You have deleted my source and filled Your doubtful source. Then You start reverting all my articles. In my opinion it is even not a vandalism, it is deliberate falsification of information. Just compare the population

Rayon	Census in USSR (1989)	Database, claimed by Azeri link (year is unknown, Tuscumbia claimed that it in 1989-1993)	Increase of population during 4 years of war
Agdam	131293	158900	21%
Fizuli	89417	140900	57%
Jabrayil	49156	62100	26%
Kubatli	28110	34100	21%
Lachin	47339	65600	38%
Zangelan	32698	36100	10%

So You have reverting my source in war edit while Your source is not more than Azeri propoganda, used to enlarge the number of refugees for the people who don't know about this conflict. According to this, the population during 4 years of war increased in 10-57%. It cannot increase during the war. So You make deliberate falsification of information without any discussion, just reverting the edits proved by verified neutral sources of others. [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47] Now You just want to ban me for continue of Your falsifications. --Ліонкінг (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed the issue at hand on those talk pages. The difference in increase of population in Agdam, Fizuli, Jabrayil, Qubadli, Lachin and Zangelan raions are due to mass exodus of ethnic Azerbaijanis from Armenia in 1987-1989 and from cities and villages in Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast from 1988 to 1991/93 (Aghdara, Khojaly, Khojavend, Khankendi, Shusha. Hence the increased number from the Soviet sources. As per the Ministry of Statistics, the new census records the number of refugees from these regions and allocates the numbers to those regions versus adding them to their current temporary refugee camp/town locations. There are no falsifications. This is actually an oldie from Armenian prpoganda machine to increase the number of Armenians and decrease the number of Azerbaijanis in any region the claim is placed on. And read the enforcement action requested. I never asked to ban you, but place you on revert restrictions or topic bans since all your edits in Azerbaijan related articles are disruptive. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, realy!? And why I don't see it here: Talk:Lachin Rayon, Talk:Zangilan Rayon, Talk:Qubadli Rayon, Talk:Jabrayil Rayon, Talk:Fizuli Rayon, Talk:Agdam Rayon, Talk:Kalbajar Rayon!? Tuscumbia, it is only Your POV. I need source that confirm what about You claim. In Your link there are nothing what about You claim now. You just try to manipulate with numbers of refugees.

About which census You are speaking now? Maybe it will be a news for You, but on the teritory of the NKR after the all-Soviet census of 1989, there were only one census, in 2005. I understand the it is a real frustration and unhappiness for You, but no any Azerbaijan census tool place in the NKR anytime. Azeri propaganda can claim what they want, but they don't control this teritory.

Have I used any Armenian source!? As I haven't used any Armenian source I can say that Your charges on me that it is an Armenian propoganda just shows that You use a propaganda, trying to make white into black.

What do You mean speaking about disruptive edits? I've proved all my edits (at least most of them) with neutral, accurate and reliable source while there were just info without any source. After that You revert all my edits changing my neutral and reliable source on Your unneutral, unaccurate and unreliable source according to which we even can't know what is the year of this chifres and where from they have received it. Or do You mean that my edits are disruptive because I fill in the articles about the NKR cities created template for comfortability?

In my POV, it's not I, but You and some Your collegues who make disruptive edits just reverting my edits and searching any variant to make any claim against me. I can say that You feel the danger that I can crash this propoganda system which You've made. I promise that I'll do everything I can to make enwiki more reliable, truthful and unbiased in the articles in which I'm interested. I am ready to break the media blockade, which created a number of participants in the articles of this trend, and unlike you, I do not use all possible ways, such as constant complaints or actions like yours, or of the user NovaSkola. But I know that the organisators of this propoganda aren't nor You and nor NovaSkola. They know whom about I'm speaking now. Greetings --Ліонкінг (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the talk pages. It was actually on my talk page during the time of discussion in my communication with Golbez [48]. Again, re-read what I write: the census taken by Azerbaijan is based on count of refugees from those regions. After the Soviet census, the number of incoming refugees from Armenia and IDPs from occupied cities from former NKAO was counted in years before occupation of regions outside of former NKAO. After that, the census was taken from those in refugee camps/towns and added to the census of those regions. Hence the increase from 1989. Your disruptive edits continue not only on those pages. You seem to be doing anything to re-write the geographical and political data inserting your POV in articles such as this [49], [50], or your edits in Ukranian Wikipedia where you're pretty much unopposed, you create untrue information about territories of Azerbaijan without a word about de-jure status of Azerbaijan such as this one [51]. Imagine what you would have done here if your POV wasn't opposed in En Wiki. Your promise "to do everything" what you claim is actually the reason you're here. Dismissing the neutral data and adding your POV without a single regard to neutrality of the articles is not acceptable to any editors. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So You've recognised that You haven't even tried to discuss it with me unlike You've mentioned higher. More than that not You, but Golbez started the discussion.

Again I repeat that it is only Your POV. There are nothing You've mentioned in Your source. It is nothing more than your assumption that can be very easily exposed. But I wouldn't do it because You'll disagree with me and continue again and again this empty discussion about Your claim. So I'm waiting for real links which can prove what have You written.

Bravo! You again proved that You harass my contributions. I don't have any problems with that difs. I haven't proved it by sources, so I haven't reverted it. When I'll have a time, I'll prove it with sources and fill back. Don't touch my edits in other language wikipedias. It is enwiki and we're speaking about it.

No need to pull out excerpts from my proposals. At least it is not pretty. I said what I said, so do not interpret my words as it is to you advantage. I think the same way you try to justify the inexplicable data from Azerbaijani sources.

Speaking about why I'm here I'll answer to You. I'm here since august 2008 and I've make more than 5,5 thousands of edits to improve the level of this encyclopedy. And as I'm typing here You can understand that except You and Your collegues the most part of the wikipedian society don't have anything against me. It is the third claim in enwiki against me and all of them were made and supported by You, NovaSkola and Brandmeister. --Ліонкінг (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Ліонкінг

Mostly offtopic bickering collapsed. Sandstein 20:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a great deal of pontificating done here by the editor who has launched this ArbCom case against Ліонкінг. Asides from presenting an irrelevant (and inaccurate) picture of the situation in world politics and while he complains about edit warring and massive reverts, he himself has done nothing to ameliorate the situation and he immediately began to mass-revert Ліонкінг's edits without entering into a genuine discussion about them. My experience with Tuscumbia has been exasperating, to say the least. On the Battle of Kelbajar article (see history), he reverted me multiple times and re-inserted contentious material even though I clearly noted that there were serious discrepancies in the article and mentioned other misgivings in my edit summaries. In other articles, such as Armenia–Azerbaijan relations and Stepanakert Air Base, he is just as loath to discuss his edits and reverts and removes good-faith edits on sight, without adding any helpful tags that other editors can return to. I, too, have grown weary of these edit wars but it's absurd to think, as Tuscumbia has alleged, that a single editor is responsible for wreaking all this havoc and that the actions of other editors are simply a reaction to his edits. If we want to see a cleaner, healthier editing environment, perhaps placing both of them under a weekly 1RR for an extensive period of time will induce them to discuss each others' edits rather than just launch these pointless, interminable edit wars. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely where are these edit wars? I ask only because the party who filing this request provided the sum of zero supporting diffs. AGK 15:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, they are reported here [52]. To avoid excessive diffs here I had to post a link to the previous request at AN/Edit Warring which shows those diffs in several articles at the time of filing. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that now. Thanks. AGK 15:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of edit wars were caused by Ліонкінг's editing against consensus, and reverting to his edits which clearly were not accepted by other editors involved in those articles. I do not see any attempt on his part to follow procedures prescribed by WP:DR. Whenever there was a disagreement, he chose to edit war rather than seek dispute resolution. Previously he was warned about the AA2 sanctions. Grandmaster 16:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please DO familirize yourselves with all that it on the Notification Board. it is VERY important and directly relevant to edit-warring. There you shall see evidences, that such requests are made on Azeri mass-media to everybody that reads. Please do read the it carefully [53]. Aregakn (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, we do see that. It was linked to about eight lines above your comment. AGK 17:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did noticed and so I was asking to be possibly more attentive. Thanks Aregakn (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Tuscumbia conduct to AGK: Tuscumbia use of sources is very problematic. If you check the revert warrings Marshal Bagramyan refers to we see clear cases of misuse of sources. The first case is the [[Battle of Kelbajar]. He first adds the report by HRW, we see though that the link does not send us to the page, but to the search result within the work. MarshallBagramyan reverts claiming distortion of sources. Tuscumbia makes a partial revert. Note that he add again, the claimed involvement of Russian forces. [54], read MarshallBagramyan and Tuscumbia edit summaries, MarshallBagramyan writes: You're still distorting the source: the Russian "help" remains an uncorroborated Azeri allegation while nothing about the use of GRADs are mentioned regarding Kelbajar; also deleting duplicate info, while Tuscumbia answers: It will really help if you actually read the source through. Nothing is distorted. MarshallBagramyan repeats here. Note also that Tuscumbia still add a duplicate material without even addressing why he is adding it. He add the Russian involvement back. Nowhere does MarshallBagramyan deny that such a claim does not exist, he repeated again that the source is distorted, also he needed to clarify twice that there is a duplicate material, while he was blindly reverted. Now concerning what the source is saying regarding the Russian involvement: In addition, the Azerbaijani government stated that radio intercepts proved that mountain troops from the 128th Regiment of the 7th Russian Army based in Armenia took part in the battle. Now see the accuracy of the edit summaries by MarshallBagramyan in opposition to Tuscumbia who still maintain nothing was distorted, while the former repeat that it was an Azeri claim, which is confirmed by the same source Tuscumbia is using. Now another presented by MarshallBagramyan, is the article Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, the source being used is this which is a standard generated destination information. It says nothing about being able to obtain any visa, but rather that a visa is required. While almost everything in Tuscumbia conduct in those articles appear to be questionable (from my limited reading of his contribution of the last few days), I will refrain from adding more to not waste your time. Ionidasz (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply regarding Tuscumbia Response to MarshallBagramyan, I wonder how is it expected that users corraborate, when critics are being replied by statments like: While I applaud your trick to lure me into 1RR. Also, given my comment above, Response to MarshallBagramyan by Tuscumbia does not make sense, as in the context it is Tuscumbia who ignored the relevant edit summaries which made it clear that the souces used by Tuscumbia were not supporting what he was adding in the articles. Ionidasz (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: FYI, [55] and I hope this will stop being brought since I never tried hidding it.

I have never tried to post as a neutral or non-involved user, I should not be needing to ask to AGF! I can't make much sense here of the reply. I will repeat it again, result for 128th Regiment, searching in the work one result and the result clearly state that it is the Azerbaijani government which stated that the regiment participated, yet the claim is attributed to HRW and added in the infobox. And ironically, Tuscumbia adds the following: In an attempt to end the hostilities, U.S., Russia and Turkey reiterated the call for withdrawal of Armenian troops from Kelbajar region of Azerbaijan on May 6, which would be followed by formal peace talks. [56]

I adivce AKG to read Tuscumbia revert of Fedayee here and compare it to what Tuscumbia wrote in his reply to me above. It reintroduce info which was deleted which had nothing to do with visa (historic info) and also it actually remove the link which does not support what is claimed. Tuscumbia is claiming: Even though you're trying to mislead the administrators, you won't succeed. Nowhere I am doing this, and I hope he is asked to abid by AGF.

(Flamewar removed.
Lots of bickering that was previously here has been removed. Keep comments brief and on-topic please. If you can't pose a constructive comment, keep quiet. AGK 21:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but note that in what you have deleted Tuscumbia has about admitted he has reverted Fedayee without knowing what he was reverting. This is probably the worst possible offense being reported by either spectrum described in this report. I hope you will take note of that. Thanks. Ionidasz (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about User:Ліонкінг's action, especially if you check his contributions, this user nearly always declined population of Azerbaijani Karabakh related articles and asked user User:Aregakn to help to lobbing his ideas so he can have support by vandalizing Azerbaijan articles. Another good evidence to support my opinion could be, nearly always User:Ліонкінг involved in support of user User:Aregakn, and vice-verse raising many doubts such as why this 2 users are very closely related and why both of their aims unifies against Azerbaijani articles. --NovaSkola (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NovaSkola, your division of Wikipedia into nationalities and state belonging is unacceptable! You speak of lobbying but this was what you were doing before me against users you wanted to take off your way. I don't see how you can speak of it. And most importantly, if you expect other editors to stay appart from bringing facts about what is taking place silent to be able to push some kind of "agenda", that's your mistaken opinion. As the above shows, you seem to have mistakenly been editing in Wikipedia rather than "Azeri articles", as you call them, in an other website or blog. Aregakn (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have problems with anybody and I don't divide people by nationalities, however I do criticize people who vandalise articles, whether it is about Azerbaijan or some place else. Your evidence against me is false as show me, one website where I refer to blogs or personal sites!!Please keep personal involvement away from me as by falsely accusing others, you are damaging not only your image but also showing your non-constructiveness and blackmailing side.--NovaSkola (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention, please! This section is dedicated exclusively to discussing whether the present request concerning Ліонкінг should result in sanctions against Ліонкінг. It is not to be used to discuss the conduct of other editors, conduct by Ліонкінг other than that raised in the request, or content disputes. Editors who continue to misuse this section for such matters may be sanctioned for disrupting arbitration enforcement. If you have anything intelligent, polite and novel to say about the edits by Ліонкінг discussed in the request, please make one statement in a separate section below. (Administrators may still decide to take action against multiple editors as a result of the mess of a discussion above.) Sandstein 21:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Ліонкінг

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Awaiting statement from the subject of the complaint. At present I am inclined to apply a topic ban of moderate length (perhaps one month) to the subject and to any other editors involved in the disputes concerned whose conduct is problematic. AGK 15:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the continued battleground conduct above, several editors may need a topic ban. Sandstein 19:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I will take a final look at the complaint, and at peripheral material such as the above three flamewars, and then propose action. AGK 21:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The conduct of both Ліонкінг and Tuscumbia his laughably poor. I am unfamiliar with the specifics of the underlying content dispute, but both sides do seem to have merit; and so I have treated this dispute as a simple content disagreement. Upon evaluation of this complaint, I see that both parties have repeatedly reverted across various articles relating to Azerbaijan and Armenia. Both have made limited attempts to pursue discussion or dispute resolution; for instance, Talk:Zəngilan was impliedly cited as an instance of inter-party discussion. What I see there is lots of bickering and nothing else. I am unsure what the community's consensus is on whether the templates Ліонкінг and Tuscumbia are edit warring over should be included in these articles and on which iteration of the statements and references being reverted over is the most appropriate for inclusion. But irrespective of the content issues, this method of collaboration is utterly unhelpful.

Ліонкінг (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic banned from all pages relating to Armenia and to Azerbaijan for thirty days from the time of this comment. As always this ban is subject to reset or extension in the event of a violation. Ліонкінг is also prohibited from making more than one revert per week for a period of four months from the date of this comment.
Ditto the above: Tuscumbia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic banned from all pages relating to Armenia and to Azerbaijan for thirty days from the time of this comment. As always this ban is subject to reset or extension in the event of a violation. Tuscumbia is also prohibited from making more than one revert per week for a period of four months from the date of this comment.

This decision is made under the provisions of the discretionary sanctions at Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Both Ліонкінг and Tuscumbia have previously been placed on notice, and so are sanctionable. This enforcement decision will be logged as usual, and can be appealed only through the usual channels. AGK 01:16, 19 May 2010 (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.

Shutterbug

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Shutterbug

User requesting enforcement: -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Shutterbug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Shutterbug

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

01:46, 1 October 2009 -- Edit by sock account, to page within topic ban subject
01:02, 14 May 2010 -- Edit by sock account, to page within topic ban subject
20:04, 16 May 2010 -- Edit by sock account, to page within topic ban subject
20:34, 16 May 2010 -- Edit by sock account, to page within topic ban subject
19:59, 17 May 2010 -- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbug case closed, with block of sock account of Shutterbug, Wobblegenerator (talk · contribs).
23:38, 17 May 2010 -- Checkuser confirms the blocked sock account has edited through open proxies, in violation of "Editors instructed" remedy from WP:ARBSCI.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

01:31, 29 May 2009 -- Notice of the multiple WP:ARBSCI remedies, by Mailer diablo (talk · contribs)
03:31, 2 June 2009 -- Blocked, for violating the topic ban imposed by WP:ARBSCI, violation using the main Shutterbug account, block by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Indefinite block. -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: This is not simply related to Enforcement by block, from WP:ARBSCI, but also there is the issue of socking in order to avoid scrutiny related to the topic ban, so as to violate the topic ban. -- Cirt (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Clear violation of multiple remedies applicable against Shutterbug (talk · contribs) from the WP:ARBSCI case. These include:

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

20:40, 17 May 2010, notice given. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Shutterbug

Statement by Shutterbug

Comments by others about the request concerning Shutterbug

Result concerning Shutterbug

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

If I've understood correctly, Shutterbug was a user who previously engaged in sock puppetry, and was disruptive, which resulted in a topic ban. Since then, the account hasn't edited. The evidence shows that it seems probable, if not completely certain that Shutterbug has been socking. In this context, if no-one objects, I'll block the account tomorrow. PhilKnight (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifan12345

Moot point. Article locked for 1 week HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Wikifan12345

User requesting enforcement: -- ChrisO (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

22:29, 17 May 2010 (Wikifan12345) Addition of self-published source for commentary on living person, in contravention of WP:BLP#Avoid self-published sources
22:36, 17 May 2010 (Wikifan12345) Addition of defamatory claim that the subject of the article "allowed dozens of black people who were unfairly tried to be executed" and comparison to Josef Mengele
23:14, 17 May 2010 (Momma's Little Helper) Restoration of the above
23:45, 17 May 2010 (Wikifan12345) Restoration of the above

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

(Wikifan12345) Warning by ChrisO (talk · contribs). (I should also note that I have previously blocked Wikifan12345 - see [57])
(Momma's Little Helper) Warning by ChrisO (talk · contribs) and notification of arbitration sanctions.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Article ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The subject of the article, Richard Goldstone, is a very distinguished former South African judge, handpicked by Nelson Mandela for South Africa's constitutional court, who has also headed the UN war crimes tribunals and various UN commissions. He has recently attracted controversy for a report on the Gaza War. On 6 May 2010, the Israeli tabloid newspaper Yedioth Ahrinoth published claims about Goldstone's record in South Africa that are contradicted by the overwhelming majority of previous reporting and that have been rejected by the man himself and by his judicial colleagues in South Africa. The claims represent a fringe historical revisionist view of Goldstone's career. They have also prompted frankly defamatory claims by fringe activists.

Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) and Momma's Little Helper (talk · contribs) have sought to feature this material prominently in the article, contravening key WP:BLP requirements:

To avoid undue weight on tiny-minority viewpoints;
To beware of claims that rely on guilt by association;
To use only high-quality sources; sensationalist tabloid reporting clearly does not meet these requirements.

The defamatory material consists of claims from two fringe activists, that the subject of the article had "allowed dozens of black people who were unfairly tried to be executed" (which is false; see Richard Goldstone#Judicial career), and that the subject of the article was guilty of a "crime of moral turpitude". These represent tiny-minority viewpoints which are clearly libellous.

In addition, both editors have repeatedly added or restored commentary about Richard Goldstone's rulings on the former Yugoslavia that is sourced to a personal self-published website, in violation of WP:BLP#Avoid self-published sources.

I have discussed these issues at length on the article talk page and at WP:BLP/N#Richard Goldstone, where uninvolved editors have agreed that this material should not be included. I have sought to uphold the BLP policy by removing poorly sourced and defamatory material from the article and greatly expanding its content using numerous reliable sources. (This is how I found the article, with numerous items sourced to blogs and unreliable sources; this is its current state.) However, both editors have ignored or dismissed these issues and have continued adding or restoring defamatory and self-published material in spite of repeated explanations, notifications and warnings.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Wikifan12345

Statement by Wikifan12345

Last I checked this was a content dispute ChrisO. You removed 4 whole paragraphs that were supported by reliable sources, claiming they were part of an effort to smear Goldstone and portray him as a Nazi. To justify your massive deletions, you claimed the paragraphs were supported by unreliable sources and violated BLP. The only source you cite as unreliable was WND - but that source only supported one single sentence out of the 4 paragraphs you removed. I for one consider your removal meets the general signs of IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not the only user who felt this way.

As far as edits go, all I did was restore 3 of the paragraphs in a "criticism and controversy" section after you totally ignored my response in talk. ChrisO immediately edit-warred the paragraphs out, citing it as fringe and self-published (self-published opinion does not make it unreliable). Another editor restored my edit after your weak rationale, and then I restored it again (2 edits). So I wasn't edit-warring, participated in discussion, did all the right things. I even messaged your talk page explaining how I felt. Now you're going around and threatening other users with arbitration enforcement who disagree with your aggressive and uncooperative editing in the article.

I don't see how I can edit the article further if ChrisO is going to remove anything he doesn't like. He's made it his own personal property. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Wikifan12345

The post at BLP did not come to a consensus that the information should not be included. Several editors expressed the opinion that it is completely appropriate, and that censoring the information simply because it paints Goldstone in a poor light is unacceptable on Wikipedia. ChrisO may think highly of this man, but other people don't. There are reliable and relevant sources that point out the criticism, and it is ridiculous that ChrisO has gone on a personal crusade to censor this criticism. He has violated WP:3RR at Richard Goldstone and after being asked to self-revert, he refused. Therefore, the issue has been taken here. Breein1007 (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN3 is not the appropriate place to deal with BLP issues. Your request was rejected. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it was not my request. Second of all, it is certainly the appropriate place to deal with someone who has reverted 5 times in 24 hours. And you have failed to address the fact I mentioned here, that BLP did not reach consensus the way you claimed in your AE report. Breein1007 (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content: "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." In other words, you need content to include this material, not to exclude it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you fail that policy where it says good-faith BLP objections. Deleting paragraphs of criticism from an article because you personally believe the man is a righteous judge, even though the criticism comes from reliable sources, is not good-faith. Breein1007 (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of your deletions is disputed Chris. You totally gutted the article, removing anything remotely controversial and replacing it with your own research. You even removed the one-sentence Chomsky commentary, claiming it was m duplication & unreliably sourced material, add more on ICTY. Really? Noam Chomsky an unreliable source? Does he not get a voice? All I did was restore material considered to be prematurely and unfairly removed, I didn't edit any of it aside from the Chomsky and Neal Shear paragraphs which were legitimate and consistent with BLP guidelines. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Wikifan12345

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Igny

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Igny

User requesting enforcement: Colchicum (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Igny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: 1. [58]

2. [59]

3. [60]

4. [61]

(the latest spree of personal attacks with frivolous speculations of ongoing improper coordination, assumptions of bad faith, explicitely prohibited in this topic area under WP:DIGWUREN)

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): [62] Official notice by Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Whatever you deem suitable to prevent the occurrence of such comments in the future

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Re [63]. What was arguably appropriate at his SPI (which has long been dismissed as frivolous [64]) is not appropriate if tirelessly repeated in a conversation. It is particularly worrying that Igny doesn't admit any wrongdoing on his part here and doesn't refrain from further attacks. Colchicum (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Sandstein: it is precisely what Igny was warned about: [65]: Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith... The general restriction 11, superseded by a broader motion (12). Colchicum (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [66]

Discussion concerning Igny

Statement by Igny

I am within my right to bring the fact that the WP:EEML is alive and well and likely recruiting new members to the attention of the Wikipedia community. The use of a SPA to help out User:Sander Säde is the proof of my claim. The SPA was used to skew consensus at this request to move quite possibly violating a topic ban. That is all I have to say in response to this frivolous AE request. (Igny (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Igny

Colchicum, you state in your request that this concerns "frivolous speculations of ongoing improper coordination, assumptions of bad faith, explicitely prohibited in this topic area under WP:DIGWUREN". Can you please tell us to which "explicit" prohibition in the decision WP:DIGWUREN you refer? Sandstein 17:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting really ridiculous. Igny seems to think there is some kind of huge conspiracy against him, repeatedly making baseless insulting accusations. When asked for any evidence, he just shrugs the question off. The insults are getting rather annoying, though, so it would be nice to have the checkuser case accepted and finished. As long as it is not verified that no ex-EEML member is behind ISerovian and IP's, Igny and others seem to think that they can continue these accusations indefinitely.

Igny filed his second move request five days after his previous move request failed - and he had repeatedly attempted to move article unilaterally, earning a warning from an administrator. The closing admin of the second move request especially pointed out that he based the decision on arguments and not votes (here), same was confirmed in even stronger tone by the checkuser clerk ([67]).

Let me repeat this once again (fourth time, I think). I have not asked any help about the article. I did not need or want help - and in post-EEML situation, I would be an utter and total idiot to do anything remotely like what Igny is so certain I have done. I do not know who is behind IP's and ISerovian - or if they are even related. I've presumed that it is the same person, but obviously it is just my opinion.

--Sander Säde 18:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Igny

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

The arbitration discretionary sanctions of WP:DIGWUREN are confined to articles which relate to Eastern Europe. The conduct complained of is on the workshop of an arbitration case, and so for us to impose sanctions relating to the conduct would be ultra vires. The matter should be brought to the attention of the case clerks and/or a temporary injunction proposed in the case. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Divot

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Divot

User requesting enforcement: Grandmaster 08:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Divot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): # [79] Warning by Brandmeister (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): revert limitation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Despite the warning about AA2 sanctions, Divot (talk · contribs) shows no intention to stop edit warring in the article about the Khojaly Massacre. For the time being, he has already made 11 rvs in this article, first removing the mention of a source, then making edits doubting its authenticity. He was advised to take the issue to WP:RSN before making any reverts or POV edits, but made no efforts to resolve the dispute via WP:DR. After the issue was taken to WP:RSN by his opponents, he still is not willing to wait for the outcome of the discussion, but continues revert warring. 11 reverts is too much by any standards, and I believe that arbitration enforcement is necessary in this case to stop disruption and get the issue resolved by regular dispute resolution practices. It is also worth taking a look at the short history of Divot's contribution in en:wiki, which includes inter alia revert warring on Georgian alphabet. Grandmaster 08:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [80]

Discussion concerning Divot

Statement by Divot

Comments by others about the request concerning Divot

I've protected the page due to the ongoing edit warring. This is to stop the problem from escalating further and should not be seen as precluding further sanctions. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Divot

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards