Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

RoslynSKP

RoslynSKP is blocked for two weeks. This activates her ban from editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I, as provided for in the Committee's decision.  Sandstein  11:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning RoslynSKP User who is submitting this request for enforcement TomStar81 (Talk) 05:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested RoslynSKP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute#RoslynSKP_revert_restriction Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [1] Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Warned on 2013/12/27 by Nick-D (talk · contribs) Additional comments by editor filing complaint Sorry to say this again, but as with the filing of the initial arbcom case I've never done one of these enforcement paperwork things, so if I botched something or you guys need me to add or subtract from whats here then please drop me a line and I'll get to it as soon as I can. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning RoslynSKP Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by RoslynSKP I am sorry that I have contravened the revert part of the ruling. It was not my intention to do so and it was only after the event that I realised my mistake. Since then, I have taken my concerns about the article to the talk page, in particular here [2], and here [3] but it appears that quite important information, which I have also detailed here [4], continues to be cut by Jim Sweeney. --Rskp (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I have no knowledge of Nick-D's warning and cannot find it via the diff provided. --Rskp (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves Well, it appears that the editor did not understand the definition of a revert, and has acknowledged such. That, combined with the possibility that there were no intervening edits (which would possibly make it a single revert), IMHO, we let the editor off with a warning at this point in time. Their edits have been problematic - hence their restrictions are in place. Skirting the edges, or making any edit(s) that appear problematic are just as dangerous ES&L 13:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Comment by Nick-D RoslynSKP has recently been pushing against an editing restriction and ignoring the concerns over her conduct which were raised in the arbitration case: Despite the concerns raised in the arbitration case, the committee's finding that she was not respecting consensus on "Ottoman" vs "Turkish" (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute#RoslynSKP: Ignoring consensus) and the restriction against making this change again, RoslynSKP attempted to start a new discussion of this naming issue at WT:MILHIST to overturn the strong consensus which was reached there only a few weeks ago: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Name of empire She has also attempted to start yet another discussion about the name of the ANZAC Mounted Division article, despite her four previous move requests on this topic (including three and an appeal since September 2013) being unsuccessful [5] She also accused other editors in the ANZAC Mounted Division article of having "ownership issues" [6] I think that it's really disappointing that RoslynSKP is making the same basic mistakes which lead to the arbitration case so soon, and it must be very frustrating for the other editors who are working on these articles. I'd strongly encourage her to "drop the stick" over these issues, and move on. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC) @MarcusBritish: Marcus, it's normal for AE requests to be handled relatively slowly as the admins like to discuss appropriate responses and also see a statement from the party who enforcement is being requested against, and for them to respond to any proposed sanctions (or at least to allow sufficient time for them to be able post a statement if they so wish) before taking any action: this isn't ANI, and given the weight accorded to arbitration sanctions the admins aren't going to short circuit established processes. Please note also that it's customary for initial requests for arbitration enforcement to be handled particularly carefully, and generally result in a warning or the like. Your rude posts really aren't helpful. Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC) As my two cents on a suitable sanction, I agree with the views expressed below that it's too early to activate the very broad topic ban: while RoslynSKP's recent conduct has been unhelpful, and suggests that she does not really grasp the results of the arbitration case (including the concerns raised by other editors), it's been mixed in with some productive editing. A short block and/or restrictions on individual articles seems appropriate to me at this time (with the obvious implication that more serious sanctions would be applied if these problems reoccur). The best outcome would be for RoslynSKP to drop the stick(s) and concentrate on her productive editing in this topic area. Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Comments by MarcusBritish Hate to say it, but RoslynSKP has bigger balls than every admin to view her record to date. Over 2-years we have strong evidence of dozens of misdemeanours forming a significant disruptive pattern, but to date, before the ArbCom case, not one official warning or block issued.. ArbCom gives a ruling and block options which is like shaking a carrot at a donkey, and our donkeys all decide they're blind. The closure of the ANI thread, with no admin responses, was pure ignorance. Give someone an inch and they'll take a mile.. I think RoslynSKP has not only taken that mile, but run a marathon in laps around everyone, and I'm disgusted how utterly useless ANI has proved in following Arbcom's "Standard Enforcement" mandate. Even if 4 reverts do only count as one, which I accept, the fact remains that in all 4 cases RoslynSKP covered-up those reverts with a misleading set of edit summaries. Balls, gentlemen.. please reach under your impotent manhoods and find them. I see many an admin listed as "willing to make difficult blocks", but can only laugh.. RoslynSKP clearly has them by the balls to. I bet she's in hysterics at how much she can and has got away with, even under scrutiny. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 02:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I think it would be more accurate to note that RoslynSKP is on a "suspended topic ban" which is technically a form of probation than a declined topic ban, ergo they did not make it so that this case has to take standard baby steps through all forms of dispute resolution to achieve a result, it has already been processed at the highest level by ArbCom as the end result and the ruling provides a clause for admins to skip lower forms of resolution–notably because they have proved ineffective due to RoslynSKP's unwillingness to cooperate with involved or third-parties–and move directly to blocks with the added notion that the topic ban be unsuspended. I think all the prattle being discussed above undermines not only ArbCom's ruling, but is seriously disrespectful to the MilHist project and those parties who put dozens of hours into presenting an ArbCom case from 2 years of unstable edit history across dozens of articles, only to have admins come along and make low-quality and even more arbitrary determinations as to what should and should not be done about the matter. The fact remains that the ArbCom case presents a chain of paperwork proving the disruptions at hand, and the further fact remains that not only have lessons not been learned as a result of the case, but that admins are unwilling to consider that several MilHist members invested a lot of time into bringing this case forward to secure a result. Whilst each disruption as a whole may appear a "low grade edit war" as Tznkai puts it, we should remember that a whole is the sum of its parts. A minor slap on RoslynSKP's wrist for this ANZAC article isn't going to do anything to prevent her from carrying on across the numerous other articles she has disrupted previously, against Jim Sweeney. This reads to me like a court making a ruling but the police can't be arsed to arrest the offender. How, Tznkai, can you only suggest that "both parties need to start working together" when we have 2-years of this proving impossible? Do you think if anyone thought this would work it would ever have gone to ArbCom in the first place? Both parties have different views on the content of the articles being disputed, but where Jim is generally open to comment and able to provide a variety of sourcing, RoslynSKP is firm in her opinions, unwilling to give ground and often won't provide sourcing beyond a few choice titles. It's like arguing with a fundamentalist who only cites the Bible as "fact" against all else man has ever learned and published.. if you've ever been in one of those debates you'll know how inflexible, determined and often blind-sighted they can be against all reason, and it is that very reason that is undermining resolution of this case, because no matter how many times you argue with RoslynSKP, no matter how many talk pages or noticeboards or ANI threads you take her to, she can't see past the end of her own nose. One week after the ArbCom case ruling she reopened the "Ottoman vs Turkey" debate on MilHist.. after 2 years of defending her castle do you really believe she's going to bend and see reason on a talk page with the very editor who she reverts more than anyone? Pah! IMO, we're dealing with an overwhelming egotist now, more than a reasonable editor. The only way to deal with someone like this is to come down harder on them, not pussyfoot around them, which is simply playing into their hands. As someone once said, possibly TomStar81, once you start blocking bad editors and wasting their time instead of ours life can get very difficult and the need to cooperate becomes more apparent. Being a member of Wiki is not a right if you're going to abuse it, and all the evidence suggests that RoslynSKP is willing to keep stepping on toes to have her own way. Clearly ArbCom needs to impose stronger remedies and less leniency to reduce the chances of that and the fallout this case is having. I could support a number of motions suggested by HJ Mitchell but I don't think they're broad enough as proposed to avoid carry-over from one article to another. All I can see is a chain of these useless WP:AE requests resulting in nothing but bureaucracy with little or no action at the end of consequence. Jim Sweeney suffers, MilHist suffers, Wiki suffers.. those are the victims here. TLDR; This WP:AE is proving pointless as people are unwilling to act on the established facts and by playing "by the rulebook" too closely it's resulting in too much freedom for RoslynSKP to cause mischief and fly under the radar of ArbCom and its rulings. Jim Sweeney is receiving more flak than deserved, which is good for RoslynSKP (and probably a motive for her) as it dirties his name and could allow for a witch hunt against her detractors in MilHist, but this doesn't help matters as far as the wider disruptions are concerned. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 05:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC) @Nick-D: By making an absolute demand that RoslynSKP "drop this issue permanently" you backed her into a corner from which she was bound to fight rather than accept; making such a demand was a) not your decision to make, b) did not represent ArbCom's ruling, and c) is contrary to Wiki policy such as WP:CCC, where I had more luck requesting she wait for 6 months until WWI centenary you obsessively sought to contradict that, which was damaging to the ground gained – I am sure you are unwilling to accept this fact. Tznkai: I have nothing to gain by battling and have always worked towards a mutually-beneficial solution, how dare anyone suggest otherwise in order to alienate my comments. If you're looking to challenge my views by showing passive-aggression towards me, fine, but do not attempt to censor my opinions me making demands as you have. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 07:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC) There has been a load of edits and moving of comments all in short time, I am lost as to who said what, being both tired and frustrated by the responses posted here. Regardless, it's too late to redact things that have already been said. I can only redirect several some of the context at Tznkai who clearly has not done enough background research into this case, and therefore his accusations of WP:BATTLE are assumptive and incorrectly placed. He would do better to reconsider his views than to attack mine given that he appears to be unable to follow the history of this case, or my involvement, with reasonable level of clarity. As someone who does NOT edit WWI articles I have NOTHING to gain from these proceedings, whether RoslynSKP stays or goes, I gain nothing personally, I only justify my role to prevent further long-term disruptions which affect MilHist and its pool of members, as such long-term disputes only serve to polarise views rather than strengthen collaborative bonds. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 08:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC) @Tznkai: "I am also loathe to allow even the appearance of allowing users to even accidentally win a content dispute by taking advantage of an editor's restrictions." – "win"? Is that implying that Jim also has WP:BATTLE-like view? Isn't it more reasonable to rationalise that articles should follow a uniform naming convention, and that if an article already uses "Turkish" where RoslynSKP is adding fresh material using "Ottoman" rather than changing existing content it could be construed as circumventing the ArbCom ruling? I'm with Jim in expressing disappointment, as several times now you have specifically targeted parties but the one this case relates to, and there is a huge amount of bias in your POV because you've suggested that we might take advantage of her restrictions, rather than the more obvious case that she might exploit loopholes in her restrictions, as may be the case. Can you please explain your negativity towards myself and Jim, as I find it lacks the impartiality I would come to expect from a reasonable sysop? Your unrequired "loathe" also fails to WP:AGF in Jim for bringing his concerns forward to the appropriate noticeboard. Please assume a less pre-judgemental approach to your views, as that is twice now you have done so and I am getting severally pissed off by your harassive candour as there too many implications being hinted at which are not in your remit. Perhaps you forget we are all volunteers on wiki, and expect to be treated as equals, not as liars with COI. In short, if you can't be bothered to look at the evidence fairly, leave it to those who will. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 09:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC) @Jim Sweeney: Is there any evidence to support that "Turkish" is a Eurocentric term? It appears to me to be a reiteration of her unsubstantiated claim that the term "Turkish" is derogatory or colloquial. Given that she is making a broad and unverified statement in that note I believe sources can be demanded, as suggesting anything is "centric" to any location is semantically the same as saying "colloquial". It could be seen as continued WP:BATTLEGROUND editing, as she is still attempting to push her confined opinion outside of the prose in an attempt to circumvent ArbCom's ruling. I suggest that admins in this AE look at that last edit with that consideration in mind, as this is getting beyond ridiculous, every corner we turn to question RSKP's behaviour in one format, she finds a new format that has not yet been brought to question, thus taking this discussion back to square one. In short, delaying tactics (see: borderlining). Ma®©usBritish{chat} 03:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Statement by TomStar81 Alright, everyone please take a deep breathe and let it out slowly. Then lets remember that by allowing ourselves to be agitated over this issue RSKP wins, so the less we debate the (in)action here the better it is for all of us. I for one have no intention of letting this issue run my life, that is why I've commented here only in a limited capability. The longer this gets drawn out and the more we invest into it the more wound up we are going to be, so lets all remember that we are and rightly should be editors first, ok? Once we remember who we are then we remember that this is all above our pay grade, meant to be left to the people who participate here cuz its what they do, not what we do. Each editor depends on one another to help support them in their hour of need, and editors in turn rely and admins to act or refrain from acting fro the betterment of the project. If it makes you feel better here, remember that RSKP's got a whole year - thats 52.5 weeks, 365.25 days, 525,600 minutes, etc - to make the needed alterations to her behavior. Missing the first mine in a minefield doesn't mean the field won't work in the long run, and to get bent out of a shape over it is ridiculous in my opinion. Let it go. That is my advice, and while it may not be what you want, it is most certainly what you all need to do. Let it go, before it become the all consuming factor that dictates your wiki-life. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC) According to the ArbCom group I'm an involved editor, so I accept that this will be moved to my section above sooner or later (more probably the former than the latter), however I wanted to point out that an uninvolved admin could approach this issue from a different perspective by applying page protection to the articles in question for a 72 hour period to see if that would help. Blocking would be more preferable, I agree, but page protection would split the difference between the two parties by keeping rskp off the pages for a total of three days, and to serve as a visual show of force regarding the interpretation of the affiliated arbcom case. To affect this would require full protection, which in turn would support the position of collaboration by leaving only the talk pages of the articles in question open to editing. Its one of many solutions, I grant, but I thought it may be something the uninvloved may wish to consider as a possible course of action. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Statement by Jim Sweeney Can this edit also be checked, [7] in my belief its against the first Arbcom restriction. RoslynSKP is indefinitely prohibited from changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' on any article. By adding a map of the 1913 Ottoman Empire to an article about a British Empire (Australian/British/New Zealand) army formation, that was formed in 1916. Not only is the reason for its use doubtful in this article, by adding Ottoman an article where Turkish is in use, is surely against the restriction. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC) So its your understanding they they can not change Turkish to Ottoman but can introduce as many sentences with Ottoman in, or as in this case maps, that they want? Unbelievable really can not see why anyone bothered with going to Arbcom.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I would also suggest the latest edit, while also edit warring is against the Arbcom restriction. is indefinitely prohibited from changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' on any article. Not only is there a agreement/consensus over the note on the talk page. The change from - The sources used in this article predominately use the term "Turkey" - to - While it is true the major element were Turkish soldiers, other elements also fought in the Ottoman Army. The sources used in this article predominately use the Eurocentric term "Turkey", although the Ottoman Empire was not a nation-state, making the Ottoman Empire both historically and politically correct. [8] Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Statement by NE Ent The difficulty ya'll are having coming to a consensus is due to the fact the binary nature of the case remedy removes your discretion, leaving you with two no so great choices. I've filed an amendment request to the (new) committee to hopefully remedy the remedy. NE Ent 23:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC) Comment by Beyond My Ken ...or, you could just apply some good old fashioned common sense mixed in with a bit of IAR, take account of the fact the RSKP doesn't seem interested in changing her behavior, despite the ruling against her, slap a stern final warning on her that she got away with it once, but that's the end of the line, and if she does it again, block her indef. A little less bureaucracy and hand-wringing, please, and a little more protecting the project from disruption would be appreciated. You're not judges (or Talmudic scholars, for that matter), this is not a court of law, and there is no need or expectation for justice, only for taking measures which make it easier for others to build an encyclopedia. Eyes on the prize, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Result concerning RoslynSKP This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. If I'm not mistaken, the four edits listed at WP:AN/I were made consecutively with no intervening edits by another user, meaning they count as only one revert, so it looks to me as if this request is not actionable. Gatoclass (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Agreed. Per WP:3RR, "an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Because the edits in question were consecutive, they are one revert. However, RoslynSKP should remember that also per WP:3RR, "'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material". This can be closed without further action.  Sandstein  15:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC) There's not really anything here that would justify a draconian sanction, such as a block or some form of topic ban, though it is alarming to see an AE request less than a week after the closure of the arbitration case. I fear this may not be the last we see of of this dispute, and it may be prudent to nip it in the bud if we can. Perhaps one or a combination of the following measures might strike the balance between deterrence and fairness: A stern warning to RoslynSKP that it is not acceptable to merely carry on with conduct that led to sanctions in an arbitration case, and that much more draconian sanctions are almost certain to follow if she does not change her ways. Possibly accompanied by a warning to Jim Sweeney to make sure his own conduct at the very least meets (and would preferably exceed) the conduct expected of those he is in dispute with. 0RR on ANZAC Mounted Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (with scope for widening if necessary) for RoslynSKP and possibly Jim Sweeney. Require RoslynSKP to gain consensus for edits to that article (and others if necessary) before she makes them. Ban RoslynSKP from the article for a few weeks to allow dust to settle after the arbitration case. Require all editors on that article to clearly mark reverts (including partial reverts) as such. More drastically, a period of full protection for ANZAC Mounted Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), forcing all editors to gain consensus for edits before they are made. An interaction ban between RoslynSKP and Jim Sweeney (if problems continue between RoslySKP and other editors, there will be a more compelling case for stiffer sanctions against RoslynSKP; if things die down, it should allow the dust to settle). I suspect that if we close this request with no action at all, things in the topic area will not improve, and we will be back here before long discussing essentially the same facts. I'd appreciate other admins' thoughts and those of the involved editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC) In a sense that is why this is here, its meant to show RoslynSKP that we are watching. Even if no action is taken, the fact that someone bothered to go the extra mile and take this here should show that we will be making sure that both parties (in this case RSKP, perhaps later Jim as well) adhere to the arbcom ruling. Ideally, this would result in action, but that it came here is for me enough to know that we did our 50%. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Marcus, I sympathise with your frustration, but perhaps tone down the rhetoric a little. Most admins here are thick-skinned enough to brush it off, but it's unlikely to help your case. We are limited in what we can do by the ArbCom ruling; our remit here is to deal with disruption within the scope of that case. Now, I've proposed a variety of possible actions that might go some way towards that. Hopefully other admins will comment, and we'll come to a consensus on what, if anything, we should do. Your feedback on the suggestions would be welcome, as would Roslyn's, and you are welcome to continue to demonstrate how you believe Roslyn's conduct is violating the arbitration remedies, but please don't expect that some admin is going to swoop in and make a unilateral action without waiting to hear other opinions first—that would only lead to an even bigger mess. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC) If I'm reading the case correctly, @HJ Mitchell:, we cannot do what you are suggesting under Arbitration Enforcement. The only enforcement mechanism reads "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year." Any block would also immediately trigger a topic ban, which would further be enforceable by blocks. I need to delve into the article history a bit more to know for sure, but this looks at first glance like a low grade edit war that would normally result in short term page protection (everyone sits on their hands and figures it out) rather than blocks for edit warring. If that bares out, no action is appropriate. Even if it does not, we need to be aware that we will be going from zero to topic ban when ArbCom declined to do so.--Tznkai (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Having reread the diffs, and looked into the case history a bit, I think TomStar81 buried the lead here. These two users have an established history of edit warring with each other, and that is exactly what is happening here. ArbCom chose to restrict one editor and not the other, which ties our hands considerably, but that is the way it is. It seems to me the correct solution is for both parties to start working together, mostly by sitting on their hands, and discussing on the talk page. If creative enforcement becomes an option somehow, I would start with discussion on the talk page under kindergarten rules: I statements only. In lieu of enforcement authority, I make that my strong suggestions to both @Jim Sweeney: and @RoslynSKP:--Tznkai (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC) (e/c)@MarcusBritish:, I dislike enforcing formalisms, but I like reading rants when trying to come to a conclusion even less. Please move your comment to the appropriate section, or better yet, reconsider it entirely. You have said your piece, and then you said it again. Continued repetition suggests that you are interested in engaging in battles on Wikipedia instead of writing about them. If you believe that there is new, actionable evidence of misconduct we have missed, kindly list and link such items in your section.--Tznkai (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)timestamp is incorrect Having taken a closer look at the article's history page, it appears to me that RoslynSKP may indeed have breached her 1RR restriction and on more than one occasion. I'm still checking the diffs but I think I should be able to post some evidence shortly. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC) @Jim Sweeney:, the restriction is against changing Turkey to Ottoman, not adding information that references the Ottoman empire. I did see that edit and find it questionable, but that it is a content call, and does not fit within the sanctions levied by ArbCom. ArbCom had the opportunity to grant discretion to administrators or levy different sanctions. They did not. We are unable to expand or re-litigate here. I am also loathe to allow even the appearance of allowing users to even accidentally win a content dispute by taking advantage of an editor's restrictions. We will see what Gatoclass comes up with.--Tznkai (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Non-admin reply by Jim Sweeney moved up to the corresponding section.  Sandstein  10:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC) It is my understanding that RoslynSKP cannot be specially sanctioned for the action you cited. It can however, be handled through normal means. As an analogy, imagine one gets pulled over for drunk driving, and the magistrate lays down a probation that includes the provision "if you get pulled over for DUI again, you lose your license forever." That person then goes to a bar, gets drunk, and gets into a bar brawl. That person cannot have their driving license pulled under the provision, but still would be guilty of getting drunk and brawling.--Tznkai (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Okay, having taken another look at the article history, it appears to me that a breach of RoslynSKP's revert restriction has indeed occurred. Per the original case, Rosylyn was prohibited from making more than one revert on a given page in a 72-hour period. Roslyn made an edit on 22:56 25 December with the edit summary reinsert notable campaign and battles in infobox per Template. Without this information readers may not know when and where the division served,[9] a revert of this edit. Jim Sweeney then made a number of intervening edits (example[10])and on 00:04 27 December RoslynSKP made another edit, with the edit summary reinstate direct quote in note for clarity as the paraphrase is misleading[11] which is clearly a revert of this edit by Jim Sweeney. That's two reverts in little more than 24 hours. I should add that this is not the only content Roslyn reverted in the space of about 24 hours, but because she broke her reverts over a sequence of consecutive edits, it's not so easy to show how much content was reverted in violation of her 72-hour 1RR. Additionally, I note that at 00:08 27 December, RoslynSKP repeated her revert of 25 December with the edit summary reinsert notable battles in infobox per template guide[12] which under the circumstances might be considered edit warring, especially since this is at least the third time she has added this info. This is not the only example of repeated restoration of contested content that Roslyn has engaged in on this page over the last few days, as noted above. I might add with regard to two of RoslynSKP's reverts listed above[13][14] that they arguably breach the spirit if not the letter of her prohibition on changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' on any article; I think Roslyn would be well advised to steer clear of any content related to the naming controversy. Regardless, this request does appear to be actionable after all. Gatoclass (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2013‎ (UTC) Given RoslynSKP's statement that she misunderstood the definition of "revert," and that the immediate result of any action here would be to unsuspend a lengthy topic ban, in addition to the concerns I laid out before, I would decline the enforcement request at this juncture. On the other hand, it is incumbent on sanctioned users to learn the boundaries of their sanctions by asking for clarification or frankly, reading the relevant policies. Several of the cited diffs have suggested the underlying problem presented in the arbitration case is in play here. Certainly RoslynSKP has not been a model of collaborative editing on this article. Given that, I will stand aside for any administrator who wishes to act.--Tznkai (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I'd be interested to know why Arbcom chose to impose a "suspended" indef ban in the first place; it's a rather unusual sanction that tends to limit the discretion of administrators. Strictly speaking, however, the ban is unsuspended on the imposition of a block, so presumably other types of sanction would not activate it. Gatoclass (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the thorough analysis, Gatoclass, with which I agree. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute#Enforcement by block, this calls for a block in enforcement of the revert restriction. I think that two weeks (within an allowed range of up to a month) would be appropriate, given how recent the decision was and how little consideration RoslynSKP seems to have given to the decision. Per #RoslynSKP suspended topic ban, the block will automatically activate RoslynSKP's ban from editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I. In reply to Tznkai, by going right back to confrontative editing in the same topic area after an arbitration decision that stopped a hair short of immediately topic-banning her, and apparently without giving much consideration of the terms of that decision, RoslynSKP assumed the risk of being sanctioned for her actions. I see neither grounds for leniency, nor do I believe that we have any discretion not to take action: the revert restriction is a Committee decision, which is binding and final, and therefore must be enforced.  Sandstein  10:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Gatoclass, the only enforcement mechanism authorized in the case is a block, which then unsuspends the topic ban, thus leaving us with the options of block up to 1 month and topic ban or no action. Technically, a block of 1 second would activate the topic ban. Sandstein, I do not believe there is an affirmative duty on administrators to execute Arbitration remedies, even if we must, like any editor, comply with them. We always have the discretion to sit on our hands, which is what I believe is most appropriate in this case.--Tznkai (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Tznkai, I don't see where it says in the Arbcom decision that a block is the only permitted sanction, how do you come to that conclusion? Gatoclass (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC) The Enforcement section reads, in its entirety, as follows Enforcement by block[edit] 0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked,' initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. (Emphasis added) There is simply no provision for non-blocking sanctions, just that an administrator may block up to a month. We'd be looking at going back to AN/I for a community restriction if we want to try something more creative.--Tznkai (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Okay, but the next section states that Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section ... , so I think the statement in the previous section is only intended to summarize the provisions related specifically to blocking. Gatoclass (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)I agree that we always have the discretion to sit on our hands. I do not agree that this is most appropriate in this case. AGF fails me. I don't think this is a user trying intentionally to be disruptive. But I believe it's a user who is Not Getting It. Enough chances were given prior to the case. If they didn't understand the significance of the case or findings or restrictions then their competence to work with the community of editors, collegially and collaboratively, is in question. In a case like this, a topic ban can be viewed as much as a measure to try and separate a possibly rehabilitatable editor from the area that they're in and causing them to exhaust community patience. What I have seen so far responding to this does not give me a positive sense of short-term rehabilitation and behavior change, short of enacting the block and triggering the topic ban. We can always say 'not this time' one more time, but at some point that shifts to enabling rather than merciful. Perhaps the line's one more goof down the line rather than here; I would support more discussion rather than pulling a trigger myself now. But I'd like to see a better case for this actually being a rehabilitative act of tolerance rather than enabling. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC) @Tznkai, more 'creative' solutions may not be available under the arbitration remedies, but we as ordinary administrators surely have the ability to impose such in lieu of a block; we're not robots—we're human beings and experienced editors, and that's why we're trusted with the responsibility of deciding these requests, not because we'll mindlessly enforce the letter of ArbCom's rulings for them (even they, in their infinite wisdom, probably wouldn't want that). @Sandstein: I agree with you in principle, but the topic ban that a block would automatically trigger seems out of all proportion to the offence, especially given that Roslyn may not have fully understood the definition of a revert. We should also take into consideration that others have not been behaving as well as they should, and that less drastic actions (such as some of those I proposed above) may be as effective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC) It is not our job to second-guess the Committee and determine which sanction would be most appropriate for a violation of the revert restriction. The Committee has already decided this for us: a revert restriction violation entails a block, which activates the suspended topic ban. Our only job here is to, indeed, mechanically enforce the Committee's decision. If that is deemed to be not an appropriate outcome for this particular set of circumstances, then only the Committee, not we, has the authority to reconsider its decision and decide on a different sanction. If we were to do so in their place, we would usurp their authority.  Sandstein  11:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC) (e/c)Maybe banning policy has changed in the last year or so while I've been gone, but administrator discretion is pretty compressed outside of "community consensus" or an arbitration remedy, or at least it that is how it seemed has been any time I've tried something even slightly out of the box, or seen someone else who has. The gray area seems to be unblocking with conditions. My argument in favor of doing nothing at this point is that, under AE, our only options end in a topic ban, which forecloses the possibility of RoslynSKP returning to edit in the topic area of interest, which means one less editor with content knowledge. My review of her (I've been under the impression the editor is a her, someone correct me if I am wrong) disputed edits suggests that we're dealing not with an egregiously bad behaved editor, but someone who has yet to learn and apply Wikipedia norms. Her talk page entries, while hardly nice, are pretty much endemic among users all over the project, and restricting them and shaming them into behaving better has not paid dividends. Incompetence more than malice, in other words. If RoslynSKP is unwilling to learn, it isn't like it is difficult to sanction, but the enforcement section makes it a one-way ratchet. While I understand the argument to come down hard because she has resumed bad behavior so soon after a case, I have the exact opposite reaction. I think it is important to give a little time and not ratchet up when ArbCom had the option to do so themselves. ArbCom seems to believe that Roslyn editing in the dispute area under revert restriction is an acceptable circumstance. I do not want to override that decision, even if they gave us a narrow channel with which to do so. I think we should see if collaborative discussion is possible before throwing the book. I see nothing in the behavior of any of the parties that suggests that it is not, even if it is likely to descend into alphabet soup bickering. If the situation does not improve, I suspect there will be plenty of opportunities to activate the topic ban.--Tznkai (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Roslyn's been editing for 3 1/2 years, she hardly qualifies as a new editor still learning the ropes. Also, on reflection I think I must agree with you that blocks are the only authorized sanction here, as discretionary sanctions were not authorized for this case. HJMitchell raises the possibility of applying a different sanction based on administrator discretion but I'm not sure admins have the authority to apply novel remedies outside the remit of DS. So it may be that the only alternatives here are a warning or a block, the latter which will of course trigger the automatic topic ban. Gatoclass (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I agree that this is not a "new editor" problem. But I believe the editing culture is such that one can edit for years without ever even seeing best practices, let alone internalizing them. Restrictions can force users to do that. Many, perhaps most even, fail. I certainly understand why people advocate simply blocking and letting the topic ban activate. I'm a little annoyed that ArbCom squished our options in this way, but that is how they did it, so those are the choices we have. As I said before, I am willing to stand aside, and for better or worse, any one of us can take the decision out of the other's hand anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC) @Tznkai , I lean slightly closer to 'doing nothing' than to triggering an automatic indefinite topic ban, mainly for the reasons you list, but I'm not comfortable with doing absolutely bugger all. I think it's necessary to make it clear that carrying on regardless after being the subject of arbitration remedies is not acceptable, even if it's only in the form of a warning that Roslyn is skating on thin ice and that further misconduct will almost inevitably lead to blocks and thus the un-suspension of the topic ban. I do, though, think that the topic ban would be grossly out of proportion to the offence. The authority for the middle ground comes from it being essentially a substitute for a block: if Roslyn (or any other sanctioned editor) decides not to abide by it, then they can simply be blocked as they would have if we had decided not to cut them some slack. @Sandstein apologies for the typo in my previous edit, I disagree. We're not robots; ArbCom is perfectly capable of coming up with a process for 'automatically' enacting its remedies that doesn't involve admins using their judgement. The very fact that the process for enforcement is one that requires the judgement of several administrators suggests that we are expected to use that judgement to decide the best (or least worst) outcome for the project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Are there any precedents for the imposition of sanctions other than blocks in AE cases where discretionary sanctions were not authorized? If so, it might strengthen the case for doing the same here. Gatoclass (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I'm not aware of any within the framework of AE (unless there are cases where ArbCom has specifically authorised other sanctions), but admins here too often overlook the option of ordinary administrative action when it may be better suited than the very narrow options available to us under arbitration remedies. @RoslynSKP, how would you feel about a 0RR restriction on ANZAC Mounted Division (ie, you wouldn't be allowed to revert any edit or any part of any edit on that article for any reason whatsoever) for, say, six months, as opposed to the two-week block Sandstein proposes and the indefinite topic ban that would trigger? Obviously, if you violated the 0RR, you would be blocked and the topic ban would come into force; my hope is that this will give you just enough rope and that you won't hang yourself with it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I'm not keen on 0RR - I don't see how it is possible to make appropriate edits if one is unable to make alterations to the existing text. If you want to go down the voluntary route, I think I'd prefer to see a voluntary topic ban of limited duration. But Rskp hasn't even responded to the offer of a voluntary restriction yet, if we don't get a response soon we will have to look at other options. Gatoclass (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC) I agree that time is rapidly running out, if it hasn't already, for RSKP to accept something voluntarily. What other options do you suggest? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC) Considering: that it is not contested that RoslynSKP has violated the revert restriction she is subject to, that the Committee's decision provides that the restriction is to be enforced with a block, that it further provides that a block shall unsuspend a ban from editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I, that RoslynSKP has not responded to the queries ([15], [16]) by administrators on this board about whether she would accept a voluntary 0RR restriction instead of a block, that she has instead, in a recent edit of 2 January, violated the Committee's restriction from "changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' on any article", by introducing text into an article that suggests that "Ottoman" rather than "Turkish" is the correct appellation for the forces at issue, in a manner that repeats the conduct that has been found to ignore consensus in the Committee's findings, that this indicates that RoslynSKP remains unwilling to comply with the Committee's decision and that the decision must therefore be enforced with a block, I am blocking RoslynSKP for two weeks, as discussed above. Because the block is for misconduct relating to Turkish military history, it activates the topic ban as provided for in the Committee's decision. This is of course without prejudice to any changes the Committee may wish to make as a result of another user's recent request for the amendment of the decision.  Sandstein  11:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Jaqeli

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Jaqeli

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Hablabar (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jaqeli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, as per AA2 general sanctions public notice

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

• 2 January 2014 Resumed edit warring, refused to use talk pages for explanation. False claim of removal of sourced info in edit summary.

• 14 December 2013 Continued edit warring, reverted same passage and refused to use talk pages for explanation

• 13 December 2013 Display of battleground attitude

• 13 December 201 Display of battleground attitude

• 13 December 2013 Continued edit warring, reverted same passage and refused to use talk pages for explanation. Unexplained revert that sized back the image of alphabet

• 10 December 2013 Display of battleground attitude in summary

• 5 December 2013 Display of battleground attitude in summary. Reverted contentious passage, refused to use talk pages for explanation

• 4 December 2013 Display of battleground attitude in summary. Reverted contentious passage, refused to use talk pages for explanation

• 4 December 2013 Display of battleground attitude in summary. Reverted contentious passage, refused to use talk pages for explanation

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

• Warned on 2 January 2014 by Hablabar (talk · contribs)

• Warned on 9 December 2013 by Yerevantsi (talk · contribs)

• Warned on 4 December 2013 by Hablabar (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Jaqeli has been edit warring in the article Georgian alphabet in 2013 an 2014, reverting the edits of four other editors: Hablabar, Хаченци, Roses&Guns and Zimmarod. It seems he tries to WP:OWN the article by reverting passages he does not like, without explanation, and displays WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude on talk pages and in edit summaries. He was warned several times to no avail.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification filed

Discussion concerning Jaqeli

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Jaqeli

Hello dear admins and sorry for late respond. First of I am glad that the Georgian alphabet article got finally your attention indirectly but still and I hope that from now on you'll be watching this article very closely as it gets very often vandalised by the Armenian wikipedians as they are trying 24/7 to push their nationalistic agenda on this very article. I want to go deep into this issue and inform you a bit more about it. All these users that user Hablabar listed are Armenian wikipedians and all of them try to simply push the nationalistic agenda on the Georgian alphabet. This is not a surprise for most Georgians as if anyone who is familiar with the history of Caucasus and this region and the Georgian-Armenian relations he will understand this nationalistic pushings from their side very well. I'd like you to know that the issue concerning the Georgian alphabet is very important for them and that's why majority of the users editing this article are Armenians. Armenian children at schools are brought up with that knowledge that their national hero Mesrop Mashtots created for us an alphabet. For example if you go to the Matenadaran which is their some kind of manuscripts center you will be directly told that it was Mesrop who created the Georgian alphabet and so on. Again this is not a surprise for me at all, but spreading such kind of lies on the international arena is unacceptable. This article for years is being vandalised by various users and this kind of behaviour needs to be ended once and for all. The origin section of the article gets messy all the time and it needs to be on high alert from the wikipedian admins and I do really hope that from now on you will monitor all the edits done by any user. Everything should be done for protection of this article from further disruption. Please see also the article Mesrop Mashtots here. It proudly states:

“ He is also known for his contribution to invention of the Caucasian Albanian and Georgian alphabets. ”

Another typical nationalistic pushing from our neighbours. It states something which is not an established fact and never was. If you will see the article of Georgian alphabet in Armenian wikipedia you'll meet Mr. Mashtots inpictured there by stating directly who the creator of the Georgian alphabet is. I want you to know that the Georgian alphabet is not the only one thing which is claimed by the Armenian side. To know these kind of things one should know the history of this region deeply to understand.

As for the article itself. I want to note that I've improved the article greatly with sources, cleaned the sections, improved the histories of three scripts and none of them ever were disrupted. The only thing which needs to be monitored very closely is the Origins section of the alphabet which gets vandalised in a constant manner. Also the current version which is in the origins section is not mine but was done by the User:Susuman77 who indeed in a balanced and neutral way rewrote the origins section so I am not messing with it around. What I did I just reverted it back to the user Susuman's version which was removed and changed by the Armenian users with their nationalistic needs. Again, I do hope that the admins will closely monitor the article and it will be protected from now on. Thank you. And happy new year to you all. Jaqeli (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Richwales

Although there was a history here of edit-warring involving Jaqeli — over the question of how to deal with two competing claims for the origin of the Georgian alphabet (an Armenian origin supported by most scholars, and an indigenous Georgian origin dismissed by most scholars as being legendary) — the current set of edits by Jaqeli (see this series of edits) doesn't really seem to me to be objectionable along those lines. One valid point Jaqeli has made in his current edits is that, although two sources (Rapp and Haarmann) have been cited to support the claim that the Georgian alphabet was created in the early 5th century AD, the Rapp source says in fact that "all three Caucasian scripts were fashioned ... in the second half of the fourth century or early fifth century". So Jaqeli's changing the paragraph starting with "The scholarly consensus points" to indicate both "4th century AD" (citing Rapp) and "at the latest in the early 5th century" (citing Haarmann) seems to have merit. Whether an earlier failure to make this distinction clear qualifies as "removal of sourced info" (Jaqeli's edit summary for this diff) — or whether Jaqeli was thinking of some other issue, not obvious to me at the moment, when he used this particular edit summary language — may be up for debate.

I will also note that a source which was removed by Jaqeli's latest edits — a mention of The Routeldge Handbook of Scripts and Alphabets, saying that "like the Armenian [alphabet], the Georgian is clearly based on a Greek model" — appears relevant to me, and I'm not sure why Jaqeli removed it. Generally speaking, I'm impressed that Jaqeli's latest edits did not upset the existing consensus (see this version just before Jaqeli's latest editing), which stated that the Georgian tradition ascribing the invention of the alphabet to the 3rd-century-BC king Pharnavaz I is rejected by scholarly consensus. Given Jaqeli's past record, I do think he needs to work especially hard on being more careful in explaining his editing and seeking genuine consensus with others working on this and other articles with him. However, this particular set of edits by Jaqeli do not seem to me to justify AE action at this time. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@Yerevantsi: I don't think it's in dispute that much of Jaqeli's past behaviour has been disruptive. However, since the aim of any sanctions should be preventative rather than punitive, I think it's important for us to focus most closely at this time on Jaqeli's current behaviour. If his current behaviour shows the same objectionable, disruptive actions now that have plagued Jaqeli's record in the past, then the old stuff is indeed relevant. However, if Jaqeli's behaviour has in fact improved, we should concentrate primarily on that. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@Hablabar: I didn't say that Jaqeli's behaviour has improved. I said that if Jaqueli's behaviour has improved, we should concentrate primarily on that fact and not on older actions. And my comment about how sanctions are supposed to be preventative and not punitive is accepted on Wikipedia as a general truism (see WP:PUNITIVE). I'm not trying to babysit or coddle Jaqeli; I'm only saying that if we are going to find him in violation of AA2 and sanction him on that basis, we need to do so on the basis of reasonably current misbehaviour on his part — and, in my opinion, Jaqeli's most current work cited in this complaint does not appear to satisfy that standard (though I will acknowledge that others might not agree with me on this). It may be that his earlier activity (even though 3+ weeks old) is sufficient for taking action, but in that case, the case for AE sanctions should be based specifically and explicitly on that earlier activity, and (IMO) not on the most recent set of edits. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Yerevantsi

Jaqeli has made a number of offensive comments. The one I can recall right now is "No more Armenian fairy tales here", referring to the claim (supported by several non-Armenian academic sources) that Mesrop Mashtots, the inventor of the Armenian alphabet invented or made contribution to the invention of the Georgian alphabet.

Additionally, there are more unnecessary and somewhat offensive comments from him:

• "The possibility of a guy who knew no Georgian language and that very guy creates an alphabet that is totally laughable and epic at the same guy. Same applies to the Caucasian Albanian alphabet as well. That's the most funny joke in the region btw" - 22 Sep 2013

On December 5, 2013 he simply removed the Russian and Ukrainian names of Sergei Parajanov, an Armenian filmmaker from Georgia who lived in the Soviet Union, where Russian was the official language and many of his films are in Russian and Ukrainian. With no edit summary, he replaced it with his Georgian name (no objection here, since he has several movies in Georgian and was from Georgia). This is disruptive. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@Richwales: My comment is for uninvolved administrators. Let them decide what matters and what doesn't. Thanks. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Hablabar

@Richwales. First off, I do not have the impression that User:Richwales fully understands what AA2 imply. Your comment that "Jaqeli's behaviour has in fact improved" and "since the aim of any sanctions should be preventative rather than punitive" are not in line with the logic of AA2 environment in which this article had been placed because of editors like Jaqeli. Please do not babysit someone who has been trying to WP:OWN the text and repeatedly attack other editors. Hablabar (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Dougweller

I wish User:Elockid was around, but he's been away for a while now. He unblocked Jaqeli when Jaqeli accepted the standard offer - his promise to behave is here.[17] Elockid found it necessary to warn him in late November and even suggested a 1RR restriction might be necessary if his behavior continued.[18] I'm disturbed that Jaqeli hasn't responded here, and that his behavior since the unblock has not lived up to his promises. He's skating close to the edge, and sometimes over it, and that isn't acceptable. He's posted a bit to talk pages but I don't see him entering into a full discussion of his edits. I'm dithering between suggesting a 1RR restriction now and postponing a decision, but his lack of participation doesn't really show the attitude that we need in this area so if I have to choose I'd support something like a 1RR restriction. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Jaqeli last edited less than 20 minutes ago. If EdJohnston's post to his talk page gets no response and he continued to edit, I see no point in waiting any longer. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Jaqeli

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Jaqeli has edited since the request, but has not commented here. At first glance, I'm inclined to follow Richwales's assessment, and conclude that a report that contains only one recent diff doesn't seem immediately actionable. That diff is not a model of good editing practice, to be sure (it seems to be a flat revert that reintroduces since-fixed spelling errors such as "archaelogical", and isn't well explained) but on its own it doesn't seem to merit action other than a warning to Jaqeli to make sure to follow good editing practices and avoid edit wars in order to avoid sanctions. But there are indications that Jaqeli's editing is problematic and may require sanctions if it does not improve. The "No more Armenian fairy tales here" comment, for instance, is unacceptable, but it is from September 2013 and as such too stale to sanction now. The discussion at Talk:Georgian alphabet#comparison with Armenian reflects frayed tempers on both sides; please tone it down, everybody, and be mindful of WP:AGF. If there is continued edit-warring on this page, sanctions such as article bans or revert restrictions may need to be considered.  Sandstein  22:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

On moderate review I agree, but we may see more evidence, I suggest we leave this open for at least the weekend to review and discuss. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks:

• Jaqeli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jaqeli has been on Wikipedia since November 2011 and he has an impressive block log. When User:Hablabar filed this complaint, he focused on User:Jaqeli's edits at Georgian alphabet and its talk page. This is not the only problem. There have been wider issues with Jaqeli's Georgian-related edits as you can see per this warning of a possible 1RR issued by User:Elockid in November. (Thanks to User:Dougweller for the information). Jaqeli's response to the warning suggests he doesn't grasp the edit warring policy or know the definition of vandalism, even after two years on WP. A WP:1RR in the domain of AA including Georgian topics would serve to limit Jaqeli's warlike editing in the Georgian area while still letting him make contributions in the area of his knowledge. Jaqeli should also be warned against nationalistic comments on talk and in edit summaries. See also the unblock conditions which Jaqeli accepted last July. Jaqeli has previously edited as User:GeorgianJorjadze, but all his contributions and block log are now under Jaqeli. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No objections.  Sandstein  17:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree in principle, although I'm not so sure a 1RR restriction will help. It wouldn't really have helped on Georgian calendar for example. However given the unblock conditions and other warnings it looks to me that short of blocks or topic bans 1RR is our best tool. That they haven't made a comment here gives me pause and I'd like to give them more time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)