Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Statement by Malikbek
I am rather new to this Wiki-ing thing but would welcome some clarification. I hope I am writing my query in the right place. I have added a few updates to articles to do with Azerbaijan/Armenia to try to balance what seem to be biassed viewpoints. I notice that in at least one case my corrections were simply reverted which seems disingenuous without at least further fleshing out the subject (in this case Khachen). I think that the issues of controversy surrounding such historical passages are important for readers and that it is thus useful that my text stands or at least forms the basis for an improved coverage of such subjects. I do of course realise that passions run high on such subjects. Malikbek 08:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Tariqabjotu
Unfortunately, I don't think there is a whole lot the arbitration committee can do about the seemingly interminable issues that surround articles on Western Asia. This is an issue that goes beyond Hajji Piruz, Atabek, et, al. and (of course) beyond Wikipedia. Ultimately, from what I have witnessed, the issues here seem to come from persistent assumptions of bad faith. Instead of merely talking calmly to other editors, there is a tendency to ascribe issues to their nationality or personality. Someone has to bring up alleged ulterior motives. And alleged cabals of [insert common trait here] editors. This should never have arrived at this point, but alas there are some who just cannot see a trivial matter for what it is – trivial. Unfortunate indeed. --  tariq abjotu  19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Trivial" was the word used! There is nothing trivial about Wikipedia revealing itself as its true form - a medium for the propagation of lies; material that normal acholarship would not touch with a bargepole. There is something seriously sick with any person who wants to be an administrator for such a vile organisation. The problem is with them. It is NOT with those that this supposed arbritration are going to punish - they are either the propagandists pushing at an open door or concerned individuals offended by such in-open-sight lies.

Review?
Arbitrators' opinions seemed to indicate that this would merely be a review of the original case, but instead it's been opened as an entirely new case? hbdragon88 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Originally, the case was filed involving just two editors, both of whom were parties to the original case. At that point, two arbitrators accepted a suggestion I made that if the case was accepted, it be as a review. Later, however, the request was expanded to include more than a dozen other editors, several of whom were not parties to the original case. It would be unfair to these new parties not to give them a full opportunity to present evidence and workshop proposals, so I as a clerk checked with the arbitrators and we were instructed to open it as a full case. (It is good to know, though, that someone other than us notices these things.) Newyorkbrad 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the thorough and very fast response to my query. hbdragon88 21:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, please do not remove your former user names. It is relevant to this case, as this was the name you were using before you officially changed it. --Grandmaster 04:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Grandmaster, I didn't change my name, I slightly modified it. Vartanm's stats shows zero contributions, there is no point of having it there. VartanM 12:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a point in having it there, as it contains your previous block log, while your current user name does not. It is a normal procedure that everyone's previous user name is shown in the list, so please stop removing it. --Grandmaster 12:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of the block log. I thought all of my information was forwarded to VartanM, the cause of this seems to be a bug. I never tried to conceal or deny the fact that was blocked. Besides Arbitrators already know about my 3 hour block (its in your evidence), they also know that I was fairly new to Wikipedia, and didn't know about the 3RR rule. Instead of arguing and revert waring it is probably better if we ask clerks opinion about this. VartanM 20:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand why you are removing your previous user name. When you officially change your username, your block log does not transfer to the new name, so your old name links are important info the arbitrators should be aware of. Let's ask the clerks. Grandmaster 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't officially change my username. I already asked the clerk. --VartanM 18:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You did and I can prove that. So please restore your userlinks as Penwhale recommended you. --Grandmaster 04:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, please prove me that I officially changed my username. Changing lower case "m" to an upper case "M" doesn't qualify as "officially change your username" If I changed "Vartanm" to "VartanMamikonian" that would qualify as official name change. I already added the link to my block next to my name and told Penwhale that he can re-add the userlinks, if he thinks they should be included. VartanM 05:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Gradmaster, I'm not gonna fall into your provocations, this actually made me laugh. Go ahead you have my permission to add the userlinks back. I don't care anymore VartanM 07:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you actually wanted me to do? Remove it? So you can tell me not to touch your evidence space? Or report me for removing your evidence? --VartanM 07:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We consulted the clerk and he told you that the links to your former username should remain: --Grandmaster 08:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I expected you to assume good faith and let the clerk do it himself if he thinks it should stay . I see your actions as a personal attack against me. Vartanm is not a former VartanM, not a single letter changed in my name. VartanM 16:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Enough is enough. You are foolish to edit-war on an arbitration case page. I've restored the name and I expect this edit war to be over. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 14:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I'm being misunderstood, I have no problem with the userlinks, or the name Vartanm being there. It's the word "formerly", how can it be formerly if its the same name? Also your shouting isn't gonna help anyone. VartanM 15:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For the MediaWiki software, VartanM and Vartanm is different. Therefore it is still considered formerly. And no, I'm not shouting. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 04:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone change AndranikPasha's status. He was unblocked and is under a supervised editing. VartanM 16:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder if I should be WP:BOLD and do it myself. Or is that only applies to the mainspace articles? --VartanM 18:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This page says on top: Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. So the log of blocks can be edited by anyone, including you. I don't think there should be a problem, if you make a factually accurate correction. Or you can ask one of the admins personally to fix this. Grandmaster 19:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I didn't want to take the chance of editing it. And its not really that big of a deal to bother the administrators. I'm sure they have more important things to worry about. VartanM 20:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification request October 2007

 * Archived from requests for arbitration. Picaroon (t) 21:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

At the text states that remedy 2 will apply to articles which relate to Armenian and Azerbaijan and related conflicts, i.e. conflicts which relate to Armenian and Azerbaijan.

However, the template that Seraphimblade has placed on my [] talk page has text which, in its scope, far exceeds what was decided in that remedy 2. Under the wording of the Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy, articles conected to Turkey would only fall under that particular RfA remedy if the article was in some way related to either Armenia or Azerbaijan. However, Seraphimblade has used the RfA remedy to apply to an edit I made in a talk page of the entry on [Occupation_of_Istanbul], a subject which is completely unrelated to either Armenia or Azerbaijan. Moreover, this remedy was not applied by Seraphimblade as a result of an edit made to an article but as a result of a comment on the article's talk page. Where did the template text applied by Seraphimblade come from? What discussion and voting preceeded its composition? Why is it connected to Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA given that it far wider in scope than the actual remedy 2 decided on in Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA? I've asked Seraphimblade these questions a number of times but he has declined to give me an answer. Meowy 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I created the template in question to aid admins in enforcing the remedies in that case. The first remedy states "Hajji Piruz and the other users placed on revert limitation in Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan are subject to supervised editing.  They may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should they fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in their interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise." (emphasis added).  The second remedy applies to editors "which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts". (emphasis added)  It doesn't make much sense for "related ethnic conflicts" to have two different meanings in the two remedies. Thatcher131 22:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What (on record) discussions did you have before drafting that template? You have seriously altered the meaning and scope of the "any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts" part of remedy 2. You cannot use emphasis to change that meaning to support your re-writing of the remedy. It is quite clear from the wording of the remedy that the ethnic conflicts have to be in some way related to either (or both) Armenia and Azerbaijan. For example, an article about Azeri ethnicity is not directly connected to the country or territory of Azerbaijan, but it is related to Azerbaijan, so would fall under the remit of remedy 2, massacres of Armenians in the territory of the Ottoman empire are not directly connected to the country of Armenia, but is a related ethnic conflict, so would fall under the remit of remedy 2. An article which deals solely with Turkey does not fall under the remit of remedy 2.
 * You played no part in the discussions that took place at [], you were not one of the six who voted on the text for remedy 2, yet you have substantially altered (aparently arbitrarily) the text that those six agreed on, extending its scope beyond what was actually decided upon. If remedy 2 was intended to be the same as remedy 1 (as you seem to want to suggest), then why were two remedies proposed, and voted for separately, and given completely different remedies? Meowy 16:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As an Arbitration Clerk (at the time) I had reasonably broad discretion to interpret decisions. Of course, I am certainly willing to be corrected by the Arbitrators, if their view differs from mine. Thatcher131 16:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, the template is Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement. I wrote it to help admins to enforce the remedies in that case by making it easy to apply a comprehensive notice that would avoid disputes about whether an editor was properly noticed to all elements of the remedy.  Also note Meowy's comments such as  which prompted the application of the probation. Thatcher131 16:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already contacted all six arbritrators, via their talk pages. Your insinuation that I am in some way trying to hide the existence of the comment I made here: is completely unjustified. The whole point of initiating this request for clarification arose from an administrator notifying me that I would be subject to the RfA remedy because of that comment. I have been completely open about its existence, as you can see if you look at my talk-page discussion .  Regardless of whether you agree or do not agree with my comment on the Occupation of Istanbul talk page, it does not fall within the remit of remedy 2 because it is in the talk page of an article that is outside remedy 2's remit! This RfC concerns your apparent altering of the RfA remedy2 decision. Meowy  17:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We really screwed that one up, didn't we? Aside from the differently worded scopes, it appears that the original decision didn't have any probation remedies—the probation was part of the new decision—so that part of the new wording doesn't make any sense either.
 * Our intent, however, was to impose a remedy on the old participants, and to allow admins to impose the same remedy on any new parties that became involved. As such, the second remedy should be considered to apply to the same range of articles as the first one does. Kirill 04:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * With all respect, you may claim "our intent", but the most you can say with certainty is "my intent". As proof, during the RfA, one of the arbitrators Jdforrester had said when voting that he was already "unhappy with the broadness of the overall case". You can't now claim you all wanted to make it even broader! The simple fact is that the remedy you, and your fellow arbitrators decided on and then voted for only said "articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts". You can't now change that remedy on the grounds that you actually wanted to vote for something different.
 * Are you seriously saying that that RfA remedy should be applied to, let's say, an entry about the Ottoman-Venetian naval battle at Lepanto, or an entry about the population of Germany if it mentions ethnic Turkish immigrants communities in Berlin, or even to some overly-heated talk page discussion about the football-playing abilities of Galatasaray over Fenerbace! How can you possibly justify such a thing when no such broadness in scope was suggested or implied during the RfA discussion. Meowy 18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I must also note that Meowy’s block log shows that he has 2 blocks for 3RR violations and another 2 for harassment of other editors, the last one dated 22 September 2007, i.e. after the end of the last arbcom case. I don’t think that the technical issues should be used as a pretext to avoid the application of arbcom remedies, while it is clear that the scope of arbitration was never limited to Armenia – Azerbaijan related articles and the title is misleading. Both arbcom cases covered the articles concerning wider region than those 2 countries. Grandmaster 06:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your position is understandable: someone who has already been hung several times under Armenia-Azerbaijan RfA1 and RfA2 has no incentive to oppose hanging, and someone who has no interest in accuracy has no inclination to oppose inacuracy. Meowy 19:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please mind WP:NPA. Whatever I said is an accurate info that can be verified by anyone. Claims that I have "no interest in accuracy" are not in line with the aforementioned policy. Grandmaster 07:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am satisfied with the way the particular Arbitration case's remedies are being implemented.
 * James F. (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification request ()

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

Decisions have been made here, if you disagree with them, then please take it to Requests for arbitration. Ryan Postl et hw ai te  22:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I was placed under the parole by User:Nishkid64‎. He stated that "History of edit warring on Armenia-Azerbaijan articles, has a history of blocks on a number of related articles from earlier this year". However, this is not correct, and can be clearly seen from my contributions history. In addition, i did my first edit to Shusha‎ article in my wiki-life on 20/11/2007. At first, i was planning to create a new article on Sileh rug, for this reason, i checked the Shusha article, since ... Those sileh from the Caucasus may have been woven in the vicinity of Shusha (from "sileh rug", Encyclopædia Britannica, Academic Online Edition, 2007. That's it. I'm so surprised for the impolite behaviour of User:VartanM who even accused me of disruption after my first edit to the article. User:Nishkid64‎, on the other hand, immediately placed me under parole but did nothing for VartanM who constantly deletes sourced information, quotations, and cited references. I provided the quotations and explanations regarding my edits into the talk page after VartanM's revert. VartanM reverts the article and deletes the sourced material but i was placed under the parole.

I was blocked many times due to my long term conflicts with Tajik. My last block was dated 1 April 2007. The articles of conflicts are listed here (Eurasian nomads, Nomadic Empires related topics). For this reason, ArbCom issued Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik/Proposed decision. Now, my name was placed into the paroles of an arbitration case which i'm not a party of. VartanM, who is a party of the arbitration case, on the other hand, is not placed under the parole even though he constantly deletes the sourced information and quotations. I just introduced a new section on "Cultural life" for the first time in the Shusha article's history. I also provided the quotations and cited the references. As a member of Unreferenced_articles and WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check/Participants, i usually check for references in all the articles i edit. I did the same, but this time they all deleted. There is no reason to delete the new section, cited references and quotations. That's why i reverted the article.

I think this should be clarified. I request my name to be deleted from the list (Btw, i've already taken this as a warning). Regards. E104421 (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi E104421. I've taken a look at everything, and from your block log, I see you have a long history of edit warring, with a large number of blocks because of it. I also see some extensive edit warring on your recent contributions, on pages which come under the scope of this case. The remedy reads that any administrator may place any editor, that edits pages under the scope of this case, under probation. It is clear that no restrictions on your editing and multiple blocks have not helped you change your actions, so there is now a need to have formal restrictions placed upon your editing. Ryan Postl et hw ai te  13:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I posted this question at the talk of the blocking admin, and would like to ask it here as well. The application of the remedy in this case appears to be selective (unintentionally of course). That’s probably happened because the admins were not aware of all the details. I believe the remedy should properly apply to all people engaged in edit warring, and not just one. Please have a look at the reverting activity of within the last week on the same article about Shusha:


 * Please note that the last 3 rvs were made yesterday to undo E104421's edits, and if E104421 gets punished for making 3 rvs, it would be fair to also look into similar behavior by other users, considering that VartanM has recently been officially warned by another admin to stop edit warring: Grandmaster (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's important to look at the editors history when deciding who should be placed on parole. I agree that VartanM should mos probably be warned for his reversions, but as for fairness, I don't believe an editing restriction is required just yet. VartanM has no history of blocks for edit warring, so a simple warning followed by close monitoring is all that is required here. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  13:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * VartanM has 1 3RR block on his previous account, and was warned more than once,  including the official warning . How many warnings can one editor be given, considering that some users, such as User:Aynabend and User:Baku87 were placed on parole without any warning, while they both have a clean block log? I think there should be some common approach to this issue and editors should be treated equally. Grandmaster (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

May we get an explanation why users who were involved in any particular article just once, like User:E104421, User:Aynabend, User:Baku87 get placed immediately under parole while User:VartanM has a freedom of going through ArbCom, continue edit warring on numerous articles without any parole whatsoever? This is a clear violation of neutrality, which is obvious from the content of articles like Shusha and Khachen. Atabek (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ryan Postlethwaite. Among the diffs you presented from my edit history, only the Shusha can be considered edit warring. The others are minor issues. I presented my explanation in detail in the talk pages. I reverted the Turko-Persian tradition, since the paragraph inserted by user Tajik is not related with the article and its cited references. Beh-nam reverted the article, since Tajik wanted him to colloborate with him in his conflicts . They are spamming messages the several users, and call them to revert the articles to Tajik's versions ,,,, . I reverted the banned Tajik, but the users called by Tajik reverted the article blindly. I explained in detail in the edit histories. For the Turkic peoples, i already explained that the user should contact with the uploader of the image, and also warned the uploader , since the question is on the image not the article. Most importantly, i'm not a party of the Az-Ar arbitrarion case, but VartanM is. His name is not placed into the list, but only mine is added. I again request my name to be deleted from the list. Regards. E104421 (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put VartanM under editing restrictions as I believe that he has been disruptively edit warring despite previous warnings. I still don't believe that your name should be deleted from the log, as you obviously have a history of edit warring and you have continued to edit war on articles relating to this case, despite previous warnings and blocks. It doesn't matter if you were a party to the case or not, this remedy covers all editors to these pages. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I read the remedies, it's written that ... in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. This is what VartanM is doing. He constantly deletes the sourced information and revert-warring. I edited just 4 times (+1 spell check) the Shusha article. I provided the quotations and cited references. For the Turko-Persian tradition article (note: this article is not related with Ar-Az cases), i'm one of the main contributors to that article, but Beh-nam never added anything but just blindly reverted the article after the instructions of the banned user Tajik. Nobody added anything on the cultural life into the Shucha article with references. There is no reason to delete them. VartanM's reason to delete them is my previous block log. My previous blog-log is related with my conflicts with Tajik. The last one dated 8 months ago. I did not edited in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. The only article i edited which was related with Az-Ar arbitration case is Shusha. All the others are on Nomadic Empires. The remedy is not related with me. I still request my name to be deleted. Regards. E104421 (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The ArbCom notice reads: "Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page." I only edited the Shucha article yesterday. I did not edited in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. I provided sources, cited the references, commented on the talk pages and edit summaries.

User:Nishkid64 's comment on E104421: "History of edit warring on Armenia-Azerbaijan articles, has a history of blocks on a number of related articles from earlier this year." This is not correct. I do not have a history on Armenia-Azerbaijan articles, yesterday i edited 4 times (+1 spell check) the Shusha article. I did not edited related articles earlier this year. Regards. E104421 (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested on why I was reverting E104221
 * He reinserted the so-called de-jure Coat of Arms. (fact date=September) there is no clear indication if its the current one being used by the de-jure government. That CoA fits nicely in the history section.
 * He changed the location of the city from NK to Azerbaijan.(POV)
 * He added a source for the Qajar family being Turkic, but forgot to mention that the dynasty was Persian. (POV)
 * He re-added Shavrov, which was discussed above (discussion he wasn't part of) and it proved to be unreliable. (POV)
 * He re-added an unsourced POV statement (POV)
 * He removed sourced information
 * He re-added a POV section that was removed because it has no sources (POV)
 * He re-added the POV terms after I tried to fix them to NPOV before. (Own,POV)
 * He re-readded another section that was proven to be unreliable.
 * He re-added the tourist and historic sites section that was removed because its trivia and had no source since May.(Unreliable,unsourced,POV)
 * He removed a see also link to Armenian people from NK (POV)

Hi is yet to justify any of the raised points above. Thank you for reading. VartanM (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply
With all due respect Ryan Postlethwaite, I think this is a very poor judgement. I restricted myself most of the time to one revert even though I wasn't under the remedy. Things become more heated when E104421 started edit warring. I have also always engaged myself in the talkpages and justified my reverts even if I was not on any restrictions. While Anynabend and Baku87 have restrictions, most of the time their reverts were made without justifications in the talkpages. Parishan is still the same for a period of two years and still gets away with it.

Also I am growing really tired by Atabek's, tit for tat requests and personal vendetta against me, also growing tired of his multiple labels directed at basically all Armenian editors on Wikipedia along the national line. I don't see how a user can keep making baseless accusations like this to finish it by remarks like If anyone for any reason felt offended by anything I said above, please' accept my apologies. It is one thing to throw an unjust restriction at me, when most of the time I have self restricted myself, it is another to do nothing about Atabek continuous provocations. That the Arbcom has taken a very bad decision by not taking dispositions to stop his disruptions is of no excuse for Administrators to do nothing about this.

Also, is it assuming bad faith to believe that E104421 is sharing his account with another editor? Here he write in the third person with unusually the same style as Atabek defending E104421 as if he logged with the wrong account. What is the course of event there? Should a checkuser not be run? For two reasons, first because of the accusations of sockpuppetry on the first Arbcom cases against Atabek, second because of the cases involving E104421. VartanM (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This need for equality isn't working here because of a simple fact. E104421 edit warred and breached the 3RR.
 * 1st Reversion as of 00:45, November 20, 2007
 * 2nd Reversion as of 01:15, November 20, 2007
 * 3rd Reversion as of 02:24, November 20, 2007
 * 4th Reversion as of 12:43, November 20, 2007

I on the other hand I was more active in the talkpage then the main article and I did not violate any rules. Inclusion under supervision says "aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. Can someone be nice enough to show me where I or E104421 were incivil? VartanM (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The remedy is enforced when there is disruption from users on the page. I see you were warned by El C in September, and any future disruptive editing would mean you are placed under supervised editing. Over the past few days I see you have continued to edit war on the pages. No, you didn't break 3RR yourself, but edit warring is still disruptive and despite previous warnings, you have continued to do so on topics related to this case. Although I don't see any incivility, the scope of the remedy was supposed to cover disruption via incivility or edit warring. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  19:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you take your time and check my edits and the discussion on that page and see for yourself that I did not edit warred there. Each one of my edits was different and was aimed at reaching consensus. The other side kept adding a picture as a source, to claim that Armenians destroyed statues. Here is the history of the said article. And does tring to reach compromise count as edit warring? . I didn't blindly revert him. he claimed that he was adding information while at the same time reverted much of the stuff that was argued about and removed from the article. Mostly POV material. Was I so wrong to try to keep the article at NPOV. Which one is more important here? the edit warring or WP:NEU VartanM (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And beside, if this is your rational for the warning, it is not accurate. Here are the reverts I have made which were not in the Shushi article. An anon at Glendale, Dadrian (unless you think I should even bother justifying why hello Dadrian should be removed. The other on Armenian Power , should I have justified why dry cars that black people tend to or hairy with violent tempers and dangerously large noses or think that they are in fact actually african american. Or this, this. Or removing a material copypasted from the web. Or this, or download the Kim Kardashian Sex Tape or Broken-Jan for Arthur, or this and so on.

And if you think it is easy to be in my condition, where two users have done everything to push me to have any restrictions agains me. Going as far as filling multiple unsubstantiated reports on me, even on this page. You are mistaken, every bit of my edits were scrutinized by a couple of admins, I am under their review repeatedly, I think the fact that I was still not in restriction is a testament that I was behaving, you on the other hand come in and push me in that restriction and I don't remember you ever checking my contributions. If reverting vandalism can be used to claim that I have been edit warring for the last days, than I shall leave vandalism to be then. VartanM (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * VartanM, it's sufficient to check Talk:Khachen to see that you have essentially violated WP:OWN and WP:NPOV by not letting other contributors to contribute any reference to the article with participating in revert war. Now you were engaged in massive edit war with 3-4 reverts (yes in between those you listed above) at Shusha. If you claim that you had any kind of constructive or negotiation attitude on the talk pages, it's sufficient to see your revert here getting rid of massive number of references and a dispute tag, and your non-constructive comment here, saying that I "still haven't let that go", having what go? Also note that all you were trying to do while engaging in edit war at Shusha is again to get rid of section contributed by User:E104421, this is not a constructive editing attitude. Atabek (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Atabek, this past 2 days you did nothing but attack me on various boards and talkpages. You made 0 main page edits and all of your edits are aimed at attacking me. For the time being I'm going to ignore your hateful comments. I believe they deserve a sapperate discussion. VartanM (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, please, assume good faith. I don't see how my comments above imply that I hate you or attack you in any personal way. Again look into this, this is why I can't edit main pages in Wikipedia. Do you realize that with this kind of edits you were essentially removing someone else's hours of hard work finding and putting references together to improve Wikipedia article? Comparing to magnitude of your violations, those by E104421, Aynabend and Baku87, paroled for single article edits, were very minuscule. And if they're paroled, I believe your parole would only help everyone contribute constructively and work on improving articles, and most importantly enforce the WP:NPOV, rather than engaging in edit wars. Atabek (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think Atabek is wikistalking VartanM, Harassment. His contributions in the past few days are entirely directed towards that goal sans any mainspace edits.--  Ευπάτωρ   <font color=#974423>Talk!! 22:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, Atabek keeps on bringing up diffs such as this as "removal of sources" along with other quite unflaterring semantics. Articles have talk pages in order to discuss edits and establish consensus, blindly adding out of context material is not the goal of Wikipedia. Atabek failed to establish consenus. This is how Wikipedia works, through fairness, neutrality and consensus via dialog.--   Ευπάτωρ   <font color=#974423>Talk!! 22:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
I'm requesting a review on my placement under supervision by User:Ryan Postlethwaite for the following reason. The AA2 remedy #2 states: "Any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions." Ryan Postletwaite claims that "Although I don't see any incivility, the scope of the remedy was supposed to cover disruption via incivility or edit warring". I don't see the word OR, which Ryan felt so strong about that he made it appear bold.

This is what Thatcher131 told me month ago: "So far, no admin including myself has found that you yourself have edited these articles in an "aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility" and so you have not yet been placed under the restrictions described here. Thatcher131 01:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)"

Am I being compared to ? Previously indef banned for edit warring, who was simultaneously edit warring with me and another user, , ,. Who breached WP:3RR, , , , Who kept insisting (by reverting) that its gonna be his way and no other? even by reverting my minor edits. Who generally disregarded the talkpage and is yet to give justification for most of his POV reverts. Was I wrong, when I tried to compromise and only reverted partially? Was I wrong when I tried to keep the article as neutral as possible? As I said before, even though I was not under the restriction and supervised editing, I never reverted without justification, always explained and justified my edits in the talkpage. Most importantly my edits were not marked by incivility.

In fear of turning this board into another "he said she said" I request that only administrators respond to this request. VartanM (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Arbitration remedies are not meant to be carte blanche for administrators unless they explicitly provide for such authority. Ryan's interpretation of the decision here is incorrect; the remedy is applicable only to cases where the editor is incivil. Kirill 05:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How about many other users, such as User:Aynabend and User:Baku87, who were placed on parole without any prior warning, while they both had a clean block log and never made any incivil comments? I don't think E104421 was incivil either. Both VartanM and E104421 were placed on parole for edit warring on Shusha article, since they made 3rvs each. VartanM had a previous official warning from another admin to stop edit warring, otherwise he would be placed on parole . So I think we need a clarification here. Can admins place users on parole for just edit warring, or they need to be engaged in both edit warring and incivility to be placed on parole? If the latter, then parole of some users has to be lifted. Grandmaster (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Krill for a super fast reply. Grandmaster the answer to your question is most probably that they need to personally come here and make their case. Assuming good faith on GM's part for ignoring my kind request. Good night to all. VartanM (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We need to clarify the general principle of application of this remedy. If it applies only for incivilty, then User:E104421, User:Aynabend and User:Baku87 should be all relieved of it, since they never violated any civility rules, and the latter 2 editors have no previous blocks, warnings, etc, unlike User:VartanM. Grandmaster (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, User:VartanM is violating Users national background and neutrality principle by engaging in edit warring and POV pushing across several articles without restriction. We are yet to see how you address that by giving him a green light to continue doing what he is doing. And if VartanM's behavior was not marked by incivility, then how did the ArbCom address these, several counts of incivility not ever supervised, restricted or paroled? And if the VartanM's continuous editing conduct allows for interpretation against supervised editing, then how would supervised editing apply in case of the other user User:E104421, whose edits were not incivil. Based on POV pushed by User:VartanM throughout Wikipedia without any review or restriction, and paroles being deliberately applied only to contributors of certain one side, lifting the supervised editing is a delibreate violation of neutrality. Atabek (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And why does VartanM cross out administrator's decision when this should be done either by administrator or arbitrator? Atabek (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The ArbCom notice reads: "Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page." I edited the Shusha article for the first time yesterday. I did not edited in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. I provided sources, cited the references, commented on the talk pages and edit summaries. On the other hand, VartanM deleted the new section, references and quotatins on "cultural life" added by myself from cited references. VartanM's POV is focused on my previous block-log due to my long term conflicts with Tajik on Nomadic Empires related topics. My last block is dated 1 April 2007. That case was closed. I edited for the first time an Az-Ar related topic in my life (just 4 times + 1 minor spell check), but it's claimed that i have history of Az-Ar related topics. Now, i was placed under the parole, but VartanM's parole is removed. What kind of double standard is this? Deletion of referenced material constantly is not regarded as edit-warring, but addition of "new section and references" are claimed to be edit-warring. What happened to the basic Wikipedia policies: "WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:DR"? Regards. E104421 (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kiril for the response here. I was under the impression that this remedy tried to stop disruption in all forms (i.e. edit warring or incivility) due to the history of editing on these pages. Whilst I see that both users here have edit warred on the pages, I fail to see any incivility coming from them, so unless there's evidence of that, I'll remove both names from the supervised editing log. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  11:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Both User:Aynabend and User:Baku87 were placed under the same parole for a single page edit and without any incivility cited. So please, review their paroles as well. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed Baku87 and VartanM for now - I'll wait for a response from the administrators that put E104421 and Aynabend under supervised editing before removing their names. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ryan. Atabek (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, if I get this right, the remedy implies that the editors are free to edit war on topic related articles as long as they remain civil? If not, what the arbcom remedy proposes to stop edit wars, which were the reason to 2 arbcom cases in the first place? Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I share a similar concern with this remedy. Given the scale of the disruption on this topic, I don't think it's a good idea that users must be incivil with edit warring. Edit warring is disruptive on its own and this does seem to advocate edit warring on the pages provided that the users remain civil. I think when a case like this goes to arbitration twice, administrators should be given a little bit more freedom to interpret decisions because per the clarification from Kirill yesterday, I've had to remove five names from the supervised editing list that should all most probably have had their editing placed under supervision, but can't because of a technicality. In many ways it seems it's a way to game the system. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  12:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Last month I requested a RfC on the apparent arbitrary extensions of the powers that the RfA Armenia-Azerbaijan2 remedy created. Being out of the country for 4 weeks, I did not have the opportunity to see its result. Where (if anywhere?) would the archive of that discussion material be stored? I must point out to the initiator of this RfC, that remedy 2 does not actually contain the words he has quoted. The fact that it does not, was the crux of my RfC. <font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">Meowy 18:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I recall that one of the arbitrators said that he was happy with the way the remedy was enforced, and that was after a number of editors were placed on parole for edit warring and sockpuppetry.  Grandmaster (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but they aren't the ones that have to deal with the situation day in, day out, and might not be fully aware as to the extent of the problems on these pages. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  13:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And the other 5 arbitrators didn't even bother to respond? Astonishing, especially since I personally asked each of them to do so and also pointed out in some detail the flaws in both the use and scope of the RfA remedy. I am seriously considering making a RfA on the validity of the mess that is the Armenian-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy. <font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">Meowy 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There was another prior discussion here:, and I might be wrong, but the remedy seemed to be interpreted differently at the time. Grandmaster (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you everyone for this initative. I indeed have no problem in coming ahead, stating and being very proud that I have never used any incivility in my communications neither in this page nor somewhere else, and would highly appreciate if this injustice be corrected. Thanks again  --Aynabend (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like nobody is going to comment. But I would be really interested to know the opinion of the arbitrators about how the remedies passed under the second Armenia – Azerbaijan arbcom are supposed to stop disruption on topic related articles, if they limit the application of the remedy 2 to incivility only, while disruption on topic related articles was never limited to incivility? The Armenia – Azerbaijan 2 case specifically mentions among the principles that edit warring, disruptive editing and sockpuppet abuse are considered harmful, but now it turns out that the editors placed on parole for those specific abuses should be relieved of their parole, because the remedy in fact provides for only one specific form of disruption. It seems like Armenia – Azerbaijan 2 case might not be the last one. It would be nice to get additional comments from the arbitrators with regard to how this remedy is supposed to stop disruption by new users, not restricted by any measures from the 1st case, and who are now free to edit disruptively as long as they remain civil? Thanks in advance for any comment. Grandmaster 11:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * An update on the present situation. Since the time a number of editors were removed from the list of users placed on parole, 2 pages got protected due to edit wars, in which those users took an active part. Those articles are Shusha and Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907‎. There are other articles (such as Shusha pogrom (1920)) heading the same way. Note that since the end of the last arbcom case no pages have been protected until now. The activity of User:Andranikpasha I believe deserves special attention. Grandmaster (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Does Grandmaster's "name-dropping" abuse know no end? This editor arbritrarily added the names of numerous other editors to the Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA after his own name was added, probably with the knowledge and expectation that ignorant administrators would convict said editors for no other reason that that their names were there and were thus "involved parties" and guilty by association. I would also like to get a response from some administrators about how easy it is for an editor to involve other editors in disputes and blacken their names by doing nothing more than placing their names in a RfA page. Grandmaster placed my name in the A-A2 RfA and for that reason alone I became an "involved party". Even though the text advised "do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case" and I did not edit it, Seraphimblade later justified his threat of imposing editing restrictions on me by accusing me of being "a party to Armenia-Azerbaijan 2". <font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">Meowy 23:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand this. You were involved in editing the region related articles, got 3RR block for edit warring on Church of Kish, why do you believe should not have been a party to this case? Also, you don't have to be a party to a particular case to be placed on parole, the remedy says "any editor" can be placed on parole for a certain offense. And if anyone is interested why a particular name is mentioned, I can provide more details. Grandmaster (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we all know by now that you have a long list containing all the names and details of your Wikipedia "enemies". <font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">Meowy 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF? Grandmaster (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you? when you added him to the involved parties. It's no secret that Meowy was added because you had a disagreement with him. VartanM (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF again? I added him because he was engaged in disruptive editing. And I have absolutely nothing to do with Meowy being placed on parole, he was paroled for repeated incivility, covered by the remedy. I was not involved in that in any form. Please stop these bad faith accusations. Grandmaster (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Disruptive editing? The only article which he edited that had anything to do with the conflict was the Church of Kish when you added him. Assuming good faith? What about your finding of fact on him which was amounting to propose his banning? For what? Because of one single article. I reiterate my previous above comment and will stop answering, I am not interested into another who will have the last word match.VartanM (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither am I. It is enough to check Meowy's block log, no comment is necessary. Grandmaster (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Remedy extension in Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
Per the discussion regarding a new case for Armenia-Azerbaijan articles, I'd like to make a proposed remedy extension for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case. We're at the point now where it's clear the the previous remedies do not go far enough and administrators should be given greater authority to deal with the disruption in articles relating to this case. It's important that the committee make it clear that any form of disruption (not just limited to incivility with edit warring) will no longer be permitted on these articles. My proposal is as follows;


 * To address the disruptive editing that has taken place on Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing (including, but not limited to incivility or pushing a point of view) on these or related articles may be placed on Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to either cases, or any other user after a warning has been given. The administrator shall notify the user on his or her talkpage and make an entry on Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Users placed under probation are limited to one revert, per page, per week and any revert (except for obvious vandalism) should be accompanied by an explanation on the article talk page. They are also required to be civilised in all discussions and in edit or log summaries. Any uninvolved administrator may place an article ban on a user that breaks the terms of their probation, or block the user for a period of up to one week. After five such blocks or bans, the maximum length of a block is increased to one year. All bans and block are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2.

<font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This would be a welcome improvement to address the fact that these editors have learnt to edit war civilly, however it does not address the core of the problem: they edit war as a united front, so attempts to reform individuals result in anon edits, socks, renames and other clued up approaches to keep the admins hands tied in frustrating ways. John Vandenberg (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate all these concerns, but I'm not really sure what remedies could cover this - many of these issues are out of the scope of the ArbCom, and probably even the scope of the community. CheckUser of users couldn't be done at random, but obviously if there's clear sockpuppetry that could be dealt with via the usual channels. I've struck through, one revert, per page, per week - obviously we need to limit the disruption here, and one revert per week stops the users moving around every article uinder the scope of the decision and reverting it once. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  18:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The "no speeding" sign of one revert per week is a good idea. The wording of the rest of it is also acceptable provided it is clearly understood that this remedy is applicable to any anon or freshly minted user that steps into an existing debate or rekindles an old one.  In order to avoid throw away accounts being used to do reverts, it would be advisable for the uninvolved admin to also revert when this occurs.  Due to past experience, it would also be helpful if it was made clear that WP:BOLD and WP:IAR does not apply to Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles. John Vandenberg (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner may be placed on revert limitation, civility supervision, and supervised editing by any uninvolved administrator, such restrictions to take effect after a notice has been placed on the editor's talk page and logged at Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2.
 * I think it would be best to stick as closely as possible to the original wording, just without the incivility clause:
 * Civility supervision, revert limitation, and supervised editing have been described previously in the case and at Editing restrictions. This allows maximum flexibility.  So far we have made little use of the supervised editing restriction (allowing an admin to ban an editor from an article or topic for a period of time or indefinitely) but I think we need to start moving away from mechanical 1RR limits that encourage vexatious litigation ("his rationale was insufficient") and toward broader more permanent sanctions. Thatcher 06:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions in Armenia-Azerbaijan
The remedies and enforcement provisions of Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 are replaced with the following:

Motion #1

 * Discretionary sanctions
 * Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.


 * Appeal of discretionary sanctions
 * Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.


 * Other provisions
 * This shall not affect any sanctions already imposed under the old remedies. All sanctions imposed under these provisions are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

''Clerk note: there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so the majority is 7 for this motion to pass. Daniel (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)''


 * Support:
 * Kirill 17:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. However the administrators' noticeboard includes the main board, the incidents board and arbitration enforcement. I suggest that appeals are restricted to the latter. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support the measures and agree with Sam regarding the appeal process. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up®  16:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, but second choice (per motion 2 below), so the Clerk will kindly not mark the motion as passed until both motions have finished voting. As I am now active on this motion I have updated the number of participating arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * FT2 (Talk 03:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (with slight copyedit) The Committee seems to have decided on an improved wording to this elsewhere. See motion #2 below.


 * Abstain:
 * FT2 (Talk 12:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Agree with the approach, but the wording of this remedy has been considered at WP:RFAR/Palestine-Israel articles/Proposed decision, and two sets of improvements found: 1/ The wording above has been slightly edited as per this diff to reduce loopholes. Hopefully no objections to these clarifications. 2/ An alternative wording seems to have traction in the above case (subject to copyediting). It would make sense to use the same "best wording we have" here as well, whatever that may be. Will support same wording in both cases to aide future enforcement. See above.

Motion #2

 * Noting that the wording of the above draft seems to be superseded

The remedies and enforcement provisions of Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 are replaced with the following:


 * Discretionary sanctions
 * Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.


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


 * In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.


 * Appeal of discretionary sanctions (same as #1)
 * Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.


 * Uninvolved administrators
 * For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute.  Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of discretionary sanctions.


 * Other provisions (same as #1)
 * This shall not affect any sanctions already imposed under the old remedies. All sanctions imposed under these provisions are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2


 * Support:
 * FT2 (Talk 03:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC) First choice. This wording has achieved significant traction as a first choice at Palestine-Israel articles in place of the original wording. Also imported definition of "uninvolved".
 * Kirill 05:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up®  17:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First choice, per development of the wording in the Palestine-Israel case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First choice because the procedure is clearer for all concerned. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Request for clarification/amendment: Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Moreschi
It is not clear to me whether the "area of conflict" for ARBAA2 is solely Armenian-Azeri articles, or whether it includes Azeri-Iranian/Iranian/Turkish articles, as I think it should, given it was these Perso-Turkic disputes that was partly responsible for kicking off the arbitration case in question. Going back over my little list I find a good number of Perso-Turkic arbcom cases: given this, I don't think it's unreasonable to extend, if necessary, the Armenia-Azeri discretionary sanctions to include Azeri-Iranian/Armenian-Turkish/etc. Just to clarify, I think the "area of conflict" for discretionary sanctions should be "articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area". This accords with Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement, but there seems to be dispute over the matter, not to mention confusion. So, do the discretionary sanctions apply only to Armenia-Azeri articles, or are we permitted a broader scope? Moreschi (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Nishkid64
I have no problem broadening the "area of conflict" to include Turkey and Iran. The only reason I brought up this issue was because Moreschi reworded the AA2 remedy without consultation or clarification from ArbCom. In response to bainer's comments, I must disagree with his interpretation of the two areas of conflicts. To me, "Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts" just refers to Armenia and Azerbaijan, while the other area of conflict covers Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran. The latter is not the same, as it addresses topics covered in separate ArbCom cases. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 01:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Folantin
My understanding is that the sanctions should apply to Iran and Turkey too as they involve related conflicts (particularly the Persian-Azeri/Iranian-Turkic edit war and issues relating to the Armenian Genocide). One user,, has already been restricted under these sanctions simply for edit-warring on an article about an Iranian city which has little to do with Armenia-Azerbaijan. I think the AA2 remedy should be reworded in line with the template to clarify matters. --Folantin (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Bakharev
I am against broadening the scope of the remedies. The intended scope of the arbcom and remedies was always Azerbaijan and Armenia and related issues, while there might be problems on Turkey and Iran articles but they were outside the arbcom scope. If we include Turkey and Iran we get a huge geographical and historical areas covered by a very few (often tendentious) editors. If we include it to the scope we could easily get all the active editors there banned on a whim. We should also remember that the buck does not stop here. We have huge Turkey-Greece, Turkey-Kurdish, Kurdish-Arab, Iran-Arab, Iran-Afghanistan problems so why not include Arabic, Greek and Afghani editors as well, then we would notice Arab-Israeli, Greek-Macedonian, USA-Arabic editorial conflicts and we would broad the scope of the remedies to the half of the wikieditors. Lets not extend the scope of the remedies on a whim we need a line here Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by White Cat
I think the arbcom remedies are far too harsh. There currently is a martial law in the articles covered by this case making it very unpleasant to make any kind of edits. Particularly in experienced new users are bitten to death. Also good users avoid these articles due to the near-malicious attempts to abuse the remedies. So you are pretty much left with a group of disruptive users battling each other editing from multiple sockpuppet accounts. Of course this is an oversimplification of the issue but still something to think about.

Really disruptive users do not obey the arbcom remedies and edit through sockuppets. While reviewing logs for the case below I noticed the block log of Fadix which was quite recently reset making it the 4th reset. Such users should perhaps be indef banned for good. I gave Fadix as an example pretty much randomly, any other ban evaders should share the same faith.

Rather that expanding the scope of the case, users that edit disruptively should be penalized for gaming the system. The second you expand the scope disruptive users will find a new topic to disrupt, away from the remedies in question.

Also, based on my experience I feel several of the involved admins are far too involved and are unable to make sound judgments. It might be necesary to review their conduct.

-- Cat chi? 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Remedies 1 and 2 can be narrowly read in such a way that they seem to cover different articles for different editors. The amended remedy did not redefine the scope of the case, and only says, "area of conflict."  However, the last time this issue was brought before the committee, the answer was that it was the intent of the committee that the same scope and remedies apply  to all editors, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Thatcher 10:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been inactive for nearly an entire month. I move to archive this in 48 hours unless there is some new activity. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The January motion essentially substituted in our more recent boilerplate for general discretionary sanctions; it made no change to the original scope of the discretionary sanctions, which was "articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts". For the original supervised editing sanction the more explicit wording "any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" was used, though to me those are exactly the same, the latter merely being more precise. --bainer (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the wording has to be tightened. Obviously the case was written to control the AA problems and the effects thereof, meaning clashes between A or A against Iran or A or A against Turkey. As the wording stands, something which does not have AA as a common factor, eg, something about the Hittites or even some ancient archaeology like Ephesus or Ahmadinejad and Jews can be put under this sanction if a dispute arises. I think it'll have to include the provision of "Turkish and Iranian history and ethnic issues that are related to Armenia and/or Azerbaijan. <font color="GoldenRod">Blnguyen  (<font color="#FA8605">bananabucket ) 03:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

has exceeded his one (nationalistic) revert on the Hayasa-Azzi article. 


 * This should be reported to WP:AE. Grandmaster (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears he was restoring material that was repeatedly (on 3 occasions) removed by an anonymous editor. Interestingly, exactly the same material was repeatedly removed by dab a week earlier (and was also restored by Andranikpasha). I think something smells off here. <font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">Meowy 21:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

just reverted back to 's nationalist version of the Hayasa-Azzi article, claiming "not to know the subject" in the edit summary. 
 * And your point is, Mr Anonymous? I fully explained my revert in the article's talk page. <font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">Meowy 01:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are argumentative, and claiming "not to know the subject" of an article you edit is disingenuous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.74.54 (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
Initiated by  <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) at 16:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * 
 * 

Statement by NuclearWarfare
Moreschi, acting under the discretionary sanctions authorized under Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2, placed Armenian Genocide on WP:1RR about two years ago. Sandstein is disputing the fact that Moreschi had the authority to do so, as he believes that discretionary sanctions were meant to be applied per-editor and not per-article. I request that the Arbitration Committee please clarify if Moreschi's action was appropriate and enforceable. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 16:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I agree that ArbCom clarification would be helpful here. I have explained the reasons why I have doubts whether the remedy covers this type of sanction at the AE thread.  Sandstein  16:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Since arbitrators appear to agree that article-level sanctions are or ought to be permitted, I suggest that the decisions providing for discretionary sanctions be amended to that effect, so as to prevent this sort of uncertainty in the future.  Sandstein   07:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * In principle, it's possible to create an article-level 1RR restriction from a literal reading of the provisions for discretionary sanctions, if we assume (a) that the editnotice on the article constitutes a sufficient warning as required by ¶2, and (b) that the sanction being imposed is not the 1RR itself, but rather the 24-hour block, with the violation of the 1RR being merely the necessary evidence that the user "seriously fails to adhere to... normal editorial process". This is obviously not a particularly intuitive reading of the provisions—but, on the other hand, the time that has elapsed without Moreschi's interpretation being challenged suggests that it is one found useful by the community.  The real question, I suppose, is whether we should modify the DS provisions to explicitly allow such sanctions; comments on that would be appreciated. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether a strict reading of the wording allows it (and I tend to agree with Kirill that it does), I tend to encourage "least-sufficient" restrictions when possible; and a limit placed on the specific article that's the locus of a dispute tends to be considerably less intrusive than limits placed on specific editors &mdash; and potentially much less open to accidental unfairness. &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kirill and Coren; I think the spirit of discretionary sanctions is to allow admins leeway to find the least restrictive way to resolve an issue. Shell  babelfish 06:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen "unofficial" 1RR restrictions on articles("unofficial" in that it was created and enforced by administrators and not the committee) at least partially damper the flames on troublesome areas. I would support making a change either in how ArbCom hands down discretionary sanctions to explicitly allow this kind of option, or indeed modify the policy to allow that. SirFozzie (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The current solution seems to be working fine, and I believe Kirill's interpretation is appropriate under the circumstances. While my preference is generally to attach sanctions to users rather than articles, in some cases an article can be such an attractive nuisance that this is necessary. Exercise of article-based 1-RR sanctions need to be monitored closely; I have seen uninvolved, legitimate editors who arrive at an article to make perfectly normal copy-edit improvements be threatened with blocks (and even, in at least one case, actually blocked) because they didn't read the talk page in advance of editing and weren't aware of the sanction. If there are no further questions, I believe this section can be archived in 48 hours. Risker (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think there would be any benefit in amending the provisions to more explicitly permit such restrictions? Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this clarification makes that a pointless exercise for existing sanctions, though it would probably be a good idea to alter our "boilerplate" remedy wording to clarify this for future use. &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the matter in hand here has been clarified (the 1RR restriction is valid) and that arbitrators can discuss amending the boilerplate the next time this comes up. I agree that 1RR is useful sometimes, but like Risker I am wary of it being misused and used heavy-handedly. We shouldn't encourage overuse of 1RR restrictions, but only use where it is needed (similarly, articles with discretionary sanctions on them should be periodically reviewed to see if the sanctions have served their purpose and how to move forward, as the intention was never to have discretionary sanction in place indefinitely, but more to have them in place until an article of a reasonable standard gets written, which is the true ultimate goal). If an article reaches a good standard (e.g. featured), and is still subject to problems, then a different process is needed there. Carcharoth (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

 * , filing party


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 * 

Statement by NuclearWarfare
In Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, a number of editors were placed on 1RR/week for 1 year. In Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, they were then placed on the equivalent of supervised editing for the topic area. A later motion authorized discretionary sanctions, but noted that it did not affect the old remedies. A number of editors to this case have been listed on Editing restrictions as being on "Revert limitation, Probation, Civility restriction" indefinitely. My (and Ed's) question is this: does the 1RR/week still apply? I would think no, but I am not sure. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Editing restrictions updated. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 17:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
If the committee agrees that there are no 1RRs still in effect, except those applied due to enforcement action, then I believe that the entries in WP:RESTRICT for the users placed on revert parole by name in WP:ARBAA should be removed. For example, the entry for Atabek/Atabəy, whose case was recently discussed at WP:AE. That entry shows him to be indefinitely restricted, which appears to be a mistake. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman
My edits were clerical in nature. I was merely transcribing info from all the old cases to the new WP:RESTRICT page that User:Kirill Lokshin had created and which I populated with content. It was not my intention to create any new restrictions or expand any existing ones. Jehochman Talk 16:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Based on a plain reading of the remedies in the first case, the revert paroles were to expire as of 1 April 2008, and I don't see that the expiration dates were changed or removed in the subsequent rulings. There may, of course, be revert restrictions in place that were created via discretionary sanctions. –<font face="verdana" color="black">xeno talk  15:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Xeno. Obviously if Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement was placed on their user talk page and logged, they would be subject to 1RR per week, but otherwise the restrictions expired April 2008. PhilKnight (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Further to EdJohnston's statement - I think it was this edit which made the relevant change? If that is the case, I guess we should ask Jehochman for his input. PhilKnight (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Jehochman for his statement. I don't think a motion or anything further is required, apart from modifying Editing restrictions. PhilKnight (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A proposed amendment to a sanctions remedy
A motion has been proposed that would amend a sanctions remedy in this case. It would replace the remedy in this case that allows administrators to unilaterally apply sanctions to editors within the designated topic area with a standardized remedy that essentially allows for the same thing. Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected. To comment on this proposal, please go to Arbitration/Requests/Motions. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: ARBAA2
Initiated by  Gatoclass (talk) at 07:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Gatoclass
Although I do not usually adjudicate disputes at WP:AE, I decided to assist on the recently filed Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Since I have had no prior involvement in Azerbaijan-Armenian articles, I assumed I was entitled to participate. However, I have experienced a growing unease about my participation in this case, based on the fact that I have had some involvement (albeit long ago) on East European articles (which I believe are covered by WP:DIGWUREN). While most sources appear to place Azerbaijan and Armenia in Western Asia, some seem to place these countries in Eastern/Southeastern Europe, in which case, ARBAA2 might be considered a subset of WP:DIGWUREN. On the other hand, it appears that DIGWUREN is concerned mostly with disputes between Russians and other East Europeans, while ARBAA2 concerns a national dispute between Azerbaijanis and Armenians. ARBAA2 contains no reference to DIGWUREN that I can see, but nonetheless, I think this issue needs clarification. A quick response would be greatly appreciated since the AE case concerned is still active. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there some reason this request cannot be closed at this point? I did request a prompt response, but it is still open well over a week after being filed. I would like to see the request closed before returning to the case which prompted it. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by other user
Shall Gatoclass' comments in on the recently filed AE request Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement be removed since the community believes that his participation in this and similar cases is objectionable? Dehr (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Brewcrewer
I may have come across this too late, as five members of ARBCOM have already shared their thoughts, but nevertheless I feel obliged to point out something ARBCOM may be overlooking. NYB states that Gatoclass may be construing "involved" greater then necessary as pertaining to EE in general. He is probably right, but he and Gatoclass are overlooking the involvement in Arab-Israel related articles, and how his involvement in A-I disputes may effect his involvement in EE disputes.

In addition to regular content disputes at A-I related articles, Gatoclass frequently comments at AE threads concerning editors involved with the Arab-Israel conflict (almost always favoring one side of the general dispute). More pertinently, he files AE reports on other editors involved with the Arab-Israel conflict and has had reports filed against him by editors involved with the Arab-Israel conflict (he was sort of blocked once for edit warring, FWTW).

If Gatoclass never found himself at AE in connection with the Arab-Israel conflict there would be no problem. However as Gatoclass is frequently a participant, the potential for conflict is clear. Gatoclass shouldn't be making determinations together with the same few admins that are arbitrating his disputes in another forum.

To put in a legal framework, a judge sitting on a panel cannot practice before the panel even on matters unrelated to their panel for which they sit together. I am not aware of any editors faced with this similar conflict so I don't know if this came up before. I would like to hear ARBCOM's position on this. Thanks, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Putting aside the geographical definitions question for a moment, I wonder if the requester might be construing "involvement" more broadly than is necessary. An administrator who is active or who has been involved in editing disputes in a topic-area should avoid AE work in that topic, but that raises the question of defining the topic. In the case of Eastern Europe, I can imagine that some people might be involved in disputes involving that whole part of the world, and hence would stay away from administrator work covering any of Eastern Europe, broadly defined. On the other hand, if I were active in editing Lithuania, I wouldn't feel myself disqualified from helping out in a dispute about Slovakia or Montenegro. Or, for that matter, about Armenia and Azerbaijan. The question is whether the administrator might either actually have, or might reasonably be perceived as having, relevant bias or history that would make it unfair for him or her to help resolve the dispute. In the context of this request it sounds to me like there is probably not a problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Brad's comment above. In other words, I wouldn't consider you to be involved. PhilKnight (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the autocontemplative nature of the request, but I think NYB has nailed it above. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * NYB has this one nailed. Courcelles 15:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Chiming in to agree with Brad. I don't think there's an issue with the case outlined above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: WP:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
Initiated by  — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  at 22:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * This is a request for general clarification, not addressing (at this time) any specific editors. I am consequently not notifying any individual users, but will post a notice about this request at Talk:Van cat.

Statement by SMcCandlish
I would like clarification that the WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions update to WP:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, as enumerated on the former page under "Pages relating to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts (Armenia-Azerbaijan 2)", applies to topics that are not explicitly and obviously "Armenia-related" on their face but which are nonetheless subject to vitriolic ethnic/racial editwarring and soapboxing/battlegrounding in contravention of our neutral point of view policy, because of their tangential connections to tensions and disputes between Armenians and neighboring cultures. In particular, I note that a template has been applied to Talk:Armenian Genocide  with the following text: "Under the discretionary sanctions imposed at Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, this article has been placed on a one-revert rule. Any editor who makes more than one revert (and this revert must be discussed on the talk page) in a 24-hour period will be blocked. Please edit cooperatively, and seek consensus and compromise rather than edit-war."

I seek explicit clarification whether this applies only to that article, or also to other related articles, should the need arise. I raise this question in particular about the article Van cat, especially (as of the article structure right now) the lead, the infobox, and the section Van cat, recently merged in from Van cat naming controversy, a highly contentious article used for PoV-pushing of all sorts, pro/anti-Armenian, -Turk, and -Kurd. A housecat article seems an unlikely place for this sort of ethnic feud, and it's been quiet lately in the wake of two ArbCom cases about Armenia-related edit-wars, which involved blocks that put a damper on some participants for a while, but I have no doubt that the issue will come up again. It's an article about a variety of cat that is claimed as a major cultural symbol by all three ethnicities, so it be targeted for PoV-pushing in the future, guaranteed. I would like to know whether the "1RR" imposed by ArbCom on "Armenia... and related disputes" can be extended to this article when the tooth-gnashing inevitably begins again. I have no political stake in the question; in this, I'm just a WP:CATS editor trying to reduce racialist "noise" in a cat article that's been repeatedly hijacked for WP:GREATWRONGS purposes. The related article Turkish Van has seen some of this too, but but I think the split-off of Van cat and the subsequent merger of Van cat naming controversy into Van cat will "concentrate the fire" on that article when the "its OUR cat!" issue pops up again. Nonetheless, should the need arise, I include the article Turkish Van and potentially also Turkish Angora, and any results of splits, mergers or PoV-forks of any of these articles, and any cat-related sections in other relevant articles (e.g. Turkey, Armenia, Lake Van, etc.), in this request for clarification. I'm posting this because other cases are clearer. E.g. Template:ARBPIA says "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR", but the equivalent for Armenia disputes does not include such "broadly construed" language. PS: Count this as a "vote" for more consistent enforcement and remedies wording. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  22:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @Elen of the Roads: Re: "Ergo, if an editor makes edits to the cat article pushing an ethnic/national POV they can be warned under the discretionary sanction, and if they have already been warned, can be blocked as an enforcement." – That's what I thought. I'm about 80% done preparing and WP:AN/I (or maybe WP:AE would be better in this case) and concomitant WP:SSI case about this, but holding out some hope that further discussion with the user in question will render that unnecessary. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  21:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @All: I consider this question resolved. Any pro-this or anti-that ethnicity POV-pushing that arises at the articles in question clearly within the scope of WP:ARBAA2, since the relevant geographic area is historically Armenian. That the articles are also connected to Turkey, but Turkey wasn't specifically mentioned by ARBAA2 is incidental and irrelevant and doesn't constitute a loophole. The warning template I asked about, however, isn't appropriate at the article talk pages I asked about, because they're about cats, not regional politics, so they'd be a bit off-topic and WP:BEANSish. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  21:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so please moderate your edit warring on the Van Cat article - continue and you risk being subject to AA2 sanctions. <font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">Meowy 04:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

 * Arbcom can of course make their own answer to this question, but I think there is no blanket 1RR restriction on the AA articles currently. (The 1RR at Armenian genocide was just for that article and it was imposed by User:Moreschi in 2008). It is my understanding that article-based restrictions such as 1RR can be imposed by any administrator under the provisions of WP:AC/DS, once it's been decided that the editing of the article falls in the domain of an appropriate Arbcom case. The discretionary sanctions are more quarrel-based than geography-based, so if somebody started an edit war on the nationality of the Van cat (Turkish versus Armenian, for example) that should fall under WP:ARBAA2. Nationalist warring involving Armenia on other cat-related articles should also fall under ARBAA2, but it would be wise for administrators only to impose a 1RR on specific articles where a problem appeared to exist and where an article 1RR was a better solution than individual editor sanctions.


 * In answer to the point about ARBPIA: there is presently a blanket 1RR restriction on those articles due to a community consensus in fall 2010. Arbcom did not issue a blanket 1RR remedy on I/P articles in either WP:ARBPIA or WP:ARBPIA2.


 * As to whether ARBAA2 can be broadly construed: See this edit from October 2011 in which the Committee authorized discretionary sanctions for "Topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted..", which ought to cover it.
 * Extension of an existing remedy to a novel area might fall under item 3 of WP:AC/DS, which suggests "Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case". I assume they mean a discussion at the community level. This would suggest that an admin should go to WP:AE or some other appropriate noticeboard if they believe that AA restrictions are needed on cat articles. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. I am here requesting an answer to the "question [of] whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case" for WP:AE purposes. Even just since I posted here, the Van cat article in question has been subject to "Kurdistan does not exist" edits by a pro-Armenian editor under editing sanctions imposed in WP:ARBAA2 (and blocked more than once for violating them). I'm getting the impression that the 1RR notice would not apply to this article, so I'm curious what I should do next other than keep reverting like some edit-warrior every time these anti-Kurd edits are made. The editor making them is not a vandal; highly controversial and blocked many times, but actually does make constructive edits like the recent overhaul of Turkish Van. And this is just the one editor; there are at least two others who have made massively (pro- and anti-Turk, respectively) POV-pushing changes to the now-merged Van cat naming controversy piece who I'm sure will show up any day now at Van cat. I have zero opinion on or interest in Turkey vs. Armenia vs. Kurdistan disputes (and know very little about them). I just want the Van cat and related articles to be accurate and not be used as a venue for pushing ethnic antagonism crap. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  22:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish, please stop assuming bad faith. I gave an explanation for the removal of Kurdistan in the edit summary, and I have given one in the article's talk page. A cat breed cannot be said to have its origin in an entity that did not exist in any shape or form at the time of that origin. If you can argue against that, then just do it in the talk page. it is a content issue, not some sort of "pro-Armenian" edit issue. I've long past bothering what admins think of me because my opinion of them can't get lower. However, my otherwise rather good opinion of you suffers when I see you making an inaccurate "I'm a pro-Armenian editor" claim. I'm actually just about the only person on Wikipedia you could trust to make a neutral edit in any Armenian-Turkish-Azeri related article. <font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">Meowy 03:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that you aren't. You're very consistently pushing an anti-Kurd viewpoint, and you've been blocked again and again and again over several years, and sometimes for an entire year, for Armenia-related editwarring, and busted for sockpuppetry to push more such edits. I don't understand why you can't leave that topic area alone. Just walk away and pick a different topic to edit on, where you can actually remain neutral. I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm observing that you have a four-year history of no-remorse ethno-political editwarring in many, many articles that touch on sensitive topics with regard to the Near East, especially the region where Turks, Azerbaijanis, Armenians and Kurds rub shoulders, and have been blocked more times than I can count for violating editing restrictions with regard to those articles. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  21:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you dig out an old edit I made somewhere in that article or the Turkish Van one, I remember saying "cats don't have an ethnicity"! :) <font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">Meowy 04:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Straw man. No one has advanced any such claim about cats, which would be beyond moronic. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  21:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The original remedy covered "all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area". Now this was replaced by Standard discretionary sanctions, which cover "topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted". In my understanding, broadly interpreted "topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts" are the same as "articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area". Am I getting it right? Grand master  10:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The definition "all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" was coined by administrators post AA2, and is a good example of "mission-creep" (let's add "Turkey", let's add "Iran", etc.). The definition that now replaces it actually returns it closer to its original definition. <font face="Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif" color="#0088BB">Meowy 04:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK, thanks for clarification. But then it would mean that in an article like Van cat, which is generally about a cat, albeit from a certain area, if problematic edits are related to an ethnic conflict, then they are covered by AA remedies, but if edit warring or POV pushing is related to something else, like say length of the claws or color of the fur, then that is covered by general rules. If it so, then whenever edit warring about AA topics spills over to an article that have no direct relation to AA issues, AA related problematic edits will be covered by this particular remedy, and anything else will be not. Is that right, or I'm missing the point again? But then it still leaves open the question whether the topics and subjects related to Turkey and Iran are also covered by this remedy, or they are only covered when Turkey and Iran related topics relate also to Armenia and Azerbaijan. Grand  master  15:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting side issue, I suppose, but not relevant to the question I raised; Van cat (formerly Van kedisi and the PoV-fork Van cat naming controversy and Turkish Van clearly within the scope of WP:ARBAA2, to the extent that ethno-political editwarring arises there, because the relevant geographic area, within the present-day political border of Turkey, was historically part of Armenia, and the editing in question is directly related to Armenian vs. other ethnic disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 21:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that Van cat is within the scope of AA, but it is just one instance of problematic editing in AA area. I feel that AA related remedies may need to be revisited in light of what is going on Nagorno-Karabakh and some other articles. The WP:AE request is left without action for about 1 month now: I think the community has very little interest to what is going on in AA articles, and the issue may need to be raised to a higher level.  Grand  master  23:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by other user
Leave this section for others to add additional statements

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Ed is correct that discretionary sanctions apply to edits, not articles. Such a scope is by design: when general sanctions like article probation were used in the past, we had a distracting volume of dispute about whether tangentially-related articles (like Van cat) were the subject of oversight by arbitration enforcement administrators. The answer to this clarification therefore seems to be that any edits which relate to "Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted" will be open to enforcement&mdash;and everything else will not. If I have omitted an answer to any additional line of enquiry, please say so here and I will try to follow up promptly. AGK  [•] 22:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Grandmaster: No, it means topics or subjects (as written). This means that any edit within the scope of the dispute are subject to enforcement. The point is that the sanctions do not apply to whole articles, because then there is the capacity for wikilawyering that, when the dispute spills over to "unrelated" articles, enforcement cannot take place. AGK  [•] 01:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As Anthony says, it's content/editing that's the dividing line, not necessarily articles. I do agree being more consistent in our verbiage would make intents clearer, and is worth considering for future cases. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ergo, if an editor makes edits to the cat article pushing an ethnic/national POV they can be warned under the discretionary sanction, and if they have already been warned, can be blocked as an enforcement. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request: TheDarkLordSeth
Initiated by  TheDarkLordSeth (talk) at 20:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Statement by TheDarkLordSeth
More than two years ago, I made a minor edit on the Armenian Genocide article (my editing history was quite minor to nonexistent before this one) and it was reverted pretty quickly without any discussion. I reverted it back. Various members kept on reverting it without any input in the discussion as well(at least till a few reverts went back and forth after which I myself opened the discussion though people kept reverting without any input). In the end I ended up reverting 9 times. Back then I was not aware of the 3RR rule. Anyways, I received a warning at 16:00, 6 April 2010 which I stopped reverting afterwards. My last revert was at 14:58, 6 April 2010. I received a block for 31 hours at 23:23, 6 April 2010. I was not happy about the way my edit was treated and I took the reverts as few members ganging up on me. It was the first time I faced such a treatment. Some of my not so bright moments that were used for evidence in the ban were pointing out that Armenians were trying to force a POV in the article, calling an attempt to label my criticism as insult as "pathetic", pointing out that a lot of edits are reverted with no discussion right away because it goes against the POV of Greek and Armenian editors, or calling the block decision "retarded".

Four days later I received an indefinite topic ban for the same violation at 05:14, 10 April 2010. Needless to say I was a bit upset about receiving a second penalty for a violation that I've committed just once in ignorance. What was frustrating is that I felt like a target due to certain comments and the way my appeals were handled. My language was given as a supporting role for the ban, mostly in line with what I listed above. When I tried to explain my choice of wording and arguments to the admins I was accused of trying to blame others. If I knew back then how to deal with a hostile environment I wouldn't feel the need to defend myself and get into a cat fight with other editors. I'd simply report uncivil activity.

The appeal was prematurely shut down while an admin who did not have the same opinion as the others was asking for diffs of my claimed disruptive edits. He received none. I was accused of causing revert wars even though before this incident I had only reverted once and edited about 8 to 10 times including every minor edit. When I put a proposal to make the article fully-protected one of the admins was quick to note under it that I was about the get banned (this was posted before the punishment was given) as if it had anything to do with the article itself. I was accused of claiming that one of the admins is a liar because I said to him that he wasn't there to help me. I was also insulted for lack of comprehension and harassed using my past posts.

I know I'm probably missing some stuff as it's been 2 years and I don't have the best memory so if you see anything that I miss don't please ask me to clarify. It's been two years now and I don't know whether the ban is still on. I don't see my name on the List of banned users. The reason why I find this topic ban unfair is per Topic_ban where it says "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia..." which I don't believe that it applies to me as my case is about a single incident.

In short, was it wrong to revert 9 times? Yes. Was it wrong to refer to others using their ethnicity or nationalities? Yes. Was it wrong to use uncivil language? Yes. Is a topic ban due to a single incident fair and justified? I don't think so.
 * Is there also a template for notifying involved admins? Or anything would be fine? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess there was no need. Thanks for the clean-up NuclearWarfare. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @SilkTork - I'm a little confused but I think I understand what you're saying to some degree. I did actually appealed this but it was prematurely closed while an other admin was asking more input from enforcing admins. At this point I don't know if this ban is in effect though I've been staying away from "Armenian Genocide" topic to avoid any conflict. So, how did I come to this place? Let me tell you that so that you know how and why I'm here so that you can give the proper advice to me or those who supervise the wording of those pages you've mentioned. First of all, I clicked on the Help under Interaction and searched for "Topic Ban". I came to this page where it explains the Topic_ban. I went down the page and checked the List_of_banned_users page to see if I was on there. I wasn't. After reading the Topic_ban section I came here which was one of the linked places where a person with topic ban could go to: "Editors who are banned from a topic area or certain pages but can otherwise edit, may appeal (and comment in a discussion) on-wiki, either at the administrators' noticeboard or at requests for arbitration." That's the story. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oopps, I forgot to add the part after I said "I wasn't" where I wanted to say that I looked for a place to appeal the ban and clarify my confusion about the ban. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @SilkTork - Well, I would agree that my behavior was hostile but I wouldn't say that it followed a battleground mentality as I'm of the opinion that such a mentality requires an history of hostile behavior towards others. As at the time of that case I was fairly new and oblivious to Wikipedia policies I'm not of the opinion that my behavior can be described as battleground mentality. That could simply be a semantics problem though. That said, I believe that the appeal was closed prematurely because AGK's input was ignored. Though, I now see that he was at least responded to. I did not see that when I wrote this appeal so I'll retract that point.
 * I'm be ok with it if it goes glacier level slow. I would actually prefer it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @SilkTork - In the appeal I tried to explain what I felt rather than post claims about what was. I do believe I was a victim in the sense that my punishment didn't fit my crime as per the Wikipedia rules I've posted above that says "repeatedly disruptive". One part I got confused here is that you said "...than in showing awareness of where he went wrong, and the steps he will take to avoid conflict in future. Such an attitude is unhelpful..." TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the lengthy response. First a technical fix, the edit you linked to was not a part of the edit of the edit war. That was not an edit war but the natural editing of Wikipedia where I gave in to the better argument and referenced. The edit that started the edit warring was . That said, I believe you're focusing way too much on a flawed perception of what my appeal is about despite my explicit wording of my appeal. Even though I've explicitly pointed out that my reverts, edits, and language was wrong you focus too much on some background info I gave. Even then I tried to use a language that didn't make claims but simply provided my perspective. However, I do feel as a victim regarding the sentence I've received as it doesn't fit in the norm and I tried to differentiate that in my appeal from the things that I've done wrong. I don't understand how one incident can determine whether an offense is likely to be repeated even after two years. It's been two years. Now, I know how to resolve disputes and do proper edits with references and whatnot. I believe my appeal is not about shifting the blame as you make it sound to be and I'm sorry if that's the impression you've got. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @The Blade of the Northern Lights - The edit of mine that led to the edit war is: . In one I part I add the "claim of" to the introduction section (due to reputable historians like Bernard Lewis, Guenter Lewy, Michael M. Gunter, etc.) which I can see why it can be taken as disruptive. The other part is where I simply correct what a BBC article says (the article said "Armenia says Ottoman Turks killed 1.5 million people systematically in 1915 - a claim strongly denied by Turkey" but the article was used to source the 1.5 million number on the article as "per Western scholars") which I could stand by any day as it was a purely technical edit. I'd hardly call this "attempting to foist Holocaust denial" or "attempted to push Turkish government propaganda into articles on this topic as fact". We could have a discussion on my views on the genocide topic but I don't think that should be part of this appeal at all. I'm of the opinion that I should be able to express any view if I source it from reliable sources. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you also tell me what's distorted about my version above so that I can fix it? As I said, it's been two years. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @Timotheus Canens - I've initially wanted to notify all admins that took part in the decision process of the previous appeals and asked for a template in doing that but the section for admin notifications was removed by an other admin. I did not have the intention of hiding this from anyone. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @Newyorkbrad - I would refrain from doing any edits on these article, save fixing simple grammar or link stuff. If I wanted to edit something I would use the edit request only. I personally think all of such articles (Armenian genocide) do require full-protection with the edits made by non-involved admins. To give you an example, I would request an edit on the Armenian_genocide section where the "1,500,000 (per Western scholars,[82]" line can be read. The link is a BBC article: . The article says "Armenia says Ottoman Turks killed 1.5 million people systematically in 1915 - a claim strongly denied by Turkey." The reference and the sentence are not in line with each other. I would request an appropriate source to be found for the figure or the "per Western scholars" changed to "per Armenia" as the article suggests. At the moment, I'm not sure about the extend of this topic ban as I couldn't find myself on the List_of_banned_users. So, I can't give you an exact names of all the articles but Armenian genocide would be one of them. The nature of my edit requests would be limited to corrective edits or check of references. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @KillerChihuahua - I have a few technical problems with some of the things you said. 1) I didn't label a person retarded as you suggested. That would simply be an insult. I labeled the block move as retarded. That's use of hostile/uncivil language. The two are completely different things. 2) I never called my ethnic comments objectionable or my 3RR violation as actionable. I merely tried to explain my situation to you to get some understanding. 3) Could you please provide the diff where you suggest a second chance for me so that we're in the same page? I'd appreciate that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. If that is the case, my case must have been pretty unique and extreme as I've received the punitive action as I'm put in the lot with sock-puppet accounts for avoiding bans and repeated history of violations. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - One purpose of this appeal was to receive clarification on why I received an indefinite ban due to a single incident that occurred over a few days. I feel like that's lost in between lines so I want to put the spotlight on it. Now that the original case link is put up above I can see that a bunch of people were banned for repeated violations. Majority of them received a fixed amount of banned time for repeated acts while sock-puppets and those editors with a history of disruptive edits received an indefinite ban. In my case, it was my first conflict on Wikipedia. I'm not contesting my actions but trying to understand why I received an indefinite ban under the current rule and norms of Wikipedia, hence clarification. Then amendment if you guys find it reasonable that the punishment does not fit the crime. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to feel like some people are getting the wrong impression from my appeal. I'm not appealing my past violations or trying to justify them or paint myself as a victim. I assumed providing background information would help you guys to understand my case. Just recently, I read an admins post on the Wikiquette assistance page talking about how an editors case where he attacked a number of other editors to be understandable. Again, I assumed that it would be appropriate here to explain my motives. Now, I believe that assumption was faulty. So, I'm sorry if any of you got the impression that I've tried to paint myself as a victim concerning the violations. I tried to word my appeal explicitly so that my violations were acknowledged as nothing but being wrong. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @Casliber - If the edit I say I'd request, where a BBC article to be used correctly, will lead to arguments and that such accurate use of referenced sources on Wikipedia is reason enough to decline my appeal I don't know what I can appeal. I also explicitly said that I would either request a better source OR changing it to say "per Armenia". Did you miss this part when you read my post? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When you say labor intensive you mean from a moderation perspective? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If it would make people more comfortable I'd be willing to accept a pledge not to edit or revert on that article punishable by Wiki ban all together. I still think Wiki policies do not warrant such an indefinite ban per the list of supervised cases but at this point I'm willing to compromise. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @Risker - What kind of evidence were you looking for? I've explicitly stated I'm not appealing the violations but the duration of the topic ban and labeled my past actions as wrong. Normally, that would be all the evidence that you'd need but I'm curious about what evidence you were looking for and couldn't see. I also stated that I would be ok with a no edit rule sticking to edit requests on the talk page only and stated that now I know how to resolve conflict. You state that you don't see much evidence that I'll stay away from such conflict. What evidence do you see that I actually won't? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights
As one of the active AE admins, I'll say this in two parts. One, about the last thing we really need is more contentiousness surrounding the Caucasus countries. We've only recently gotten a lid on the shenanigans at Nagorno-Karabakh, and even that's tenuous at best right now. More generally, I've been dealing with a lot of threads surrounding Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan in various capacities, and they're all very thorny problems that take a good working knowledge of the subjects involved to get to the right solution; said knowledge is something very few people on the English Wikipedia have, and fewer still are willing to use it to resolve these disputes. Adding more problematic editing to this area would be exceptionally unhelpful.

Secondly, in what's likely the most congruous topic area, the Holocaust, we don't give people topic bans for openly attempting to foist Holocaust denial onto articles; we block them, sometimes with direction to go find friends at Stormfront instead. I see little reason why we should do anything different here, but in the absence of that there's no reason to allow people who've attempted to push Turkish government propaganda into articles on this topic as fact (which is more or less what TheDarkLordSeth tried to do) any access to said articles. Setting aside (with great difficulty) my personal distaste for said attempts, while the Turkish government's denials are certainly worth mentioning, they're clearly not based in reality and shouldn't be treated in any capacity as if it is; that it occurred is undisputed fact, and any reputable historian, or frankly anyone who's ever read a book on the subject, knows this. Presenting it as anything else is disruptive and should (as it rightly did in this case) lead to sanctions.

Taking those two points, combined with the distorted version of events given above, I see no reason to remove the topic ban in place. If this was at AE I'd probably push for an indefinite block, but I also recognize the current topic ban is accomplishing much the same effect. The Blade of the Northern Lights (<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい ) 04:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Timotheus Canens
It's a bit surprising that no one bothered to notify me of this request... The situation was a bit weird, if I recall correctly. TheDarkLordSeth was reported to both AE and AN3 for hitting 9RR on the article. While the AE discussion was ongoing, I blocked TDLS for 31 hours based on the AN3 report, not knowing about the AE report. In the mean time, an indefinite topic ban was proposed by NW. KC initially suggested another chance, but when, even after the block expired, TDLS continued his battleground conduct, it totally exhausted the patience of AE admins and led swiftly to a consensus to indefinitely topic ban, which I then implemented. I see no reason why this could not have been appealed at AE, but judging from the request, I suspect that AE would have declined it anyway, so I guess going directly to arbcom is OK too. On the merits of this appeal, I essentially agree with SilkTork, below, and recommend that the committee decline this appeal. T. Canens (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by KillerChihuahua
As one of the admins involved with the original case, I initially suggested we give a second chance to TheDarkLordSeth, but when I tried to reach out and explain why his approach was probelmatic, his lengthy response was all excuses and exceptions - why his ethnic comments weren't objectionable, why his 3RR violation wasn't actionable, and why his use of the word "retarded" (labeling a fellow editor) was  justified. He stated the fact that he hadn't tried to get the article deleted was proof he was NPOV. When I attempted to again to explain the issues with his approach, he responded poorly and rejected the information given. I do not see any positive results coming from removing the topic ban. As for sending this to AE; if that is the decision, then so be it, but I don't see any potential for TheDarkLordSeth to have the ban reversed there. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * TDLS: Link of my suggestion of another chance is here KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * TDLS: Blocks and bans are intended to be preventative, not punitive. IOW, you were topic banned not because the admins at AE wanted to punish you, but because at the time, we could see no future in which your contribution in that topic area would be a net positive, or possibly even any positive, for the encyclopedia. If others were only banned for short periods, it was because it was thought that they could take time away from the topic and return more experienced, less emotionally charged, and be a possible net benefit. As SilkTork notes, this is open-ended, not forever, and you should continue learning how to write from the opposing view, work well with others, keep strong views in check, and stay within the rules. KillerChihuahua ?!? 09:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm not looking to make this whole process more bureaucratic than it already is, but I'm not certain whether this request should be addressed here by the arbitrators, or whether it should be raised as an Arbitration Enforcement appeal. In either event, input from the administrators active on AE would certainly be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm now tentatively leaning toward a decline (without worrying further about the procedural aspects) based on the input thus far. But before finally deciding, I ask TheDarkLordSeth to explain what articles he would like to edit, and how he would like to edit them, if his request were to be granted in whole or part. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The case is here. The appeal procedure is unclear as to when a user should use Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement or here, though the wording at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement ("Arbitration decisions may provide that appeals against sanctions imposed under the decision are to be appealed to this noticeboard or to another community forum") which comes with a template for such appeals, does suggest that AE is the standard route. I think that AE would be a better forum as it would be quicker, and be decided directly by those more familiar with the situation. Perhaps the procedure could be worded to advise users to apply to AE or other community forum first, and only come here when there are concerns regarding the AE/community process. Anyway, I think this is better at AE, so decline here, and advise appellant to open appeal at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. <font color="#8D38C9" size="2px">SilkTork  <font color="#347C2C">✔Tea time  21:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to TheDarkLordSeth: The appeal you link to was over two years ago. Your summary of it is not quite accurate. You say it was prematurely closed: you opened the appeal on 28 May 2010, and it was closed on 3 June 2010 after seven people had commented, and discussion had effectively stopped as all those participating agreed that lifting the topic ban would not be a good idea. The only dissenting voice was AGK, who suggested closing the appeal by giving you a second chance - a suggestion rejected by two of those participating. The main concern raised was that you had a battleground mentality; curiously, I got that impression from reading your appeal, and before looking into the case. It's worth looking at WP:BATTLEGROUND.
 * I think we're in agreement that there is some confusion regarding which is the appropriate venue. My suggestion is that we should be making that clearer. Interestingly, after your appeal two years ago, it was suggested that your next step would be to appeal to ArbCom, so technically this might be the right venue. However, I still feel that AE would be quicker - you'd get a decision there within a few days, rather than here where it may take a few weeks! <font color="#8D38C9" size="2px">SilkTork  <font color="#347C2C">✔Tea time  23:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If we are to decide it here, then from what I have seen so far, looking at the original incident that led to the topic block, and the appeals, two years ago, and here now, I don't see any advantage to lifting the topic ban. TheDarkLordSeth appears more concerned in this appeal with explaining how he is a victim, and other editors are to blame, than in showing awareness of where he went wrong, and the steps he will take to avoid conflict in future. Such an attitude is unhelpful when editing on a collaborative project and is generally what leads to disruption; such an attitude is particularly unhelpful when editing in sensitive areas. Until I can see convincing arguments as to why the block should be lifted, my view is to decline the request. <font color="#8D38C9" size="2px">SilkTork  <font color="#347C2C">✔Tea time  10:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to TheDarkLordSeth re: Comment. People sometimes read "indefinite" as "for ever" - "indefinite" means that there is no precise length of time. This is generally used in circumstances where it appears that the user being banned doesn't yet fully appreciate why they have been banned, and so there is a likelihood that the behaviour which was a cause for concern may occur again. The user is able to appeal the ban, and if they demonstrate that they do understand why they were banned, and give reassurances that they will not repeat the same mistake, the ban is lifted. In your appeal you are showing signs of the same sort of behaviour that caused the ban in the first place. Yes, there may well be problems in the articles you mention - there are problems in many articles, and we need as much help as possible to work on those problems, so we would rather not ban users. However, our experience on Wikipedia, is that users who battle rather than negotiate, blame others rather than look to how they themselves could improve, and complain that they are a victim because others have received slightly different sanctions; such users tend to create unrest and disruption, distracting the community from working on the encyclopaedia and sorting out the content problems you mention.
 * Now, you were banned because you edit warred on Armenian Genocide, initially regarding this edit in which you inserted unsourced material which appears to be an attempt to balance statements regarding Article 301 - as was pointed out to you, your material in which you say nobody had been found guilty was inaccurate - see Article 301 (Turkish Penal Code). A few days later you begin another edit war over the word "claim". This, as has been pointed out, is not "a minor edit" given the controversy regarding Turkey's acceptance of the genocide.
 * You've had more than two years to consider your actions, and how making such edits in the first place might be controversial, and especially that various people were removing your edits so you were clearly acting against consensus. You've had a chance to learn from the experience and explain here how you now realise where you went wrong, and how you would conduct yourself in future. So - how do you phrase your appeal: "I made a minor edit ... it was reverted pretty quickly without any discussion." No sense there at all that what you did was controversial - the focus is on the injury to you in that you got reverted "quickly" and "without any discussion". You were not happy about your edits being removed: "It was the first time I faced such a treatment." Again the focus is on your injury, rather than the disruption you were causing to the project. You say "If I knew back then how to deal with a hostile environment..." Again the focus is on you, without showing awareness that you created the "hostile environment". You say "I was accused of causing revert wars even though..." Well, there should be no qualification or excuse - you did edit war. The evidence is in the article history. You continue with your complaint against others: "I was also insulted for lack of comprehension and harassed using my past posts."
 * You need to put your hurt ego to one side, and look to how you can best help the project. Bringing up grievances about how you were treated two years ago is not helpful. You entered into a controversial and sensitive topic with a lack of sensitivity, and you edited and behaved poorly. That your inappropriate edits were reverted, and you were warned, and that because you continued and argued and things got heated is a direct result of YOUR behaviour. You cannot blame others that they got heated, when you were the cause of it.
 * At this point I remain concerned that even allowing you simply to raise queries on the talkpages of the related articles would lead to disruption. I am going to stick with a decline, and recommend that you appeal again in six months time. I think it would be OK to appeal to AE - the admins there will be able to judge your appeal appropriately. <font color="#8D38C9" size="2px">SilkTork  <font color="#347C2C">✔Tea time  09:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Recuse. If I had re-visited that AE appeal after the many commentators had weighed in, I would have declined the appeal. Also, I believe it was correct to close the June 2010 appeal as unsuccessful. I make no comment (due to my recusal) as to whether this appeal should be accepted. In terms of the current appeal's venue, I believe it is acceptable for this to have been appealed here, rather than at AE. AGK  [•] 13:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Recuse - although my involvement in the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=355085704#Result_concerning_TheDarkLordSeth WP:AE discussion] was minimal, I think it's best that I recuse. PhilKnight (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While I'm not convinced outright that this would be a net positive for the project, substantial time has passed and the editor has proposed some pretty definite editing restrictions. I will await comments from my other colleagues who may have more familiarity with this area than I do. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The edit you say you'll do will lead to an argument, you do realise that don't you? 1.5 million is a pretty widely-mentioned figure, so there are better ways of approaching this (such as finding other sources and discussing). So I will stick with a decline at this point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC) you're right, I missed that/my bad. We have to think of what is going to be least labour-intensive in the long run. Still thinking about it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Decline: I don't see sufficient evidence that TDLS has acknowledged that his topic ban was the result of his own actions, nor that he will stay away from such actions again in the future in this topic area. Incidentally, I don't think there should be any concern or issue about this appeal being brought to the Arbitration Committee; since arbitration enforcement is done under the authority of the Committee, it is entirely reasonable that appeals are heard by the Committee. Risker (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=542206419#Clarification_request:_Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 Original discussion]

Initiated by   Sandstein   at 13:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Sandstein
Question: Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 provides that "Topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions." Does this mean that are placed under discretionary sanctions?
 * 1) topics related to both Armenia and Azerbaijan, or
 * 2) topics related to either Armenia or Azerbaijan

Explanation: A recent enforcement request concerned the application of a topic ban from "topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts", i.e., using the same wording as in the abovementioned decision. The defendant argued that his edit at issue did not violate the ban because it concerned a topic only related to Armenia, not to "Armenia-Azerbaijan". In the event, the question presented above did not become relevant, as the enforcing administrators agreed that the edit at issue did relate to the conflict between the two countries and so was covered by the topic ban in any case. However, the question may become relevant in future enforcement requests. It would therefore be helpful to know how the scope of the topic covered by discretionary sanctions is to be interpreted.

My view is that the Committee likely intended the second interpretation (either Armenia or Azerbaijan), based both on the "broadly interpreted" clause and the finding at Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, which refers to the countries separately, in defining the affected area as "articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as a wide variety of related topics." However, because the wording of the decision is ambiguous, an explicit clarification (and perhaps an amendment of the wording) would be welcome.  Sandstein  13:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Gatoclass: I'm not aware that the same ambiguity could exist in other cases. The topics in other cases are relatively clearly described, e.g., as "related to the Balkans" or "to Eastern Europe". Only this decision employs a very peculiar hyphenated construction ("Armenia-Azerbaijan") in which the hyphen can be read either as an "and" or as an "or". (Oh, and please nobody start arguing about whether the hyphen should be a dash.)   Sandstein   18:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Looie496
In my view the key word here is "conflict". Edits that have no bearing on any conflict should not bring this ruling into play, regardless of what countries they involve. If any sort of conflict is involved, the ruling should be construed broadly. Looie496 (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
Looking over the second arbitration case, it seems the dispute extended to other areas involving Armenians and Azeris. Most notably matters concerning Armenia-Turkey and Azerbaijan-Iran were brought up in the opening statements of the case. I think it was intended to focus on conflicts broadly construed. The editor Sandstein mentions, clearly violated the topic ban explicitly because some of the content being removed was about Nagorno-Karabakh and most of the fund's activities noted in the article concerned the NKR. Perhaps what needs to be clarified is that the discretionary sanctions concern the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts broadly construed.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Gatoclass
Firstly, I think it's worth pointing out that the same ambiguity probably exists regarding all ethnic or national conflicts covered by discretionary sanctions, not just the Armenia-Azerbailan conflict, so it would be better to resolve this question for all such topic areas rather than this topic area alone. Secondly, I'm inclined to agree with Sandstein because I have seen topic banned users in other topic areas just switch their problematic editing from articles relating directly to the conflict to articles relating to their political opponents' countries, culture or religion and so on for the duration of their ban, which in my view is just WP:GAMING of their topic ban. I would only add the caveat that I think some editors could probably be allowed to continue editing articles about the nation or ethnic group they support, at the discretion of the adjudicating AE admins, because I think some topic banned editors can still add worthwhile content of this nature. Gatoclass (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Regardless of the actual wording pertaining to the various national or ethnic conflicts that are subject to discretionary sanctions, there is a broad principle at stake here that needs to be recognized, otherwise we will end up with one standard for one such topic area and a different standard for others. Gatoclass (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by KillerChihuahua
Comment: Use caution; slightly vague is not necessarily a bad thing. If we're too specific, we'll get editors who complain that their edits aren't covered because the exact conditions were not spelled out on the sanctions page. Any attempt to make it too specific may cause more problems than it resolves. One puppy's opinion. Killer Chihuahua 17:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Grandmaster
As is apparent from the AA2 case, that arbitration meant to cover not only Armenia-Azerbaijan related topics, but also topics related to Armenia-Turkey and Azerbaijan-Iran relations. This is why it mentions "related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted". As an example, there was previously a request for clarification regarding whether Van cat was covered by AA2 remedies: But I agree with Sandstein that the wording is a bit vague, and a more precise description of the scope would be advisable. Grand master  18:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Since we are talking a bit abstract now, I will provide a concrete example. User:Konullu was "topic-banned indefinitely from all edits to articles or discussions relating to Armenian–Azerbaijani conflicts, broadly construed". Soon after he was blocked for 2 weeks for violation of his topic ban by editing an article about Azerbaijani politician Ilgar Mammadov. While the article Konullu edited was Azerbaijan related, it was not related to AA conflict, and Konullu's edits were not controversial. So here's the question. Was Konullu banned from everything Azerbaijan related, or was he banned only from anything related to AA conflict? Grand master  20:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Apteva
Normally if there is a combination of subjects, like Israel/Palestine, or in this case Armenia/Azerbaijan the contentious edits are the ones that only concern both subjects. That being said, it can be difficult to tell where one topic ends and the other begins. In this case, though, our article Armenia–Azerbaijan relations states that the two countries are technically still at war, so I would define the only edits within the ban to be edits that affect both countries, and that any edit about either country that does not affect the other country is acceptable. As I read it the sanctions are quite clear "Topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts". Adding broadly construed I would not construe to mean and all ethnicities and both Armenia and Azerbaijan. I would say the editor in question is correct that they should be able to freely edit Armenia articles, but not any section or sentence that deals with the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan or with the related ethnic conflicts. For example, someone native to either country might be well suited to add useful information but would be unsuitable to add information about the conflict due to their extreme bias. Apteva (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
It must be "either Armenia or Azerbaijan", because of the scope of AA2, as noted by Grandmaster. I posit that this was not only intentional at the time, it's a good situation to maintain, because those who will rant for or against Armenia and Armenians, Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis, etc., are also prone to making pro- or anti-Turk, pro- or anti-Kurd, etc. rants and POV-pushing edits. I have used the applicability of AA2 to very good effect in curtailing editwarring of this sort at Van cat, Turkish Van and Turkish Angora over the last year+, and ethnic viewpoint-pushing will surely return to these articles almost immediately if AA2 is suddently no longer applicable simply because these cat articles touch on Armenian–Turkish and Armenian–Kurdish relations but don't also involve Azerbaijan. If it were interpreted as "both-and" not "either-or", then "related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted" would have virtually no meaning or applicability. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  02:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'd say either/or. I'd support a motion to clarify. T. Canens (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * These sanctions are deliberately meant to be broadly interpreted, so I'd say it's any articles relating to Armenia and/or Azerbaijan and/or any related ethnic conflicts, that last bit of course being somewhat redundant. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 16:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Modifying what I said at AE: I believe that a standard topic ban ought to cover anything relating to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, whether that covers the actions that the governments have taken with respect to each other or individual citizens doing things that antagonize citizens of the other country. This allows it to be narrowly tailored enough to stop most disruptive behavior, but if the scope needs to be expanded to cover something apparently unrelated (say Armenian cuisine for example), there should be a way to do that. For that reason, I'm going to hold back on supporting Tim's motion for now. A motion would be useful, but I'm not sure this particular wording covers what I would like to see. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The standard topic ban in an area does not necessarily have to cover the entire area for which DS is authorized. For example, we authorized DS for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan; it does not mean that every topic ban in that area needs to cover all three. Authorizing DS for the broad area allows sanctions to be readily handed out for spillover into related areas, which frequently happens. T. Canens (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Motion
Proposed: That the section entitled "Standard discretionary sanctions" in the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case be replaced with the following:
 * Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted.

Previous or existing sanctions, warnings, and enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.




 * Support
 * Proposed. T. Canens (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 18:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 22:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Useful clarification which doesn't extend the discretionary sanctions but more properly identifies the range. I understand NYB's quibble, but I think that "Pages" or "Edits" would point to the same activity: an edit to a page related to.... I think Wikipedians understand what is meant either way.  SilkTork  <font color="#347C2C">✔Tea time  08:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT(<font color='#060'>talk ) 08:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 04:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] 20:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Am willing to support this, even after reading the concerns below. If this is a step too far, and proves unworkable, a new amendment request can be made. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the sprawling nature of the conflict, I'd rather case a wide net now even if it means reexamining the situation later to see if it is reasonable to narrow it. &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Regretful oppose to this wording per my and others' comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators
 * I don't feel like this does anything. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 18:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that I for one have no idea what exactly "Armenia-Azerbaijan" is. This makes it clear. T. Canens (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 18:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The core disputes that led to the two cases, and to the numerous enforcement requests under them, relate to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan&mdash;not to articles relating exclusively to Armenia or exclusively to Azerbaijan. Thus, I don't think we necessarily intended that discretionary sanctions would apply to a dispute about an article concerning the street plan of Yerevan, or an art gallery in Baku. But I can see that we would want the sanction to apply if, for example, an editor wrote (these are deliberately fanciful examples) "the street plan in Yerevan was stolen from one commonly used in Azerbaijan" or "the Baku Gallery is full of artworks plundered from Armenians." Heck, we might want to be able to apply a warning and then sanctions even if such an edit were made to street grid or art gallery. So the best test might really be whether the edit, rather than the page, deals with disputes between Armenia(ns) and Azerbaijan(is). Or am I overintellectualizing this when I should just be supporting the motion? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with NYB: it is the edit, not the page, that is relevant.  I could support this if the word "page" is changed to "editing". Risker (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If someone edits an otherwise-unrelated-to-X page to add X-related material, then that edit makes the page related to X in the relevant part and discretionary sanctions applicable. The "pages" formulation is used in all current discretionary sanctions authorizations, and I'd rather not introduce nonuniformity and uncertainty by using "editing" for one area and "pages" for the others. If we want to change "pages" to "editing" wholesale, we can do it later by adding it to the general discretionary sanctions motions currently being worked on. T. Canens (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I agree with Brad here. The proposed wording now authorises sanctions for: pages about anything to do with Armenia, pages about anything to do with Azerbaijan and/or pages about anything to do with related ethnic conflicts. The sense of intersection is gone. As I agree entirely with your point about conformity, it is probably best to leave this particular change be for now.  Roger Davies  talk 07:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page Reverted?
I just express my ideas. And talk pages are reverted back. If we can't talk even in talk pages, where is the place for freedom of expression. Now i'm in notified section. I just said my idea and i have references. Reverting a talk page is cruel i think.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

1RR for Battle of Shusha (2020)
I was wondering whether one-revert policy can be applied to the page Battle of Shusha (2020) - an NKR-related article where currently massive revert warring is going on. Regards, Armatura (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This case is closed now, so few people are likely to see your message. This topic is currently covered by discretionary sanctions, which means that you can request 1RR be imposed for this article at WP:AE. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 02:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for advice, . Finding it difficult to use the new section template in WP:AE, as it ask details of users rather than the article. Could you please help me in moving the discussion to WP:AE? Would be very grateful. Regards Armatura (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)