From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Request for enforcement denied due to failure to place the user on notice of the existence of general sanctions. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Tuscumbia[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Tuscumbia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
# [1], first blanket revert
  1. [2] second blanket revert
  2. [3] third blanket revert
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
Formally place user under 1RR/week as stipulated and/or the proceedings concluded by ArbCom Armenian-Azerbaijan 2.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
I still am uncertain if this is the correct venue to file this complaint but I hope the administrators will indulge me for just a moment. Tuscumbia has most recently violated the 3RR rule on the Zheleznovodsk Communiqué. Rather than discuss the POV problems that I outlined in the article's talk page, he simply reverted each edit I made and showed no general interest to discuss their validity. He has already been blocked for edit warring on the Black January article but I feel that formally placing him under the restrictions of the ArbCom Armenian-Azerbaijan 2 will generally improve the editing environment by encouraging editors to participate on the talk page, rather than head straight to click on the revert button. Thank you.
In reply to the comments made by editors Grandmaster and Brand: the BBC, however notable it is, is written by a single identifiable author (Thomas de Waal, a journalist) and he is simply presenting his personal interpretation of the event, which he more or less elaborated in his 2003 book, Black Garden. Considering that virtually no one else has been able to corroborate Mr de Waal's findings, and taking into account that virtually all sources indicate that the conflict began in February 1988, we have to treat his position as a fringe opinion. And contrary to what Brand contends, I more than amply expressed my desire on the article's talk page to discuss the issue and repeatedly called on Tuscumbia to provide more sources (see here [4]). And please do not mischaracteristize my editing habits in such a misleading, dishonest and one-sided manner again, Brand.
To Grandmaster: the last time I checked, three reverts counts as a violation of the 3RR either way. You yourself were once on 1RR parole and you have since been involved in a number of edit wars over the past few months so your suggestion that the administrators should now take advantage of this opportunity to punish me as well shocks me in its frankness. I'm almost too shocked for words. For that matter, I have been comfortably in compliance of Wikipedia's revert rules and have virtually abdided by my 1RR ever since it expired, with the mere exceptions to revert in obvious cases of vandalism or out-of-control edit wars.
On the matter at hand, I genuinely believe that the BBC article represents a fringe opinion and should not be presented on an otherwise mundane article on Nagorno-Karabakh, especially without any qualification. The dozens of other articles on Nagorno-Karabakh, to say nothing about all the books and articles that have been published on the matter, make no mention or dismiss any notion of the expulsion of Azerbaijani refugees. The version I inserted has been universally accepted elsewhere and so Brand's contention that the section is "disputed" is plain false when only a fringe minority, however weakly, argue against it.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
That's the thing, Stifle - I'm asking that he be formally placed under the restrictions of the ArbCom. As I noted above earlier, I'm unsure if this was the correct place to bring it up but he reverted an article 3 times within a period of 24 hours and showed no interest to commit himself to discuss the issue on the talk page. I believe that if such restrictions are in place, it will more than encourage him to discuss his edits rather than just simply revert each edit that he disagrees with. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Tuscumbia[edit]

Statement by Tuscumbia[edit]

I created the article Zheleznovodsk Communiqué based on valid sources. The text that MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) changed and kept reverting does not refer to the sources of the actual declaration. In other words, the very Declaration/Communiqué the article is about claims (in 1991 when it was signed) the conflict started "4 years ago", i.e. in 1987, clearly referring to first petitions collected by Armenians of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh and subsequent mutual hostilities committed in Karabakh and Armenia (specifically mentioned in BBC article [6]). Of course, Marshall Bagramyan denounces the linked article right away as invalid, compiled by one journalist, etc while this is the journalist (Thomas de Waal) on whose writings a considerable part of Karabakh conflict articles are quoted and based on. In other words, the user is being selective just because this particular quote from BBC approved text does not suit his edits and reverts. Moreover, I asked him and directed him to discuss his edits on the talk page ([7], [8], [9]) and reach consensus before making the intended changes. As can be seen from this article about the helicopter shootdown related to Zheleznovodsk Communiqué, I reviewed his changes and came to consensus [10]. As for the Black January page, all changes made by unknown IPs were POV and I attempted to get them reach consensus on the talk page too before making those edits (if needed I'll provide all diffs to show the attempts). Tuscumbia (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As a response to MarshallBagramyan and to attention of Stifle:
It's obvious that MarshallBagramyan is doing his best to draw me into the ArbCom restrictions for no reason whatsoever. During the reverts, he was urged to discuss the intended text on the talk page before reverting the text to his version, but he kept on going until I reverted the third time, at what he suddenly stopped and reported me. It's pretty obvious that this was done to try to pull me into the restrictions. I am aware of the editing rules including one WP:3RR which clearly indicates no more than 3 reverts on the same page within 24 hr period. I feel this request is not based on anything less that getting me blocked, banned or placed on restrictions MarshallBagramyan is himself a party to Tuscumbia (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Tuscumbia[edit]

From what I see, in this diff, which was the first revert, Tuscumbia urged MarshallBagramyan to discuss, but he proceeded further, ignoring subsequent invitation to talk. For me the basic problem is that Marshal pushes a disputable background section, sourced with BBC News instead of more specific book, offered by Tuscumbia. Brandmeister[t] 17:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that Tuscumbia violated the 3RR rule on Zheleznovodsk Communiqué. Tuscumbia made 3 rvs, so he remained within the limit. At the same time MarshallBagramyan reverted the article twice, obviously without consensus with the other party. So if Tuscumbia is to be placed on restriction, so is MarshallBagramyan, considering that his previous 1 year parole [11] only expired in January this year, and he again is involved in an edit war. Grandmaster 18:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
MarshallBagramyan, I suggest you check WP:3RR. Making 3rvs is not a violation, however the admins may consider the reverting to be excessive, even if the 3RR was not formally violated. In this case I don't see that Tuscumbia was the one to be blamed, because your reverting was not justified either. It was clearly a content dispute, and you should have tried to resolve the dispute by WP:DR before repeatedly reverting. Grandmaster 06:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Tuscumbia cannot be placed on notice right away, according to the arbcom ruling:

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. [12]

Was Tuscumbia given a warning with a link to the arbcom page? Grandmaster 16:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Tuscumbia[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Please provide a link to where Tuscumbia was put on notice of the restrictions before committing the alleged violations. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • As no link has been forthcoming, this request for enforcement is summarily denied. I have, however, advised Tuscumbia of the existence of the discretionary sanctions, so any future request is not liable to denial for this reason. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


Hittit (talk · contribs) warned.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Hittit[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Sardur (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Hittit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
2 reverts on Armenian Genocide, an article suject to this: "Under the discretionary sanctions imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, this article has been placed on a one-revert rule. Any editor who makes more than one revert (and this revert must be discussed on the talk page) in a 24-hour period will be blocked. Please edit cooperatively, and seek consensus and compromise rather than edit-war."
  1. [13]: 1st revert
  2. [14]: 2nd revert
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
Not applicable due to the warning on the talk page of the article, which is reproduced in top of the article itself when you edit it.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
I trust admins as for the appropriate enforcement action. I would however think that a topic ban may be appropriate given the tone of Hittit's comments (example: "THE TERM "GENOCIDE" WAS "COINDED TO DESCRIBE THE HOLOCAUST" ANY RELATION TO THE ORIGING OF THIS TERM WITH ARMENIANS IS SHEER MANIPULATION AS ATTEMPTED IN THE ARTICLE AND I WILL REVERT IT RIGOROUSLY. ENOUGH MANIPULATION."). It is imho a clear evidence of treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Sardur (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
See above. Sardur (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not Armenian. Hittit should stop this kind of nationalistic and personal attack. Sardur (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Sandstein, this sanction has been applied several times already; last case (a very similar one, btw) was about TheDarkLordSeth. Sardur (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Hittit[edit]

Statement by Hittit[edit]

I find this complaint highly absurd. The question is of one revert in which a sourced clarification I added was reverted by MarshallBagramyan. Furthermore, filing complains against those who contribute to the article with a range of sources and try to correct statement such as insinuating a relation between the invetion the term Genocide and the Armenians is childish. See my sources, the term was coined to refer to the Holocaust, attempts to suggest otherwise is manipulation and needs to be rapidly corrected. This complaint is unjustified and should be effectively ignored. Moreover, Wikipedia cannot be a hostage to Armenian editors deleting, reverting or filing compalains against those who want to correct the level of POV in the article.Hittit (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Hittit[edit]

Result concerning Hittit[edit]

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

I believe that this request is not actionable because the sanction by Moreschi displayed at the top of Talk:Armenian Genocide is likely invalid. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement does not appear to allow for article-level sanctions of this sort; it appears to direct that sanctions must be directed at individual editors following individual warnings. If article-level sanctions are desirable, the Committee should be asked to amend their decision to provide for such sanctions.  Sandstein  10:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project" probably cover this? Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Conceivably, yes; but the wording of the remedy, "... impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere ...", leads me to believe that any sanctions are intended be targeted at specific editors, not at articles as a whole.  Sandstein  12:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Requested clarification from the Arbitration Committee. NW (Talk) 16:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The clarification notwithstanding, has Hittit been put on notice of the existence of discretionary sanctions? Stifle (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I have warned Hittit with the generic {{uw-sanctions}} template. If he takes the advice, good; if not, a new report can be filed. Sound good? NW (Talk) 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed; this should be closed as no action. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


Request not actionable: the subject had not been placed on notice by an administrator. He now has.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Marekchelsea[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
M.K. (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Marekchelsea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
As WP:DIGWUREN case concluded editors working in EE topics should demonstrate wiliness to cooperate and work in those topics. I see user:Marekchelsea's practice of masking his controversial edits as minor ones (despite request to stop such practice), revert warring and other disruption as a direct threat to Wikipedias integrity (more details below) and a breach of principles outlined in WP:DIGWUREN. Marekcheslea is not a newcommer, he is editining for two years now, and is well aware of the rules he is breaching as he was also warned by admins and other users multiple times before and there is absolutely no progress in his behavior – only viable option left is the restrictions under WP:DIGWUREN.

Disruptive editing[edit]

Undiscussed cut’n’ paste move marked as minor edit [16][17] Another undiscussed cut’n paste move marked as minor edit [18][19] And another one undiscussed cut n paste move parked as minor edit [20][21]

Undiscussed move marked as minor edit with misleading edit summary “change name according to belarusian wiki)“ – while claiming that the change was made “according to belarusian wiki“ Marekchelsea was doing the opposite – moving the article from the name that is used in Belarusian wiki to the name that is not even mentioned in the Belarusian wiki.

Just a "few" more undiscussed cut‘n‘paste moves [22][23];[24][25];[26][27]

User never discusses his moves or controversial edits despite being asked to do so, and thus promoting his personal agenda.

The user was warned already in 2008 [28] twice [29] against removing text, without edit summary and was asked to discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page, but no progress in his behavior can be seen so far.

Just now I asked him kindly to stop this disruptive practices[30] but after this, Marekchelsea instead simply deleted previous admin warning [31], and continues to make undiscussed controversial changes marking them as minor edits non stop [32];[33] also continuing his stale revert warring at Jan Czeczot article [34] (prievious reverts [35],[36],[37])

Revert warring[edit]

Marekchelsea was warned to avoid revert warring a couple times before.

After being warned to avoid revert warring and obey WP:3RR, [38] and asked to discuss controversial changes at the talk pages [39], Marekchelsea continued his ways – most telling example is this article [40]

Just at this article alone Marekchelsea made at least 17 reverts, multiple times breaking 3RR rule, of which he was aware by now, by making 4, 5 or even more reverts in 24 hours [41],[42],[43],[44],[45] and so on.

Disruption during CfD and personal attacks[edit]

After this CfD [46] that went not the way Marekchelsea desired – according to Marekchelsea consensus was simply wrong[47] - he created POV fork category which was soon nominated by uninvolved admin for deletion [48]. During this CfD Marekchelsea breached rules of WP:No personal attacks by attacking editor just because he expressed opinion opposing his views [49]

Also CfD related revert spree accompanied by offensive edit summaries („this is sick“) aimed towards at least three wikipedia editors [50] is also worth noting.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
# [51] Warning by LAAFan (talk · contribs)
  1. [52] Warning by Xeltran (talk · contribs)
  2. [53] Warning by meco (talk · contribs)
  3. [54] Warning by M.K (talk · contribs)
  4. [55] Warning by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  5. [56] Warning by Renata3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Block or EE topic ban
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
  • Most of the disruptive actions such as revert warring are actionable by itself under general WP policies especially if being repeated after multiple warnings (with no stopping signs). Regarding WP:Digwuren I would ask for a firm notice that further disruption such as undiscussed controversial cut'n'paste moves, controversial edits marked as minor with no explanation neither in edit summary nor in talk page, misleading edit summaries, revert warring without participation in discussions on the talk page, and other disruption will not be tolerated. M.K. (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Why this request is not processed yet? Any particular reason? M.K. (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Stifle , for placing notification to Marekchelsea. I have further request concerning this issue:
    • a) please, consider adding Marekchelsea's name on this list, because next time, somebody may argue about this.
    • b) by closing this request please address, do documented Marekchelsea's behavior here is consistent with good editing practice or not (I am not talking about sanctions as such). I fear, that otherwise, by simply archiving case without such unambiguous note, bad signal may be sent and individual in question may see it as encouragement of such behavior. Also it would serve as a good preventive measure, that such disruption would not be tolerated in the future. Thank you. M.K. (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
notice delivered on 2010-04-18T17:03:45

Discussion concerning Marekchelsea[edit]

Statement by Marekchelsea[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Marekchelsea[edit]

Result concerning Marekchelsea[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Please provide evidence that User:Marekchelsea has been put on notice of the general sanctions by an administrator, as required by remedy 12, paragraph 2, of WP:DIGWUREN. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The request has not been further processed because nobody has provided evidence that an administrator placed Marekchelsea on notice of the general sanctions prior to the events linked above. If there is no evidence posted within the next day or so, this request will be summarily denied. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I have notified Marekchelsea of the existence of the general sanctions. If the matter is sanctionable under other Wikipedia policies it can be raised at WP:ANI, although as the user has not edited in three days and blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive, I doubt any further action would be taken there. This will be closed with no action. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Closing this thread down, per Stifle: not actionable. AGK 16:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


User blocked for 8 hours for 1RR violation. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Lihaas[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
O Fenian (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Lihaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
2 reverts in less than 24 hours.
  1. [57] First revert
  2. [58] Second revert
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
[59] Warning by O Fenian (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
In addition there was also a third revert, totalling three revrets within a period less than 30 hours. While List of terrorist incidents, 2010 as a whole may not be covered by the "Troubles" case, adding claims about Republican Action Against Drugs do make those edits covered by the Troubles case. He has been reverted by three different editors and I have patiently explained that the edit is in violation of three different policies, but he just keeps making it. To show how disruptive Lihaas is being on this article, he keeps adding this as a "terrorist incident", amongst others. This is against the agreed inclusion critera (which Lihaas ignores saying "ignore all rules") as it is not labelled as "terrorism" by the source. It is quite feasible that a pipe bomb blowing up a telephone box is youths experimenting with bomb-making, to label it as a terrorist incident in the absence of sources doing so is disruption. O Fenian (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Lihaas[edit]

Statement by Lihaas[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Lihaas[edit]

Result concerning Lihaas[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Blocked 8 hours. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas 2[edit]

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

Request concerning Lihaas[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
O Fenian (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Lihaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [61] First revert
  2. [62] Second revert, less than 24 hours after the first
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
Not applicable, has just been blocked under this sanction
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
The IP editor is plainly Lihaas, given the edit to to the article and continuing the same discussion on the talk page, he is also participating in the same discussion as the account on Talk:Tapuah junction stabbing. Northern Cyprus presidential election, 2010 is another article common to both the IP and the account as well. I do not believe it should be necessary for me to file a WP:SPI first given they are plainly the same? Note that the "source" he has added is this, which only describes Rebublican Action Against Drugs as a "vigilante organisation" and does not use the word terrorism as required. This is the second time in a matter of days Lihaas has violated the sanction on this article, the report right above this one was his first violation. O Fenian (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Lihaas[edit]

Statement by Lihaas[edit]

if one sees the discussion on the talk page for List of terrorist incidents, 2010#criteria for inclusions I have asked O Fenian for a debate where he refuses to debate the issue at hand but simply states : "This is not a list of bombings, so please do not add bombings..." + "If your only argument is that you intend to "ignore all rules" then this discussion is pointless" + "You either provide a source that describes the incident as terrorism, or it does not get added to the list." He then resorts to the tried and tested method of tag-team revertin with the user RepublicanJacobite from the the irish republican wikiproject (of which the two did the same on the RIRA/CIRA articles last year to remove the sources quotations from the IMC report of the time). On another issue on the page I had an issue with the addition of the Tapuah Junction stabbing incident which another editor added because wikipedia calls for editors to be WP:Bold. I'm currently in the process of debating with another editor why i think it is wrong to add and why he thinks it is right, as the onus is on me to challenge the info was agreeably left on the page till consensus. Then another editor comes along and adds this edit in question about RAAD, the 2 republican members seem to so politically charged that they dont want to discuss the issue or the criteria for inclusion (in general as per the topic of the debate) and refuse to discuss this but simply state the onus turns on us again. I have said it before in the debate that i agree there is stuff that shouldn't be on here but let's debate a criteria, yet they seem to think it is absolutely there preregotive to decide on an issue that suits them with scant regard for the talk facility. What is the point of a talk facility if political agendas have it there way without willingness to discuss? Even the hot-bed of the Middle East conflict is at least willing to discuss in the Jewish Exodus from Arab lands. Im not saying im right, im just saying have a debate fairly before removing. Then get consensus. Wikipedia explicity asked an editor to be bold and they remove without discussing it with anyone. Might as well get rid of all these rules then. (of which, btw WP:Ignore also states that rules dont have to be followed by the book, meaning WP:WTA has repercussions. Furthermore, another editor has also said how the list of terrorist incidents is unrelated to the troubles and that every act of terror/political violence in N. Ireland is not related to the troubles.Lihaas (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As for his latest "blatant lie" he has used the talk page as a forum rather than discussion. i have listed what he said and refused to discuss. Talk page doesnt mean using it for the sake of it, its to be used for discussion of content not threats.
as for "edit summary of vandalism -- watch what you delete" if you read the edit you will find the edit removed undisputed info apart from the controvesy. go on and see how the dates of another entry were reverted, mind you without any edit summary whatsoever. At any rate, pending the outcome of this case i have not gone back and reverted. But then there is the other precedence for being WP:Bold in reverting other controversial additions like that of the Tapuah junction. if one wants to read/follow the debate in this regard i have postedon the talk page without reverting. the onus now falls on O Fenian to debate.
He now seems to say, after i have given an arguement with basis, that he doesnt want to debate because he seems to have changed his mind "This is becoming little more than trolling now. Unless reliable sources describe this incident as terrorism, or the perpetrators as terrorists, Wikipedia will not be doing so." Now i would like to ask an admin. Why should i have to keep justifying myself if he refuses to talk and debate?
There seems to be a new red herring to avoid debate. "finding it difficult to believe that straight after a block for a 1RR breach, an editor can breach 1RR again on the same article using a sockpuppet, continue edit warring after that" firstly, 2 editors vs. one finds this article is not related to the troubles so there is a 3rr rule. Secondly, i have ceased to remove his edit awaiting the setting of precedent. Thirdly, there is no "sockpuppet," which he seems to believe is the only reason to argue about.
Sockpuppet case[edit]

Why would i possible want to log out and log back in just to edit this? That to somethign that is blatantly similiar? If i was a sock puppet woudlnt i at least try to be different? My account seems to often log out on some comps im on b/c its a public facility or has low cache memory. i dont know what the reason is.Lihaas (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

previous block[edit]

on what basis was this? on the whim of 1 person? No others, no other admins. Is this a politically driven wikipedia that 1 person can make demands have it passed? Simply because he asserts a relation with the troubles doesnt make it true? Mr. O Fenian is not a historian by an qualification not a policy maker nor a wikipedia admin/rule maker. as above, 2 editors on the issue have shown this to be otherwise. Why is there no apology for the block? And as shown above the second "revert" adds another source to work through consensus, yet for some reason wikipedia seems to believe that only those who update regularly have the authority to make demands on others.Lihaas (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lihaas, the block was on the basis of this remedy, which clearly states that editors who exceed 1RR "may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator". The remedy has the scope of "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland", and I consider the Republican organization is related to Irish nationalism. PhilKnight (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
You said "any article that could be reasonably construed..." yet i didnt edit RAAD (even if it were to construed as a time of the troubles (as per the above not everything in the country has to do with the troubles), even though the topic on hand concerns actions in 2010). The article in questions is List of terrorist incidents, 2010. Seeing that page there are only a few facets that even consider ireland as a whole.
Furthermore, the RAAD page itself was created only lastmonth in response to action this year, long after the troubles were done with. Yes the remedy ties me up to the troubles which i havent even touched in a year
You can also see the tag-team revert editors supporting each other (the only this RepublicanJacobite seems to want to discuss. very likely to be a case of sockpuppetry)Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2010#Arbitrary_break
And i do all the admins actually read the content before replying? (See tim songs update below after i posted)
also, and more importantly, the block came from a "revert" that included lots of info. not just his that was another "revert" in less than 24 hours. see the previous info above. Didnt the admin who did the block actually read the info? Lihaas (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Lihaas[edit]

  • Comment I think invoking AE is an unnecessary escalation of what has been a fairly slow-burn, civil discussion, albeit mostly carried out by edit summary, the more unfortunately. Firstly, I don't think this is a Troubles related incident, simply a vanilla question of whether a violent act by a vigilante group can be construed as terrorism. Not all terrorism in Ireland is by definition part of the Troubles. Secondly, the second "revert" diff linked by O Fenian above represents what appears to be a good faith effort to make a real substantive change to meet O Fenian et al's concerns by adding a new source on the issue. I oppose any blocks at this time as unduly chilling on the necessary give-and-take we're having on this list and related articles. (please see also my comments at the SPI case). RayTalk 18:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering Lihaas is once again adding the incident which is unsourced as terrorism with an edit summary of vandalism -- watch what you delete I would request that a sanction (or sanctions) of some description is/are issued. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Further accusation of vandalism, and also a blatant lie that "Time and time again you have refused to use the talk facility", when I have posted on the talk page repeatedly. A block at this stage would not be punitive, it would prevent him edit-warring to add back the incident which is unsourced as terrorism, since he shows no sign of stopping. O Fenian (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am finding it difficult to believe that straight after a block for a 1RR breach, an editor can breach 1RR again on the same article using a sockpuppet, continue edit warring after that, make accusations of vandalism, and that nothing is going to happen about this? When will it end? O Fenian (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

To repeat myself, I don't think this falls under the arbitration case for the Troubles; Lihaas' problem here has nothing to do with Irish nationalism, and I've yet to see a serious argument that this incident springs from that. In which case what we have is a fairly frustrating and annoying content dispute, where I do think Lihaas is being a little bit unreasonable, but unreasonableness is not yet a reason for banning. RayTalk 04:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment From my uninvolved view with this current issue. I have dealt with O Fenian before and I noticed from his comment of complaining about accusations of vandalism, this reminds me of a certain accusation here where he falsely accused me of vandalism while I attempted to fix an infobox which I was only able to do poorly due to template problems. Hypocrisy? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As anyone can see, that (which is not caused by any since-deleted templates) is a joke, and that any editor knowingly saw fit to leave an infobox in that state and not self-revert their edit is vandalism in my opinion. O Fenian (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to remove a flag that does not represent the whole of Ireland and due to there being no template to have it say "Ireland" without a flag, that was all I could do with the templates avaliable which is not vandalism. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Could I suggest you discontinue this thread? PhilKnight (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The point I was making is that O Fenian's motives may be questionable with the source I gave that suggests there may be some hypocrisy which makes one of his explainations suspicious. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Lihaas[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • As the IP user was not evading a block, it would seem to me that the appropriate venue for this request is WP:SPI, where you can raise a type A checkuser request. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • User:O Fenian has asked me to review this decision as he feels it is obvious that the user is Lihaas. I do not believe further action is appropriate here but am leaving the request open for other admins if they think differently. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The IP edits the same articles, at similar times, but never at the same time, so it certainly could be a sock. Given that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lihaas has already been filed, I'll wait for the result. PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I've declined the CU request, as it is definitely the same user. Someone here should figure out if any sanction is necessary. Tim Song (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
      • SPI has kicked it back to us. I am inclined to closed this with no action per Ray above, as blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Question: Have all those accounts which violated an arbitration decision been blocked? If any remain free to edit, I disagree that they should go unsanctioned. Of course, if all accounts associated with this request have been blocked for sockpuppetry by the folks at SPI then applying a sanction would be needless. AGK 16:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi AGK, my understanding is there was an infringement, but Lihaas hasn't been blocked. I agree a short block could be appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clearing that up. Any block should be accompanied with a notice that further violations will result in an extended block and/or a ban from the topic area. This sort of problem editor can quickly escalate from being a small pain in the rear to being a major obstacle to collaboration and discussion. I do, however, hesitate at blocking now for the two reverts because of the time that has elapsed since the incident. On the other hand, a block may a good idea in light of the sock puppetry. AGK 23:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Should we be kicking Lihaas out of this subject area permanently, in light of the sock puppetry? People who use alternative accounts to avoid scrutiny and push through their POV aren't the kind of people we need floating around contested, ex-arbitration subject areas. AGK 23:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    My feeling, as above, is that blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive and it would do no good to block him at this stage. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
What about a restriction that he may only edit while logged in? Any future failure to log in that is not immediately corrected will result in a block. Tim Song (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Stifle: Blocks are meant to be immediately preventative, yes, but I'm talking about sanctioning him. The preventative element of a sanction needs to be considered on a more long-term basis—so even if he isn't currently a "threat", it may be the case that his presence in this subject area is detrimental.
Tim Song: I don't think that's necessary. We usually deal with sock puppets by slamming an indef on the puppet/s and a lengthy block or indef on the master. I'm also not seeing any remedy in the The Troubles case that would allow us to levy such a sanction even if we wanted to. Maybe a community one-account restriction could be agreed to at AN/I, but again—I don't agree that it's necessary. AGK 21:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the sock puppetry, I think it's possible to assume good faith, in the sense he could have forgotten to log in. However, he certainly should have been more forthcoming about making edits while logged out. I don't think we need to be concerned about requesting that if he makes logged out edits, he indicates they're his. In my opinion this is more or less covered by a 1RR restriction - in order to know whether he has gone over 1RR, we need to know if he also edits logged out. Otherwise, with more time passing, I'm more inclined to agree with Stifle - it wouldn't do much good to block him at this stage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


Various users placed on 1RR with requirement to discuss reverts.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Kedadi[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Athenean (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Kedadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ARBMAC#Editorial_process

Kedadi is a sterile revert-warrior on any topic related to Albania, a sort of self-styled "gatekeeper". Virtually all his article space edits consist of reverts [64], often with a hostile [65] or deceitful [66] edit summary (the version he reverted to is anything but stable). He has been particularly disruptive lately, always joining in whatever edit-war involving Albanian editors is going on [67] [68] [69] [70]. Whenever the other Albanian editors reach their 3RR limit, Kedadi is always there for that extra revert. He also almost never participates in talkpage discussions, except only to cast a !vote. Seeing how he appears to be a revert-only account, with minimal content building and causing considerable disruption, some sort of sanction, whether a revert limitation or topic ban seems appropriate. This has been going on far too long.

Diffs of prior warnings

His talkpage is a graveyard of warnings, notifications, conflict, and hostility, generally reflecting his contributions [71] [72] [73] [74]. He has been topic-banned before [75] as well.

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

Revert limitations or topic-ban.

Additional comments

The situation on Albania-related topics has reached boiling point of late, causing an administrator to issue the following warning [76]. I am content to heed this warning. It appears Kedadi is not [77] (revert is after the warning was issued).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Kedadi[edit]

Statement by Kedadi[edit]

Athenean, thanks for letting me know about your request. Below I'll try to respond to your request and to the comments you made below.

>"Kedadi is a sterile revert-warrior on any topic related to Albania ..."

  • Sterile? <sarcasm>Leave aside that my wife is not loving me for quite some time now, but those even are not my kids</sarcasm>.

>"Virtually all his article space edits consist of reverts ..."

  • It happens that I spend a lot of time in front of the computer by being a software engineer, and yes I am a recent changes patroller on Albania and Kosovo related articles, and a lot of times I revert biased edits (like this one and this one) but always in good faith (Kosovo related articles tend to have much more biased edits because of the political status).

>"often with a hostile [79] ... edit summary"

>"His talkpage is a graveyard of warnings, notifications, conflict, and hostility, generally reflecting his contributions ..."

  • I have to admit, you are really picky on choosing words when you want to depict something in the most terrific way possible.

>"He has been topic-banned before as well."

  • Yes I was, in Kosovo and Talk:Kosovo. Almost all editors engaged in that discussion at that time got something similar because of a heated and never ending discussion regarding the political status of Kosovo.

>"The situation on Albania-related topics has reached boiling point of late, causing an administrator to issue the following warning. I am content to heed this warning. It appears Kedadi is not."

  • Did you check the time stamps. My revert was roughly one day before the warning.

>"Kedadi has done nothing but revert, revert, revert, since he joined in 2005."

  • See my response above.

>"Never discusses, never compromises, never stops."


@ Admins dealing with this case: as Fut.Perf. ☼ stated, there probably are other editors who deserve a sanction a lot more than I do.

Cheers. kedadial 16:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Kedadi[edit]

I just checked one of the latest performances of the reverting circus between the Greek and the Albanian crowds: Dardani. For crying out loud. Aigest (talk · contribs) removes some alleged fact-bites, giving clear reason for the removal.([80] and subsequent edits.) Megistias (talk · contribs) reverts him with an accusation of "vandalism" [81]. Aigest explains on talk [82]. Nevertheless, Athenean (talk · contribs), Alexikoua (talk · contribs) and Megistias [83][84][85] revert him in tag-team four or five times, in what is apparently a kind of automated knee-jerk reaction for them. On the other side, Kedadi joins in the fray, reverting once [86]. Until, finally, the Greek team makes an effort to actually understand Aigest's point, and belatedly has to admit that he was right all along [87]. I can certainly see a list of people who need some kind of sanctions here, but Kedadi isn't necessarily on top of that list. Fut.Perf. 20:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Kedadi has done nothing but revert, revert, revert, since he joined in 2005. Never discusses, never compromises, never stops. That's the difference. I heeded the warning given on Talk:Dardani. Kedadi chose not to. And for the record, the reason I reverted Aigest is because he clearly has no idea what he's talking about [88] (blame it on poor English comprehension), as is immediately obvious to anyone who actually bothers to consult the source [89] (which apparently does not include Future Perfect at Sunrise). And no, removing relevant, sourced information is not removal of "alleged fact-bites" (whatever that means), the reason given is not "clear" at all, and the only "automated knee-jerk reaction" is this [90]. Contrast my posting on the talkpage with Kedadi's sterile, WP:NINJA-style reverting. No response to my talkpage post, not even an edit summary, just an undo. Athenean (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The passage in the source reads: A corrupt passage in Strabo which was probably derived from Hecateus, may help us; for it seems to record the combination of the "Peresadyes" and the Encheleae to create a powerful state. If so, the Peresadyes was the name of the dynasty at Trebeniste. The name suggests they were Thracians...
Please observe the conjectural nature of this: If a corrupt passage is correctly reconstructed, then there was a dynasty called Peresadyes; the name suggests that they were Thracians. In the most recent revert war, this becomes a plain statement of fact: that there was such a dynasty and that they were Thracian; a distinct over-reading.
In any case, this appears to be settled (Athenean standing out), on the grounds that none of these were Dardani, and therefore the edit is also off topic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The content dispute on that article is indeed settled, Athenean included, if only because I couldn't care less whether the Peresadyes and Dardani are Illyrians, Thracians, or Paphlagonians. I have removed that article and others form my watchlist just in case. My only reason for reverting Aigest was that I assumed his edits were based on faulty understanding of the passage in his part, though in good faith. Considering the atrocious English of some of his other edits, I can be forgiven for thinking so [91]. I was going to copyedit the article for grammar, but God knows I will probably be reverted even for that by the doughty tribal warriors that zealously guard this piece of what they believe is their heritage. Which brings us to the point of this AE report: Until revert-only accounts like Kedadi are sanctioned, articles in this area will remain in the sorry state they are currently in. 04:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with FutureP and frankly I don't see any policy being violated by kedadi. In fact he has been very helpful in many projects like maintenance of WikiProject Albania. Like FutureP said he has made just 1 revert, while other users work in a kind of automated knee-jerk reaction without even trying to understand the situation. Kedadi made 1-2 reverts and Athenean who has made 3 reverts on Polyphonic song of Epirus reports him and asks for him to be topic-banned? For the record kedadi's last block was in 2006 (while Athenean's just a month ago), so the statement "his talkpage is a graveyard of warnings" is a harrasive attempt to convince the community that kedadi needs to be topic banned.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 09:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As FutureP noticed before what bothers me more is the automatic reverse by the above users especially Athenean and Megistias, without even trying to understand what actually others are saying. In Dardani article, Peresadyes (whatever their ethnicity might have been) were described as the forerunners of the dynasty of Bardyllis, and they were Thracians supported by Cambridge reference. After checking out the reference [92] it was clear that Peresadyes had nothing to do with Dardani, just like my comment while doing changes to the article. The reference is about Encheleae joining Peresyades, not Dardanians. Please be careful with the sources [93] [94]. As everybody can see from both my comments in these two changes, my concern was about their relation with Dardani which was not supported by the reference. I was automatically reverted by Athenean here [95] and just have a look at our comments. Mine was "Again the reference has nothing to do with Dardani, but it speaks about Encheleae joining Peresyades. Please don't misuse the sources" and Athenean comment was "No, the Cambridge Ancient History clearly states that the Peresadyes were Thracians. Please don't misuse the English language". Apparently Athenean doesn't have a clue about how the sources should be used in an article. With the excuse of bad English [96] he still continued to argue about the ethnicity of Peresadyes while my concern was the link between Dardanians and Peresadyes and not the ethnicity of Peresadyes. I had to cite a full page from the book here [97] and still I had the same problem [98] which were solved later [99]. What is more sad than funny is that the same problem existed before [100] and Megistias response was the same [101] rv vandalism while the other user (Lontech) made the same comment as mine "Your reference says nothing about dardani predecessors and your reference is not related to your writing" the response was again a revert [102]

Seeing the whole story of Dardani we can notice that the worst things are:

  1. The misuse of the sources by Megistias (Reference not even did not supported the claim, but had nothing to do with it)
  2. The conjectural being said for sure (As Septentrionalis noticed)
  3. the automatic reverse by the above users mentioned users (tag teaming), without even trying to understand what actually others are saying.

I don't see any fault of Kedadi in this case and like FutPer said others may need some sanctions here. Aigest (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I endorse all previous statements made from users that know well Kedadi's work: FPS, Aigest and ZjarriRrethues. I have never had a problem with user:kedadi. He is extremely communicative and his reverts are well founded. He performs an excellent job in maintaining the Albania Task Force and uses NPOV. I think that without him the Albania country Task force would have had no Albanians to maintain it in the last 5-6 months. Rather than trying to kick out excellent users, like user:kedadi, user:athenean should focus on building articles and improving them. I still have to see one single article started by this user and brought to Start status, however I have seen at least 20 reports of all colors initiated by him (and the target of which are Albanian users). These reports have several times attempted to boot from Wikipedia good users, such as Kedadi. Many times admins fall into the traps of these reports and Wikipedia ends up losing valuable contributors. Reporting users and asking for their topic ban is the last resort and should not be used losely otherwise it falls under wp:harassment and wp:Tendentious editing. I have been reported too many time by user:athenean and I have noticed that in the talk page of Arbac Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#Statement_by_sulmues. I would invite FPS to publicly mention those users who make unfounded reverts and I would also invite the admin to read closely the true edit warriors with close attention to the content. Again Kedadi's reverts are well founded and content based and he is far from deserving anything asked as outcome in this report. Thank you for your attention. --Sulmues Let's talk 13:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Just so people don't misquote me: I certainly didn't say I find Kedadi unproblematic. What we need is a measure against the rampant tag-teaming on both sides and across many articles. My suggestion: apply 3RR (or 1RR?) collectively to the two teams. I propose the following:
Whenever any member(s) of the following two groups:
are engaged in a dispute against any member(s) of the other group, reverts made by all editors within each group will be added up and counted together towards 3RR (or 1RR, if admins prefer to make it stricter.) Freshly created socks, IPs or single-purpose accounts that turn up to continue any revert war initiated between members of these two groups (such as Stupidus Maximus (talk · contribs), TinaTrendelina (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs · WHOIS) etc.) can also be counted in the same way. Fut.Perf. 14:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, even if I am right at removing or adding smth to the article (just look at the Dardani example above), that will be dangerous because somebody might continue to not follow the rules?! One person should be accountable for its own actions and that is a fundamental principle. Assuming that everybody is the same within a specific nationalistic group, smells (excuse me FP) like racism. Returning to the example above I wouldn't put in the same level Alexikoua (talk · contribs), Megistias (talk · contribs) and Athenean (talk · contribs). While Megistias (talk · contribs) and Athenean (talk · contribs) didn't bother to get my concern, Alexikoua (talk · contribs) made only one rv and continued to talk in the talk page and after we agreed that I was right [103] and right now the article is more correct(ref and facts are related). This is a good example that going nuclear on all participants regardless of their actions (right or wrong) is very wrong and unproductive. Aigest (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In case I didn't make myself clear: I am, of course, not proposing that actual blocks for revert-warring should automatically be applied to the whole team indiscriminately. What I am saying is that if, for instance, you make two reverts and then Sulmues makes two more reverts over the same issue, Sulmues should be considered to have broken 3RR. Not you. Fut.Perf. 15:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I see but still I am not fully convinced, situations can be very complicated indeed. In the above example Athenean made two rv, Megistias one and Alex one so Megistias is the third rv and Alex is the fourth rv by the Greek team (sorry guys):). Sulmues made one, kedadi one and me also one [104] mine being third from Albanian team:) and after agreed with Alexi on talk page [105] I made fourth rv [106] (if it can be called rv) and the things were solved [107] [108] before administrators entered into scene later [109]. So in the end of the day by the proposed solution the persons (Alexikoua (talk · contribs) and Aigest (talk · contribs)) who tried to understand each other [110] found a consensus [111] and improved the article, should be punished?! That's why I think that one person should be accountable for its own actions and punishments should be for its own behavior. Aigest (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I can guarantee that user:Athenean will file reports after reports until the last serious Albanian contributor that disagrees with the Greek side will be out of the Wikipedia project. I see that he is trying to gather evidence of my contributions in the Albanian project to file his next report against me (see my talk page where he asks me to translate what I have written in the Albanian project). I, Kedadi, Aigest and ZjarriRrethues are in his list and he won't stop until someone will ban user:Athenean from Balkan topics. His persistence of reporting as a sock or as incivil or as tendentious every Albanian contributor is noted. He has harassed many Albanian contributors with false reports and also admins who have to read his marathon accusations. On the Albanian side we are extremely poor in articles and all we think about is to write articles and improve them, since none of us has the time to report user:Athenean for harassment. User Athenean does not contribute, he thinks of reporting and has mastered that pretty well. The Greek task force has 20k articles the Albania TF has 2k. One of the reasons is that the Albanian editors get blocked and banned after reports of user:Athenean, which are often not carefully weighed by closing admins. If the closing admin does not take the time to fully understand the problematics of the Greek-Albanian issues, and it seems like FPS is the only to do it, Wikipedia will keep losing Albanian contributors and the Albanian topics will be covered only by the Greek team. I agree with FPS's proposal of imposing a 1RR rule per 24hrs, for the 8 contributors that he mentioned (I am one of them), and I find that reasonable. --Sulmues Let's talk 17:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This AE thread is not a forum for launching into diatribes against other users. You have once again crossed the line. And you are completely misunderstanding the essence FP's proposal. Athenean (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: this still requires action. The reverting circus is still travelling; currently it's at Greeks in Albania and Anastas Avramidhi-Lakçe. Fut.Perf. 11:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Kedadi[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Please provide evidence that the user has been duly warned of the existence of the discretionary sanctions prior to the alleged infractions. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • [112]. Fut.Perf. 11:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I propose to place Kedadi on 1RR for articles on Balkans-related subjects for two months. I will activate this sanction in a couple of days unless I see good subsequent reason not to. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. 20:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── User:Sulmues has proposed a possible solution on my talk. I would invite comments on same. Stifle (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Right, that doesn't seem to work. Therefore, Megistias (talk · contribs), Alexikoua (talk · contribs), Athenean (talk · contribs), The Cat and the Owl (talk · contribs), Sulmues (talk · contribs), Kedadi (talk · contribs), and Aigest (talk · contribs) are all limited to one revert per rolling 24-hour period on all articles relating to Balkans subjects, widely construed, until the end of June.
  • Furthermore, they are required to discuss any reverts they do make on the talk page in a minimum of 50 words within 30 minutes of the revert. Breach of the one-revert restriction or failure to discuss reverts adequately shall be grounds for blocking for an appropriate period at the discretion of any administrator.
  • All discussions required under this remedy must be posted in English.
  • ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs) has not been previously served with notification of ARBMAC so is not eligible for this sanction, but if he, or any other new user, shows up at relevant articles and starts reverting, they should be served with notification of ARBMAC and will thereafter be liable to be subjected to these sanctions without further notice.
  • Appeals may be made to me, to WP:ANI, or to ArbCom. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Points of clarification:
    • Reverts of obvious vandalism (that is to say, edits which any editor who had never seen the page before would say are vandalism) are exempted as with all revert restrictions, as are reverts of obvious BLP violations.
    • Reverts of banned users are not exempted. If one of the editors affected by this discretionary sanction finds an edit of a banned user somewhere on an affected page, they can either use their one daily revert or report the matter to WP:ANI.
    • If any new meatpuppets show up and start reverting, they are to be served with {{uw-sanctions|topic=b}} by any user (the ARBMAC decision doesn't require that users be served by an administrator, unlike some other discretionary sanction remedies). If they make any further reverts in the area, open a new AE thread or notify me, and they will be added to the list of users subject to this discretionary sanction.
  • Anything else? Stifle (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


Ліонкінг placed on notice of sanctions. Request otherwise closed without action.

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

Request concerning Ліонкінг[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Brandmeister[t] 04:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Ліонкінг (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Edit warring considered harmful

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
*1st revert
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
[121] Warning by Brandmeister (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I would add that Ліонкінг has recently used the "rv vandalism" edit summary to justify the removal of refs (including official census figures) and POV-pushing, restoring the "unreferenced" tag despite presence of sourced info: [122], [123], [124] etc. That pattern becomes disruptive. Brandmeister[t] 21:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Ліонкінг[edit]

Statement by Ліонкінг[edit]


Actually there is a hot discussion on it's talk page. In this discussion is participating 4 users, including me and a plaintiff. The size of this discussion at this moment is more than 16,000 bytes and it's seems that parties soon will have a compromise (according to the last post of User:Golbez who summed the arguments of User:Brandmeister and User:Tuscumbia from one side and my arguments from the other side. So to gain a compromise I've decided to stop renaming of this article. In renaming also have participated yet one pro-Azeri User:NovaSkola who even haven't give any statement in the Talk page. Also I want to add that I and plaintiff applied to the skilled Carlossuarez46 and we are still waiting for his help in this situation. I believe that the plaintiff had specifically filed a lawsuit to try to resolve the conflict, which is now being actively discussed by dishonest means. I think that any renaming of the article until consensus is simply a provocation. Yours --Ліонкінг (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"I would add that..." it has mentiones Tuscumbia already. And You just repeat it the second time after him. I've give respond on this statement lower. Be more attentive.
Please watch attentive on this edit. You can see how according to the Azeri sources, the estimate population was 65,600 in 1989. And compare it with official census of USSR, according to which the population in 1989 was only 47,339. The same year and the difference is 35%. I've just moved falsification of the Azeri source which claimed 65,600 persons and picked neutral authoritios source which claimed only 47,339. It's only one of my edits. Note: I have not even used any Armenian or NKR links. Why administrators pass through the fingers the falcifications of Azeri party? The purpose of these users is very simple - to push for political purposes Azeri point of view, which does not correspond to reality. And in this case they are prevented from doing me. So they decided that the best way to protect - the attack. --Ліонкінг (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I went with the Soviet source because it's dated; you're saying the Azeri source is dated 1989, but I see no assertion of that in the link. --Golbez (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It is dated in the article, but in the Azeri link there is no date. Anyway we actually know that the maximum population was 47,339. After the 1989 there was unstabile situation till to the 1992, when the Rayon became under the control on NKR self-defence forces. So I don't think that the population could grow on 35% during of 3 years of war. As a result it is a falcification, isn't it?. --Ліонкінг (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to assume one way or another if Azerbaijan falsified census data. --Golbez (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
But it is clear that they try to uphold in every way possible sources, which are misleading. They do not accidentally but intentionally, using all possible mechanisms: by a factor of prime rolling away, and my edits, even before applying for my lock, because I'm trying to break the wall of one-sided positions, built by users who openly support the view of Azerbaijan propaganda. Nothing would be so bad would not have been if they would not have been openly rigged and those which are directed against the Armenians. Take the same example. Azerbaijan said today that he has a million refugees. I Tuskumbia demonstrated that a maximum of 450,000. And then comparing the story about the Agdam region, we can see in the paper that in 1989, according to official census in the city lived 28.031, and according to official statistics of Azerbaijan - over 160,000 (!). If we go on all Rayons - everywhere there is juggling with figures. At least what this juggling is 20% in each article.
I ask the administrators are very serious about checking these data, as it is a clear falsification. Many sources around the world use the information from Wikipedia and actually spread the misinformation that defend those parties with a political purpose. --Ліонкінг (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just fullfiled this articles with real information from the last census which recognuse Azerbaijan and NKR - [126] and I've cleaned a wrong information according to which there was an Azeri census after the war, because simply Azerbaijan don't controle this teritories. Thereafter, this user is simply rolled back all of my edits, and interjected obviously false promotional information from the source of the census of Azerbaijan. Compare please my contribution page and his last contributions. That is, he did it openly, and he did it not assuming good intentions. Moreover, he has done all of my edits on my contribution, as well as calls my opinions nationalist, though I do not even add a link to a census of the NKR, and add a link to a census of the USSR in 1989 - the last census, in which both nations have lived in the same area. But despite this user continues to destructive actions, and together with his partner, simply trying to throw me out of the project, lobbying their one-sided point of view, which is misleading.

I meant that I do not expect more from him good intentions, as he calls me a nationalist, I take it as a libel and defamation, for which I think he should suffer legal punishment. Yours --Ліонкінг (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Right now we are witnessing how Tuskumbia brazenly trying to throw mud at me, calling me a nationalist sources, then showing other provocations. But it is just a note that I have not used the Armenian sources, I have only used data from a census of the USSR in 1989, and took them from an authoritative site, which is neither Armenian or Azerbaijani. Tuskumbia in turn accusing me of Armenian propaganda completely forgot that it was not I put the Armenian sources, and he sticks Azerbaijani sources that can not reliably indicate the population of the regions that he has no control over. As I have said, in the NKR census was conducted in 2005, but I inserted the figures from the last recognized and Armenians and Azeris to the 1989 census.
Also ask to pay attention to the fact that Tuskumbia instead of neutral phrases like "fell under the control" uses "was occupied." I believe that this violates the rules of the neutral point of view. I did not write the phrase "has been released."
I would also like to thank Golbez, with whom I do not agree on some revisions (about this update, I talk to him again in the future), but I can not evaluate its role as a mediator with the Azerbaijani users. --Ліонкінг (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Tuscumbia, first of all stop the speculations on the theme of my intentions. I've write already higher what I meant. You listen very well, but You don't hear Your opponent. Before saying smth read attentive what I've written.
Secondly the discussion page of the name isn't here. It is there.
Thirdly. Both of us agree that there is a falsification in the number of population. I've picked a neutral authoritius link of the census in USSR in 1989 instead of unproved info. You have deleted all my edits with proved links and after that who from us is a vandal? Instead of neutral link which I pick (this census was in USSR in 1989, so both parties recognise it), You have inserted an info from a web-site where are no information of source (census/estimate) and more than that there are even no info about a year. But the most interesting that the populations differs on 35%! But there were a period of only 2-3 years. More than that lower Divet has written that this web-site is not authorious. If You want to know why - read it is lower.
And the last - stop speaking about International recognised Azerbaijan and unrecognised NKR. You mention it everytime. But wikipedia is not a politic organisation or Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Wikipedia is encyclopedia which help people to know the info they are interested in real situation, not in the papers. --Ліонкінг (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Ліонкінг[edit]

User Ліонкінг (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly vandalizes the pages Khojavend Rayon, Fizuli Rayon, Jabrayil Rayon, Lachin Rayon, Qubadli Rayon, Tartar Rayon, Agdam Rayon, Zangilan Rayon. Here are his edits: [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134] While reverting the sourced information, he calls the previous addition of sourced information "vandalism" replacing it with nationalistic data thus decreasing the number of last recorded Azerbaijani inhabitants (according to census) of these regions and renaming regions of Azerbaijan to Armenian names. Note that most of these regions are not even in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. His actions are highly unacademic and highly disruptive. Moreover, he admits he will not assume good faith and implies he will continue his disruptive behavior, please see the diff here [135] I'd say he does fall under AA2. Please take appropriate actions warning him or consider blocking this user from English Wikipedia. Thank you. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The source used by Ліонкінг are from 1989 Soviet data. Those regions were occupied by ethnic Armenian forces in 1992 and 1993. In the period from 1989 to 1993, these Azerbaijani regions were populated with Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs who were forced out either from Armenian SSR or from NKAO by Armenian troops, hence the increase in population and subsequent record of population increase from Azerbaijani authorities. Ліонкінг tries to decrease the number of Azerbaijani inhabitants in the region to reflect the Armenian propoganda which aims to lay claims on these regions basing them on false demographic data, by populating internet with the data using Wikipedia as a medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuscumbia (talkcontribs) 20:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:AGF. Sardur (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua, although this involves dispute over the sources, the reported user additionally inserted biased information and admitted he will not assume good faith because the information provided with sources does not fit his agenda - See here [136]. How can one expect the editor WP:AGF after his statement? Tuscumbia (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. I will read that carefully. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, what I'm reading there is that he is saying the data added by another editor was from a country with no control (or, presumably, ability to conduct a census or headcount) in the area. This is not a declaration of bias or agenda. Then he states "of you I no longer expect the assumption of good intentions." This is more difficult to untangle. It appears to me he is either saying "I don't think you AGF, and I don't even expect it anymore" or he's saying "I don't AGF you any more." If the first - which I think most likely - it is a sad, but potentially reasonable, statement. If the second, then it is a bit more questionable but still not a statement that he's not AGF'ing for the reason you give - that sources "don't fit his agenda". Your linked dif does not support your assertion. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua, his bias was not in that statement per se. His changes come in a combo with adding data on NKR "administative division" and decreasing the number of the population. While the source he provided was the last Soviet data from 1989, the actual undated census information comes from Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Azerbaijan based on pre-1993 stats from State Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan Republic. The aim is to alter data and reduce the information on presence of ethnic Azerbaijanis in those regions and subsequently increase those of Armenians which are now free to relocate to the region and increase in numbers since these regions are under military control of Armenia/NKR. As far as his message is concerned, he reverts my edits with sources without the willingness to discuss them first on the talk page and calls it vandalism, to which I gave the reply and asked him to assume good faith. He then replied that due to the fact that I used words to his dislike, he will not assume good intentions. In addition to that he moves articles with de-jure (internationally recognized) geographical names to de-facto names such as this one [137]. Again, the intent is to use Wikipedia as an encyclopedic source to remove Azerbaijani (internationally recognized) names and install de-facto (unrecognized by international community) names which contradicts to common sense: if the entity unrecognized by the world names the administrative units to its like, logically these names can't be recognized by the world community either. The practice is to recognize official names given by the sovereign state (see Dept of State, UN, PACE, etc). Tuscumbia (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through the articles mentioned above (basically, Azeri rayons currently controlled/claimed by the NKR) and removed all irrelevant (i.e. not about the rayon) and unsourced information. Hopefully this provides a baseline for better edits. --Golbez (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

AGK, Ліонкінг has been warned, unless you mean administrative warning. Brandmeister[t] 14:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Site and some statistics[edit] - azerbaijani propaganda site that contains false information

Some statistic from "С 1988 года Азербайджан был втянут в вооруженный конфликт с Арменией. В результате военных действий в Нагорном Карабахе и прилегающих к нему районах - Кельбаджаре, Агдаме, Лачине, Джабраиле, Губадлы, Зангелане и Физули было оккупировано 20% азербайджанских территорий (20% of territory), а количество беженцев и вынужденных переселенцев с оккупированных земель достигло миллиона человек (million refugees). "

Tom de Waal. Black garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war. pp. 285-286:

On the Azerbaijani side, the total number of displaced people comes to about 750,000—considerably less than the figure of "one million" regularly used by President Aliev, but still a very large number. The number includes 186,000 Azerbaijanis, 18,000 Muslim Kurds, and 3,500 Russians who left Armenia for Azerbaijan in 1988-1989 (around 10,000 more Kurds and Russians left Armenia for Russia at the same time). In 1991-1994 approximately 500,000 Azerbaijanis from Nagomy Karabakh and the bordering regions were expelled from their homes, and around 30,000 Azerbaijani residents fled their homes in border areas. Azerbaijan's refugee numbers have also been swelled by around 50,000 Meskhetian Turks fleeing Central Asia.

Finally, it is possible to count the amount of what is officially recognized as Azerbaijan but that is under Armenian control. On 27 October 1993, Aliev said that "20 percent" of his country was occupied by the Armenians. Perhaps because Azerbaijanis did not want to contradict their president or because it was a powerful round number, this figure has been repeated by Azerbaijanis ever since. That is understandable. Less forgivably, it has also been used extensively in the Western media, including Reuters, the New York Times, and the BBC. The calculations that follow are still approximate, but I believe they are accurate to within one-tenth of one percentage point. The Armenians hold all but approximately 300 square kilometers (km2) of the 4,388 km2 of the former Nagorny Karabakh Autonomous Region. (The Azerbaijanis hold the easternmost fingers of Martakert and Martuni regions. The governor of Martakert told visiting journalists on 19 May 2001 that the Azerbaijanis held 108.5 km2 of his region. On the map, the area of Martuni under Azerbaijani control is approximately twice that). This means that the Armenians occupy 4,088 km2 of Nagorny Karabakh, about 4.7 percent of the territory of Azerbaijan.

The Armenians fully occupy five of the seven "occupied territories" outside Nagorny Karabakh. They are Kelbajar (1,936 km2), Lachin (1335 km2), Kubatly (802 km2), Jebrail (1,050 km2), and Z*ngelan (707 km2). They also occupy 77 percent or 842 km2 of the 1,094 km2 of Agh-dam region (this figure was given by the head of Aghdam region, Gara Sariev, at the front line on 19 May 2001) and approximately one-third (judging by maps) or 462 km2 of the 1,386 km2 of Fizuli region. The Armenians also occupy two former village enclaves of approximately 75 km2 in the Nakhichevan and Kazakh regions. (For their part, the Azerbaijanis occupy one former Armenian enclave of about 50 km2). This means that the combined area of Azerbaijan under Armenian control is approximately 11,797 km2 or 4,555 square miles. Azerbaijan's total area is 86,600 km2. So the occupied zone is in fact 13.62 percent of Azerbaijan—still a large figure, but a long way short of President Aliev's repeated claim.

Divot (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Ліонкінг[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • That is a principle, not a remedy. This report should be made to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • There are Amended Remedies and Enforcement, I've fixed that. I believe the recent activity is not subject to ordinary edit warring reports and falls within the AA2 case as Ліонкінг proceeded with meagre and disputed edit summaries. Brandmeister[t] 16:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • This request is not actionable because, so far as I can see, Ліонкінг has not been warned of the existence of discretionary sanctions (and served with a link to the final decision). At this point an uninvolved administrator can place him on notice, but we are unable to do anything more. AGK 12:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Brandmeister: Sorry, I should have been more specific. Yes, I meant that he has not been warned by an administrator and served with a link to the discretionary sanctions. AGK 19:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Suggest we close this, per AGK; also, this appears to be primarily a content and sourcing dispute. I'd like to remind editors that there are many reasons to choose one source over another - the date, the apparent reliability of the source, etc - which have nothing to do with promoting a particular view, or having any agenda. Avoid accusing your fellow editors of bias. Secondly, and slightly off the purpose of this page - and pls do not answer here - but have you all considered a compromise, such as "Sources differ on the population during (years). (Source) gives (number) as the amount, and (source) gives (number.)" KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • That is a very sensible suggestion. AGK 10:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Closing request as inactionable. But I am placing Ліонкінг on notice. AGK 23:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


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

Request concerning Pmanderson[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Tony (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. !Voting in an RfC on a MoS talk page about a proposal to merge several outlying MoS pages into an existing MoS page.
  2. Associated incivilities at WT:Words to watch -
    Refers to User:Gnevin as a "bully", in addition inferring that other editors on the page are bullies.
    Refers to MoS as "an illiterate disaster area"; Calls for sanctions for anyone who supports the merger; "Spotty reception"; "a falsehood",
    Refers to other editors at WP:WTW as "a aquadron (sic) of bullies".
  3. undid and edit at WP:PEACOCK under guise of reverting vandalism
  4. further comment at WP:WTW
  5. further comment at WP:WTW
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
  • Previous WP:AE report.
  • Warned here, and has responded here that he believes his "restriction has lapsed". I think the user knows very well that the ArbCom restriction was for 12 months (i.e., until 14 June 2010).
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Extension of the restriction for a further six months, to expire on 14 December 2010 contingent on good behaviour during the remainder of the restricted period. Strike-through of the edits in question at WT:Words to watch.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
The user has breached the ArbCom restriction. Furthermore, he has shown in the breaching that he is incapable of behaving according to WP:CIVIL, on the MoS pages and elsewhere, using a strategy of inflammatory attacks on editors and on the MoS itself. I note a long history of blocks for edit-warring, including one during the restricted period, on 15 December 2009, although rescinded on the promise to stay away from the article in question. I note also that, oddly, rollback tools were granted on 4 January, just a few weeks after that event. [My error: granted a year earlier—Tony1] (Please refer to previous WP:AE report).
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Pmanderson[edit]

Statement by Pmanderson[edit]

I followed an invitation to comment from WT:NOR, which has nothing to do with MOS, on an issue concerning three pages which have nothing to do with MOS, attempting to merge them into a MOS page. When I did so, I did not realize the target was a MOS page, I also thought that the restriction had lapsed (I'm not counting the days until I can continue with MOS, which is the intent of the restriction); but I will abide by any decision relating to WT:Words to watch.

However, I hope the decision will be to leave things alone. The restriction arises from a date-delinking case; this is a completely different issue.

This complaint is an abuse of process, attempting to Wiki-lawyer a loosely phrased reestriction, which will expire before long, into an area it was never intended to cover; similarly, the merge proposal is an attempt to bull through a change which has no consensus, and which will have the effect of expanding MOS.

Both of these flaws are endemic to MOS's way of conduct and to its regulars; is Tony's real objection to somebody pointing out this creeping imperialism? Or is it being reminded that MOS is widely (and justly) despised outside its Mutual Admiration Society? (Which is why I will not discuss the "guideline" if this merge passes; I will simply ignore it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I observe that those calling for extended sanctions and removal of my comments are the other participants in the date-delinking case (who were also sanctioned); this is a small clique, attempting to remove the traces that people disagree with them.
The claims of idyllic harmony before I arrived are false: there was already a protest, led by PBS, against participants in the RfC presuming to declare it closed (after only a few days) and against wide dispute. In fact, this appears to be why Slim Virgin asked for outside voices in the first place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
You observe incorrectly. I am calling for the removal of your comments and I was not sanctioned in the date-delinking case.  HWV258.  22:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Really? How did ArbCom miss my opposite number? I may propose an amendment. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
They didn't "miss" anything. (Unlike yourself) there's a good reason why I didn't receive sanctions.  HWV258.  01:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
As much as you may want to make this look like some sort of 'Get Mandy' agenda, I suggest that the problem is little bit closer to home. At issue, IMHO, is your unrelenting dissing of others' views almost wherever you go, or so it seems. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't have to make this look like anything; I have provided diffs, and let others see what they look like. The way to make it look different is to act differently. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
That would include not accusing others of lies and falsehoods would it?  HWV258.  06:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony has been attempting to gather together all my past actions; the result has described as Wikilawyering by third parties as well as myself. This continued effort to silence an inconvenient voice is really deplorable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This removal, by Gnevin (the proposer of this RfC) is at least indicative of the true purpose of this complaint. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

To AGK: I have no intention of using this matter to recall any of the acting admins, if that simplifies matters. For what it's worth, I have not commented at WT:Words to Watch, and don't intend to do so either; this note on Carcharoth's talk page suggests that the matter has been settled, and that my intervention has been helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Greg L[edit]

What I just read, the widened restriction, is as follows:

Quoting PMAnderson: …which have nothing to do with MOS… perhaps. It is, however, quite clearly “style guidelines”. Moreover, we once again seem to be seeing “continuing disruption”, which is what happens if one accuses an experienced editor who has been around since 2005 with “vandalism” over a style guide issue (Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms) when it is quite clear that the edit PMAnderson reverted was over a legitimate difference in opinion and couldn’t properly be regarded as vandalism by any stretch of the imagination.

The reason for the topic ban on PMAnderson was to take a source of both the fuel and the spark from venues where debate was ongoing that were hot-button topics for him. The ban was widened because the scope of topics that were obviously hot-button issues proved wider than first thought.

As for PMAnderson’s protestation This complaint is an abuse of process, attempting to Wiki-lawyer a loosely phrased reestriction… I find he doth protest too much. The extended topic ban (“the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines”) is sufficiently clear. The motives and reasoning underlying the restrictions are even more clear.

As to the entire last paragraph of PMAnderson’s statement… (endemic flaws, the “regulars” on MOS, “creeping imperialism”), I frankly don’t know how to respond to that. Greg L (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: he (and others) could stop attempting to take over policy pages, acclaiming seriously disputed proposals as consensus, and generally conduct themselves in accordance with policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Quoting PMAnderson: … conduct themselves in accordance with policy. Interesting. Tony has no restrictions on his editing style guides and MOS-related pages and talk pages; it is OK for him to be there. Tony has one single block to his record and that was an accident the blocking admin took back three hours later. Tony, who is an experienced wikipedian, has a long record of knowing how to contribute in a collaborative writing environment without being uncivil and disruptive and engaging in incessant editwarring.

    Tony also takes care, when coming to venues like this, to use the truth and nothing but the truth in his posts. I find it unfortunate and telling when PMAnderson writes I did not realize the target was a MOS page when it was so easy for the inviting editor to come here (as she later did) to point out that her open invitation began with There's a proposal to merge several pages as part of a project to streamline the MoS. It appears to me that PMAnderson brings both the fuel and the spark to the style-guide coal mines and we simply don’t need that. Greg L (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Tony1_topic_banned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Ohconfucius[edit]

I do not mind a sincere and civil vote by Pma, and I think people would have overlooked a genuine 'technical violation'. However, it goes way beyond that: he charges into a discussion – and on-going rewriting work – which has been going on in a very cordial, collegial and enthusiastic manner for some weeks, without apparently having read through the exchanges, and then proceeds to insult those who have given their hard work to consolidate the mess which resulted from gradual evolution. I find the repeated pattern of unprovoked denigration of others and dissing of their opinions unacceptable. Even here (above), his rhetoric is belligerent, and I note his vitriolic attack ("creeping imperialism") of Tony for filing this case. His anger-management does not seem to have improved a lot, if at all, since the dates case.

He may choose to forget that the broadening of the arbcom restriction was a result of previous disruption; to say it is "loosely phrased reestriction" (sic) is stretching credulity to the extreme - the wording is, I believe, crystal clear. There seems to be a serious disconnect between his statement that he wasn't aware it was a Style guideline, and his assertion that editing restrictions placed upon him had lapsed already. This version is the one which Pmanderson voted on. The very prominent {{style-guideline}} tag at the top of the page is difficult to miss. The MOS tag has similarly existed on WP:PEACOCK since at least the end of 2007.

In view of the zero improvement in his behaviour, I believe a six-month extension to the topic ban to be entirely appropriate, to prevent further disruption. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

But all was not harmony before I arrived; there was already a protest, led by PBS, against participants in the RfC presuming to declare it closed (after only a few days and against wide dispute) - and I see it continues without me. In fact, this appears to be why Slim Virgin asked for outside voices in the first place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Your participation was notable by its inflammatory nature, and the sooner you admit that, the better. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Pmanderson[edit]

  • When it is confirmed that Pmanderson has transgressed his sanctions, I would request that all of his comments at Wikipedia talk:Words to watch‎‎ are removed. To not remove his comments makes a mockery of the arbitration process.  HWV258.  06:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Hesperian[edit]

Pmanderson provides a reasonable explanation for what is only a technical violation, if a violation at all. And his comments, if read in context, are only barely objectionable. Hesperian 09:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What ever about his claim that the edits at W2W where accidental When I did so, I did not realize the target was a MOS page. This edit can not claim such a defence Gnevin (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your unsolicited support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by SlimVirgin[edit]

Just a point about Pmanderson's statement that he was responding to a request for comment posted on WT:NOR, and didn't realize it was connected to the MoS. I was the one who posted that request, and it's clearly connected to the MoS. I wrote:

Wikipedia talk:Words to watch#RFC. There's a proposal to merge several pages as part of a project to streamline the MoS. One part of the proposal is to merge Words to avoid, Avoid peacock terms, Avoid weasel words, and Avoid neologisms into a new page, Words to watch (W2W). Fresh input would be appreciated at the RfC. [138]

SlimVirgin talk contribs 12:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Tony1[edit]

  • WRT Sandstein's and Shell's posts below, can you please let me know when the matter has been decided, and whether it's up to me to re-file this at ArbCom as an application for amendment (or if ANI, which part of ANI)? Tony (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Pmanderson[edit]

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

By editing Wikipedia talk:Words to watch and Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, which are labeled as being part of WP:MOS, Pmanderson has violated the extension of his topic ban to "the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines" by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs), an arbitrator. However, I'm not sure abount the binding nature (and hence the enforceability) of this extension, because the Arbitration Committee's decision does not authorize discretionary sanctions by administrators (which could include such a ban extension) and nothing indicates that the ban extension is the result of a (public or non-public) vote of the Committee, either in the course of the original case or an amendment motion. For this reason, I am asking Shell Kinney to clarify whether his ban extension was made in the exercise of the Arbitration Committee's binding dispute resolution authority.

  • If Shell Kinney indicates that it was, I intend to enforce it according to the decision's enforcement provision; the conceivable question about whether a ban extension decided by an individual arbitrator is ultra vires would then be for the Committee itself (or Jimbo Wales) to review if they are seized by any appeal. This is because we as editors are not authorized to review whether an arbitral action is in conformity with the arbitration policy.
  • If Shell Kinney indicates that it was not, the ban extension is void and this request should be dismissed.  Sandstein  16:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Shell did not become an arbitrator until the start of this year, so I can't see how a sanction she imposed in 2009 could possibly be under arbcom's authority. I do have concerns about Sandstein's proposed action, though. As a procedural matter, his proposal means that we would be overturning Shell's enforcement action, without either consensus or authorization from the committee. It could be argued that the action was not taken "pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy", but this potential is quite troubling. As a philosophical matter, sanctions normally stay in force until they are successfully appealed. We should discourage users from testing their sanctions in the hope that they would be found invalid. No appeal has ever been made in this case, and I'm almost minded to think that to the extent there are any objections to Shell's sanction, they have been forfeited. I'm not sure if we should reach, nostra sponte, an issue that no one in this request addressed. Tim Song (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I see the point you are making, and I agree that sanctions stay in force until they are successfully appealed. In this case, though, we are not overturning an existing sanction (such as an arbitration enforcement block), but we are concluding that there is no arbitration-based sanction that could be enforced, in particular because the (then-)administrator who extended the ban does not appear to argue that he did so under ArbCom authority. At any rate, sinply declining to enforce a decision (as I propose we do here) is not equivalent to explicitly overturning that decision, because even if we who participate in this discussion decline to enforce the decision, nothing precludes other administrators (or Shell Kinney himself) from enforcing the decision themselves if they believe that is the right thing to do.
You are also right that no party has raised the issue of enforceability, but the absence of a complaint does not make the decision enforceable, and if we ourselves were to claim arbitral authority to enforce a non-arbitral decision, we would ourselves be misusing our administrator tools. We should, in such cases, apply the maxim of iura novit curia.  Sandstein  10:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
But your proposal is not to simply decline to enforce - it is to declare Shell's action void. I fail to see how declaring that a sanction imposed by another administrator to be void is not overturning that decision. And while we are citing Latin phrases, my view is that the question of the validity of the sanction as an arbitration sanction, while legitimate in an appeal, is res iudicata in an enforcement request and generally not subject to collateral attack - that is, for the purposes of enforcing it, it suffices that the sanction sought to be enforced is, on its face, designated as an arbitration enforcement sanction, and imposed and recorded as such by an administrator - and I'm especially not inclined to reach a question which no one has raised, to disturb a sanction that has remained in place for a long time. Vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit. Regardless, this is not a good place for a meta-discussion. Assuming that we should treat this as an appeal of the sanction imposed, I agree that it appears to be unauthorized by the Committee, and on that basis would agree to lift the sanction. If necessary, community sanctions can be proposed at AN/ANI, per Tznkai. Tim Song (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
No Latin legalese please. This is arbitration enforcement, not moot court.--Tznkai (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: When the ban remedies were moderated in August 2009, the three amendments made to Pmanderson's and others' topic bans explicitly adjusted the restriction from "'style and editing guidelines' (or similar wording)" to "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates". The intent of those amendments seem quite clear: only edits to MoS pages relating to date linking are to be sanctioned. Per Sanstein, in the absence of a provision for administrators to re-broaden the topic bans, this request does not seem actionable. Moreover, I am not seeing why Pmanderson's actions are at all of concern or at all might re-inflame the date delinking dispute. AGK 23:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I chose to reset the ban to its original form (full text of close) based on the committee's indication that their motion to tighten the ban (which originally included style guidelines) was conditional on good behavior and would be rewidened if the disruption resumed (See the original motion). On reviewing the AE thread, it was clear that disruption had resumed; after leaving the proposed closure open for more than a day with no objections, I enacted the decision. As a side note, one of the Arbs suggested that the reset to the original ban extend beyond just this one participant. [139] If you disagree that the behavior that caused the rewidening was disruptive, I could see the concern, but to void it at this late date because you think it was procedurally inaccurate seems a bit silly to me. Since there hasn't been a repeat of this type of AE thread for more than 7 months, it seems to have been highly effective in stopping the disruption. Shell babelfish 01:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the explanation. I, too, think that the re-widening of the ban was most likely the appropriate decision on the merits. However, it was not an Arbitration Committee decision, and therefore is not a proper subject of an arbitration enforcement request on this noticeboard, which is dedicated exclusively to enforcing Arbitration Committee decisions (or sanctions issued pursuant to an Arbitration Committee decision). This matters because the community has conferred the authority to make binding dispute resolution decisions, including extensions of any bans, not on individual administrators, but solely on the Arbitration Committee (who alone may in turn delegate it further to administrators). I suggest that in order to make the ban extension enforceable, it should be submitted as a request for amendment as provided for in par. 4 of the motion you refer to ("Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment.")  Sandstein  09:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the solution here is to punt to AN/ANI. Appears to be a standard nasty editing dispute, but I wouldn't be surprised if a successful community sanction could be created.--Tznkai (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
That may well be so, but does not resolve the question about whether Shell Kinney's ban extension should be enforced now or in the future. Since we do not seem to agree about this, only ArbCom can resolve it. I have requested clarification at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking.  Sandstein  07:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Shell's comment above (As a side note, one of the Arbs suggested that the reset to the original ban extend beyond just this one participant) refers to a comment I made. I'm noting here that I made that comment as an editor, not an arbitrator. Still commenting as an editor, not an arbitrator, I would suggest that rather than be all formal and correct (as Sandstein is being), that an informal approach is tried here: just ask Pmanderson if he recognises that he made a mistake here, and whether he is willing to recognise and abide by Shell's extension? He appears to have said so here, so if Sandstein and Shell discuss this with Pmanderson, this could all be resolved fairly quickly, and anyone disagreeing with what results could file something separately. Carcharoth (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • That "all formal and correct" approach is more accurately the "covering our backsides" attitude. When you deal with this stuff regularly, people start to look for ways to have your tools taken away. At least an arbitrator can't be recalled by a disgruntled ex-sanctionee for deviating from the rulebook. Administrators active on AE very much can. AGK 15:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Incompleteness theorems[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt#Post-case_clarification, I'd like to request semi-protection of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Numerous IPs have been posting to the talk page recently, which was mildly tendentious but not worth any sort of enforcement action. However, today three IPs have edited the main article to expand on Hewitt's work. The use of numerous IPs matches the description in the section of the arbcom case linked above. The article was recently semiprotected for two weeks on Feb. 15 for the same reason. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for 2 weeks. Abecedare (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


Closed with no action. While there may be some technical violations of restrictions, this AE request is becoming a violation of WP:BATTLE. The parties are urged to discuss rather than reverting. An extremely dim view will be taken if the issue has to return here, and the reporter of any such case will find his/her behaviour scrutinised as much as the reportee.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning MarshallBagramyan[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Grandmaster 06:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
# [140] revert to this version: [141]
  1. [142] 2nd rv
  2. [143] 3rd rv
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
# [144] MarshallBagramyan was placed on 1 rv per week restriction for the period of 1 year by Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  1. [145] He was warned again about AA arbitration remedies by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction
Indefinite 1rv per week revert limitation
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
On 19 January 2009 MarshallBagramyan was placed on 1 rv per week restriction for the period of 1 year for edit warring on Armenia - Azerbaijan related topics. He violated this limitation twice, and was blocked correspondingly (see his block log). The revert restriction expired in January 2010, but unfortunately MarshallBagramyan continues the same behavior that resulted in his first restriction. From what I can see, the AFD on Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims was closed as no consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims). However MarshallBagramyan instantly proposed to merge the article into another one [146], and merged it the same day, without allowing sufficient time for discussion of merge, and made 3 rvs on this article. Plus, I don't find his comments on talk to be quite civil. In addition, he also was involved in edit warring on Caucasian Albania article, which I believe requires that his 1 rv per week restriction be reinstated for unlimited duration. Grandmaster 06:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
But is it Ok to merge the article the same day as AFD was closed as no consensus? One would expect that at least one week should be allowed for everyone to express their opinions about the merge, to form a fair consensus. This situation probably also needs to be assessed. Grandmaster 19:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning MarshallBagramyan[edit]

Statement by MarshallBagramyan[edit]

How extremely rude of you to jump out of the blue and seize this occasion to report me for a supposed infraction on an issue which you have never involved yourself in, Grandmaster. The violations that you allege are inaccurate: my first "revert" was simply re-adding a tag which had been removed at a time that a normal discussion was taking place (here). My second "revert" was not a revert at all: after achieving a consensus on the talk page and after receiving a go ahead from another editor on the talk page, I redirected the article to it's proper location. The only actual edit that can be counted as a revert would be the last one, and even then, I was acting on consensus. How very shameful of you Grandmaster, This board's purpose here isn't simply to wait for an opportune moment to report and try to block your opponents; it's to report on actual vandalism and disruptive editing. I have been complying by the rules of the ArbCom to the best of my abilities.To advocate that the most stringent measures to be taken against me for this nonevent speaks very poorly on your part. To whoever is assessing this case: please go through my recent contributions and see how active I have been on the talk pages of articles to bring forth resolutions without resorting to constant, endless edit wars. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

DarkLord, as a matter of fact, you are indeed violating your topic ban by placing your comments here.
Hittit, the decision of the administrators was not to keep the article in its current form. Please read DGG's comments once again to understand that even he had concerns in maintaining the status quo. For that matter, I did not delete the article but I redirected it because it was an obvious FORK and SYNTHESIS of material. Responsible editors achieved a consensus on the talk page and the only person who has since challenged the redirect has been the only one who have yet to offer any sources or sound arguments to keep it in its current state. And even after I redirected it, I asked very kindly on the article's talk page that everyone help out in transitioning its pertinent material to other relevant articles. None of the data were deleted; anyone who wishs to add some of it to another, more relevant article is free to do so. Also, constantly blaming a certain ethnic group or "clique" for rationally opposing your edits helps achieve anything nothing but creates a noxious battleground atmosphere which is unwelcoming for all us editors.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Darklord, I thought that this frivolous case had been put to rest, but your restless agitation and insistence to have the administrator mete out some sort of punishment against me seems to show that you share Hittit's battlefield mentality. Even though you have not participated one iota in this recent issue, you have over the past few days still shown a combatative attitude when discussing it on your talk page. You advise Hittit to essentially play games with the article all so that it would then "make all the opposition shut up." Earlier on, you essentially tell him to bait other editors in reverting his edits so that he can report them and so the logical step would then result in topic bans or blocks. You are treating Wikipedia as if its a battleground by speaking in the framework of strategies and tactics. While I hate having to dignify your unruly comments, your constant attempts to try to paint me as a disruptive editor, on the other hand, is belied by simply looking at my past contributions. I always source material with reliable sources and if a discussion is to be had, I am more than eager to join it and discuss the differences in a cordial manner.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning MarshallBagramyan[edit]

  • The user obviously violated the delete request result by deleting the article more than once. The result of the request was a no consensus. After a very brief discussion between 3 members who are known to oppose any edit that doesn't fit their view of history the article is deleted. This is an obvious unilateral action that ignores the failure of the delete request and participation by other members. It also fails the AGF policy of Wiki as the article was requested to be deleted right after it was deleted. It's a very clear act of imposing ones behavior on to wiki. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I completely support MarshallBagramyan's analysis, and things are more than clear for anybody who would read the talk page of the concerned article. On top of this, I note that TheDarkLordSeth is violating his topic ban with his comment here on an article clearly linked to the subject of this topic ban. Sardur (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Nope, it's not a violation. There is nothing that says that I can't input on such an arbitration enforcement request. It's not a subject on the topic I'm unjustly banned for which I'm explicitly avoiding participation on but on the malpractice of fellow editor. I am simply observing how some editors are behaving in Armenia related articles. It's surprising to see the same kind of behavior continuously going on for months without being noticed much. I simply expect more AGF from such members. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
"and other content (including talk pages and process discussions, except only for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution involving yourself), broadly construed". Sardur (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Still doesn't apply, though I do appreciate your effort to silence any opinion that goes against yours. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Mind WP:AGF. Sardur (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." If you have any personal quarrel with me please do it in my own talk page as it's neither relevant to the discussion here no the place to do so. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't - it's obviously you who think I have one. Sardur (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • As one can easily follow under what attack the article Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922 has been during the course of day and the total disrespect of MarshallBagramyan towards Wikipedia policies and fellow editors speaks for its self. After first proposing the article for deletion MarshallBagramyan did not respect the outcome of the AfD, he did not follow the advice of the admins on the course of action and immediately moved to delete the article under the pretext of article merge. The merge “edit summary” states “next best move”, clearly indicating that his sole aim is to remove the article form Wikipedia using article merge. Another of his “edit summaries” sates “This article is an abomination and there is no way it is going to stand in its current state”. The same people that instigated the AfD (+ one possible sockpuppet) then decided on the same day among them selves in a “concenssus” to delete the page and merge the topic (clearly it was not a consensus and not in line with the article merge rationale). I attempted restoration however the article was deleted at least on two occasions by MarshallBagramyan and the article topic redirected towards Persecution of Muslims disposing effectively of the original contents. From what I see the article was deleted at least once also by user Sardur after the article restoration. Such actions can be called the least “disruptive editing” if not pure “vandalism”. --Hittit (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Non-sense: nobody deleted the article: it was redirected. Sardur (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Marshal Bagramyan, nope. My ban does not cover commenting on your misuse of Wiki tools. It's rather laughable how you label 3 editors who share the same clear agenda as "responsible editors." The right thing to do would to give few more days for participation of other users and not everyone is sitting behind their computers waiting to edit Wiki. If I'm not wrong though I might very well be you're under a one revert rule and deleting or if you wanna call it "directing" twice against an action of someone else which violates the one revert rule and the conclusion of the deletion request. The conclusion in no way refers to redirecting of the article but calls for a change of the parameters of it. Thus, you acted against the conclusion of the AfD. I advise you to read the conclusion of the AfD once more to eliminate any misunderstandings. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Stifle, I beg you to reconsider your verdict. The merge was an obvious POV action. The claimed discussion among "responsible" editors was done in 22 hours. I need to ask you to tell me if 22 hours and only 3 people known to be sharing the same opinions is enough to merge an article into a much larger one? The article was really new and was being developed and I don't think we expect an article to mature in a few days. It's a work that takes weeks if not months and I feel that this article is not given a chance to mature and instead silenced by Marshall. In addition, I remember a wiki rule to divide long articles into seperate modules. This article could very well serve as the Prosecution of Ottoman Turks and Muslim in the last century of Ottoman Empire history. Moreover, he went against the AfD discussion. The reason I'm posting here is not just to defend the article but to point out the non-neutral act by Marshall bordering vandalism. Hittit did not call it vandalism because it was against his POV but Marshall merged it because it was against his POV and that is vandalism. I want to emphasize the point that I'm not here for the article but against the unilateral and provocative non-neutral acts being committed by him. I believe this to be outside of my topic ban though if you're assuming I'm here in bad faith you can of course remove me. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Stifle based on your comment are we to conclude that the actions of MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs) are not contradicting WP:MERGE or WP:VANDAL? Are you encouraging editor WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behaviour in Wikipedia? You can find my answer to your commnet on my talk page. I concur your decision to hear other uninvolved admins on this matter. --Hittit (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you Stifle for clearing it out. The reason the complaint is grounded on revert-warring is because Marshall reverted twice as listed above. The first one is ok but the second one starts a revert war as he himself have been banned for over a year last year from this topic and put under one-revert-rule. If it's ok I want to give my own ban as an example. You can very easily see from my contribution page that I have very few edits but I was banned the first time I involved in a revert-war. When I checked the contribution page of Marshall I was surprised to see that he's been involved and warned or punished for many edit/revert warring cases. I was more surprised to see that he haven't calmed down and usually leads the reverts of edits by certain members. Moreover you can check his reverts and see they're not based on facts but simply on his point of view. The reason I mentioned my own in the start was because one reason I was banned was that some admins felt that I was to continue a disruptive behavior where I neither did committed such disruptive act before the revert war incident and after getting warned. On the case of Marshall it's overwhelmingly obvious that he will continue the disruptive his continuous disruptive behavior. The BOLD seems like a nice policy. The problem is that I have seen it failed against me even when the edit was not bold. Weeks ago, I simply fixed a sentence which was using its reference inaccurately and after fixing the problem I was called a denialist and my edit got reverted multiple times which lead to my revert war. Now I look at the history of the deleted article. I see that Marshall deleted/merged the article and then his delete/merge got reverted. According to BOLD he should have discussed it first but instead he reverted the revert. I hope that I made it clear why Marshall is disruptive for such articles and discussions and that I can't understand how Hittit should be banned for sometime when he doesn't even a single record of a ban or a block in his past. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Four things:
    Sardur (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    Oh, and a fifth one on TheDarkLordSeth about his topic ban: when I see such a comment, I definitely think the topic ban was right. Sardur (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Beucase? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Sardur, the disruptive behavior by Marshall is not limited to this article but also to past incidents which I'm also a part of. Plus I don't really have to be a part in this conflict. I should be able to express my opinion based on my observations. Nice find though. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    Nice try, but 1) misrepresented, and 2) no link with this case. Sardur (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Everyone is entitled to their opinions of course. You only need to his records. There is a link as it shows that such behavior is his common way of conduct. It's important for the appropriate punishment if the admins see it fit. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree: what can be seen is that MarshallBagramyan sticks to reliable and specialised sources - what you and Hittit clearly (last example, the AfD on the concerned article, and your talk page) don't.
Remember your topic ban, which, btw, you're here circumventing?
Oh, and battleground for admins. Sardur (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Reliable and specialized sources in your opinion. Even when the very same sources are used when they pointed something different then the POV of Marshall or the others those very same sources were dismissed as either lies or propaganda. It gets really hard to assume good faith after that. I would ask you for those apparently non-reliable and non-specialized sources that I use but it's not the place. I need to advise you not to make unfounded claims.
What does my topic ban have to with this? Especially after two admins, one of them being the one that issued the ban, said that it's ok here for me to participate. Please do not dilute the discussion and stick to your comments concerning Marshall, not me. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I said this is a side point. But that's quite obvious, from your talk page. Sardur (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Interested people can check my talk page, thank you for your concern. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Marshall, the case is hardly put to rest. Stifle simply pointed out his opinion and then his openness to hear other editors and admins on the subject. If stating opinion on a arbitration request is treating wiki as a battleground then I'm afraid I need to advise you re-examine this page you're in. Moreover, people are people and they act in accordance with certain mentality. I simply advised Hittit to take a one step backward and exhaust all options of good faith and improve the article in the most professional way to counter any biased opposition. I'm sorry but you're simply twisting what I advised him to personally attack me. On the subject of your use of sources and way of conduct, you repeatedly labeled people as "denialists" and even at one point argued that the article doesn't need to be accurate depending on sources as long as it tells your POV. Once again this arbitration is not for you to accuse or attack others but defend yourself. I advise you to stick to your own actions. If you have any personal quarrel with you're free to file a complaint with me. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Stifle, I read WP:BRD the actions against the article are everything but what WP:BRD is about, or did you mean only the Bold part?:

BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus...

BRD is not a substitute for prior research which would support the initial edit or a reversion of it...

BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow...

BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes...

BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once...

Based on Stifle’s comments I will assume WP:BOLD and continue work on the article. I find it absurd that after some one makes an article disappear from Wikipedia without the mandated to do so he is referred to have followed WP:BOLD. --Hittit (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There are no more reverts by the answering editor made and so the ban was not violated by him.
If there are any RELEVANT to this very Arbitration request arguments (concerning the very ban in question), then they better be presented and linked. Otherwise there was clearly no violation of the ban and the enforcement request should be judged accordingly. Aregakn (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning MarshallBagramyan[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Nothing actionable against MarshallBagramyan. The only edit which could be construed as a revert is the third one. I am, however, minded to place Hittit on a two-week topic ban from the area for treating Wikipedia as a battleground, mischaracterizing edits with which he disagrees as vandalism, and incorrectly describing mergers and redirections as deletion. I will hear editors and other uninvolved admins on whether this is a proportionate action. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • To TheDarkLordSeth: The complaint is grounded on an allegation that MarshallBagramyan is revert-warring, and I have found that he is not. There is no remedy saying that people aren't entitled to have an opinion, nor that they are not allowed to follow WP:BOLD in good faith.
    • To Grandmaster: Principally, WP:BRD. The edits on Caucasian Albania are, however, disheartening (from, all parties) and I've protected that page for two weeks to encourage productive discussion rather than a slow-burning edit war.
    • To Hittit: WP:MERGE is not a policy, and yes, I find from the evidence tendered that MarshallBagramyan did not commit vandalism.
    • For the avoidance of doubt, I find that DarkLord is not violating his topic-ban, as this page is not a discussion related to Armenian Genocide, or in the alternative, this is necessary dispute resolution involving him.
    • I would urge editors to try to move on productively. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I disagree that this is necessary dispute resolution involving DarkLord (my intention was that that phrase includes only appeals of his topic ban, or defending himself against charges that he violated his ban), but I do agree that this discussion does not fall within his topic ban, from a brief review of the dispute here. No comment on other matters. Tim Song (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I normally wouldn't edit this section with a mere warning, but it seems I need to use my administrator voice. Do not abuse any part of Wikipedia as a battleground. That means, leave your grudges on the other side of the keyboard and shut the hell up. If this nonsense continues, I will start issuing editing restrictions, or if the disruptive behavior continues, simply indef the lot of you. No more fighting, no more bickering, no more childish displays. --Tznkai (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

  • As it was i who closed the recent AfD as no consensus, I did so without any opinion on whether or not the article should be retained, but on the basis that the discussion was so largely devoted to inappropriate over-personal exchanges on matters having no relation to WP policy that no conclusion about consensus could be formed there. I did not rule out a merge or redirect; i did not recommend one. I did recommend that some consideration be given to the proper scope of the article as a possible way of resolving the issue. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


One year topic ban of Biruitorul (talk · contribs) reset to begin anew now with any exceptions removed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Biruitorul[edit]

User requesting enforcement 
Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 18:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Biruitorul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

All edits are clearly within the scope of an Eastern European topic ban.

  1. [150] - Forced labour camps in Communist Bulgaria
  2. [151] - Romanian politician
  3. [152] - Romanian city
  4. [153] - Romanian politician
  5. [154] - Romanian journalist
  6. [155] - Romanian politician
  7. [156] - Romanian artist and Christian apologist
  8. [157] - Romanian director
  9. [158] - Romanian politician
  10. [159] - Romanian filmmaker
  11. [160] - Romanian politician
  12. [161] - Romanian philosopher
  13. [162] - Demographic history of Romania
  14. [163] - Armenians in Samtskhe-Javakheti (nationalist issues)
  15. [164] - Armenia–Portugal relations
  16. [165] - Romanian city
  17. [166] - Romanian politician
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
The editor is already under a topic ban, so a block is now in order.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Biruitorul has been ignoring the topic ban since January 2010, and has increased his breaches of the topic ban in recent days. Many of the edits are judgement calls on his part, and as User:Sandstein has stated in the past (to me actually), topic ban means topic ban, and other editors are available to take care of such things if they are required. There are no Wikipedia:EEML#Amendments_by_motion, so one can only assume that Biruitorul has no good nor sound reason to be blatantly ignoring his topic ban since January.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Biruitorul[edit]

Statement by Biruitorul[edit]

Comments by others about the request concerning Biruitorul[edit]

Russavia, could you please briefly annotate your list of diffs with what article they concern, and why that article falls within the topic ban? For example, for your second listed diff :Andrei Pleşu, Romanian politician" would suffice.--Tznkai (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears the only question is whether Bulgaria(ns), Romania(ns), Armenia(ns) or Georgia(ns) would fairly fall under the topic "articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban." A wide construction of Eastern Europe suggests that all reasonable interpretations of the term would be used, and according to our own Eastern Europe article, there are several competing definitions, many of which include some combination of Bulgaria Georgia, Armenia, and Romania, especially the Eastern Europe as Eastern Bloc definition. The diffs cited above run from February to May of this year. It is my conclusion that there has been a clear violation of the topic ban, and Biruitorul knew, or should have known he was violating the topic ban. Based on the length of the violation, I am leaning towards a 1 week block, and would like to hear from Biruitorul on this matter quickly.--Tznkai (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Most of the diffs in the list above are uncontroversial cleanup edits, such as removing spam ([168], the majority are in fact a series removing this one link), or removing misplaced opinion pieces [169]. With such edits, I personally don't care if they fall under the letter of the law; I just couldn't be bothered enforcing a ban on those. What might be more problematic is content edits like this [170], regarding the relations between Ion Antonescu and the Iron Guards, something that likely has some potentially contentious ideological import. Fut.Perf. 21:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Note concerning the Ion Antonescu edit: what Biruitorul did there was not a contentious ideological import under any definition. He effectively reverted an edit which had several manifest problems, only one of which touched the Antonescu-Iron Guard relationship. Before the diff, another editor had manipulated sourced content in various (good-faithed) ways, including by claiming youtube as reference for the relationship in question, by adding a Jewish wife that Antonescu only had in conspiracy theories started by his adversaries in the same far right pool (knowing that many nonpolitical but non-attentive readers will take at face value), and by replacing commas in numbers with dots (because he simply was not aware of the differences between the Anglo-Saxon and continental systems). The edits in question did degrade the article as Biruitorul's edit summary notes, and no political spin on his part can be deduced from that. Whether or not one is right to perform such edits under a topic ban, I'd argue that they too fall under your (Future Perfect's) definition of "uncontroversial cleanup edits". Dahn (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, at least in this case. Some topic bans are wide because they are trying to totally evict an editor from a topic area, because their judgment is suspect, or their presence is inherently disruptive. The desired attitude and behavior is for topic banned editors to realize that anything that occurs within those articles is no longer their problem, and should be ignored.--Tznkai (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment and the proposed block. Taking into account the number and duration of the ban violations, I also suggest restarting of the one year topic ban from now, under the discretionary sanctions provision of the Digwuren decision.  Sandstein  21:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Hangon, Biruitorul had previously requested an ArbCom clarification, and the Committee expressed some flexibility. --Martin (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm flattered to see my edits are being so closely monitored! (I suppose WP:STALK doesn't apply against me.) Allow me to attempt to justify them. Edits 2, 4-12 and 16 do indeed fall under the general vandalism/spam exception ArbCom recognized and that Martin pointed out. Regarding edits 14 and 15, I did not know Armenia and Georgia were in Eastern Europe; I thought they were in the Caucasus. Regarding edits 1, 3, 13 and 17: well, they're a grayer area, but they're not really substantive, more undoing edits by generally inexperienced editors, and the only goal was to stop the articles from deterioration. I suppose undoing the fabrication of data counts as a substantive edit, but one can't say it doesn't improve the encyclopedia either. (And no, I'm not invoking IAR as a blanket excuse to stray outside the ban, just as a way of undoing immediate and obvious damage.) Like I've told the Committee, there are numerous articles only I care about, and it'd be a shame to keep them up in damaged form for months on end.
  • If those gray-area edits did indeed manifestly breach the topic ban in the view of the reviewing enforcer, I sincerely apologize for my efforts there, and I will henceforth stick to truly obvious cases of spam and vandalism, rather than using my judgment as to what constitutes more subtle damage to the project. - Biruitorul Talk 02:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, and one other point. "Biruitorul has been ignoring the topic ban since January 2010... blatantly ignoring his topic ban since January" — really?? I January I reverted vandalism: [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178]. In February I wasn't here much. In March, I reverted more vandalism: [179], [180]. In April, more of the same: [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187]. The May stuff is pointed out above. So in sum: no, I have not been "ignoring the topic ban since January 2010"; I would ask Sandstein to take a closer look at my record before threatening to add four months to an ignominious topic ban against someone who, Tznkai should know (since we haven't really interacted in the past), was never suspected of poor judgment while active in the EE area, and was never disruptive either — certainly not to the extent that the productive contributor I was needed to be banished from the area completely. (I'm not saying this out of vanity; several of the individuals who have commented on this thread could attest to that.)
  • Anyway, I've apologized; I've shown there's a plausible defense for my edits; and I've stated I'll be more careful in the future. Can we now close the book on this chapter? - Biruitorul Talk 02:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I am skeptical of any line of reasoning that asks us to block, or not block, based on judging whether or not the edit was substantively helpful to the encylopedia or not. A topic ban is a topic ban. That having been said, Biruitorul did in fact go to ArbCom for clarification, and what was stated was "...editing policies and restrictions inherently include an exception for obvious vandalism, blatant BLP violations, and clear cut copyright violations." (emphasis mine) and "but be smart about, save yourself the potential trouble and report to the appropriate forum."
The vandalism policy specifically lists spam as a type of vandalism, and I am willing to assume, barring evidence to the contrary, that the links removed are in fact spam, or could be reasonably construed as such. Likewise however, Biruitorul would have been well to at least ask for help via an appropriate forum (A wikiproject, any one of half dozen different noticeboards) for someone else to take care of it, out of prudence alone.
Excluding spam removal I find the following diffs still troubling: this edit to Forced labour camps in Communist Bulgaria, this edit to Demographics of Romania, this edit to Armenians in Samtskhe-Javakheti, and more importantly its edit summary and this edit to Ion Atonescu. While I do not disagree with the substance of any of these edits, they do not fall within the vandalism exemption. Of these diffs, 1 concerns Bulgaria, 2 concern Romanians, and 1 concerning Armenians within Georgia. A review of the edit history confirms that the first three articles had very little editor activity outside of Biruitorul and one or two other users, presumably the problematic ones (s)he was worried about. [[Ion Atonescu on the other hand, currently has 60 watchers, and a decently active editor history, so there is no reason why Biruitorul could not have waited for someone else to take care of it.
I believe, on balance that Biruitorul has violated the topic ban, but with considerably less severity than previously thought. The most reasonable interpretation of Eastern Europe, broadly construed, covers all of the countries and articles at issue here. I am somewhat sympathetic to the problem where there are edits that need to be made, and no one else is making them. There are ways to work around that, however cumbersome it is to ask for help and this is a collaborative project, we should get into the habit of asking for help. However, Biruitorul had, and continues to have the option to to asking for an amendment to the case - a request I would be inclined to support if properly limited.
It remains however, to decide what must be done. The topic ban has been breached, and it seems to me, that on balance some sort of response is justified. I am unsure exactly what the best response is, so I'd like input on that matter.--Tznkai (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Tznkai, I appreciate your measured response, and have a few points in reply:
1) I truly was operating under the assumption that Eastern Europe means the countries in red on this map, plus the Baltics and the former Yugoslavia. I honestly never thought of Georgia and Armenia as being in any continent but Asia, as they are south of the Caucasus Mountains.
2) Regarding the Ion Antonescu article, I have two things to say. First, it did sit unchanged for 28 hours. I did wait for someone else to come in. And second, I did then feel obliged to intervene because, although the modifications may have been in good faith, they were not only in poor English (seen by some 300 people a day), but they also repeated the rumor that he was married to a Jewish woman, which has been used on the Internet to discount his participation in the Holocaust. ("He was married to a Jew, so it's impossible he could have killed so many of them.") I really did not want too many readers exposed to that fabrication.
3) Regarding this edit to Demographic history of Romania, not only did my edit undo months of degradation, it probably undid vandalism as well. Not only vandalism, but subtle vandalism — the kind that changes numbers which no one then notices. I assumed I could undo IP vandalism.
4) Finally, about Bulgaria. Well, what can I say? It's a five-day-old account I was dealing with, one that has already done a fair share of edit-warring, and I thought it would be unwise to let his rather POV-ed edit stand for another eight months. Particularly when no one else seems to be looking at the article. And really, there was nothing very substantive to my edit, just a footnote added to satisfy him.
About the noticeboards: true, that's an option, but I assumed talking about EE subjects there isn't allowed for me. And about the appeal to ArbCom: well, I did send them an e-mail in January talking about how content is suffering, and it's true they urged me to appeal, but I guess I assumed an appeal would be futile. Not that I took it as an excuse to "blatantly" ignore the ban: on the contrary, I've been quite scrupulous about it, and there are many, many articles I've wanted to improve but didn't because ArbCom in its wisdom decided not to allow that. Believe me, I've conditioned myself to stay away from the EE area except for the narrow parameters allowed by the Committee. However, like I've said, if I've taken one or two liberties, I will be much more careful in the future. Given this promise, given that "blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users", and given that I neither intend to perform gray-area edits like those that started this thread, nor to in any way damage or disrupt the project (which I do care deeply about, in spite of everything), I do hope we can move on. - Biruitorul Talk 03:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And if I could add one more quick point, I find this edit summary ("sigh, add yet another topic ban breach by eeml'er") to be extremely incivil. A lot of bad blood has been created around this topic area (I, personally, was not responsible for that — I've barely had any interaction with the user filing this complaint), and it would be great if we could at least treat each other with a minimum level of decency in our public interactions. I'm not simply "eeml'er", I'm someone who's worked hard on this project for four years, who's used over 99.9% of his nearly 65,000 edits for constructive purposes, and who would appreciate my pride and dignity being respected, as called for by official policy. How about simply "add complaint"? - Biruitorul Talk 06:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am unimpressed by Biruitorul's statement in his defense. A topic ban means "you are forbidden to edit", period, no matter whether your edits are good or bad. A "widely construed" topic ban most evidently includes all countries that fit any accepted definition of Eastern Europe, that is, it includes all former Eastern Bloc countries. Even assuming reverts of obvious vandalism are exempt, most edits at issue here are not reverts of obvious vandalism (that would be stuff like page blanking, or adding crude expletives to the article). The evidence shows that Biruitorul has in essence decided to ignore his topic ban wheever it suits him (for instance, even after this request for enforcement [edited: two days ago], he reverted Forced labour camps in Communist Bulgaria and reverted Cluj-Napoca). Absent admin objections, I will implement the sanction I proposed above (1 week block, reset of topic ban).  Sandstein  06:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Sandstein, I'm really not trying to quibble on this point, but see Eastern Bloc: I can see that Russia, the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova are in Eastern Europe; I cannot see that the Central Asian republics or the Caucasus republics belong to that region. Relatively few definitions place Armenia and Georgia in Eastern Europe, and that is a fact.
Moreover, this request had not been made when I made those reverts, which I have both attempted to justify and pledged to avoid in the future. As you can see, the second of those was made at 20:39 on 4 May, and the report was made at 20:57 on 5 May.
Finally, regarding the claim that I "in essence decided to ignore his topic ban wheever it suits him", this is absolutely false! Have I written substantively on my beloved cathedrals, towns, parks, rivers, politicians, writers, revolutionaries and the like? No. I have scrupulously tried to confine myself to a very narrow exception allowed. Perhaps it would be best to cease altogether, but one cannot simply aver that I'm "ignoring" the ban. - Biruitorul Talk 11:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
You are correct about the dating. I've amended my comment above. This does not change my assessment, though. The status of Central Asia and the Caucasus is not of great importance here since most diffs submitted as evidence concern Romania, which is a former Eastern Bloc country. As noted above, all or most of the diffs given in the evidence are not covered by the sole exception to your block ("obvious vandalism").  Sandstein  12:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
All I can say is I thought I could make those edits. I now see I was mistaken, but note two things. First, I have been very careful to avoid substantive edits that could not be seen as allowable. Second, given that, and given my clear intention of abiding by the ban (if not heretofore to the letter of the law), I would note that I could very easily have evaded being identified. (Routine edits of that sort don't tend to raise red flags.) That I didn't, and that I chose to make those edits openly under my sole account, I think shows a misinterpretation on my part, but an honest one, without pernicious intent. I believe this, together with my pledge to be much more careful in the future, should be taken into account before further indignity is heaped upon me. Blocks should be for ongoing disruption, not good-faith mistakes that will not be repeated. - Biruitorul Talk 14:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I will point out that there was this edit which I did not include in the report, as it was clearly reverting vandalism, and even if there are admins who would believe that they shouldn't even be doing such edits, I support their technical breach of the topic ban for such edits, and wouldn't even attempt to include such edits in a report of a topic ban violation. However, the rest of the edits are clearly judgement call edits, and are regarded as being violations of topic bans - that is in fact the point of topic bans. A note on the spam links removed; they are not all the same links which have been removed, but are different links to different interviews with the subjects of the articles, conducted and published by what appears to be a Romanian business oriented publication. It could very well be a valid external link to place in an article, and that is a judgement call that editors who are not under a topic ban should be making. Hope this clarifies somewhat why I have brought this here in the first place. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 08:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to close this with a decision, but I'll say that I for one will not impose sanctions here, and would recommend the same to other admins – although evidently I couldn't stop them from applying the letter of the law if they insist. However, the rule of "preventative, not punitive" does apply to AE sanctions too, and given Biruitorul's latest statement above, and the overall positive nature of the edits (on which I fully trust Dahn's judgment), I really don't see what good a block would achieve. The fact that Biruitorul made these edits over a substantial period of time has been cited above as an aggravating factor. To my mind, it is the opposite: if he could make such edits for such a long time, without anybody raising objections, this just goes to show how non-disruptive they were, and the longer he did the more he had reasons to believe in good faith that it was allowed. Fut.Perf. 15:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is threatening to run away from us very quickly, so if I could refocus our attention? The most relevant factors to my mind are, some ambiguity in the topic ban, a disagreement about what "obvious vandalism" is, and general policy preferences on blocking. When topic bans are "broadly construed" I think that means all ambiguity goes towards violation - not the way around. As for what "obvious vandalism" is, we have no solid definition, but spam is still vandalism, and it may well be sufficiently obvious to anyone who can read the appropriate languages. I am not entirely a fan of the vandalism exemption existing at all because of the problems it causes in enforcement but it was asked for properly and granted, and it isn't our job to override the committee's prerogative on this point. I have no intention of hamstringing the arbitration process, or the seldom used clarifications.
Between the proposal for a week and no sanctions at all, I don't think either is particularly appealing, or likely to be productive in any useful way. What I'd prefer here is a a deferred 5 day block, on the condition of no further violations in the meantime, as well as any 10 items on the backlog. Alternatively, Biruitorul could create a proposal that would allow Biruitorul to monitor low activity pages but allow others to fix them.--Tznkai (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Can one please clarify that if Biruitorul would like to create a proposal should he not do so at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment? As I stated above, the removal of external links which could in all likelihood give further information may be valid for inclusion, and are not necessarily spam as has been claimed. Surely, it is not for a topic banned editor to be making such judgement calls? Or is it? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Before someone other than myself clarifies this, let me just note that an IP who added 15 external links to the same commercial site within a period of two hours certainly struck me as spammy. Twice, it even caused alarm for an anti-spam bot. - Biruitorul Talk 21:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Me too. In fact, I have to wonder why a bot didn't revert it by default (my edit summary was in expectation of that). Dahn (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tznkai, I know you like Latin phrases, and I think an important question is: was I in a state of mens rea at the time of the questionable edits? In other words, did I knowingly and intentionally set out to violate the topic ban? The answer is no, absolutely not. I thought, wrongly, that what I did was permissible, and of course this has served as a dramatic alarm bell which will prevent such mishaps in the future. Another point I'd like to raise is the paucity of controversial edits: fewer than half a dozen over the course of four months, and those few potentially justifiable, hardly constitutes a crime spree. And I'd like to introduce a new piece of evidence in my defense, if I may. On my computer hard drive, I have a list of articles I plan to modify for the better once this utterly pointless topic ban is lifted. Let me give a few examples:
Zoltan Teszari will be moved to Zoltán Teszári, the spelling of his name with the proper diacritics.
The Romanian Church United with Rome,Greek-Catholic from Boian will be moved to some less horrid title, and possibly nominated for deletion.
At Alina Puscau, the link to [[Romanian]] (which leads nowhere) will be changed to [[Romania]]n (the correct link).
At Template:Speaker Chamber of Deputies Romania and Template:Chairman Senate Romania, I shall either add the words "since 1990" or add in missing officeholders from prior to 1990.
At Sergiu Natra (written by his son), I shall at least remove the blue color.
At Ljubljana#Demographics, I shall change 276.091 to 276,091.
The point is this: there are many things I have seen that need fixing, but since they in no way to my mind constitute vandalism, I have not done so. That I thought my edits were a form of undoing vandalism I now see was in error, but it was by no means an intentional defiance of the topic ban.
So do give me a strong warning — after this episode, I've learned a very clear lesson. Do assign me backlog-cleanup tasks. Do monitor my edits if you wish. Do know that I shall be going to ArbCom to request further clarifications, and working much more closely within the parameters they set, always erring on the side of caution. But also, do keep in mind that I never intended to ignore the topic ban and I think very carefully before I edit — I shall be doing so even more stringently from now on. Given these facts, and given there is zero further possibility of trouble from me (trust me, I don't enjoy being hauled before this body), I would submit that a block is not warranted. - Biruitorul Talk 21:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The link by Dahn is especially telling. Note the edit summary....maybe this is spam, but let someone else be the judge of that. If a non-topic banned editor is leaving it up to someone else to be the judge of, I fail to see why a topic-banned editor thinks they are able to make that judgement call. Biruitorul knew he was topic banned, and as a member of the WP:EEML, he was privvy to the big party on the list when I was topic banned (he made comments on it himself in the emails), so he would have known what a broadly construed topic ban entailed, so there is no reason to buy into the "I didn't think" routine that is being put here. I think it is about time that editors are made to take responsibility for their edits, and the time is about now. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 23:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
If I must spell out in excruciating detail what happened here (and, really, this is getting absurd), I first saw the links added and did nothing. I then saw Dahn's first edit and proceeded to note that in other articles this constituted "possible spam". I suppose the purpose of those edits was to highlight it for other users to decide what to do. Once Dahn removed the link from the Rebengiuc article, I thought "hmm, this does look like spam" and went ahead and removed the links. As I noted before, there's good reason to call them spam.
As to speculations about what I knew and did not, I've already commented. This is not a "routine that is being put"; it is an honest summation of my thought process coupled with a pledge to do better. Can we stop the witch-hunt now? Surely we all have better things to do. We're amiable colleagues building an encyclopedia here, not schoolyard enemies desperately throwing mud at each other and trying our hardest to take down other people. - Biruitorul Talk 23:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and yet another example of the sort of edit I've learned to condition myself to avoid undoing, from 4 hours ago: this one, where an IP unfamiliar with how categories work removed a category improperly. Had it not been for this silly thread, I'm sure it would have sat there unchanged till the end of the year. Which is pretty perverse, but that's what ArbCom in its wisdom has decided, and I'm not one to go against that intentionally. This notion that I'm "blatantly" ignoring their diktat is absurd. - Biruitorul Talk 23:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Russavia, I will repeat the relevant part of my post that you seem to have missed in your assessment of what is "telling": "In fact, I have to wonder why a bot didn't revert it by default (my edit summary was in expectation of that)." To add my own "excruciating detail" and clarify what I believe is already quite clear, this means that I was expecting all the articles where the link surfaced to be bot-reverted, but, just in case this didn't happen, I decided to copyedit the entry in the one article I could be bothered to care about at that precise moment. Eventually, I would have very likely done what Biruitorul did, all over the articles, only I am a remarkably slow starter when it comes to repetitive editing. If anything, this proves that what Biruitorul did was routine work, and we would all normally thank him for it. Dahn (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I believe when the suggestion was made for you to do some backlog work, that it was on articles outside of your topic ban.

Therefore, I propose that Biruitorul expand the following articles from Category:All articles to be expanded:

  1. Australia – Papua New Guinea relations
  2. Austria–Turkey relations
  3. South Africa – Zimbabwe relations
  4. Belgium–France relations
  5. Andorra–France relations
  6. Argentina – United Kingdom relations
  7. Malaysia – Singapore relations
  8. Australia–Nauru relations
  9. France–Morocco relations
  10. Argentina–Spain relations

All of those articles are quite thin on detail, and there is a wealth of information on each of those relationships. As an example, he thought Kuwait–Russia relations (pre-expansion) should have been merged, and look at it now with a bit of expansion. If an article on a lesser relationship can be expanded to such a length, imagine what the above could be expanded to. This would help clear the backlog too. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 00:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Mozambique-Portugal article from the list, as it would prob involve breaking the no-Soviet (EE) topic ban, and that brings it down to the ten suggested backlog clearance anyway. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 00:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
As to the first point, I'd be glad to help out with those articles. Of course, a user blocked and with his topic ban extended isn't likely to feel motivated to contribute to the project, so whoever closes this thread should keep that in mind, as well as the thorough explanation of my conduct that I have given, and the ironclad pledge to avoid this sort of trouble in the future. Regarding the second, I don't know why we're bringing up arcane stuff from last July, but a) someone else did the merger and b) I merely removed a heading for a section that hadn't been filled, using good logic (diplomatic relations are between two states, not between a state and a bit of another state, unless placed in that context by reliable sources). Once the section was expanded, I left it alone. - Biruitorul Talk 00:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Biruitorul[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate will be moved to the section above.

Since admins disagree above about whether a block is required here, I am not imposing one at this time. However, Biruitorul (talk · contribs) has repeatedly and over an extended period of time violated his topic ban and has provided unconvincing reasons for doing so. For this reason, I am resetting his one year topic ban to begin anew today. Even if one assumes good faith about his claims that he believed he was acting within the scope of exceptions to his ban (which he was not), he has at least shown that he is unable to correctly determine the scope of any such exceptions. Therefore, the topic ban shall henceforth have no exceptions.

For these reasons, under the authority of WP:EEML#Enforcement by block (second sentence) and WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, Biruitorul is hereby sanctioned as follows: He is banned from the topic of Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted, for one year or until the concurrent arbitral topic ban is lifted (whichever happens earlier). The topic ban imposed here has no exceptions with respect to edits considered to be vandalism, WP:BLP violations or otherwise problematic, but any explicit exceptions that ArbCom may in the future make to its topic ban (such as the permission to edit specific pages) shall also apply to the topic ban imposed here. For the avoidance of doubt, the topic ban imposed here covers all discussions, pages or parts of pages related to the topic, with the sole exception of participation in necessary dispute resolution (e.g., defending oneself against requests for sanctions, or appealing this decision); and "Eastern Europe" for the purposes of this decision includes any territory within the former Eastern Bloc.  Sandstein  19:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)