Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Statement by Malikbek 2 Statement by uninvolved Tariqabjotu 3 Review? 4 Clarification request October 2007 5 Clarification request (Shusha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)) 5.1 Reply 6 Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 6.1 Remedy extension in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 7 Discretionary sanctions in Armenia-Azerbaijan 7.1 Motion #1 7.2 Motion #2 8 Request for clarification/amendment: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 8.1 Statement by Moreschi 8.2 Statement by Nishkid64 8.3 Statement by Folantin 8.4 Statement by Alex Bakharev 8.5 Statement by White Cat 8.6 Clerk notes 8.7 Arbitrator views and discussion 9 Andranikpasha (talk · contribs) 10 Meowy (talk · contribs)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. -- tariqabjotu 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.

[edit] 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: [1] --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 [2]. 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 | ^{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 | ^{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 #Log of blocks and bans 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)

[edit] Clarification request October 2007

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

At [3] 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 [[4]] 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies 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 [[5]], 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 [6] 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: [7] 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 [8]. 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, [9] 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)

[edit] Clarification request (Shusha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs))

[edit] 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)"[48]

Am I being compared to E104421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)? Previously indef banned for edit warring, who was simultaneously edit warring with me and another user [49], [50], [51], . Who breached WP:3RR [52], [53], [54], [55], Who kept insisting (by reverting) that its gonna be his way and no other? even by reverting my minor edits [56]. 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 [57]. 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 [58], 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 [59] 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. Ryan Postlethwaite 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. Ryan Postlethwaite 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. Ryan Postlethwaite 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. 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. [60] 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. Ryan Postlethwaite 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. Meowy 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There was another prior discussion here: [61], 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". 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". 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)

[edit] Remedy extension in Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#List of users placed under probation. 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Ryan Postlethwaite 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. Ryan Postlethwaite 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)

• I think it would be best to stick as closely as possible to the original wording, just without the incivility clause:

“

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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Log of blocks and bans.

”

Civility supervision, revert limitation, and supervised editing have been described previously in the case and at Wikipedia: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)

[edit] Discretionary sanctions in Armenia-Azerbaijan

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

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Log of blocks and bans.

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:

1. Kirill 17:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
2. FloNight (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
3. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
4. 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)
5. Support the measures and agree with Sam regarding the appeal process. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
6. bainer (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
7. 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:

1. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 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:

1. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 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.

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 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".
2. Kirill 05:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Agree. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
5. FloNight (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
6. First choice, per development of the wording in the Palestine-Israel case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
7. First choice because the procedure is clearer for all concerned. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
8. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

[edit] Request for clarification/amendment: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

• Moreschi (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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, ChateauLincoln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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#Clarification request October 2007. 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)

[edit] 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. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

---

[edit] Andranikpasha (talk · contribs)

Andranikpasha (talk · contribs) has exceeded his one (nationalistic) revert on the Hayasa-Azzi article. [62]

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. Meowy 21:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meowy (talk · contribs)

Meowy (talk · contribs) just reverted back to Andranikpasha (talk · contribs)'s nationalist version of the Hayasa-Azzi article, claiming "not to know the subject" in the edit summary. [63]

And your point is, Mr Anonymous? I fully explained my revert in the article's talk page. 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)