Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Lihaas

User blocked for 8 hours for 1RR violation. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement: O Fenian (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Lihaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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] First revert
[2] Second revert

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): [3] Warning by O Fenian (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block

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)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [4]

Discussion concerning Lihaas

Statement by Lihaas

Comments by others about the request concerning Lihaas

Result concerning Lihaas

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)[reply]

Lihaas 2

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

Request concerning Lihaas

User requesting enforcement: O Fenian (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Lihaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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

[5] First revert
[6] 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): Block

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)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [7]

Discussion concerning Lihaas

Statement by Lihaas

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

previous block

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Lihaas

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). Ray^Talk 18:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Ray^Talk 04:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Could I suggest you discontinue this thread? PhilKnight (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Result concerning Lihaas

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pmanderson

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

Request concerning Pmanderson

User requesting enforcement: Tony (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:RFAR/DDL#Pmanderson topic banned - The original prohibition on editing style pages and talk pages was lifted, then reimposed and broadened after a few weeks because of bad behaviour.

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

!Voting in an RfC on a MoS talk page about a proposal to merge several outlying MoS pages into an existing MoS page.
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".
undid and edit at WP:PEACOCK under guise of reverting vandalism
further comment at WP:WTW
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: diff.

Discussion concerning Pmanderson

Statement by Pmanderson

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Really? How did ArbCom miss my opposite number? I may propose an amendment. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That would include not accusing others of lies and falsehoods would it? HWV258. 06:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by Greg L

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

“

…restriction re-widened to include the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines due to continuing disruption.

”

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Comments by Ohconfucius

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your participation was notable by its inflammatory nature, and the sooner you admit that, the better. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Pmanderson

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)[reply]

Comment by Hesperian

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for your unsolicited support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SlimVirgin

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. [8]

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 12:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tony1

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)[reply]

Result concerning Pmanderson

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No Latin legalese please. This is arbitration enforcement, not moot court.--Tznkai (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. [9] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Kedadi

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

Request concerning Kedadi

User requesting enforcement: Athenean (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Kedadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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 [10], often with a hostile [11] or deceitful [12] 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 [13] [14] [15] [16]. 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 [17] [18] [19] [20]. He has been topic-banned before [21] 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 [22]. I am content to heed this warning. It appears Kedadi is not [23] (revert is after the warning was issued).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [24]

Discussion concerning Kedadi

Statement by Kedadi

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 [25] ... edit summary"

What about this one?

>"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."

Here is some proof that I've discussed: Talk:Vjosë#Article_name (apparently discussing with you).

---

@ 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)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Kedadi

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.([26] and subsequent edits.) Megistias (talk · contribs) reverts him with an accusation of "vandalism" [27]. Aigest explains on talk [28]. Nevertheless, Athenean (talk · contribs), Alexikoua (talk · contribs) and Megistias [29][30][31] 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 [32]. 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 [33]. 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)[reply]

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 [34] (blame it on poor English comprehension), as is immediately obvious to anyone who actually bothers to consult the source [35] (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 [36]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [37]. 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)[reply]

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 [38] 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 [39] [40]. 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 [41] 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 [42] 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 [43] and still I had the same problem [44] which were solved later [45]. What is more sad than funny is that the same problem existed before [46] and Megistias response was the same [47] 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 [48]

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

The misuse of the sources by Megistias (Reference not even did not supported the claim, but had nothing to do with it)
The conjectural being said for sure (As Septentrionalis noticed)
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Alexikoua (talk · contribs), Megistias (talk · contribs), Athenean (talk · contribs), The Cat and the Owl (talk · contribs), on the one side
Sulmues (talk · contribs), Kedadi (talk · contribs), Aigest (talk · contribs), ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs), on the other side

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), 92.75.21.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) etc.) can also be counted in the same way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 [49] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [50] mine being third from Albanian team:) and after agreed with Alexi on talk page [51] I made fourth rv [52] (if it can be called rv) and the things were solved [53] [54] before administrators entered into scene later [55]. 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 [56] found a consensus [57] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Result concerning Kedadi

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)[reply]
- [58]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ліонкінг

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

Request concerning Ліонкінг

User requesting enforcement: Brandmeister[t] 04:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: ~~Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#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): [59] Warning by Brandmeister (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block

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: [60], [61], [62] etc. That pattern becomes disruptive. Brandmeister[t] 21:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [63]

Discussion concerning Ліонкінг

Statement by Ліонкінг

Brandmeister

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm not going to assume one way or another if Azerbaijan falsified census data. --Golbez (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tuscumbia

I've just fullfiled this articles with real information from the last census which recognuse Azerbaijan and NKR - [64] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Ліонкінг

User Ліонкінг (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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: [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72] 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 [73] 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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

WP:AGF. Sardur (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 [74]. How can one expect the editor WP:AGF after his statement? Tuscumbia (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. I will read that carefully. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [75]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

AGK, Ліонкінг has been warned, unless you mean administrative warning. Brandmeister[t] 14:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Site www.mct.gov.az and some statistics

www.mct.gov.az - azerbaijani propaganda site that contains false information

Some statistic from www.mct.gov.az: "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)[reply]

Result concerning Ліонкінг

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Incompleteness theorems

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)[reply]

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

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

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

[a]

[b]

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