Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62

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

Request concerning Radeksz

 * User requesting enforcement : Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 09:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : EEML


 * 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): # Not applicable
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : Block


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : The AfD is clearly within the scope of the topic ban given to Radeksz. Even worse, is that it is an AfD involving one of his fellow WP:EEML brigadiers. Whether any comments in the AfD were warranted or not, this does not excuse the continuation of battleground behaviour by Radeksz, and moreso the use of personal attacks by calling an editor a WP:DICK is also not warranted. The topic ban was warranted because he has a history of such behaviour (see EEML), and as such he is not welcome to edit any articles, or participate in any process discussion, relating to EE subjects for a year. That he has chosen to breach the sanctions put upon him on such an article is evidence of the contempt that Radeksz has for the topic ban, and as such should be blocked for a lengthy term of 6-12 months.
 * Response to Tznkai. Your question is moot. The words "widely construed" clearly make it clear that this is covered by the topic ban. I was recently under a Russia topic ban and your question is a form of wikilawyering. Under my topic ban I knew that I would be unable to edit say Tatiana Grigorieva, an Australian of Russian decent, and if it were taken to AfD, I would be unable to comment in it. If anyone doubts this, I will defer the answering of this question to User:Sandstein, as this is what he made clear to me when he topic banned myself, and we need fair and equitable interpretation across the board...what's good for the goose, and all that. This article is no different, but it is worse given the special circumstances of the article being on one of the EEML brigadiers. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 09:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Radeksz, you cannot moralise that this was all about "common decency" when you clearly used a personal attack against another editor. That is a hypocritical argument to use, and not one that should be considered. Also, WP:DICK is not policy, it's an essay hosted on MetaWiki, and linking to it is a personal attack, much like if I were to direct you to WP:DOUCHE. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 09:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive54 which is linked to below gives some light on this issue. As Radeksz got a warning for calling another editor an arsehole (something which was ban worthy), and was warned it would be severe in case of a repeat, surely a lengthy ban is warranted here. That Radeksz has retracted the comments, does not excuse breaking the topic ban (with personal attacks to boot) in the first place. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 11:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that EEML allowed Radeksz to edit a narrow number of articles solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. This edit in which he is adding material to articles outside of the remit of the motion is probably also against both the motion, and therefore in violation of the topic ban as well? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 15:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by Radeksz
Whoa, record timing Russavia, you managed to file this request before I had a chance to refresh my watchlist after posting that message. Kudos. Battleground much?

Anyway.

1) I stand by my comments made at the AFD. It was about time somebody said something. A public humiliation of an editor who is the subject of that article IS NOT something that Wikipedia should be about. Varsovian was violating WP:DICK on that AFD as anyone who's not an invested battleground warrior can see for themselves. Why couldn't he have just voted delete, stated his reason in a calm manner, and left it at that like everyone else on the AFD? Pointing out (gross) incivility is not necessarily incivil itself - else why do we even have a policy called "WP:DICK"?

2) I'm not sure how that article even falls under the topic ban? Because Ryszard is originally Polish? Even though he's really Canadian? Ok, fine.

3) Oh yeah - note I didn't vote or comment on the nature of the AFD. My comment only addressed the fact that Varsovian was ridiculing and belittling the subject of that article. As long as the article exists, BLP still applies, doesn't it?

4) If there was a Wikipedia article on the real life person behind Varsovian or Russavia, whoever they may be, if it got AFD and if somebody (even one of "my fellow EEMLers"; did I mention I haven't been on the list for 6 months and don't even have an idea if it still exists?) was acting the way Varsovian is acting on the Tylman article, I would say the exact same thing. If I had an article, I sincerely hope that someone would stand up and say it too.

Anyway, if this is a blockable action, then go ahead and block. Somebody needed to say something about common decency. I'll take a block for that.

I stand by my comment made at the AFD. I don't think making it violated the topic ban since the article's about a Canadian artist who happens to be of Polish background. I didn't vote or comment on the nature of the AFD but addressed another user's flagrant incivility. Even then, BLP violations are generally excluded from topic bans and this was clearly a BLP violation though it didn't happen on the article itself.

Oh and I believe that usage of such terms as "brigadiers" was expressly forbidden during the case.


 * Re to FP. Huh, I didn't even know about the Tymek thing (shows how much I'm in the loop). So yes, you're right, it does appear I violated the topic ban. Didn't think so, but I did (putting aside the fact that Tymek voted and I didn't).


 * M.K's presence is not surprising here. I have no strategy or a favorite tactic. I saw one person trying to humiliate another and said something. None of the diffs M.K provides are aggressive or violations of the topic ban. The first one says something positive about an editor without saying anything negative about somebody else. The second one... . is not even made by me (!!!!), the third one just points out some rude behavior, and the fourth one is an open statement at the ArbCom page. Ummm, seriously - please don't be too busy to click these refs to see the veracity of M.K statements.
 * I have no idea what he's talking about in his last sentence. And like I said, if this violates the topic ban, fine. I didn't think so when I made the edit, but apparently it does.


 * And the battleground continues. And continues. And continues.

Note: Offensive portion of Varsovian's comment was removed by another editor with a reprimand. Hence, I removed mine as well .radek (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional clarification: Ever since the topic ban went into effect I haven't even been watching most related articles covered by the topic ban and I certainly had no idea what was going on with the Ryszard Tylman article. I can't even remember if I was aware that it had been nominated for the 3rd time. The only reason I checked in on it this, 4th, time around is because the nominator left a message on my talk. Probably would have been better if he hadn't.radek (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to Russavia, "don't be a dick" is one of the "the foundational principles of the policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia". The more extensive elaboration of course is here, but it is very common to just refer to "WP:DICK" in discussions. If refererring to "foundational principles of the policies of the English Wikipedia" is considered uncivil, perhaps that should be indicated somewhere, or the name of the policy and the policy page itself should be changed.radek (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by M.K.
This is Radeksz's strategy of assessing, borderlining and crossing but only so much that he doesnt get negative consequences, then some silence, then some border transgression. The subject of the AfD was caught to be a member of the EEML clan. The EEML clan made travesty of Wikipedia, protecting one another in discussions and attacking their perceived foes, among them Russavia and me. Tymek also tried to evade the topic ban on that article, ending in block.   Radeksz was even warned for transgression and "not to pull such stunts again" on the AE board Last but not least, EEML messages reviled that favorite Radeksz tactic, is to pretend “surprised” then caught misbehaving is still employed at full even at this page. M.K. (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But that was what he did
 * Again.
 * Again.
 * And today also not to forget

Comment by Loosmark

 * Comment removed because it is unrelated to this request. Continued misuse of this forum as a battleground will result in sanctions.  Sandstein   12:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Varsovian

 * Discussion removed because it is unrelated to this request, see above.  Sandstein   12:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Radeksz
For the uninitiated: what does Richard Tylman have to do with Eastern Europe, other than his origin?--Tznkai (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oi. Alright. It is my strong suggestion that both of you amend your comments so they are restricted to answering the question "Does the Richard Tylman AfD fall within the topic ban." Keep it brief and polite please, pretend you've been hauled into court with a judge who is scowling at you over his glasses, exchanging glances with his bailiff.--Tznkai (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Last time round, Sandstein determined it did:, . Personally, I agree with him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So we have a precedent, even if we personally disagree, of that individual being ruled as falling under the topic ban, and Radeksz being made aware of this, correct? And if Radeksz was made aware, could someone make clear to me when and how that happened? thanks KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He said he wasn't aware, and I'm inclined to believe him in that. If this report hadn't been hijacked immediately by the usual bickering from the usual two or three others, we could easily leave the matter at that, as far as I am concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He is now aware. I concur that is all that needed to have been done, and am not impressed with the sandbox sniping. Have you a suggestion on any action which might be appropriate? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether he was aware of the precedent does not matter, I believe. What matters is that the edit violates the topic ban for the reasons given here and also because the person the article is about was apparently himself, as a Wikipedia user, involved in the WP:EEML case, which is why the previous AfDs have been a battleground. This is exactly the sort of page the topic ban was intended to apply to. I propose we apply the same enforcement measure as in the previous case, i.e., a 48h block.  Sandstein   12:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you considered that whether he was aware of the precedent matters due to the debate about whether this topic falls under the ban or not. Clearly, you think it does. However, it is reasonable that others might not. It is capricious to block anyone for editing innocently; it behooves us to AGF. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good faith does not really enter into it. If the ArbCom prohibits a certain mode of editing, it is prohibited whether or not engaged in in good faith. Users who are subject to "widely construed" topic bans are responsible for understanding and abiding by their ban.  Sandstein   13:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How does this article fall under the topic ban? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See my comment of 12:56 above.  Sandstein   13:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not answer my question. Are you referring me to your linked post of 16:12, 11 January 2010? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes.  Sandstein   20:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Arguably, in an ideal world it wouldn't fall under the ban – that is, if Wikipedians' approaches to editing were determined only by objective real-world reality. However, this article is linked to the EEML-related disputes not through its real-world subject matter, but through its Wikipedia-internal personal ties. It has undoubtedly been a hotspot of editing disputes motivated by just those enmities that the EEML case was about. So I think considering it as within the scope of the ban is certainly in the spirit of the Arbcom ruling – and, frankly, Radek should have understood that, whether or not he knew about the Tymek precedent or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (deindent) I agree with Sandstein on this. The reason that the same bunch of editors roll out for each round of AFD/Richard Tylman is not because of an interest in literature but in order to continue the same tedious battles that were the underlying cause of RFAR/EEML. To my mind this clearly falls within Radeksz's topic ban. CIreland (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * About so called broadly constructed topic bans: Those broadly constructed topic bans are all, but impossible to understand. I know this from my own very hard earned experience, and from my own unfair block. Broadly constructed topic bans work as traps, and it is very, very wrong. Some administrators are said to know the law, while normal users do not:)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering that Radek now understands this article is included in a topic ban (although the extension seems to be very arbitrary and hardly supported by the topic ban wording... and wasn't clarified to him before), and he has reverted himself, is there a need to institute any punitive penalties that would only damage Wikipedia (considering Radek's daily helpful edits would be stopped)? Disclaimer: I am a friend of Radeksz, yadda, yadda. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't stand on precedent around here, and I am not compelled by arguments that rely on them. Those sort of principles only hold fast when we have an underlying political and social structure that justify and support it, like branches of government and professional advocates. I do think it is simple sense that topic bans should only be enforced against parties that knew or should have known they were breaching them. Topic bans are broadly constructed and interpreted when individuals have shown an inability to operate within a content area, either because of the content itself and/or the interpersonal conflicts they have with other editors in that content area. Based on the context of the Richard Tylman article's meta history on Wikipedia as illuminated to me by the discussion above, I agree that Radeksz should have known he was breaching his sanction. Moreover, analysis of the Amendments made by motion indicate that Radeksz had narrow specific exemptions for BLP-related work, not a general one, and that the Richard Tylman article did not fall within them. The degeneration of this AE request indicates that the underlying issues of the EEML-related case have a wide and pernicious reach.

Mitigating that, Radeksz has in fact, reverted the offending contributions. This is the sort of behavior desired, the willingness to back off when it becomes clear there is an issue. If there is no objection from another administrator, I will block for 12 hours as arbitration enforcement.--Tznkai (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 12 hours for violating his topic ban in two different avenues, and for launching into a personal attack by calling another editor a WP:DICK, and this is after he got a stern warning for calling another editor an arsehole? Are you forgetting the personal attack aspects of what he did? You are joking, right? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 17:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not. I have one edit given as evidence to look at. That offending edit has since been removed. Radeksz now removed statements on the AfD don't look particularly more or less virulent than typical AfD fare. If you really want to make an issue of the "personal attack" I will widen my inquiry under my general administrator responsibilities and address similar behavior, and I will start, as I always do, by examining the complainant's behavior. I'll also note, that while the EEML non-interaction ban was placed on Radeksz (and others), and not on you, it would go a lot farther towards non interaction if you also didn't interact with them. I am completely disinterested in agitation based on a misplaced, retributive and vengeful sense of justice as I infer your statements to be resting on.--Tznkai (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your proposed action sounds reasonable to me. I agree that we should take the self-revert into account as a mitigating factor, but a block is appropriate to deter further ban violations.  Sandstein   20:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Pantherskin
Doesn't look like a big deal, Radeksz didn't even vote in this AfD and even removed his comment. No need to make a mountain out of a molehill. Although given the past history of this article and past AfD it seems natural to assume that this article and the related AfD would fall under the topic ban. But this comment was rather innocuous, and there does not seem to be a pattern of testing the boundaries of the topic ban, at least judging from Radeksz's edit history. Pantherskin (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Dr. Dan
One of the concerns that many people had who participated in resolving the EEML matter was that even with the relatively harsh sanctions imposed upon its members this behavior would resume again, or perhaps take a different guise, when the sanctions ended. And if that happened, we'd return to square one. As a target of this group, and as a result of having significant interaction with many of its members I can say that this continual game of "cat and mouse", this continual negative behavior followed by innumerable excuses and obfuscations has a definite pattern. A 12 hour block for this clear violation of the sanctions imposed on Radeksz following the EEML ArbCom is ludicrous and is only setting the stage for future problems. The other day I noticed Sandstein placed an "indefinite" block on users Matthead and Spacecadet. It struck me as excessively harsh. I know of their lingering animosity, and the basis for it. I've had dealings with both of them. If the motivations for those blocks was "enough is enough" and only such a draconian block would help to make peace in the valley, then I understand the rationale behind the blocks. Presumably it had to shock both of them and also set an example of what fate may befall other editors who continue on a path that is considered detrimental to the Wikipedia project. Many of you at this page are aware of this ugly incident that transpired not too long ago involving another EEML member. I believe it was dealt with fairly and properly. Radeksz's activities at the Afd may not be on the same par as those of user Jacurek, but it is significant to note that, 1. He wasn't supposed to be at the Afd in the first place, and 2. his remarks were not constructive, nor meant to be constructive. He obviously couldn't contain himself and had to call Varsovian a "dick", (now explained by him as using a "policy" of Wikipedia to make his point). I respectfully suggest that those who are able to prevent future transgressions of this nature to do so now and demonstrate that you mean business. 12 hours is not even an "ear flick" let alone a "slap on the wrist". Dr. Dan (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * One can only hope that the 12 hour block was applied during what would be the normal waking hours of the subject of the ban. It would be a shame to disturb anyone's sleep pattern over such an insignificant violation of their sanctions. Especially because of all the "mitigating" factors. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Radeksz

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
 * Blocked for 12 hours for violation of topic ban, taking into account mitigating factors as described above. --Tznkai (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 12 hours is too short for a topic ban violation. But I've arrived too late in the day to influence anything, so if there are no further comments to be made, we can probably put a hat on this. AGK   23:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Supreme Deliciousness

 * User requesting enforcement : nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm;


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Notification:

Sanction or remedy that this user violated
ARBPIA (June 2009)
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :

SD has a long history of tenatious editing and trying to remove Israeli content or de-emphasize Israeli & Jewish content:

His userpage, now deleted, at one point declared strong Anti-Israeli views and belief that Israel should not exist.

History of trying to politicize non-political articles
SD was warned and notified of the ARBCOM sanctions on June 27, 2009. These are instances occurring after that date.


 * Created an article titled “Israeli theft of Arab cuisine” that was deleted as being POV and Soapbox (September 2009)


 * At Halva's talk page he states that Israel’s “lack of true history and connection to the region, that they have to overcompensate in other areas, to create an artificial history and artificial identity: (March 2010)


 * At Hookah's talk page: (March 2010)


 * In the Hummus' talk page, SD states that properly sourced information about Israel and Hummus is “made up garbage in an attempt to steal Arab culture and claim it as Israeli, because Israel is a false nation that has to steal other peoples history, culture and food because it doesn't have any itself”. (July 2009)


 * Removed photos from Falafel based upon their being from Israel, calling it undue weight etc., (September 2009)


 * Extensive use of “quotes”, in order to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias –Quote  (September 2009)


 * Insists on the inclusion of extensive use of quotes, even after it is pointed out that their extensive use is not recommended (March 2010)

Dismisses sources based upon the fact they are from Israel or are written by Israelis and/or Jews.

 * In discussions about articles on mountains in the Golan Heights and their sources, SD has dismissed sources written by Israelis and Jews as “not reliable” and “not neutral” (March 2010)


 * States that sources that are written by Jews or Israelis about mountains in the Golan Heights are not WP:RS because they would “naturally support Israel”, but a source that refers to Israel as the “Zionist Entity” is OK (read the two comments above his comment too). (March 2010)

Advice to other editors
Suggests to other editors that they should undertake “doublespeak” to achieve results that may not be supported by consensus. Tells other editors that they should not “always say what you truly believe, try to reach your goals in another way.” (November 2009)

Skirting CfDs
Tries to skirt CfDs by creating new categories very similar to the one being discussed: and  (March - April 2010)

Games the system
SD has repeatedly tried to change the names of Mountains in the Golan Heights from Hebrew to Arabic, trying different ways. The first time he wanted to change the names an RfC was opened on the Golan Heights talk page (November 2009). When consensus failed there, he then tried at the individual mountains 1). (February 2010) 2) (March 2010)

When there was no consensus for change on the individual mountains, this article was created (which I suggested, to condense small unsourced articles) but now it appears it will be used as a vehicle to attempt to change the mountain names again. (April 2010)

Politicizes non political talk pages
Supreme Deliciousness decided to re-arrange the long-standing Wikiproject listing order in several articles because of his belief that "Syria" should come before Israel on the article talk page and. (April 2010)

Arbcom situations
SD’s Anti-Israeli behavior has even come up in unrelated Arbcom cases (October - November 2009)


 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): Notified of Israel-Palestine Arbitration restrictions here (June 2009)


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

Ban on articles pertaining to Israel or Jewish content. The length of such ban, being permanent or short term is up to the admin. However I would ask the Admin to keep in mind that SD’s anti-Israeli editing has been a long term problem, but most of the time he has managed to push the envelope just enough so that he flies under the radar. The majority of his edit history is related to trying to de-emphasize or remove Israeli content from articles, with very little in way of actual article expansion or creation.

SD often edits in cooperation with another user, User:Ani medjool, whom I will also be filing a AE case on. 
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Statement by User:Tiamut
There is no problem with a user being anti-Israeli or anti-Palestinian (there are many here of both kinds and we edit alongside each other without huge problems everyday). Its not people's views that are problematic, but their behaviours, if disruptive.

I don't see anything disruptive in the work SD did on Mountains in the Golan Heights. I do think its quite silly to edit war over the placement of Syria and Israel wikiprojects (but as there are others edit-warring over this, I don't see why SD should be subject to a topic ban for it). I don't think SD meant to game the system with the category she created, but I can see why it might be interpreted that way. I also don't see how the advice she gae to other users is problematic. We shouldn't all say exactly what we believe here when its not related to article editing - that's called WP:SOAP.

I do agree that User:Ani medjool is a highly problematic user (and look forward to seeing the AE report Nsaum75 is going to file on that user, who has serially disrupted the I-P arena for some time now without any serious repurcussions). But I don't think the same is true of SD. She has made some good contributions to this encyclopedia. She's certainly not perfect and sometimes wastes her time on silly or unproductive things, and maybe even soapboxes a little from time to time (no more or less than others), but she generally responds to constructive criticism and has not done anything to undermine the goals of the encylopedia, in my opinion.

An NPOV encyclopedia is written by people of all POVs, some of whom may have POVs vastly different than our own. That's not a reason to topic ban them. Yes, its hard to work to bridge such gaps in perspectives, but much better to try, than to eliminate those we deem too far gone. Particularly when they are trying to hear what others are saying to them.  T i a m u t talk 15:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't even address supreme's behavior. And I have a hard time stomaching that your defending Supreme's behavior because "an NPOV encyclopedia is written by people of all POVs." Yes, that's true, but user's like supreme are actively violating Wikipedia policy because they can't control their own POV opinions. Creating articles like "Israeli theft of Arab cuisine" is clearly inappropriate and Supreme has long exhibited this behavior. Do you agree that that user's behavior is inappropriate or would you like to obfuscate and blame some other editor? Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tiamut, you're right, there is nothing wrong with being Anti-Palestinian or Anti-Israeli, but when you let those feelings spill over into discussions about content -- let alone picking apart articles to reflect those sentiments -- it becomes disruptive. We are supposed to put our feelings aside and try our best to edit & contribute in a neutral behavior, but many of the talk page discussions and article edits made by SD are extremely contrary to that.  nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 15:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Nsaum75. I'm glad to see that we don't disagree about what is at issue here, but rather only about whether there is sufficient evidence attesting to longstanding disruption by SD. @PlotSpoiler, I'm not trying to obfuscate anything. I stated my opinion regarding the evidence presented. The article on the Israeli theft of Arab cuisine was made a long, long time ago, when SD first started here. That she has moved on to writing articles like Mountains in the Golan Heights (which looks fine to me) shows just how far she has come. I don't believe in holding editors to task for things they did when they first started editing here. I see an evolution. If you don't, you are entitled to your opinion, as I to mine. There's no need for outrageous hyperbole.  T i a m u t talk 16:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"She"? I'm a man. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I didn't know and just assumed you were a lady. I have a pro-female gender bias.  T i a m u t talk 17:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The mountains article is currently locked due to edit warring over content**, plus if you read the protracted talk page discussion and comments on other user pages about raising a new RfC, it gives the appearance that SD's true intent may be to force name changes to the mountains. Essentially this circumvents three-related RfCs in the past 6 months that found no consensus to change the article/mountain names from Hebrew to Arabic) -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 16:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't see evidence that disruption on the part of SD is to blame for that state of affairs. At least two other editors were warned about edit-warring there along with him, and there have been colossal failures of AGF exhibited on all sides.  T i a m u t talk 17:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Other users are involved this time around, but it is SD who keeps trying to change the article names which then leads to a downward spiral of edit warring. I don't have a crystal ball, but I think the fact that SD keeps trying to find different ways to bring the issue up (especially within a short period of time) causes other editors to get frustrated.  I'm not excusing everyones behavior (as Breein1007 can be battleground-minded as well), but in this instance, regarding the mountains, SD seems to be the primary instigator of the issue via his repeated attempts to find a way to change the names of the mountains. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 17:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If it is me, then what is this:  and who is the one edit warring against consensus? Why haven't you brought this up? And what is "circumvents three-related RfC" what was decided during those RfCs? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Plot Spoiler
Supreme exhibits over the top WP:Battleground behavior and the evidence presented shows that Supreme is incapable of WP:NPOV edits when it comes to I/P articles. Creating WP:Soap articles like "Israeli theft of Arab cuisine" and that Israeli has hijacked everything else in Arab culture (hookah, falafel, etc.), regardless of the fact that over 50% of Israel's population is composed of Jews of Middle Eastern origin.

Supreme has long exhibited this POV and uncivil behavior and methinks it's time for a topic ban. Seriously. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by User:ZScarpia removed. Added nothing but further battleground behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You have my apology. Is it permissible to state that I think Plot Spoiler's behaviour is partisan and not innocent of the kind of thing which Supreme Deliciousness is being accused of?     ←   ZScarpia  18:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have a complaint to make, file a report. Plot Spoiler's moral credibility is not at issue.--Tznkai (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll butt out. Personally, I do think that the "moral credibility" of those commenting on this page is an issue.      ←   ZScarpia  19:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why can't we be friends?? Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly colleague, why not? I'm just a bit tired of the litigiousness in the IP area and seeing glasshouse dwellers indulging in rock-throwing.      ←   ZScarpia  19:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer a brick house. Bow chicka bow wow. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, a case of mistaken identity. I've apologised on your talk page.     ←   ZScarpia  01:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness
What is the sanction or remedy that I have violated?

Many of the comments he have brought up and things I have done are comments and things from a long time ago.

At the Hookah talkpage, how do you explain this edit IP just removed the word "Palestine" and replaced it with "Israel".

Nsaum75 claims that "properly sourced information about Israel and Hummus".. It was about an Israeli guy without any kind of scientific research to back him up, was making up his own mind about what the bible said, basically re-writing the bible and drawing his own conclusion from it. And based on this they wanted to ad to the article that Hummus Is Israeli. And Nsaum75 calls this "properly sourced information about Israel and Hummus".

At the falafel article, Nsaum75 kept on adding several Israeli pictures into the article, that is not neutral. If there is anyone that should be sanctioned, its him for keeping on adding exclusively Israeli pictures in as many articles as he can, he show a strong pro-Israel pushing views, this is not neutral.

Many of these things he have brought up are content disputes where he or others have an Israeli pov and I a neutral worldview. I am not edit warring at any of these articles and I always talk at the talkpage.

About the "Dismisses sources based upon the fact they are from Israel or are written by Israelis and/or Jews." Yes I said they were unreliable for setting the standardized name in English for several reasons, they would of course use the Israeli name: Some of these Israeli sources have for example been written by the Chairman of the Israeli Golan Lobby and Ariel Encyclopedia speaks about Golan as if it was a part of Israel. And several others including an admin have dismissed Israeli sources for setting the standardized name in English by just the fact that they are from Israel:

"Advice to other editors" Ani Medjool had very strong language, and what I meant about that was that he might get banned if he continues, just like if pro-israeli editors hated Palestinians, but they cant show it cause they would get banned, so I told him that if he feel the way he feels he should be quiet about it. For the sake of the encyclopedia, to avoid unnecessary drama.

"Skirting CfDs" This was never "skirting", it was a different category, and I accepted the deletion of it as the majority of people wanted it gone.

"Politicizes non political talk pages" How is it neutral to have the Israeli tag first about an area that is by all countries on earth recognized as part of Syria? And how many edits at each article did I do this? 1 time.

"Games the system" This is completely BS, if you look at all the neutral comments and sources, you can see that there was greater support for the standardized arabic names, not hebrew, look at the uninvolved comments, how many of these support the hebrew?


 * *I favour using both Arabic and Hebrew names where possible with the primary names being Arabic where a choice has to be made... To use Israeli names as the primary names for geographical features that are in Syrian territory is highly inappropriate in my view. I'd even say that this is the kind of thing that can bring Wikipedia into disrepute. These features already had and still have internationally recognised Arabic names. Linguistically re-mapping an occupied landscape is about as far from neutral as you can get.


 * I would suggest that the Arabic name should be the primary oneSecond thoughts - Since this is the English WP, names should be English ones as far as possible. Thus tel (Hill - ?) and jebel (mountain) could conveniently be trasnlated, provided an English foirm can be found to he been used by some one.


 * English is the way to go and, as suggested, material produced either by international or standard Enclish-language physical geography texts should be preferred.


 * I'd say English names or names most used in English WP:RS, but having the most reliable sources be International ones like UN, encyclopedias, truly neutral sources and not publications from Israel or Arab sources. If there is a fair equality in which is used, use both.


 * "most common form in English" I went to the GeoNames server -- which is a reasonable reliable source for the names actually used for towns, hills, mountains, lakes, etc. (It uses an extensive database compiled from a number of sources.) I was unable to find any elevation in Israel named "Paras", but I did find http://www.geonames.org/maps/google_32.958_35.862.html this entry for a "Tall el Faras", with no significant alternate names. Make of this what you will. My objection to using the Jerusalem Post would not be due to any political bias, but because I doubt its editorial staff would know what native English speakers actually habitually call it: I would assume their native language is Hebrew.


 * Is there a common name used internationally for these mountains? Steering clear if the political or legal ownership of the Golan Heights, which I feel doesn't have much relevence to the debate, do geological organisations and publications usually use the Hebrew or Arabic?


 * There is a pressing interest for both languages. Both languages should be used.

Almost all the sources brought up for the Arabic were English, while almost all of them brought up for the hebrew were Israeli and some of them implied Golan as part of Israel, and also an article from the "Jewish Virtual Libray" that was sourced from Wikipedia. And the israeli side just said "no" to the change, so this is how there was no move of the articles. Am I not allowed to open a new RfC now?

The reason why the article Mountains in the Golan Heights is locked down now is because user Breein edit warred his own pov into the article, the names right now are hebrew first, because there was allegedly "No consensus" for the change, yet Brein changed the position of the translation to put the hebrew first without any kind of consensus, and its interesting that Nsaum75 do not mention this.

Nsaum also claims that "SD's true intent may be to force name changes".. no it is not and I told malik this on his talkpage that I myself had changed to the hebrew first and that I would not change it to the standardized Arabic as the discussion is now:

"SD often edits in cooperation" This is a completely baseless attack against me, I edit by myself and with no one else.

I am not edit warring at any of these articles, some things I have said (most in the past), maybe I shouldn't have said them, but I always edit from a neutral pov, and I do not edit war and always talk at the talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding photos and "pov-pushing": I think my edit and photographic contribution history speaks for itself. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 17:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz
In the interest of brevity I will make only two comments.

1) This week Supreme Deliciousness twice felt the need to rearrange WikiProject banners so Syria came before Israel, in one case participating in a revert war (although he himself made only one revert).

2) The above characterization of photos as Israeli is typical. Because of the WP:BATTLE behavior of Supreme Deliciousness and Ani medjool, Falafel has an image gallery in which "Israeli" photos of the food are "balanced" by photos from other countries. See Falafel. (The use of quotation marks indicates the silliness of describing a photograph as having a nationality.)

— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To be fair, Malik, falafel is originally an Arab food. I know its hard for non-Arabs to understand why it is offensive to Arabs when Israel claims it as its own, and that fact in no way justifies edit-warring to remove pictures of falafel from Israel from the article. However, there is a disproportionate focus, both imagery and text wise on Israel, in many articles on food items that are originally Arab. More pictures of these foods from Arab countries would be welcome, or conversely, when there is nothing Israeli-specific about the picture, there is no need to mention its from Israel. I believe you suggested that a couple of times, which was a good solution.
 * I do think these discussions can be very silly sometimes, but I do understand why they occur and do think there is an undue emphasis on Israel in articles on traditionally Arab food items (and not enough information on other Arab countries like Syria, Lebanon, etc). I wouldn't want to see people afraid to discuss that (sensibly and without casting aspersions as to people's intentions) by getting the impression that it is somehow inherently disruptive in and of itself.  T i a m u t talk 18:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "To be fair," a "common theory" suggests that Egyptian Copts invented falafel -- much thanks they get for their compatriots, aye? See: Persecution of Copts. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My uncle is an Egytian Copt who identifies as Arab. I realize some Copts don't. My comment however, assumed to include them. Sorry if I've offended anyone (particularly those Copts who don't identify as Arab). Anyway, this is not the place for this discussion. Sorry for bringing it up.  T i a m u t talk 18:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And in regards to this report and not content, Falafel now has a gallery which is frowned upon and pictures chosen were purely for national issues and not to showcase the subject. Other editors won't even consider removing it because they don't want to reward the poor battlefield behavior that led to it. That is the epitome of battlefield behavior impacting the project nagativley. However, it was not just SD.Cptnono (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Tiamut, I understand the resentment that some Arabs feel because "Israel's national food" was appropriated from their cuisine. And I agree that there is usually no reason to mention the place where the food was prepared (unless there are national variations). What I don't understand is how fine pictures such as this or this can be dismissed as POV images that cannot be used because they were taken in Israel. And unfortunately Supreme Deliciousness often is an instigator of the discussions concerning these "POV" photos. (To be fair, however, he is hardly the worst offender.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning User
Please keep your comments short, to the point, and restricted only to what an uninvolved administrator needs to know. I am perfectly willing (and able) to apply discretionary sanctions based on behavior on AE alone, and I will get creative.--Tznkai (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am detecting a non-trivial amount of battleground behavior from Supreme Deliciousness, especially in this very enforcement request. However, the most compelling and disturbing behavior adduced here is nearly a year old. (The June 2009 edit seems to hit the high watermark for bad behavior). Then again, Supreme deliciousness' response does not engender confidence in me that Supreme Delciousness has shed his battleground mentality and is capable of assuming good faith when need be. I am currently most convinced by Taimut's comments above, but continuing to look into this.--Tznkai (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am currently leaning towards a topic ban on all edits involving the names, origins, or visual depiction of places and things within the Levant region, (interpreted in all occasions to include all things that are described now or in the past as Israel or Israeli, Palestine, or Palestinian, Middle East or Middle Eastern, Eastern Mediterranean). To be clear, this includes geographic features, whether areas are Israel proper, all of the cuisine in the area, and what order you put the non-English language in.
 * This topic ban will run for three months or until I see one of the following: A comprehensive and good faith proposal for a neutral standard on what order to be submitted for the consideration of The Israel Palestine Collaboration WikiProject, or a 3000 word essay on the meaning and importance of assuming good faith and avoiding battleground behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, if anyone feels like Supreme Deliciousness is being targeted unfairly, please file additional reports pointing me at the other bad offenders.--Tznkai (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to see editors encouraged not to report each other (except for really serious rule violations).      ←   ZScarpia  00:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple of questions: what do you mean by "A comprehensive and good faith proposal for a neutral standard on what order to be submitted for the consideration of The Israel Palestine Collaboration WikiProject" I don't understand what you mean. Also could you please point out precisely what sanction or remedy I have violated, and how I violated it and does this topic ban also include talking about these things at the talkpages? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I mean I want you to create a comprehensive guideline that can resolve naming disputes amicably on all Levant articles, and that you would after e-mailing it to me, submit it to IPCollab where it will hopefully be discussed, bandied about, improved and implemented. Remedy 1.1 states that "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia." The policy on what Wikipedia is not states that "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation" which you have failed to do, as seen by your behavior in your statement above, as well as several of the edits pointed out, specifically the June 2009 edit. The topic ban covers all edits, across all namespaces, including talk pages. There is a common sense exception which allows you to appeal this decision or contest a complaint against you without violating a topic ban.--Tznkai (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You said "topic ban on all edits involving the names, origins, or visual depiction of places and things",, so does this also include origin of people? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it does not, because I saw no evidence you have issues with people as of yet.--Tznkai (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tznkai, considering, that almost all of the things brought up in this request are 9-10 months old, how can you put this long topic ban on me? Can you show me one edit I have done that is not neutral? okey I know I have said some things that I shouldn't have said, but they are mostly from my past, and I promise I wont say those sorts of things again. The extent of this proposed topic ban "the names, origins, or visual depiction of places and things within the Levant region, (interpreted in all occasions to include all things that are described now or in the past as Israel or Israeli, Palestine, or Palestinian, Middle East or Middle Eastern, Eastern Mediterranean). To be clear, this includes geographic features, whether areas are Israel proper, all of the cuisine in the area, and what order you put the non-English language in." is way out of proportion for what I have done, the improper comments I made are at the food articles so why does this proposed topic ban for example cover "geographic features, whether areas are Israel proper" or what order to put names?  --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - SD is currently under Arbcom restrictions that affects his abilities to change the ethnicity or nationality of people per this decision. nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 23:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My current topic ban doesn't cover talkpages. (and the remedie you link to didn't pass, another one did) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My intent was to post to your remedy sub-section, that included all proposals. However you are correct in that you can edit talk pages.  There is a method in place with which you can make changes to nationalities and ethnicities via article talk pages.  Since you say you can change and edit not allow your personal feelings to impede on your editing style, perhaps a similar restriction to talk pages would be more effective here.  It would allow you to prove to other editors that you can change, while still allowing you some participation in IP articles. Change takes time, and while you say most of your tenacious editing was 9 months ago, as of this past week you are still trying to push for major changes based upon nationalistic concerns (e.g. the order of wikiprojects, mountain articles, national park article titles) -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 23:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it "nationalistic concerns" to change the "List of national parks and nature reserves in Israel" so it also includes the occupied territories when the list includes the occupied territories and according to a general discussion it is clear that the areas are not part of Israel but occupied: Am I un-neutral? Was there something wrong with that edit? This is not my personal concerns or views, this is the entire worldview. What major push at mountain article? When I added the hebrew first and said I wasn't going to change it? or when I changed back Breeins edit warring of the translation without consensus? ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You only changed the order of the mountain names putting the original article name (hebrew) back first after a long and drawn out discussion. I was not addressing Breein1007 editwarring of the translation. Anyhow, I am leaving this up to the admins to decide. They can read the diffs, arguments and edit histories and decide for themselves.  Its not necessary to import disagreements from other articles to this AE. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 00:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * removing comment by Ani medjool Breein1007 (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Also, if anyone feels like Supreme Deliciousness is being targeted unfairly, please file additional reports pointing me at the other bad offenders."--Tznkai (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * removing comment by Ani medjool Breein1007 (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You follow the instructions posted at the top of this page. And if you use "this jew" as an epithet again, you will be blocked indefinitely.--Tznkai (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, unacceptable, uncivil behavior. 'Nuff said. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tznkai, I think you should block Ani medjool indefinitely for the comments s/he made here. This is not the first time and s/he's already received multiple warnings for this. If you need diffs, I'll get them.  T i a m u t talk 19:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am seriously considering it, but I just gave a warning two lines above, and it seems a bit... tyrannical, to warn and then block before they've had a chance to correct behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * S/he already got that a final warning just four days ago. Its okay to block I think.  T i a m u t talk 19:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this is about SD and Tznkai has provided a warning we should drop it here for now. If he is not blocked by another admin in the next couple of hours I'll spend a few minutes to put a report together. Crossing the Ts and dotting the Is just so there is no question (at least in several editors eyes) as to what result is appropriate. Wow... Tiamut and I agree on something.Cptnono (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Some previous warnings to Ani medjool for the same kind of thing: March 24, 2010, February 15, 2010. These comments are totally unacceptable. A year ago, I thought the problem was a language thing, but its clearly a serious behavioural issue for which there is no resolution in sight.  T i a m u t talk 19:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning User

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the  section above.
 * Supreme Deliciousness is topic banned from all edits, across all Wikipedia namespaces, involving the names, origins, or visual depiction of places and things within the Levant region, (interpreted in all occasions to include all things that are described now or in the past as Israel or Israeli, Palestine, or Palestinian, Middle East or Middle Eastern, Eastern Mediterranean). To be clear, this includes geographic features, whether areas are Israel proper, all of the cuisine in the area, and what order you put the non-English language in.
 * This topic ban will run for 30 days from 00:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC) or until I see one of the following: A comprehensive and good faith proposal for a neutral standard on naming conventions, to be submitted for the consideration of The Israel Palestine Collaboration WikiProject; a comprehensive and good faith proposal for a neutral standard on how images are chosen for Levant cuisine, to be submitted for the consideration of The Israel Palestine Collaboration WikiProject; or a 3000 word essay on the meaning and importance of assuming good faith and avoiding battleground behavior.
 * There is, as always, an exemption for appeals of this and other adverse decision and participation in necessary dispute resolution

--Tznkai (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Hittit

 * User requesting enforcement : Sardur (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it : Disruptive behaviour and edit war, denial of consensus to merge an article, as can be seen on the article talk page.
 * 1) removal of the merge tag
 * 2) reverting the merge, pretending it's vandalism
 * 3) reverting the merge, pretending it's vandalism
 * 4) reverting it again
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1)  Warning by
 * 2)  - notification by Aregakn (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : Edit war + battleground = topic ban, afaik


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : I think the diffs are quite self speaking (oh, another diff on "vandalism" on this article - and canvassing, on top, against which he has been warned - and another diff "warning" me about edit war when, at that time, I only edited the article once). Take also note that on the talk page of the article, Hittit never raised a substantial argument but only made personal comments. Sardur (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On "Sardur’s tactics to shift discussions and attentions" (another personal attack, on top): I would not have made this request without Hittit's last revert. This is totally unconnected. Sardur (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Stifle, one would have hoped so, but he has not: new revert. Sardur (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Hittit
To Stifle: were said activity to continue, where would the proper venue be to take up resolving such matters? again the ArbCom board? the ANI?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

To the involved parties, I'd like to state only some of the observations of Hittit's violations for your consideration in regard of this arbitration:

1)  Minimum 2 violations of reliable sources as well as user national background and neutrality on the “Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims” article as described in Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2:

Further reading - Publications
 * Greek Atrocities in the Vilayet of Smyrna (May to July 1919), Published by The Permanent Bureau of the Turkish Congress at Lausanne 1919 [2]
 * The Armenian Atrocities to the Turks in Kars:The Mass Grave Excavation of Kalo/Derecik Village, by Şenol Kantarcı, Yrd. Doç. Dr., Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılâp Tarihi Bölüm Başkanı [4]

These sources are undoubtfully mentioned for reading as a propaganda material and WP:SOAP, which I also believe the whole article is for.

2)  2 reverts in less than 2 days violating 1RR on the Armenian Genocide Article:


 * The 1st edit:




 * The reverts:

 

3)  All of the 3 changes above can easily be refered as Disruptive Editing (again as per Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2) with the editor not willing to get to the point as in WP:DE and discussed on the talk of Armenian Genocide article here.

4) 3 other 1RR violations of Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2:


 * The 1st edit:




 * The reverts:

  

5) These above could once again be seen in accordance to Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 as Disruptive Edits with a controversial change of the meaning of the whole article and with violation of Consensus

6)  Clear WP:OR, WP:SYNTH with faking the author's wording and context in Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims edits discussed and proved on it's talk-page Talk:Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922. These are surely methods the Hittit continuously uses to raise racial hatred in the reader and propaganda (WP:SOAP).

7)  A possible vandalism deleting an image of New York Times from the Armenian Genocide article with no reasoning or discussion.

Aregakn (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Aregakn (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Hittit
I find it pointless to engage in a war of words and succumb to Sardur’s tactics to shift discussions and attentions from one WP:AE to another. I am not looking for a battleground and would propose Sardur to have a look at his own revert and editing history. I personally have had enough of this charade. I leave this matter to the admins since I feel they have had enough of this behaviour as well. --Hittit (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Hittit
As per above noted by the filing party and the added 7 points by me, especially in conditions of the continuous similar actions by the responding party even after multiple warnings, I'd see an indefinite ban from related topics including nationalities and/or history etc. the minimal for this kind of, to put it mildly, WP:Tendentious editing. Aregakn (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Hittit

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


 * We had this at, more or less. I think Hittit has got the clue that he needs to quit it and any more similar activity will be viewed dimly. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbitration enforcement is not a place for people who want to reduce the opposition to their position to be requesting sanctions against their opponents to get them out of their way. The low percentage of recent edits that Hittit, Aregakn, and Sardur have made to the mainspace is depressing. A major issue to me is that Hittit's edit summaries have the tendency to be at best misleading. Evidence:
 * describes undoing a merge as "Greek revolution, adding figures"
 * describes removing a quotation as "space_line"
 * describes undoing a merge as "reverting vandalism" and incorrectly refers to a merge as a deletion.
 * describes undoing a merge as "additions"
 * Therefore:
 * is placed on edit summary parole until the end of July. Should he make an edit using a misleading edit summary, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator for an appropriate time. I would see this starting at 3 days for a first infraction.
 * All parties hereto are urged to work on editing pages and collegially discussing their edits rather than engaging in tit-for-tat complaining about grievances, real or perceived. If I see further issues show up here, I am very likely to go through the reporter and reportee's edits with a very fine-tooth comb with a mind to imposing substantial topic bans. As ever, read WP:FOOTSHOT.
 * Secondly, the mischaracterization of another's edit as vandalism when it is simply an edit with which you disagree is nothing short of a personal attack. Therefore:
 * and 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".
 * Finally, reverts. I note that Armenian Genocide has been edited only once in the last week. However, Hittit's reverts need attention. Therefore:
 * is limited for one year to one revert per article per week in the area of conflict, construed widely. Hittit is required to post an explanation for any revert he does make on the talk page of the article in question, to be at least 50 words, in English, within 30 minutes of making the revert. Exceeding the revert limitation or failure to discuss in accordance with this remedy will be grounds for blocking by an uninvolved administrator; I would see this starting at 1 day for a first infraction. For the avoidance of doubt, this will run concurrently to any existing revert restriction to which Hittit is subject.
 * I am not in a position to discern what is and is not a reliable source in the context of this issue. WP:RS/N is the place to go for that.
 * The power to impose the above sanctions arises from Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2.
 * Further discussion about issues in the area of conflict not related to this enforcement request should go to WP:CCN. Parties are specifically requested not to post complaints or grievances about other persons at my talk page (excepting violations of the above sanctions); if a further actionable issue arises it can be posted in a new AE request. Appeals and requests for clarification of this decision are of course permitted on my talk (or, at the option of the appellant, on this noticeboard or to ArbCom). Stifle (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Proxima Centauri

 * User requesting enforcement : -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) 16:46, 2 December 2009 -- Violation of WP:COPYLINKS.
 * 2) 13:47, 15 December 2009 -- Addition of source that fails WP:RS, "youfoundthecard.com".
 * 3) 06:37, 30 March 2010 -- Unsourced change, at article Shawn Lonsdale.
 * 4) 16:18, 30 March 2010 -- Addition of source that fails WP:RS for use on biographical page, "crypticclarity.com".
 * 5) 07:56, 9 May 2010 -- Unsourced change, at article Shawn Lonsdale.
 * 6) 18:13, 9 May 2010 -- Addition of source that fails WP:RS for use on biographical page, "digg.com".
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1) 14:27, 15 December 2009 -- Notice regarding WP:ARBSCI remedies, given by
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : Applicable remedies from WP:ARBSCI cannot yet be applied, because the only administrator to issue an informative notice regarding the existence of WP:ARBSCI to this user was myself, (not an uninvolved admin). Therefore, at this point in time discretionary sanctions could be applied using the prior case, WP:COFS, which placed all pages within the topic on Article Probation. However, it might be best to start by having an uninvolved administrator formally give this user a warning regarding issues including poor sourcing which fails WP:RS on this topic, as well as WP:COPYLINKS, and a more specific warning regarding the existence of remedies from WP:ARBSCI and WP:COFS arbitration cases. -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * 18:35, 9 May 2010. -- Cirt (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Proxima Centauri
I don't understand what the problem is. Proxima Centauri The source I used shows clearly that some suspect muder which is all I suggested. (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Proxima Centauri

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

Request granted. I will be leaving the warning for Proxima Centauri.  Sandstein  19:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC) — ✅ Done.  Sandstein  19:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Tuscumbia

 * User requesting enforcement : Ліонкінг (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : Vandalism, Prosecution of other users


 * 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): # Warning by
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : Block


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : This request is not only about the actions of User:Tuscumbia, but also about the actions of User:Brandmeister and User:NovaSkola


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Tuscumbia
User:Tuscumbia, User:Brandmeister and User:NovaSkola consistently remove all my edits. I've created a template about cities of the NKR. Tusumbia reverted all my edits and Brandmeister tooked this template on deletion. It is not the first conflict. Here You can see that several pro-Azeri users make a war in this article. However here is a discussion, this three users can't stop and continue the war of edits. More than that User:NovaSkola during the discussion of this article twice ( & ) moved the name of article even not participating in discussion and rudely after his second move he make a request for protection of the name on his point of view, however there were a discussion. By the way, today he moved the name of Mardakert (town) Speaking about the actions of Tuscumbia, I also ask the administrators to take attentions on this edits:, , , , , ,. This user just revert all my edits and delete my neutral source and pick unneutral source which can't be tooked in attention. --Ліонкінг (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tuscumbia
It's pretty obvious that the user who repeatedly inserts his POV all over Wikipedia articles related to Armenia and Karabakh completely disregarding AA2 rules even though he was already warned by administrators  as a result of a report by another editor  not so long ago. He's also been warned by at least 2 editors:,. I am not sure if he wants to retaliate or simply lure editors into arbitration enforcements but the fact is that all of his edits speak of POV and Armenian propoganda. As a reply to his allegations above, please see the response below: The user Ліонкінг continues to vandalize Wikipedia articles and no action or supervision is being enforced. As an act of courtesy, many editors have to keep reverting his biased POV pushing statements and edits and allow him to continue but the longer he continues to disregard AA2 rules, the more damage he causes within the scope of Azerbaijani-Armenian articles. Tuscumbia ( talk ) 20:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, his newly created template Template:NKR is already unnecessary in those and any other articles since this template Template:Administrative divisions of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic already exists. However, behind his actions, there is a hidden agenda. Since the articles on Azerbaijani regions of Lachin, Kelbajar, Zangilan, Aghdara, Khojavend, Goranboy, Shusha couldn't be renamed by him because they are de-jure parts of Azerbaijan under military control of Armenian forces, in his new template, these districts and towns are indicated by the very Armenian names that he wants them to be named. So, by going on template-inserting spree, he wants to mislead the readers with his POV template while the actual articles do not have those names.
 * Secondly, any articles on de-jure Azerbaijani locations under current military control of Armenian forces cannot be named with Armenian names simply because they are unrecognized by the international community at large. If they are not renamed by the legal owners and accepted by international community, Wikipedia articles should stick to the commonly accepted ways of naming the geographic locations. As an example, please see the article on the Armenian village of Artsvashen located in the small enclave within Azerbaijan which since the Nagorno-Karabakh War has been under control of Azerbaijani forces. As far as anyone can see, the article was not renamed to the Azeri name. Nor is there any Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan templates in the article.

Comments by others about the request concerning Tuscumbia

 * Ліонкінг from your request for enforcement it does not become clear if you have sought dispute resolution before initiating this request for enforcement? If you have not requested a prior dispute resolution the arbitration enforcement should not be a place to be requesting sanctions against “opponents” and thus effectively seeking their ban on editing. My five cents on the matter. regards --Hittit (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They revert all my edits and delete all my contributions, so I can't work normally. They use unhonest thinks and presecute my contributions, so I think that it is not normally. --Ліонкінг (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't insert my POW, I just neutralise the articles which contains only the Azeri POW. If You have smth against me - pass a clam. But I will remind You that the last Your claim against me was unsuccesful, as I have not violated the ruls. I was tooked into attention only because I'm active editor in this theme, not for smth else. You speak about Armenian propoganda, but it's very funny to hear from You about it. Firstly You revertes my links from Soviet census and picked a doubtful information about the population, while on that link were even no year of estimate number of population. Secondly You've reverted my edits where I've picked the template:NKR in the NKR cities (note: all this cities have 2 Azeri templates: 1) cities of Azerbaijan; 2) cities, towns and villages of each districts). You systematicaly say that I'm nationalist and I'm representative of Armenian propoganda. It is very unpolite.
 * Template:NKR and Template:Administrative divisions of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic are different templates. I'm sure that You understand it, but make any noise to delete this template. I don't want to meslead readers. Recent versions of articles bout NKR meslead the readers. They consists only Azeri POW and only Azeri templates about cities.
 * You can unrecognise NKR so mush, as You want, but You can't deny the existence of NKR.
 * The user Ліонкінг continues to vandalize Wikipedia articles and no action or supervision is being enforced. As an act of courtesy, many editors have to keep reverting his biased POV pushing statements and edits and allow him to continue but the longer he continues to disregard AA2 rules, the more damage he causes within the scope of Azerbaijani-Armenian articles. - I Think that for this slander he should has an additional block. --Ліонкінг (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Tuscumbia

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

Closed as not actionable. Neither an arbitration remedy that is believed to be violated nor an explained list of diffs of edits that are believed to violate such a remedy are provided in this request. This board is not a forum for dispute resolution; see WP:DR.  Sandstein  21:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Sciologos

 * User requesting enforcement : -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : Requests_for_arbitration/COFS


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) 19:17, 11 May 2010 -- Failure to WP:AGF, refusal to communicate with editor in good standing, at Talk:Xenu.
 * 2) 08:09, 11 May 2010 -- Lack of WP:CIVIL, violations of WP:NPA, comments directed at two specific editors as "half-Nazis".
 * 3) 17:58, 10 May 2010 -- Repeated failure to focus on content, instead directing comments at individual contributors.
 * 4) 17:34, 10 May 2010 -- Violation of Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology, editing through multiple different IPs and non-conventional ISPs, proxy configuration, open ports, etc. More info of other IPs listed at Sockpuppet investigations/Sciologos.
 * 5) 20:36, 9 May 2010 -- Use of talkpage as WP:NOTFORUM, to propose violation of site policy, in order to add "advanced speculation" (user's own words, repeatedly posted to talk page despite being informed of site policies regarding WP:NOR.)
 * 6) 20:33, 9 May 2010 -- Repeated disruption and waste of talk page, in order to propose to violate WP:RS.
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1) 18:03, 10 May 2010 -- Notice of prior ArbCom cases, WP:COFS and WP:ARBSCI, by
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : Request topic ban from subject matter, Scientology and related articles - per violation of multiple policies in edits to area of ongoing Article Probation. -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Admin discretion may apply topic ban due to disruption at area under Article Probation from ArbCom per, Requests_for_arbitration/COFS. However, of course, remedies from WP:ARBSCI could also apply here, especially with regard to the WP:SPA nature involved. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * 00:41, 12 May 2010. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Sciologos

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


 * The COFS article probation doesn't appear to apply in this instance as the user's only contributions are to talk pages and an SPI. WP:ARBSCI remedies 4 and 5.1 could be applicable, particularly the latter. I will wait a reasonable time to hear Sciologos's response before taking action against ; the action would be likely to constitute a topic ban from the Scientology area. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The reasonable time will end when I log on tomorrow morning (which is likely to be between 09:00 and 11:00 UTC), so Scilogos is advised to place any statement wishes to make in the prescribed location above today. Failure to do so may result in adverse consequences being drawn. Stifle (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whereas:
 * WP:ARBSCI remedy 5.1 vests in uninvolved administrators the power to topic-ban users who is focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda, and
 * User:Sciologos has edited only Talk:Xenu and an SPI case, and has the agenda of having "scientific support for the OT III story" written up on Wikipedia,
 * Now, therefore,
 * User:Sciologos is topic-banned from Xenu and related pages for three months
 * 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.
 * Sciologos will be informed of this on his talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Nipsonanomhmata

 * User requesting enforcement : Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : Requests for arbitration/Macedonia (rv-warring; tendentious editing)


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1), , , : sterile rv-warring over several days, currently at 3R (together with ), in order to include a blatantly POV qualifier on an ethnically contentious historical figure
 * 2), , : earlier rv-warring over the same issue on a different article; led to full protection of the article
 * 3) : refusal to engage in meaningful discussion on the earlier occasion
 * 4), ,  Earlier rv-warring to include a passage of plagiarised text; led to full protection of article
 * 5)  Blocked for extensive rv-warring and a protracted campaign of tendentious OR editing on a different issue (the Zappas Olympics and related articles)
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1)  3RR Warning by Fut.Perf.
 * 2)  Arbmac warning by


 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : Strict revert limitation (at a minimum at the same level recently imposed on a group of Albanian and Greek users by Stifle); possibly topic ban.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by Nipsonanomhmata
Fut Perf has accused me of doing what she has been doing. I have always debated these issues but she does not listen. Ali Pasha was no ordinary ruler. He was a despot of ill-repute who had a harem of boys (who were not volunteers) as well as women (who were not volunteers). Ali Pasha was a pederast, paedophile, rapist, and murderer who subdued the population where he was the despot. But any insinuation that he was anything less than a noble ruler is stomped upon by Fut Perf. And despite my providing numerous scholarly references (in the case of Ali Pasha every single reference has been deleted but more than that. Every single spelling correction on Ali Pasha was deleted until I pointed out that she was rv'ing every single spelling correction I had ever made).

In summary. I have never refused a meaningful discussion. I am just stomped on by Fut Perf. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to [87], [88], [89], [90]. The scholarly reference that I have contributed has been deleted time and time again. Every single time I have reintroduced the reference I have given a perfectly reasonable response in the reintroduction of the reference. Moreover, 3R does not apply. There have not been 3 reversals in a 24 hour period. Nor have I been spitefully edit warring. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to [91]. What has [91] got to do with anything? I have contributed a useful reference and it has been reverted by somebody else. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to [92], [93], [94]. The exact same scholarly reference is denied for no reasonable reason. A scholar refers to Ali Pasha as a "despot" throughout his book. He is not the only one that does so but he happens to be a global authority on the military history of that part of the world. Moreover, the article on "Ali Pasha" includes the word despot in describing Ali Pasha but without a reference. My reference was deleted repeatedly. Why? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to [95]. I have not refused meaningful discussion. Where does it say that? The definition of the word "despot" in any dictionary is clear. Ali Pasha was a "despot". His Wikipedia article about him uses the word "despot" without a reference. I provided a reference. What exactly would you like to discuss? Would you like to discuss the right to call him a "despot" with or without a reference? Surely, having a scholarly reference is better than not having one. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to [96], [97], [98]. She has tarred me with the brush of plagiarism when I have spent hours introducing facts with scholarly references and bending over backwards trying to change the wording to avoid plagiarism and copy violations. With the added pressure of having had those references deleted time and time again and having to reintroduce them time and time again. Is this how editors are supposed to co-operate? If this is how we are supposed to do it then I can behave in the same fashion if you would like me to. If you don't like a reference then give me a good reason why and we can debate it. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to [99]. No, not extensive re-warring. Just rv'ing on Ali Pasha. Fut Perf pushed me in to the 3R trap. My first violation. I didn't know what 3R was at the time. She led me on and made sure that I fell in to it. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to [100], [101]. Why do I have to make myself ill explaining the same thing over and over again. I'll explain it one more time so that you all understand. A man with Bavarian parents is born in Greece and is considered to be a Greek and not a Bavarian (note, not an ethnic Greek, but a Greek national, a Bavarian-Greek with a Greek passport). But a man with Ottoman parents and grandparents who is born in the Ottoman Empire who is an Ottoman national and an ethnic Ottoman is touted as being Greek because his great-grandparents were Greek. You can't have it both ways. If the Bavarian-Greek is a Greek then the Greek-Ottoman, who has an Ottoman passport and no Greek passport, must be an Ottoman. If you consider the Ottoman to be a Greek then the Bavarian-Greek is a Bavarian. But why waste my breath. My contributions are not appreciated. At the time Fut Perf accused me of being a racist. Although I don't understand what racism has got to do with it since I had gone out of my way to explain why a series of events was not ethnically exclusive. The exact opposite of what I was being accused of. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, Fut Perf has demonstrated WP:Battleground behavior whilst stalking me from article to article on subjects having shown no prior interest. Fut Perf has pursued me in sports-related subjects that Fut Perf has never shown interest in before taking an interest in me. See The Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas. This is where she has accused me of being a racist. Now tell me honestly. Is there any evidence whatsoever that I am a racist? I would like to know. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fut Perf has demonstrated similar behaviour at Greek War of Independence where I have been accused of plagiarism. Now that would be a neat trick since I was concurrently translating and summarising from the Greek language straight on to the Talk Page and third parties took my summary translation and reworked the wording before placing it in to the article text. Fut Perf has demonstrated a creative imagination. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I can live with that Sandstein. I had no intention of ever editing Ali Pasha ever again since all contributions are nuked by Fut Perf. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Nipsonanomhmata
With respect to the "despot" issue, although this is not the place to discuss content, I agree with the complainant that defining a ruler as a "despot" in the lead sentence without further qualification and without good editorial reason (such as in the course of a discussion of his governing style, as indeed happens at Ali Pasha) violates WP:NPOV (see, in particular, WP:LABEL). This applies even if one source is provided who happens to call that ruler a despot (notably, it's a offline source and no quote is provided for context) and even if we happen to agree that the ruler was indeed a despot and generally a really unpleasant person in terms of our modern sensibilities (which would probably apply to many if not most autocrats of that time and region). However, this matter is rather close to being mainly a content dispute, rather than a (sanctionable) conduct issue, and so it is not determinative for the sanction I am proposing below.  Sandstein  16:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is a long-due report from FPaS and I thank him for going through the diffs. I don't like at all the aggressive response that Nipsonanomhmata is giving. I would add that he was incivil with me at the talk page of Evangelis Zappas by calling me desperate. I'll quote him: But are you so desperate you need to recruit a Greek patriot and hero in to your cause. here, which ended my contributions in Zappa. Good report. --SulmuesLet's talk 15:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Nipsonanomhmata
The request has merit. Edit warring is disruptive even when the three revert rule is not violated, see WP:EW. Nipsonanomhmata's reply is unduly aggressive and reinforces my impression that their mode of contributing to Wikipedia is problematic. Absent admin objection, I intend to impose a revert restriction and a topic ban from Ali Pasha.  Sandstein  16:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There being no objections, under the authority of Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, Nipsonanomhmata is topic-banned from one year from anything to do with Ali Pasha. For three months, he is also restricted to a maximum of one revert per page per rolling seven-day-period with respect to all content related to the Balkans.  Sandstein   16:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Sciologos

 * User requesting enforcement : -- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) 12:56, 16 May 2010 Violation of sanctions imposed by admin  at 09:23, 15 May 2010.
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1) 09:24, 15 May 2010 -- Original sanction imposed by  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 has violated the original sanction.


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


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * 16:47, 16 May 2010. -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Request concerning Wikifan12345

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


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) 22:29, 17 May 2010 (Wikifan12345) Addition of self-published source for commentary on living person, in contravention of WP:BLP
 * 2) 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
 * 3) 23:14, 17 May 2010 (Momma's Little Helper) Restoration of the above
 * 4) 23:45, 17 May 2010 (Wikifan12345) Restoration of the above


 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1) (Wikifan12345) Warning by . (I should also note that I have previously blocked Wikifan12345 - see )
 * 2) (Momma's Little Helper) Warning by  and notification of arbitration sanctions.


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

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.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

and 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), 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.

I have discussed these issues at length on the article talk page and at WP:BLP/N, 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 :

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)

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

Result concerning Wikifan12345

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

Request concerning Ліонкінг

 * User requesting enforcement : Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 13:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it : # 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, 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): # Warning by
 * 1)  Warning by
 * 2)  Warning by
 * 3)  Warning by  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 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: . Moreover, the user who tries to reach his aim, reported me here ], rather unsuccessfully. My statement is here explaining his objectives: 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:, , , , , , , , , , , , 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:. Here he apparently takes an advantage of 3RR rule and reverts again (apparently unaware that I've done 2 reverts when 3 are allowed):  Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

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


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 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)
 * 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.). 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 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 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 . Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 19:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

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:, , , , 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)

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) I have decided to compare sources. 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 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. ,, , , , Now You just want to ban me for continue of Your falsifications. --Ліонкінг (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * You're right about the talk pages. It was actually on my talk page during the time of discussion in my communication with Golbez . 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, , 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 . 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)
 * 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)

Comments by others about the request concerning Ліонкінг
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)


 * 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)
 * AGK, they are reported here . 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)
 * Ah, I see that now. Thanks. AGK   15:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

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. Grand master  16:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 . Aregakn (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, we do see that. It was linked to about eight lines above your comment. AGK   17:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did noticed and so I was asking to be possibly more attentive. Thanks Aregakn (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

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., 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 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: FYI, 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.


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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

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.


 * 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: 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)

Request concerning Shutterbug

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


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) 01:46, 1 October 2009 -- Edit by sock account, to page within topic ban subject
 * 2) 01:02, 14 May 2010 -- Edit by sock account, to page within topic ban subject
 * 3) 20:04, 16 May 2010 -- Edit by sock account, to page within topic ban subject
 * 4) 20:34, 16 May 2010 -- Edit by sock account, to page within topic ban subject
 * 5) 19:59, 17 May 2010 -- Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbug case closed, with block of sock account of Shutterbug,.
 * 6) 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):
 * 1) 01:31, 29 May 2009 -- Notice of the multiple WP:ARBSCI remedies, by
 * 2) 03:31, 2 June 2009 -- Blocked, for violating the topic ban imposed by WP:ARBSCI, violation using the main Shutterbug account, block by
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) :
 * Indefinite block. -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

Clear violation of multiple remedies applicable against from the WP:ARBSCI case. These include:
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * 1) Shutterbug topic-banned and restricted
 * 2) Account limitation
 * 3) Editors instructed
 * 4) Scope of Scientology topic ban

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


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * 20:40, 17 May 2010, notice given. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

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)


 * I've blocked the account. PhilKnight (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Biruitorul

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

''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 16:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : &mdash; 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 :


 * 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)

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)

I have two responses to Stifle's claim that "there is no point whatsoever" in considering my appeal at this time. First: yes, giving me and the community the certainty that my constructive work in this area will resume in December and not next May is a thing to be desired. Second, I have repeatedly contended that "there is no point whatsoever" to the reset itself, other than punishment. It's telling that no one has counteracted this claim, which if true flies in the face of WP:BLOCK, and in no way does the reset help improve the encyclopedia. Of course, when an institution's sole focus becomes enforcing its own rules, it tends to lose sight of its nobler purposes, and notions like "improving the encyclopedia" become mere fancy words quoted at outsiders, not something that actually has validity in the inner workings of the process.

I would also like to take issue with Stifle's remark about being able to see "intervening behaviour" in December. Perhaps he doesn't know this, but I have made well over 60,000 contributions to this project over four years, and very close to 100% of these have been net improvements to the encyclopedia. Including, by the way, the handful of edits that brought about this farcical reset. Stifle is free to review my conduct over the last 48 months and the next 7 months: all he will find is the same nearly impeccable record of diligent good work. - Biruitorul Talk 04:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * Agree with Stifle. Come back here at December when we can make a more informed decision. Tim Song (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

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.


 * Appeal deferred until 1 December 2010 as there is no appreciable benefit in determining it now and visible benefit in determining it later. Biruitorul retains the right of appeal to ArbCom. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comment: I believe that Biruitorol may have mistakenly filed his appeal on this page, instead of Arbitration/Requests/Amendment, as he had indicated to the Arbitration Committee that he was contemplating an appeal. Regretfully, we were watching for it there, rather than on this page. Should he wish to open an appeal at the Amendment page, the Arbitration Committee will certainly consider it. Risker (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Igny

 * User requesting enforcement : Colchicum (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : Requests for arbitration/Digwuren


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

2.

3.

4.

(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): Official notice by
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : Whatever you deem suitable to prevent the occurrence of such comments in the future

Re Sandstein: it is precisely what Igny was warned about: : 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)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Re . What was arguably appropriate at his SPI (which has long been dismissed as frivolous ) 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)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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))

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)

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.

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)

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)
 * I've blocked Igny for 31 hours for disruption of an open arbitration case. This was in my capacity as a committee clerk, not as an administrator actioning an enforcement request. AGK   12:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)