Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Proposed decision

This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.

This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched To request an amendment or clarification of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. To report a violation of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

I would like to thank the parties, Callanecc, Robert McClenon, Tamzin, Ixtal, Red-tailed hawk and Newyorkbrad for the feedback at the workshop. You can see that we have taken your comments on board for the proposed decision --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki FOF

While I understand the outing concerns involved, I would hope for a little more clarity from ARBCOM's proposed motion 11. Specifically, while it is apparent that the evidence does not link any editor to literally breaking policy, it would be good to have ARBCOM's opinions on a) whether off-wikipedia groups are systematically trying to influence English Wikipedia's content in relation to AA, and b) what ARBCOM's perspective is on potentially sanctioning editors who participate in groups whose explicit purpose is to POV-push on Wikipedia, but come short of actually breaking any PAG (either as a remedy in this case or as a new standard of conduct to be enforced moving foward). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dec 2022 Enforcement Request

• SilkTork, regarding how we got here, I agree with the statement there was a sense of fatigue and helplessness among the AE admins about how to cope with "policing" the topic area, but another important element was the overarching and unresolved allegations of off-wiki manipulation of the topic area that (I at least) felt unequipped to investigate as a lone admin and which were poisoning the well for the topic until such that they could be investigated and either acted upon or safely discarded. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, those allegations concerned me when the matter came to ARCA. They needed to be looked into, and because of privacy concerns could only be investigated via email, which is best done by Functionaries. When the request came to ARCA I saw three threads, related but distinct: The off-Wiki allegations, the sense of fatigue and frustration with dealing with this particular problem area, and the tension between the two main protagonists. What I am checking as I go through the PD (rather slower than I hoped due to other matters) is that all three areas are covered. I looked briefly at the material sent to us by email, and nothing was jumping out at me; the drafters (and other Arbs) have looked more carefully at the material and see nothing of concern; I will look again more carefully before voting, but essentially I am no longer concerned about that matter. I also feel that the main protagonists are being dealt with appropriately - it was pretty likely from the AE discussion which prompted this case, that those two would end up with at least an interaction ban. So my remaining concern is that we give enough assistance to the AE admins to deal with problems in this area going forward. I am very aware of the comments relating to fatigue and helplessness - indeed, that has been my main concern in this case, and just want to check that we will be enabling AE when this case is finished and that we don't end up with AA-4 a few years down the line. SilkTork (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the work y'all are doing/have done to help address the issues we raised about the topic area and/or editors in it, so the thanks goes both ways ^u^ — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rosguill on this. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

N.b., this was initially a threaded response to my first comment regarding FOF for off-wiki conduct _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drawn here by ToBeFree's courteous notification that I'm mentioned in passing. I haven't looked at this in any detail at all but you guys might want to tidy up some of the language:

• In February 2022 they were warned by El_C for edit warring and was "expected to be more diligent in pages covered by the AA2 DS". It reads like it was El_C (a very diligent admin) who was "expected to be more diligent" (also a mismatch of "they were" and "was"...).
• Tamzin unilaterally topic banned ZaniGiovanni Contentious topic procedures explicitly empower admins to act unilaterally but the adjective makes it sound like Tamzin's action was less valid than the other actions mentioned.
• In principle 9 (AE), a mention of contentious topics might be in order since that's what's relevant here and really is the standard fare at AE.

— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, User:Guerillero. I've seen and tried to work too many disputes in this area, and we agree that effective measures need to be taken to limit the disputes. Wikipedia is not a battleground, but nationalistic editing causes refighting of real wars in areas that have been real battlegrounds. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the volunteers who is weary from these disputes, I concur. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:SilkTork says that the areas of American Politics, India and Pakistan, and GENSEX are worse. I assume that they mean that there are more disputes in the usual fora, such as Arbitration Enforcement and WP:ANI. However, there are more editors who are active in those areas, because there are more editors who self-identify with those areas. There are a lot more Americans and a lot more Indians and Pakistanis than Armenians or Azerbaijanis, and a very large number of Anglophones either are Americans for whom English is the first language or Indians for whom English is the second language, and everyone has some sort of gender or sexual orientation. There are fewer Armenian and Azerbaijani editors, but there may be at least as much conflict among the editors who are active in those country areas. In fact, what we see is a small number of editors who are in multiple disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee were asked to open a case because the AE admins didn't know how to handle the disputes in the area. I didn't understand that to mean the amount of complaints raised at AE, I understood that to mean the difficulty of pining down who was at fault and why. What we are doing here - topic banning those whose names pop up the most, and doing an interaction ban on the two main complainers - is what the admins at AE could have done without a case. I am assuming the admins wanted us to do something more. I recall one of the issues was that topic banning a few prolific complainers wouldn't in itself solve the issue because then more would pop up. I didn't think the issue was the amount of complaints, or amount of complainers, but that when each complainer is dealt with, another one comes along. I started to ask questions on that issue on the workshop, but got distracted, and then the workshop was closed. What I'm hoping we can do with this case is provide the admins at AE with the means to deal with this topic area going forward. Something that I think should be noted in line with the whack a mole concern raised by the AE admins is that this is the third ArbCom case on this area, and each case involves a different bunch of people. Whack this bunch, and in a year or two another bunch will come along. I think what the admins are wanting is partly for us to whack a few moles, but mainly to flatten the mole hills so no more moles pop up. But I'm not entirely sure. SilkTork (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But handing out personal sanctions is us pining down who was at fault and why. If you would like to draft additions to the CT options that admins have to break the back of this issue long-term, SilkTork, I would be interested. I strongly agree with Robert here about the numbers. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 08:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering it. I'm looking back at the Preliminary statements, some of which indicated that "a clean-out" (User:Callanecc) might be sufficient; though Callanecc also indicated that they felt that the issues are "ideological rather than personal" and "that's something that AE will always struggle to resolve in a nuanced way (other than just topic banning everyone and moving on until there's an appeal for doing exactly that) but it's what arbitration cases are designed to do"; which suggests that they felt that while a topic banning clean out might temporary resolve the issue, that it's not the long term "nuanced" solution. Several others indicated that editing in this area is an ongoing problem, and a more longer term solution would be welcomed. "It is usually not about two users which can not get along - if one of them is blocked another user would come to take their place. And nothing has changed here in the last 15 years." (User:Ymblanter); "The problems in this area have gone beyond what AE can handle by sanctioning a few bad actors." (User:Seraphimblade); "There's one particular ongoing pattern in the AA area that I think is worth considering - the usage of sleeper accounts as has been noticed e.g. here ("gaming autoconfirmed then going into hibernation")." (User:Brandmeister); "These things are simpler to understand and harder to solve than most understand. There is a contest out in the real world. With Wikipedia being influential, each side works to help their side in the real world contest by tilting the Wiki article." (User:North8000). In the thread which led to the case request, User:El C said "it's my and many others' view that timed TBANS, which used to be the prevailing practice, nearly always fall short. Because we nearly always end up back here"; and User:Seraphimblade said "This area is a perennial problem, and clearly sanctioning one bad actor here or there is not sufficient to stem the disruption."

So, from that I get the impression that while whacking the current moles is welcomed, a more long lasting solution is what is required. I'm considering a FoF which indicates the list of parties who have been sanctioned in this area since AA-1 - showing that the problems are not confined to certain individuals, that it's the real world political situation which is driving this, so the problems have kept reoccurring and will keep reoccurring; and a Locus finding which takes into account the above concerns of the AE admins who brought this request. Then perhaps two Remedies - 1) Third strike and you're out (if a party has been previously warned at AN or AE twice then a third valid complaint means they are topic banned), and 2) Vexatious complainer - if a party makes three complaints at AN or AE which are found to be not valid, then they are banned from making further complaints. But, for such a remedy it would be useful to have a finding that some people complain often without justification, simply in an attempt to get their "opponent" sanctioned.

Do you think that's workable, User:Guerillero/User:In actu from what you've learned of the problems in the area? I'm out most of today, but if you feel this is workable, then I'll draw something up either tonight or tomorrow. SilkTork (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: I don't think that listing more than 10 years of sanctions is a useful framing device, but it seems that arbs would like to see something about the topic are at large. You may also want to take a look at the private evidence.

As I told Seraphimblade below, I would drop it to 1 warning and then you are out. What I have seen is that warnings are not interpreted as sanctions, but instead as more space to continue misconduct. Much of this could have been avoided by swift sanctions.

The community has imposed Extended Confirmed on the topic area. It should deal with the sleepers and gaming issue. I have proposed the committee take it on as more of a recordkeeping thing. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 09:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have thought to ask this a few days ago. I don't see anything specifically about disputes about sources. As was documented, many of the arguments involved disputes, often tendentious, about whether sources were reliable and whether sources were neutral. Is the Administrators Encouraged remedy meant, among other things, to empower administrators to act against editors who argue tediously about the usability of sources? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero could you please explain how I was edit warring on Shusha massacre when I haven't broken 3RR? I was constantly engaging constructively with fellow editors and communicating with them in the Talk page and explained my arguments for the content change constructively – in all, I spent a considerable effort improving the state of that article by cleaning it up and converting its references. Moreover, I have never received a warning or accusation of edit warring before so if I was, I apologise, though I couldn't have known I was doing so beyond knowing I wasn't breaking 1RR/3RR.

In regards to the question about the source, I was extremely careful and chose to seek the opinion of the warning admin considering that the source was published by Routledge and it's heavily used to cite the Good Article Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan. I'm not sure how it's problematic to simply seek the opinion of an admin of the source considering I haven't even cited it since the warning.

Moreover, the proposed topic ban is extremely concerning considering that I have a clean history, excepting the logged warning regarding sources which I've been very careful to not contravene. I feel that most of my contributions to the Armenia–Azerbajan topic area have been highly constructive, and I have authored many Good Articles which go on to improvement the state of Wikipedia, including: Muslim uprisings in Kars and Sharur–Nakhichevan, Nakhichevan uezd, First Republic of Armenia (GA pending), Agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan respecting the District of Zanghezour (GA pending), and countless other non-GA's which I've massively expanded (also currently working on a GA-rewrite of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic).

I ask that you please reconsider the proposed topic ban, and accept my apologies and my assurance to be more careful in the topic area, as I have already demonstrated by not accidentally citing any more questionable sources. Best, – Olympian ^loquere 00:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you re-read EW. You are not entitled to three reverts per day -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 08:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for linking that, I apologise that I hadn't fully acquainted myself with Wikipedia policy before editing – my early edits consisted of adding statistical census tables; so recently for me, it's been somewhat of a steep learning curve when editing the more controversial pages. I've read the policy now and fully familiarised myself with edit-warring in all its forms, and can assuredly say that it was genuinely not my intention to edit war, and it certainly won't happen again in any circumstances. Thank you, – Olympian ^loquere 09:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, Izno, Wugapodes, and Barkeep49, I implore you to reconsider the Tban against me. I cannot understand an indefinite topic ban considering that I don't have a single sanction in my history, I haven't violated my only warning, and have never had problems with edit-warring before, ever. However, I believe a 1RR would be more useful and would alleviate your concerns – it would also hold me to a higher standard in my editing; and if I break the 1RR, you could tban me. Contributing to this topic is something I am very passionate about, and I admit, I had a brief lapse of judgement in Shusha massacre, but as I replied to you earlier, I genuinely didn't intend to edit war and wasn't even aware I was doing so – I was simply trying to expand the death toll estimates using a reliable third-party journal. In my first revert, I added an explanatory note (to answer Nocturnal781's concerns about the ambiguity caused by the estimate), and in my second revert, I referenced the talk page discussion which I had just left a several explanatory comments which Nocturnal781 didn't follow up on. After that, ZaniGiovanni reverted me so I desisted until a talk page consensus could be achieved with him (seeing that Nocturnal781 no longer opposed my latest revert/restoration). Again, I deeply apologise for my lapse in judgement and swear that it won't ever happen again. As you can see from my profile, I am a good faith editor and don't tend to focus on details as much as simply expanding the volume of articles, as I've done with the First Republic of Armenia article which took me a month to rewrite from scratch (to 105K bytes/12K words!). I appreciate your consideration and will respect whatever judgement the arbitration committee reach. Thank you, – Olympian ^loquere 07:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before voting to close the case I will re-review the evidence against you to make sure I think a topic ban is an appropriate sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox & Primefac, I ask that you please see the above comment by me and reconsider your vote regarding my proposed Tban. Thank you, – Olympian ^loquere 09:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox as you stated, I was clueless while edit warring because as I previously stated, I had no idea I was doing so, my understanding of edit warring prior to this case was to break a 1RR or 3RR restriction (which I didn't). I don't see why my ignorance should be punished at the same level as editors with a history of sanctions – I've demonstrated sincere remorse, fully acquainted myself with WP:EW, and pledged myself not to ever edit-war again. As other opposing arbitrators I've stated, the sanction goes far beyond the FOF and I believe my absence from the topic area will be a net loss for expanding the AA topic-area of Wikipedia as I won't be able to continue making Good Articles (1, 2, 3, & 4) nor expanding Armenian village and city articles as I've been doing the past few months without issue. In any case, I understand the perspective you're approaching the issue with, though I urge you to reexamine the facts and the circumstances and not punish an editor for their inexperience. Thank you, – Olympian ^loquere 23:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek, Primefac, Izno, and Wugapodes, I beseech you to reconsider my Tban, I will summarise my points why:

1. I don't have a single sanction in my history, I haven't violated my only warning, and have never had problems with edit-warring before, ever – I don't see why my ignorance/inexperience should be punished at the same level as editors with a history of sanctions
2. I was clueless while edit warring because as I previously stated, I had no idea I was doing so, my understanding of edit warring prior to this case was to break a 1RR restriction or 3RR (which I didn't). I had a brief lapse of judgement, and have since demonstrated sincere remorse, fully acquainted myself with WP:EW, and pledged myself never edit-war again.
3. As other opposing arbitrators I've stated, the sanction goes far beyond the FOF and the 1RR restriction and suspended tban serves as a far more appropriate measure for the scope of the conduct, rather than a punitive tban.
4. From my profile and contributions, you can see that I'm a good faith editor and I strongly believe that my absence from the topic area will be a net loss for expanding the AA topic-area of Wiki as I won't be able to continue making Good Articles (1, 2, 3, & 4^[a]) nor continue expanding Armenian village and city articles as I've been doing the past few months without issue.

I appreciate your consideration and will respect whatever judgement the arbitration committee reach. Kind regards, – Olympian ^loquere 23:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Commenting re:ZaniGiovanni) Guerillero, Moneytrees, Wugapodes, and Barkeep49: Since our first encounter, ZaniGiovanni has tried to force me (and others) out of the topic-space by any means necessary, including numerous instances of verbal bullying^[b] to reporting me for WP:COPYVIO when I was a brand new editor who wasn't aware of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Now, he spins a fiction and bends the truth to try and take me down with him to ensure that I'm not active in the topic-space during his ban. The "edit warring" that he claims occurred on the Massacres of Azerbaijanis article was not so, I was removing and rewording copyrighted content that Nocturnal781 added – suffice to say, despite being an editor of 11+ years, they have a history of adding copyrighted content. – Olympian ^loquere 07:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero If I may, I'd like to comment on Shusha massacre for now since you've mentioned it – I did make two reverts [1], [2] per the following reasons: I didn't think restoring a reliably sourced estimate that was already discussed 4 months ago to be appropriately and academically sourced is going to be problematic, I shortly commented on the new talk discussion regarding the same academic source that was already proved to be reliable/appropriate for the article.

Now please keep in mind the above and take a look at the following which I want to highlight: recently user Olympian adds extraordinary estimate in the Death Toll section of the article [3], then when it was challenged and removed as misleading citing of the source, Olympian reverted and restored their own addition twice [4], [5]. This is clear edit-warring and WP:onus violation (which they're aware of when undoing others in a different article [6], [7]) as Olympian didn't have consensus for their edits and they were challenged by both editing and talk discussion.

I just wanted to give context to my recent restorations which were of status quo version and discussed on talk months prior, compared to another party's reverts in the same article – while I do not excuse my behavior and I should've done better even if the content I'm restoring had already been discussed 4 months prior (I should've stopped at first revert), there is still a major difference of revert context here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked once and warned twice for edit warring. The Sword of Damocles is hanging above you head with this case open. Yet you still edit war when you are supposed to be on your best behavior. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 09:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero Am I understanding correctly that it was still considered edit-warring even if I restored something that was discussed 4 months prior to be included in the article? If that's the case, I think I misunderstood policy and I apologize: my rationale was that unlike other reverts in the article (i.e Olympian’s for example) what I was restoring had already been discussed to be included long ago and it wasn’t disruptive to revert, but even given this context, I still made sure not to revert more than twice and commented on talk right after. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Commenting re:Olympian) There are several things to comment here: after Olympian added an extraordinary estimate no other source mentions even closely (in a Death Toll section – keep this in mind), it was reverted and restored twice in the same section by them [8], [9] despite being extremely misleading - which was pointed out to Olympian both on talk and edit-summary (the source quotes ex-Armenia president and it's for killed and expelled, not just killed). It was rightfully brought up on the talk page [10] and actually Olympian omitted their latest reply to Nocturnal781 which given the context of their misleading edit/reverts, sounds extremely condescending to accuse a good faith opposing editor of "stonewalling" when Olympian is very much in the wrong here and didn't have consensus to begin with (especially for someone who's well aware of WP:Onus when reverting other's edits). I commented myself making sure that Olympian's aware that the edit/reverts are indeed misleading and that there are others disagreeing with them [11], [12]. This is the whole context. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Commenting re:Olympian) @Guerillero:, @Moneytrees:, @Wugapodes:, @Barkeep49: I think it's important to note that Olympian has been edit-warring in another article during the Arbcom case [13], [14], prior to their Shushi massacre reverts, so it's not just an instance of "brief lapse of judgement. To give more context, even though it seems like at the end they eventually arrived to a conclusion with the opposing user [15], they were still edit-warring in the process as what they were reverting was far from vandalism. I think this now 2nd instance of them edit-warring during the Arbcom case shouldn't be ignored. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Commenting re:Olympian) @Guerillero, Moneytrees, Wugapodes, Cabayi, and Primefac: Olympian is/was not a 'brand new editor' and looks like they can't stop making assumptions about others [16], like they did literally days ago trying to get my comments removed from here and get me blocked.^[a] I was removing and rewording copyrighted content that Nocturnal781 added – suffice to say, despite being an editor of 11+ years, they have a history of adding copyrighted content. – yet not once Olympian even mentioned 'copyright' in their revert summaries [17], [18] or the talk page [19], They didn't even use 'copyright' as an argument for the reverts as you can see from the talk discussion. What they primarily used is WP:ONUS, which doesn't seem to bother them when they're on the other side of it [20], [21].

At the start of this case, an entire section was created for the Shushi massacre reverts of mine which I didn't object to, only tried to make sure that it was still considered edit-warring if I was restoring content discussed months prior to be included, and apologized if that's the case (see my comment on 19:19, 11 March 2023). Since I didn't receive a reply, I assume it was edit-warring, but so are the reverts of Olympian in Shushi massacre, and additionally in Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921) when they're reverting something citing ONUS, falsely claiming here they removed it on 'copyright' grounds when they don't mention copyright on talk or edit-summaries, all while edit-warring in the process as there was no 'obvious vandalism' in their reverts (my understanding of Arb comment on this talk). I don't think AA topic area would benefit from an editor such as Olympian – if edit-warring especially during an Arbcom case is a serious issue [22], then surely edit-warring in 2 different articles is even worse. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Commenting re:Olympian) I'm not as old of an editor as Olympian, but even I'm aware (and any competent editor in AA area should be) that you don't need to brake 3RR for it to be considered an edit-war – this is Wikipedia newbie edition. I asked clarification (19:19, 11 March 2023) if the 2 reverts I made which were discussed to be included 4 months prior would still constitute edit-warring (considering what I've restored was discussed long ago), and by lack of response, I assume even that is edit-warring, not to mention Olympians reverts in Shushi massacre (violating the same WP:ONUS they so like to mention when edit-warring elsewhere) which not only had no consensus, but had active editors opposing it both on talk and by editing. To be frank, Olympian's 'inexperience' defense here is absurd to me (especially considering they're an established editor at this point) and at best reads more like a WP:CIR than anything else. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Commenting re:Abrvagl) As someone who was editing/following the article at the time (and to Arbs who aren't aware of the context), I'd like to mention that Abrvagl linking a diff and saying an "uninvolved editor reverted the same edit" has nothing to do with them not only edit-warring, but braking 3RR in the article (all after their warning): [23], [24], [25], [26]. They actually reverted an uninvolved editor as you can see [27]. Similarly these diffs have nothing to do with "preventing disruption" as Abrvagl claims. There are several other diffs of Abrvagl edit-warring in different articles even after their warning and them still not recognizing the edit-wars is concerning to say the least. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Commenting re:Abrvagl) I'm not sure why a Reddit post from 2 years ago is being linked here which demonstrates no relation to any of the parties (who is 'VirtualAni'), and on which Abrvagl incompetently bases assertions such as If you check Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921) article for which Olympian was reported, you will find the exact same Reddit tactics were used in order to get rid of that article and its contents. I previously mentioned some examples of that in the Workshop. – what 'Reddit tactics' and how is that Reddit post related to any of the parties here? Is it exclusive to social media to say someone is a genocide denier when countries like Turkey and Azerbaijan are openly denying the genocide and there are notorious deniers such as Justin Mccarthy, Stanford Shaw, etc? Hence when someone adds a genocide denier to a sensitive topic, and of potential conflict of interest, it requires attention, this isn't exclusive to any social media or anybody, it's the nature of this area of the world (and I'm sure elsewhere too). And I don't know about others but I don't own a Reddit account; I occasionally lurk in some subreddits as I noticed alot of canvassing posts but other than that, I don't use it – so I'm flabergasted by Abrvagl's comment: why is Abrvagl allowed to make these 'if someone says genocide denier, then it's a Reddit tactic' allegations based on nothing of substance?

Sources, unrelated to the Armenian genocide, published by well-established reliable scholarship, which are fact-checked and peer reviewed, should not be automatically considered unreliable for articles unrelated to the Armenian genocide just because the author has once said something vaguely denialist at one point in their life. – Completely misleading statement omitting important details: I'd say this alone disqualifies Abrvagl from making any further comments here (along with the above) as they're being intentionally deceiving, and here's why: just recently there was a discussion about Hasanli – in the article Abrvagl repeatedly mentions and they participated as well, please see the quote from an Azerbaijani newspaper that was also shown on the discussion:

• "Chairman of the National Council, historian professor Jamil Hasanli prepared an extensive article proving with evidence how the claim of "Armenian genocide" is fake. We present the article he sent to "Azadlig" newspaper in parts. The parts are numbered and the newest part is placed last."[28]

The sheer amount of detail omission in Abrvagl's statement just tells it all about this user; what they consider as "vaguely denialist" is the same author who literally sent articles to a newspaper to 'prove' the 'claim' of Armenian genocide is 'fake'. All of this was on the talk discussion Abrvagl participated in and they keep referencing the article so they're well aware of the quote above and Hasanli's denialist 'extensive article' to prove the genocide is 'fake', and Abrvagl should be competent enough to understand that such person cannot be used to make contentious claims about Armenia/Armenians. Yet they're on this talk discussion, coming here mentioning the wiki article and referencing the same author without even providing very crucial context, minimizing the author's open denialist stance as "said something vaguely denialist at one point", then arguing it can be used to make claims about Armenia (especially contentious claims in this case) as "the article wasn't related to the genocide" just shows how incompetent this user is: it's like if I said the claims of a Holocaust denier (especially contentious claims) about Jews are completely fine as the article they've referenced in "isn't about the Holocaust". Do you SEE the underlying problem here?

I urge the Arbs/Clerks @Guerillero, Moneytrees, Wugapodes, and Barkeep49: to please take great deal of consideration when considering allowing such incompetent and intentionally deceiving comments again on this talk page. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees: Regarding this: On the other hand, there was some evidence I found compelling regarding editors who are not parties to this case or who have already been blocked; any further concerns with that behavior can be addressed separately from this case. – May I ask why not in this case and was it the evidence I sent? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ZaniGiovanni I can't really give a clear answer for beans and outting reasons, but you can compare what I said to what users including you submitted. Adding additional parties mentioned in the evidence was decided against upon discussion among the drafting arbs. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(to “The status of the Armenian genocide is in dispute: Armenian genocide recognition; Armenian genocide denial, and the UK government's position is that "the evidence is not sufficiently unequivocal", so the "genocide denialist" tag is not quite as serious as it might appear” )

It is devastating to see an admin and Arbcom member disputing the factuality of Armenian Genocide, despite it being one of the most well researched and documented genocides of 20th century. It is not a secret that UK government is good buddies with Turkey, and avoids putting genocide recognition in its agenda purely for political purposes rather than disputing it [29]. The countries ACTIVELY denying Armenian Genocide are Turkey (who did it), Azerbaijan (who thinks of itself as one nation with Turkey) and Pakistan (as solidarity). Bringing the negative record of the Torries-dominated UK as an example to dispute Armenian genocide, despite an overwhelming academic consensus that what happened was a genocide, despite the bulk of the developed countries (including US) having recognised it as genocide, is simply appalling. Iran doesn’t recognise Holocaust but it doesn’t make Holocaust “disputed”. Moreover, this is Wikipedia - as far as I know, Armenian genocide (or any other for that matter) isn't 'disputed' based on what the UK gov or any other gov position is - Wikipedia is written based on majority reliable sources and WP:Due weight (not a couple of undue WP:Fringe academics). ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make a statement saying I disputed it. I made a statement saying that it is disputed. If there are two sides in a dispute, they tend to disagree. When looking into conduct disputes we tend to look at behaviour not take sides in a dispute. However, I realise I have made an error as I misread the article he was writing, so I will strike what I wrote and look again more carefully. Thanks for highlighting this. SilkTork (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to comment on this any further than I already did as it's extremely disturbing to me that there's still apparently a "dispute" over an issue which is really a no-brainer for the overwhelming majority of reliable sources and academic consensus – which is what Wikipedia concerns itself to begin with. But SilkTork's continued statements leave me no choice but to comment, unfortunately.

Firstly I just want to ask a simple question (regarding these [30], [31]): given that the Armenian Genocide article is featured, and present the Armenian genocide as uncontroversial, are you questioning Wikipedia article featuring processes?

Regarding your most recent comment: what you’re suggesting is against WP:NOPLATFORM and you’re opening a Pandora box by wanting to allow genocide denialist sources to be used in Wikipedia. Your enthusiasm for finding denialists like Doğu Perinçek to make Armenian genocide look like “a matter of political debate” is highly disturbing to me. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More out of curiosity than disagreement, but on 7.2, while the second warning in that particular case isn't probably what I would have done, is that FoF to say that there is no case in which escalation from an informal warning (which I gave in the first instance) to a formal logged one as given in the second, would be appropriate? If so, is there any use to the informal warning option being available at all? The current contentious topics state that warnings may (but not must) be logged, but if that's the case, it might make more sense to require all warnings be formal, logged ones. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: The "informal warning, formal warning, sanction" progression is a recent phenomenon AE and is, in my opinion, worse for topic areas than the old "warning, sanction" one. I just don't see any evidence that escalating to a logged warning after having an AE thread closed warning the same user changes behavior. As far as I can see, it just means more person hours of work is required to remove a tenacious editor from a topic area. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 09:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dennis Brown stated it well. An unlogged warning is just a "Hey, you didn't at this time do anything meriting sanctions, but you ought to take more care here." A logged warning, on the other hand, is "Last chance—any more trouble out of you, and sanctions will follow." (Hence why the logging—that way, an admin considering future enforcement will see it when they search for any prior sanctions.) Now, of course, that doesn't mean we should always, or even often, follow "unlogged->logged->sanction"; some editors are disruptive enough to merit immediate sanctions without going through any warnings at all. But I generally think any of those tools should be at least in the toolbox; often just a word of advice is enough to get someone to cool it and nothing harsher than that is needed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, re: your comment "if a user has been previously warned twice at AE, then a third valid appearance at AE automatically results in a TB.", I would respectfully disagree. I've worked AE a great deal, and the regular editors can be quite good at gaming the system, to get warnings stacked, and do so in a way that is hard to detect since it is different admin patrolling each time. I'm one of those that tries to warn rather than tban when possible at AE, so I feel the rule ideas above by Wugapodes is directed at admins like myself. This makes sense, as I do tend to be careful (perhaps too much so) not to overstep the authority on borderline cases. When you are acting as admin, on behalf of Arb, you don't want to overreach, but a more clear rule is helpful, but only if it is flexible. A bright-line rule would actually remove discression rather than empower admin to use good judgement and simply be more proactive, and aggressive, in applying the Arb remedies at AE. Bright-line rules aren't effective except in simple behavioral cases like edit warring, but AE cases are rarely simple by their very nature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement Dennis that a bright line rule can be inflexible, though I'm doubtful that an ArbCom "encourage" or "recommend" or "suggest" achieves much. Historically such gesturing has been ignored, or comes to nothing, and I have rarely (ever?) supported such remedies. I'm not convinced that it is ArbCom's place to encourage, recommend or suggest, and I'm reluctant to be part of taking ArbCom down that route. We are all equal on Wikipedia, and such "suggestions" come over as a bit patronising. For me, what the community allow ArbCom to do is make binding decisions in order to bring an end to or prevent disruption. An "encourage" is not a binding decision, it's a vague gesture.

I'm somewhat keener on the Vexatious Complainant notion, as that, I hope, will prevent the gaming you mention, and I will work on that today.

However, I think it is also worth looking at Guerillero's proposal, though more in terms of providing some solid assistance to AE admins than just an encouragement. The notion that "users who do not heed warnings or who engage in sustained, low-level misconduct should be sanctioned rather than re-warned" is sound. It's just a question of getting that worded in way that gives AE admins some teeth, but also allows them some discretion and judgement. SilkTork (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis (or any AE admin), could you give me an example of where a user who has received two warnings for misconduct in the AA area, and has been brought to AA for a third time, and is found to again have been disruptive should NOT be sanctioned but merely given a third warning? Are we talking about someone who has been warned for edit warring, then warned for personal attacks, and is now being considered for tendentious behaviour, so an admin may feel these are separate infringements? SilkTork (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork: That would require a lot of homework, to be honest, but your question kind of answers itself. I'm betting there are some that were not sanctioned after 2 warnings because it stretched over years. But lets assume you are correct, and there never has been someone who has been warned more than twice without sanction... then this rule is superflous bureacracy, unnecessary. I think encouraging admin to be more aggressive in applying sanction has some value, but a hard rule brings problems that ignores the circumstances. Plus the hard rule doesn't have time limits, so someone who was warned twice, 10 years ago, would be forced to be sanctioned for a thin report today. AE areas breed highly resourceful combatants, and this could make it "profitable" to game the system. It's a matter of "must" versus "should" I think, but more importantly, I just think enouraging admin to swing the hammer a bit more is more useful than a hard rule. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something we often overlook is how much of a group effort the PD is. The proposal in question started with a workshop proposal from Callanecc, I work shopped it a bit and posted it on arbwiki in my draft of the PD, it got edits from another drafting arb, and feedback from a third arb (who isn't a drafter) which caused another round of edits. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, which is why I wanted to comment before that newest idea got traction, there are some fundamental issues with creating bright-line rules. Even 3RR isn't enforced evenly, although it is usually done fairly, taking the (typically simple) circumstances into account. AE is already much more rigid than general admin work, so bright-line rules can have unintended consequences, due to the issues involved typically being much more complicated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Callanecc, I can only speak for myself, but when working AE, I issue logged and unlogged warnings very differently. An unlogged warning (to me) is just a standard admin warning with no AE consequences. A logged warning (to me) is a type of sanction, not just words, and is logged so it can be tracked like any other AE sanction. While it puts no limitations on the editor, it is a line in the sand, and empowers the next admin who sees the same problem to take strong action if they choose, even if it is a borderline offense that might otherwise only merit a warning (logged or not). Whether I log a warning or not isn't a matter of being in a hurry or being lazy, it is purposeful. So I agree, the two types of warnings are very different, at least in my eyes. Still, if Arb wants to "encourage", I actually take that as permission to be more aggressive. Not a requirment, but permission, in the form of a request. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Commenting re:Olympian)

As a collaborator with Olympian on a joint article rewrite, I am very surprised by the proposal to impose the same level of sanctions on him as on some of the other parties. Olympian has no history of sanctions except for one logged warning which he has not violated. To my knowledge, he has been active in this topic area much less than any other party in this case and has already written two excellent good articles with two more nominations likely to be picked up. Olympian is one of the most level-headed, courteous and cooperative editors I have encountered in this topic area. While I understand that my opinion may carry little weight given that I'm also a party, I strongly urge the arbitrators to reconsider imposing a full topic ban on Olympian, especially one that can only be appealed after 12 months. His acceptance of his mistakes and assurances in this thread should be taken into account and he should be given a chance. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 14:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a clarifying point, does All parties to this case not already topic banned are placed on indefinite probation refer to all parties who were not topic banned at the time the case started, all parties who were not topic banned upon the case's conclusion, or all parties who have never received a topic ban (in the AA2 area)? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

App parties not topic banned at the case's conclusion Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in my comment at the workshop, the dispute resolution in this topic area is often ineffective due to the lack of involvement from the wider Wikipedia community. Requests to various boards often remain unanswered. I understand that people cannot be forced to get involved against their will, and they have no obligation to. But is there anything that the arbitration committee could possibly recommend to solve the problem? I think it is important to get the disputes timely resolved to prevent them from escalating to edit wars. Grandmaster 09:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no history of any sanctions for edit warring in the last 16 years. The topic ban that I had was for a different thing. It was a mistake on my part, and I promised to be more diligent with sources. My question is, why should this be an indefinite probation for me? Maybe a certain time limit should be set? Grandmaster 09:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would also be good to discourage baseless reporting. Some users report others over minor issues in hopes of getting them sanctioned. Frivolous reporting should be discouraged, and those filing baseless reports be warned or sanctioned themselves if warnings are not heeded. Grandmaster 17:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Armenian genocide, I don't think that a source could be dismissed from any use on Wikipedia because of its opinion on this issue. Like the example that Abrvagl cited. If France24 found someone to be authoritative enough to quote his opinion on the OSCE Minsk Group, why should this person be dismissed as an expert on this topic over the opinion he has on the genocide? After all, the Minsk Group has nothing to do with the genocide, and if a person is an expert in a certain field and is quoted by mainstream international media, I think he could be used to reference that particular topic, and not the genocide. In general, is there any rule that allows a source to be dismissed from any use on every topic in Wikipedia over its opinion on the Armenian genocide, or any other particular issue? Grandmaster 21:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero; @Wugapodes; @Beeblebrox; @Izno; @Primefac

Greetings all,

I was only warned once, around two years ago, in the early days of my editing journey, and I've done my best not to repeat the same mistake since then. The two cases mentioned below as additional edit warring were really cases of me halting disruptive editing. For example, in the September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes page, I reverted a disruptive edit made repeatedly by another editor despite of ongoing discussions. On the same day, an uninvolved editor reverted the same edit, noting, No opinion on the merits, but this version of the lead is confusing and a stylistic catastrophe;". In Anti-Armenian sentiment I was removing contentious and poorly sourced BLP material, which another editor reinstated without even engaging in discussion. Preventing disruption and removing poorly sourced BLP material can not be considered as edit warring, and neither I breached 3R rule.

In a nutshell, the grounds for indefinitely Tbaning me remain a mystery to me, and I would like an explanation as to why I am being sanctioned with an immediate and indefinite T-ban in line with the editors who have shown consistent problematic behaviour. I think I should be provided with an explanation because how can I improve if I don't know why I'm being sanctioned? Thanks! A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 18:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abrvagl: To be clear, the warning you acknowledge receiving states Abrvagl is warned for slow-motion edit warring... so you should already be aware that you can be sanctioned for edit-warring even if you don't violate the 3RR. You are also plainly incorrect that the person you were reverting did not engage in discussion: you pinged Dallavid on the talk page and then 4 hours later Dallavid replied citing BLPCRIME specifically and adding a new source, but despite this you continued reverting. You rely on the BLP exemption to the edit warring policy, but even that exemption says What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. Instead of following that advice, you kept reverting sourced claims about a verifiable criminal conviction. As for the September 2022 Armenia-Azerbaijan clashes page, your explanation omits that the "disruptive edit" was the addition of multiple sources by Dallavid, and you omit that your first edits to the page were to jump in and start reverting opponents. Was Dallavid also edit warring? Probably, but "reverting edit warring" isn't an exception to the edit warring policy, and the only exception for reverting disruption is obvious vandalism (emphasis in the policy). Adding citations to sources and changing the wording of the lead is not even close to obvious vandalism. If you want to improve, stop testing the edges of what is or isn't allowed and stop using the revert button. That said, our goal at this point is not to help you improve, our goal is to stop this behavior. If you wish to continue improving, there are other topics where you can learn and demonstrate your reform. — Wug·a·po·des 20:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been through the edits on September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes. At the time this was a new article on an emerging situation. There was an attempt by editors, as indicated by the talkpage, to make the article balanced and neutral. The editor User:Dallavid, wanted the lead sentence to say that Azerbaijan had attacked Armenia rather than there were clashes between the two forces. Dallavid changed the lead on 14 Sept [32] - this was undone by User:Viewsridge [33]; on 15 Sept Dallavid again changes the lead [34] - this was undone by Abrvagl with a note to look at the talkpage [35] - that was reverted by User:UserXpetVarpet - [36] - who was reverted by User:Sandstein - [37]. The lead sentence then remained stable until 19 Sept when Dallavid again changed it back [38], and was promptly reverted by Viewsridge [39], Dallavid reverts back [40], and on 20 Sept Abrvagl makes their second revert [41]. On 17 Oct Dallavid reverts again [42] - this time it is User:Brandmeister who undoes the revert [43].

So we have multiple editors with a different point of view attempting to resolve the matter not by discussion, but by reverting each other. It doesn't matter who is "right", what matters is finding an agreeable solution - and that can never be found by edit warring (edit warring is reverting the edit(s) of another user - which is clearly what happened here). I agree with Wugapodes' analyses and summery of the situation. It is up to you now, Abrvagl, to reflect on what has been said to you, and in your editing on Wikipedia in future to avoid using the revert button. Don't act just to assert your own view, discuss with an aim to finding consensus. It's longer and harder, yes, but more beneficial to the encyclopedia and more rewarding for you when you find that lasting solution. SilkTork (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes, @SilkTork,

You are also plainly incorrect that the person you were reverting did not engage in discussion.. - The source which was added was no better than the previous one, hence there remained a BLP issue, and I had no choice but to remove it per Wikipedia protocol. Adding questionable sources and restoring the BLP issue without asking if that source is acceptable can barely be called an "engagement." There was a long discussion after that, in which, I proved that all provided sources are questionable and cannot be used for BLP. Dallavid was pinged several times during that and never replied. I also filed a report to the BLP noticeboard which also confirmed my concerns.

Adding citations to sources and changing the wording of the lead is not even close to obvious vandalism - Well, this is a case where the context matters. Just changing the wording of the lead while adding sources is obviously not disruptive. However, repeatedly replacing lead with OR/SYNTH and poorly written material, which also violates WP:NPOV, while knowing that other editors are opposing you and without reaching a consensus, is simply disruptive. For instance, look at the very first sentence, already containing original research and synthesis ([44]). That sentence cited to 8 sources, none of which supports this part: it had occupied certain areas of its territory along the Armenia–Azerbaijan border, which were later confirmed by satellite images made by NASA.

SilkTork, I absolutely agree that we need to discuss with an aim to finding consensus, and I know that reverts won't bring us anywhere, yet, I didn't revert that edit attempting to resolve the matter not by discussion. In fact, I was actively engaged to the talk-page discussions, which were ongoing when Dallavid decided to restore his edit. I reluctantly reverted the edit solely due to the fact that the edit violated a number of Wikipedia policies, otherwise, I wouldn't have reverted at all. I did it because I believe it to be the responsibility of editors to ensure the quality of Wikipedia due to its wide usage as a source of information, and the importance of it not to propagate inaccuracies and original research, particularly in contentious articles about ongoing events. It's important to note that in order to avoid edit-warring with Dallavid, who kept reinstating their edit without reaching a consensus, I submitted an AE report to get an admin's intervention on edit-warring and tendencious editing; sadly, the AE report was not addressed ([45]).

I would appreciate any different type of sanction, since I honestly believe that editors who have only none or 1 warning and editors who have 4-5 warnings and sanctions do not merit the same outcome in this case. Thanks for yor time and have a wonderful day! A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 08:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do empathise with your situation Abrvagl, and understand your frustration. It appears to me that you are well intentioned, and looking to make the September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes article neutral, and that the revert you made was the same revert that an admin made, and - as you point out - you asked for assistance, twice, and were ignored. Given a different set of circumstances you would not be here facing a topic ban. If you had been editing a less contentious article, if the AE admins had not grown tired of this particular topic area, if you had not been given a prior warning, etc, etc. You were in the wrong place, at the wrong time, doing the wrong thing. Not a huge wrong thing. As I indicate above, you were one of several who reverted the same edit, and of those who reverted Dallavid's edit in that article, you are the only one who is facing a topic ban. But this is the nature of an ArbCom case on complex disputes. We tend to bring in those who are currently arguing the most, and topic ban the whole bunch. It's unlucky for those who get caught in the net, and they feel rightly aggrieved. But it does have the effect of stopping the disruption, and of easing the burden on those volunteers who dedicate their time, thanklessly and unpleasantly, on sorting out the squabbles on contentious topics. Take this as a lesson moving forward on Wikipedia - make sure every edit you do complies with our guidelines and policies, and that you even leave yourself a little buffer space to make sure you cannot be seen to infringe even the slightest. If you step aside for a moment and look on this as a neutral observer, you might yourself say that it is somewhat inappropriate for someone who is reverting to be complaining at AE about someone else who is reverting, indeed, even worse, they are complaining about the very person they are reverting. "Hey, I reverted User:X, and he reverted me back. I'm right, he's wrong - punish him!". And before you rush to your defence and say things like - "Well he started it" or "He reverted more than me" or "His edit was wrong, mine was right", just picture a parent or teacher faced with two squabbling kids who both say "He started it", and the teacher/parent using the classic phrase "I don't care who started it, you're both going to be punished". AE and ArbCom are not about sorting out who was right or wrong - we are about stopping the disruption so we can get back to producing the encyclopedia. So - accept now that you did in fact revert twice the same material (which is edit warring) and that you did that after you got a warning for edit warring. As far as this case is concerned, nothing else matters. You've been caught, you did something wrong, and now you face the consequences. It doesn't matter that it was only a little wrong, or that you thought you were right, or that passing by admins did the same thing. You got caught. It's like a random car crash - you were on the wrong road at the wrong time and (just like everybody else) going at the wrong speed, but you were the one with a previous warning for speeding. So you lose your license. If you only learn one thing from this case, let it be: Don't revert! SilkTork (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, I want to thank you for your thorough explanation; it was quite helpful. Thank you very much for that.

it is somewhat inappropriate for someone who is reverting to be complaining at AE about someone else who is reverting - I can understand how that seems from aside. However, my choice to make an AE report was not made on the spur of the moment. That was a weighted decision, and I only filed an AE complaint since Dallavid continued to exhibit identical behavior across a number of publications. God sees that I tried my best, and that I followed and ensured Wikipedia policies at all times.

Anyhow... It appears to me that my sanction is intended to act as a deterrent through punishment. Nonetheless, I can see that ArbCom's decision was made for the good, so I'll leave it to them and refrain from making any additional remarks about TBan. I can only hope that the measures put in place would be effective in bringing peace to the AA area. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 15:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, @Moneytrees, I have provided clear and direct evidence that an editor (named in the email) was recently actively involved in canvassing through Reddit, which directly affected 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh article. Currently, 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh's article name is a clear violation of WP:NPOV/WP:POVNAMING policies owing to the canvassing. I've also presented incontrovertible evidence linking the Reddit user and the Wikipedia editor. However, I didn't receive confirmation that the second email had been received; is there any way that it was missed? Additionally, I did not provide the complete evidence connecting the Reddit user to Wikipedia Editor, I have more to provide if what I sent was unconvincing. One thing is true though: the Wikipedia editor is not a member of this AA3 case, but I anticipated that at least issues raised by the canvassing would be addressed. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 07:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that we got the email. It doesn't appear to have made it onto a summary doc I had used when reviewing the off-wiki evidence and so I will take another look at it to see if further modification of that FoF is necessary. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Just FYI, I sent two emails, one on "Thu, Jan 26, 7:39 PM", and second on "Thu, Feb 9, 7:20 PM". My Wikipedia grammar is not yet perfect, so I not sure what FoF means, but one thing I know for sure - there was off Wiki canvassing, and it was done by Wikipedia editor and evidences of that are literally undeniable. It is understandable that it is time consuming to read long emails containing number of points, so to make it easier I summarized all of the evidences regarding the 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh article and sent them in separate email (Mar 13, 2023, 11:47 PM). A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, Hello, is there any update so far? I can see that closing vote is ongoing, yet this issue still not addressed. Shall I take it to other place instead? Thanks! A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abrvagl the issue here is that the most egregious conduct wasn't about editors who were parties to the case and for a number of reasons they weren't added as parties (it actually was in the summary doc but this is why I had originally said it wasn't). This made the evidence out of scope in the end. I think there is some possibility, as things are happening, for this to be reported and addressed in the future. We've also gotten some new allegations this week, but I have not had a chance to explore them, don't know that I will absent a need for me to do so based on comments from other arbs. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning and it makes sense, however I feel that evident damage caused by off-wiki canvassing should be rectified right away. 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh article name should be changed from POV one to the common name as per Wikipedia policies, until and if new RfC will determine new title. We should not just let the POV title, which directly violates Wikipedia policies, to stand and cause even more damage than it's already caused. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to this

@SilkTork, I already mentioned in the Workshop that the genocide denial argument against sources is frequently abused. It’s used to remove any content from any article, even if the content is completely unrelated to the alleged denialism of the genocide. It is abused to the extent that Reddit users, the same users who regularly share Reddit posts to hire new Wikipedia editors to fight "Azeri propoganda", openly share instructions on how to dismiss every source in the article in order to successfully delete it afterwards. I will just quote part of the instructions, and also here are the print screen/link. (print screen; link).

...An easy way to dismiss Azeri sources (make them non-RS) is to find the inevitable AG denial or anti-Armenian racist statements within them - find them and that source will be automatically excluded as being not a reliable source. If the article itself does not contain them - the author's other works or the media (be it website, newspaper, or pseudo-academic publisher) that publishes them surely will. It all just requires work, and an understanding that complaining alone will lead nowhere. Wikipedia, like most cults, gives great importance to process and hierarchy.

and

You first annihilate its "sources", then fact tag the content that used those "sources", then, after 2 weeks, delete that tagged content as unsourced (that reasoning must be in your edit summary). By this you reduce its content to a rump, and then you tag the article for deletion as not notable / unsourced, with any remaining content to be merged into "Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia". AfD reasoning will need to include an argument that "Gugark pogrom" does not exist as an academic term.

If you check Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921) article for which Olympian was reported, you will find the exact same Reddit tactics were used in order to get rid of that article and its contents. I previously mentioned some examples of that in the Workshop.

This has become a serious issue that needs addressing by the arbitrators. For example, properly attributed content referencing France 24 and one that was unrelated to the Armenian Genocide was deleted with the rationale that Billion, who was quoted in the article, "is a genocide denier" ([46]). How can the genocide denier argument be used to remove attributed statement of an author published by a reliable source that wasn't even related to the genocide?

That is not all, this argument is also often used to label editors. The sources for which Olympian was reported and warned were not obvious genocide deniers; most of them were discovered only because some users, who were determined to delete the content of the Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921) article, were specifically looking for anything that could be used to label authors as genocide deniers so that they could be removed from the article. And this eventually lead to Olympian being log warned for using denialist sources despite the fact that he removed those sources immediately after they were pointed out to be denialist and despite of the fact that article wasn't even about the genocide.

Sources, unrelated to the Armenian genocide, published by well-established reliable scholarship, which are fact-checked and peer reviewed, should not be automatically considered unreliable for articles unrelated to the Armenian genocide just because the author has once said something vaguely denialist at one point in their life. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being AWOL for much of this case. But it's good to know that, in terms of outlining longstanding aspects, my absence wasn't that important. In terms of outlining events immediately preceding the launching of this case, as noted in #December 2022 Arbitration Enforcement request — Guerillero's summary is good, SilkTork's is very good. El_C 00:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had gone into this in some detail in Workshop, but I will elaborate further here. Concerning my first partial block on the September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes article, there is no mention that there other user was also blocked. And another thing that this case doesn't really acknowledge is, that I had been aware of the edit warring rules and took every precaution to prevent an edit war. When Viewsridge had reverted me on 14 September 2023, claiming my sources were "second party" even though they weren't, rather than revert them right away, I created a talk page discussion asking Viewsridge to clarify. Viewsridge claimed they were opinion articles, and stopped replying after I pointed out they weren't. And It was only after another discussion was opened where other users voiced the same concerns I had and also disagreed with Viewsridge that I made changes to the article to enact this consensus (the edit was different from my earlier edit and not a real revert), several days later. Viewsridge reverted me instantly and I reverted them back (my only edit of the day), asking Viewsridge to please join the talk page discussion that they hadn't replied to for days. Viewsridge, who would never comment on the article talk page again, instead dropped the edit warring warning template on my talk page and then made the 3RR noticeboard report against me in the span of 10 minutes. I had made no edits in the meantime, isn't this gaming the warning system? In retrospect, it seemed that Viewsridge believed the article belonged to them because they created it. As one can read in the 3RR archive, I had again pointed out to Viewsridge that there was a talk page consensus of multiple users that disagreed with them and asked them once again to participate in the talk page. Afterward, Daniel Case partially blocked us both for 72 hours "so as to work things out on the talk page". Although I disagreed with the block for the reasons I am explaining now, the block seemed too short to be worth appealing. Consequently, Viewsridge never never commented on the talk page again, and this incident has continued to be referenced out of context to show that I have an "edit warring history" despite that I had done everything I could to prevent edit warring. What exactly should I have done differently?

The other incident listed in my sanction history, the edit warring on 15 October 2022 by Seraphimblade, is also lacking context. The warning was also given to Kheo17, whom I had made the AE report for. Kheo17 had been adding a source, which literally claimed "Armenia is Western Azerbaijan" in the title, to multiple articles. I had reverted them only one time on each article they had added the source to, and had left Kheo17 a talk page message clearly explaining why this source was extremely WP:UNDUE. Kheo17 ignored what I said and reverted several of my reverts; Kheo17 was in turn reverted by another user, I didn't revert them again. I did, however, make the AE report against Kheo17 next. I don't make AE reports lightly, I have generally only done so if a user does something particularly bad repeatedly and after being warned of why it's bad. Using a source that claims in the very title that all of Armenia belongs to Azerbaijan seemed to border on vandalism and showed a lack of the WP:COMPETENCE required to edit the site, especially after a warning, so AE seemed to have been the next appropriate step.

This is my entire "edit warring history" up until Callanecc's warning. Do you still believe that Callanecc had made an error by giving me the warning instead of sanctions? Does this really seem like the kind of behavior that deserves a topic ban, when I had in each case done exactly what the guidelines had required that I do? If I am being considered for a topic ban that cannot be appealed for a whole year, in spite of both Callanecc's judgement and the fact I have had no editing issues since, this feels like a double jeopardy. I have worked to successfully promote an Armenia-Azerbaijan area article to Good Article throughout this whole case, and do not think I should be lumped into "bad actors".

I have done my best to be mindful of rules from beginning and to abide by them. At the same time I have had to encounter editors pushing genocide denial, hoaxes, and other historical negationisms. I have had to deal with other users personally attacking me and canvassing in discussions I opened. Maybe this is all something that comes with editing in Armenia-Azerbaijan areas as a whole, which above "Arbitration Discussion (Motion to open Armenia-Azerbaijan 3)" discussion seems to be arriving at the conclusion, since so many editors have inevitably been banned eventually yet issues keep occurring. If something as minor and justifiable as reporting another user for using a book literally titled “Armenia is Western Azerbaijan” is going to be lumped into “edit warring history” for me, than it seems inevitable that editing in AA2 will result in sanctions down the road, which I do not think is fair.

I disagree with the statement "neither Grandmaster not Golden have engaged in additional misconduct", given that Grandmaster had continued to use tabloid/blog sources similar to what led to their ban, as I posted in Evidence (and of course Golden is still banned and hasn't been editing AA topics). If we are reviewing the entire history of users, why is there not a sanction history for Grandmaster when their misconduct history goes back over a decade?. When Grandmaster appealed their topic ban, Rosguill had expressed concern that Grandmaster still had an opportunistic battleground mentality despite editing for over a decade. Dennis Brown's comment about editors who have a lot of experience in gaming the system seems to apply to Grandmaster.

Regarding what Abrvagl had said to SilkTork about the further disputes on September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes, what Abrvagl didn't mention is that there had been a strong consensus for the edits I had made in the Undue weight and False balance discussions for a month, which Abrvagl had not replied to during that time (WP:SILENCE). Abrvagl's first reaction to this was, rather than finally respond in the talk page, to instead create a witch hunt AE request against me. Several users that participated in the talk page consensus had debunked the false narrative of the dispute Abrvagl created, and the AE request went ignored and archived like the nonsense it was. Interestingly, the only user that commented in support for Abrvagl's accusations was Olympian, who has never commented on the article's talk page. I still wonder what could've led Olympian to the AE request and if it was possible canvassing.

Also about the discussion of Olympian and edit warring, I had wanted to point out that after the AFD for Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia in 1917–1921 was closed with the decision that the article may still be salvageable but had massive issues that needed addressing, I had gone through and removed the contentious parts, but Olympian had reverted me and another user even though the ONUS was on them.[47][48][49]

This whole case kind of caught me off guard, I wasn’t aware of it until after it had begun and I was also confused about the purpose of it, but it had been my impression that (and I believe it was Callanec or Seraphimblade who said this but I cannot recall where) that the purpose of this case was to find a solution other than topic banning because that has repeatedly failed to provide a lasting solution. After reading the above "Badness of Areas" discussion between Robert McClenon and SilkTork about why Armenia-Azerbaijan has been a problematic editing area, I have my own theory and possible remedy. I think this is because of a lack of clear stances in many Western/Anglosphere sources, which Wikipedia primarily turns to for a due weight, that makes it unclear what should be written on Wikipedia. Many western sources often portray a false balance of the conflict.[50][51] An example of this is the 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh, where "environmental activists" is put in scare quotes to show how dubious that is according to many sources, yet Azerbaijan is not listed instead because many western sources will ignore obvious truths so as to not "take sides". This is what the editing conflict on the September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes mainly revolved around; most western sources actually had named Azerbaijan as the aggressor, but some users wanted to keep that vague in order to keep the lead "neutral" despite that being clearly undue. Some influential figures may make statements influenced by Caviar diplomacy and the Azerbaijani laundromat, and while there are usually other sources that call these out, the majority of third-party sources are usually indifferent. There also may be topics, such as Armenian genocide denial and Caucasian Albania revisionist theories for example, which although are largely discredited in third-party sources, still often manage to find western sponsors through bribery. These revisionisms are often done by sources such as fringe academics who are not well known and may not have been discredited because of that, which provides a loophole for them to be pushed as reliable just by being academic sources (WP:TIERS). A possible solution I thought of was, perhaps there could be a dispute resolution team, made up of users with no conflict of interest, that is specifically dedicated to Armenia-Azerbaijan areas. This could help resolve issues more quickly with a lot less back-and-forth discussion that ultimately lead no where. Maybe this wouldn't work in practice, but I thought it was worth suggesting. Dallavid (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that Dallavid. It is useful to get the views and rationale from a party in a dispute. It can be difficult to get agreement on what information to put into an article, and which sources to use. However, discussion to reach agreement goes on all the time - it is a standard part of Wikipedia editing, and is what the talkpage is for (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). Where there are problems is when people get too heated to enter into such discussions in good faith, and instead resort to reverts or edit warring in order to push their own view. It is NEVER acceptable to use the revert button when involved in a dispute. Always continue to use the talkpage. It is time consuming and wearying, yes, but that is how the Wikipedia model works. And when using the talkpage, we shouldn't use it simply to assert our own view or opinion, we should use it to reach consensus on how to progress. This usually works, but when people have a vested interest or COI in a topic then they are often emotionally and philosophically compromised, and find it difficult to be impartial. We have a considerable focus on Wikipedia on financial COI, though in my observations it is the emotional and philosophical COI that is the bigger devil to deal with and creates the biggest problems and clashes. Topics which involve real life political, religious and ethnic clashes tend to be those where editors end up at ArbCom. One solution to the problem would be to prohibit people with an emotional and philosophical COI from editing those areas where they have the conflict. So, for example, nobody associated with Armenia or Azerbaijan should edit that topic area - only truly neutral editors should work in that topic area. But that is entirely unworkable and inappropriate. That is not the Wiki way. The Wiki way is more reasonable and appropriate. It is that anyone can edit in the topic area, and if they are having a disagreement they talk it through on the talkpage until they reach a compromise or consensus. If the talks are not making progress they ask for a third opinion or a RfC. As a last resort, and only if someone is behaving inappropriately, such as reverting, the situation can be brought to the attention of admins who will, if necessary, sanction those who have not been following the appropriate procedures. The procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The community, who are very familiar with disputes, such as those in this topic area, have spent years developing and refining these procedures. They do work if followed. The end result of not following these procedures is an ArbCom case which almost inevitably means that those who have been reverting and disrupting the fair progress of articles get sanctions that will prevent them continuing their disruptive edits. You are one of the editors who has been identified as reverting. In the discussion above where I examined the opening sentence edits in September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes, I noted that you reverted more than anyone else. You reverted five times against four different editors - that's not acceptable. What else could you have done? Well, you could have worked with Abrvagl to reach a compromise. You had reliable sources which say that Azerbaijan had attacked Armenia, while Abrvagl had reliable sources that say there were clashes between the two forces. So, you propose that you include both pieces of information. Example: "On 12 September 2022, there was a major escalation in the current border crisis between Armenia–Azerbaijan, with what some sources called a series of clashes between Armenian and Azerbaijani troops along the Armenia–Azerbaijan border, while other sources called it an Azerbaijan attack on Armenian positions." And then fine tune it until both of you are satisfied. The result is a much more informative, detailed, and neutral article. Essentially, it is about stopping asserting and arguing, and instead working together to reach a compromise. Personally, I feel one of the advantages that Wikipedia has over other media is that we are open source, and people from all sides of a debate join in and work together to get the most accurate and most balanced article possible. Out of the heat of debate in the crucible of a Wikipedia talkpage can come the brilliance of a gold medal of a featured article. But that process is sadly spoiled when people prefer to assert and revert rather than engage in true discussion and debate. SilkTork (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually put a great deal of effort into trying to find a middle ground. I asked Viewsridge multiple times to show evidence a source was unreliable or an opinion piece. I would've happily removed it if they had proved their claims. But they never did, and even though I showed them that a certain source is officially listed on WP as reliable, they still reverted me again while ignoring the discussion they hadn't replied to for weeks. But I did make changes to my revisions based on feedback from others. Sandstein had mentioned the lead was confusing, so I had restructured it by my next edit. That's why it wasn't a "pure" revert, as I had said on the 3RR noticeboard, and I don't think it's correct that I have the most undo's on that page, I've counted Viewsridge having more.

I would really appreciate if an ArbCom could reply to what I said about the Kheo17 dispute, since the warning from that is part of the glue holding together the "warnings within 90 days for edit warring" motion that is being used to call another warning an error and now being used to call for a topic ban. I had not actually edit warred with Kheo17, I had only reverted them once (on several pages with identical changes). Not only is this standard WP:BOLD that everyone had done at some point, but also my reverts shouldn't have been controversial at all because Kheo17 was adding a highly unreliable source that literally called Armenia as "Western Azerbaijan". Reverting such a source was only one step below reverting blatant vandalism, and isn't something a user should be banned over.

And I would also like for an ArbCom to address the points I've made about Grandmaster. I understand one of the reasons for this case was that Armenia-Azerbaijan users had been making too many enforcement requests against each other, correct? So then why hasn't it been addressed that Grandmaster has been using AE to try eliminating the competition for nearly as long as it has existed in addition to having many AE requests made against them?[52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119] Grandmaster has also been involved in a huge canvassing ring on the Russian wiki with over 20 other users; one of whom was Brandmeister, the user I was disagreeing with that led to my witnin-90-days edit warring warning. How are these users still able to edit Wikipedia? And while someone may argue that some of these incidents are old (despite this case being about reviewing old incidents), Grandmaster being topic banned as recently as throughout most of 2022, when their first AE report for Armenia-Azerbaijan articles goes back to 2007, should be setting off a lot of red flags that nothing has changed. Rosguill had even expressed concern in Grandmaster's ban appeal that Grandmaster had gotten too good at gaming the system ("My lingering concern is that Grandmaster, at the time they made the errors that led to the ban, had been actively editing Wikipedia for well over a decade, and the fact that they would still make such flimsy arguments suggests to me that these were not naive errors but rather intentional opportunism motivated by an entrenched battleground mentality"). I think this is further proven by Grandmaster being the only "Involved parties" that isn't being suggested for a topic ban. Grandmaster had their first AE report 16 years ago; that's more years than us other parties have been editing Wikipedia combined. --Dallavid (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re SilkTork's question about why I was tossing between a TBAN and logged warning, I've been thinking about this. I actually don't think I remember ever being aware of the unlogged October warning. It doesn't seem to have been mentioned in the AE thread. I would have checked the AELOG, but it wasn't logged, and even if I'd checked the WP:AE archives, I very likely wouldn't have seen it while I was skipping through given the section title was about another editor. I may have seen the unclosed thread but probably wouldn't have thought too much about it on the assumption that it was ignored for a reason. So, what I was seeing was one block in September and no sanctions since. I also wouldn't consider an unlogged sanction to be a warning in the same way as a logged one. I did see evidence of longer-term edit warring so was deciding whether a block in September and no sanctions since warranted their first warning or a TBAN and I picked the usual warn then sanction progression. Regarding the wording of the FoF, I'd contend that I did apply an escalating sanction based on this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @SilkTork and Dennis Brown: I agree with everything Dennis said, that's what I was trying to get at with my comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling with the fact that we have two overlapping and important issues here. We have, on the one hand, the Armenian Genocide. There remains considerable efforts in some countries/cultures to deny this genocide despite the clear historical consensus around this. And our readers are highly interested in this topic - over 100,000 page views to the main article alone in the last 30 days. This is exactly the kind of content where an encyclopedia should excel and it is to our credit as a project, and to the editors (Buidhe in particular), who've worked on it credit that it is as high quality as it is. Editor efforts to engage in denialism here are the sort of thing that crosses from good faith disagreements about content into a conduct issue that ArbCom has and will sanction.

And then we have the articles about the current conflicts for which there can be plenty of good faith disagreements and as a News topic is not one that is as well suited to encyclopedic coverage. It is also a topic for which there is interest among our readers - more than 10,000 views on 2021–2023 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis as the main article - but an order of magnitude less interest than the genocide.

So we have two topics in this case with one of them, by multiple measures, that is more important than the other. Where I'm struggling is if I do what is appropriate to address that second topic am I jeopardizing the first topic? My first inclination was no - and I started voting accordingly - but then based on some comments during the case I suddenly began to wonder. I think I'm headed back towards no but also felt it important to name all of this for my fellow arbs and for the other interested editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to bring this up, Barkeep49, so thanks for that, as on the surface it appears to be a simple case of genocide denier = holocaust denier or global warming denier. However, it is a more complex situation, as shown by Perinçek v. Switzerland. I rarely (ever?) give my personal position in an issue, as I don't think my personal position matters, but because of the nature of this issue, and what I am arguing for, I feel it important to say that for me the evidence is very strong that the massacre was an intentional genocide - the overwhelming bulk of scholarly research on the issue says it was an intentional genocide. However, while a number countries have said that they also feel it was a genocide, a few don't agree, and most have not voiced an opinion either way. And, importantly for this case, the two countries named in this case are on opposite sides of that political debate. I don't think when assessing poor behaviour, we can take sides in a political debate. I feel we shouldn't sanction someone because they use material taken from a book written by someone who either supports or doubts that the term genocide is appropriate, because we are then very much taking a side. We should look at behaviour, not political allegiance. SilkTork (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"It's OK to reject an overwhelming consensus of reliable sources in favor of an unreliable one that fits your country's political views" is an argument I can't get behind @SilkTork and that's how I read what you wrote there. Because what that means is that those editors we've given that permission to can cause our editorial processes, which is based on consensus, to break down and precisely because they are politically motivated to do so in ways that end up as conduct violations. Barkeep49 (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]