Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Malikbek|Malikbek]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks very much for the thorough and very fast response to my query. hbdragon88 21:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I didn't officially change my username. I already asked the clerk. --VartanM 18:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You did and I can prove that. So please restore your userlinks as Penwhale recommended you. --Grandmaster 04:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Review? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Thanks, Ryan. Atabek (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  WP:AGF? Grandmaster (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Neither am I. It is enough to check Meowy's block log, no comment is necessary. Grandmaster (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Remedy extension in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2]]

message: 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 , 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)
thread_title:  Request for clarification/amendment: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2]]

message: 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 , 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Folantin|Folantin]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Alex Bakharev|Alex Bakharev]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:White Cat|White Cat]] 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  {{User|Andranikpasha}} 

message: 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. Meowy 01:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  {{User|Meowy}} 

message: Initiated by  NW (Talk) at 16:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for clarification: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2]] 

message: Moreschi, acting under the discretionary sanctions authorized under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement, 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. NW (Talk) 16:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by NuclearWarfare 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Sandstein 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: === Involved parties ===
*, filing party
*
;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
*
=== Statement by NuclearWarfare ===
In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies, a number of editors were placed on 1RR/week for 1 year. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Remedies, 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 Wikipedia: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. NW (Talk) 15:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Editing restrictions updated. NW (Talk) 17:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2|Armenia-Azerbaijan 2]] 

message: In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies, a number of editors were placed on 1RR/week for 1 year. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Remedies, 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 Wikipedia: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. NW (Talk) 15:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Editing restrictions updated. NW (Talk) 17:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by NuclearWarfare 

message: 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#Remedies should be removed.  For example, the entry for Atabek/Atabəy, whose case was recently discussed at WP:AE#User:Atabəy.  That entry shows him to be indefinitely restricted, which appears to be a mistake. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Jehochman 

message: *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. –xenotalk 15:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. NW (Talk) 20:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposed amendment to a sanctions remedy 

message: Initiated by  Gatoclass (talk) at 07:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for clarification: [[Wikipedia:ARBAA2]] 

message: Although I do not usually adjudicate disputes at WP:AE, I decided to assist on the recently filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nagorno-Karabakh_article. 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Gatoclass 

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

message: 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, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Brewcrewer 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: Initiated by  — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  at 22:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, so please moderate your edit warring on the Van Cat article - continue and you risk being subject to AA2 sanctions. Meowy 04:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Meowy 03:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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"! :) Meowy 04:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. Meowy 04:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Grandmaster 15:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Grandmaster 23:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

text: 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—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)

text: * 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)
thread_title:  Request for clarification: [[WP:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2]] 

message: I would like clarification that the WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Affected areas 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, this article has been placed on a one-revert rule. Any editor who makes more than one revert (and this revert must be discussed on the talk page) in a 24-hour period will be blocked. Please edit cooperatively, and seek consensus and compromise rather than edit-war."
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#Naming controversy, 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)
replies: text: Exactly, so please moderate your edit warring on the Van Cat article - continue and you risk being subject to AA2 sanctions. Meowy 04:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by SMcCandlish 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Meowy 03:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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"! :) Meowy 04:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. Meowy 04:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Grandmaster 15:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Grandmaster 23:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by EdJohnston 

message: * 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—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)
replies: text: * 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)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: 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  (話して下さい) 04:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Timotheus Canens 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by KillerChihuahua 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Looie496 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by The Devil's Advocate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Gatoclass 

message: 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. KillerChihuahua 17:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by KillerChihuahua

message: 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. Grandmaster 18:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Grandmaster

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Apteva 

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by SMcCandlish

message: 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)
thread_title:  Talk Page Reverted? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1RR for Battle of Shusha (2020)