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

Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Comments by arbitrators

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)

Comments by Rosguill

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)

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)

• 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)

Comments by Ixtal

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)

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

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)

Comments by Harry Mitchell

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)

Comments by Robert McClenon

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)

Finding of Fact 3.2

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

Badness of Areas

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

Comments by Olympian

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)

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)

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)

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)

Comments by ZaniGiovanni

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)

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)

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)

(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): [8], [9], [10], [11]. They actually reverted an uninvolved editor as you can see [12]. 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)

Comments by Seraphimblade

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)

@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)

Comments by Dennis Brown

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Comments by Golden

(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)

Comments by Red-tailed hawk

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)

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

Comments by Grandmaster

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)

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)

Comments by Abrvagl

@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)

@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)

• I've been through the edits on Anti-Armenian sentiment. 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 [13] - this was undone by User:Viewsridge [14]; on 15 Sept Dallavid again changes the lead [15] - this was undone by Abrvagl with a note to look at the talkpage [16] - that was reverted by User:UserXpetVarpet - [17] - who was reverted by User:Sandstein - [18]. The lead sentence then remained stable until 19 Sept when Dallavid again changed it back [19], and was promptly reverted by Viewsridge [20], Dallavid reverts back [21], and on 20 Sept Abrvagl makes their second revert [22]. On 17 Oct Dallavid reverts again [23] - this time it is User:Brandmeister who undoes the revert [24].

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)

Notes by El_C

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)