Shortcuts

Case Opened on 16:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 05:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Involved parties[edit]

Requests for comment

[1]

Statement by Hajji Piruz[edit]

Due to persistent personal attacks, canvassing, false accusations, harassment, attempts at splitting Wikipedia up along national lines, telling users what to and what not to edit, and abuse of Wikipedia’s rules, I’ve had enough. Atabek’s behavior is highly disruptive, especially towards me. He even rejected a peace proposal I had put forth, which I had done in an attempt to end the dispute. The only way to solve this issue is for Atabek and I, just the two of us, without any outside interference, post our evidence and let the third party neutral administrators decide what action to take. I can prove my innocence against Atabeks false accusations, I can prove everything I have just said about Atabek, and I can show his general disruptive behavior on Wikipedia. Atabek has never brought up a single piece of evidence supporting any of his calims against me, yet he persists, and the last couple of days took the last straw for me, I’m sick of being continuously harassed and having to waste hours of my time defending myself against things I didn’t do, when I could be making even more contributions to Wikipedia than I am now. I will post all of my evidence when the arbcom is opened, as I do not want to take up anyones time here. Thank you.

Statement by Atabek[edit]

I have indicated to the User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani earlier as I do now, that I have no interest in wasting community's time on this issue. User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani did not completely try other methods of dispute resolution such as assuming good faith, CEM, seeking content mediation, or simply discussing on talk pages without emotion. Given these facts, I don't see a reason for his initial request for ArbCom attention at this point, as all he had to do is to WP:AGF as advised by a 3rd party [2]. Nevertheless, here are some facts to ArbCom's attention:

I think User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani needs to be explained that he needs to WP:AGF and try various avenues of dispute resolution, before simply claiming those as failed. In my case, I am simply forced to defend myself against blackmail, wikistalking, intimidation, revert warring, and provocation by User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani.

I prefer the path of disengagement, dispute resolution and path of ceasing to waste community's time. As I told User:Hajji Piruz already, after my one-way attempts to AGF, I shall simply ignore his comments [24], because I don't like to engage with people who are clearly in Wikipedia for non-encyclopedic purposes and battling along national lines [25] and [26].

Statement by User:Grandmaster[edit]

The problems on Iran - Azerbaijan related pages are mostly caused by one person - User:Hajji Piruz. This person has been edit warring almost on every Azerbaijan related article, making controversial edits and enlisting other Iranian users to support his edits. Hajji Piruz was wikistalking User:Atabek for quite some time, and editing Atabek’s personal page by Piruz and adding Atabek to the category of sockpuppeteers was a culmination of this campaign. [33] User:Hajji Piruz clearly stated the desired outcome in the RfC he started on Atabek, which is getting Atabek permanently banned. [34]

Behavior of User:AlexanderPar also deserves special attention of the admins. This user is deleting any quotes that do not match the official position of Iranian government, accusing those who tries to add such information of “soapboxing”. For instance, he deleted the quotes from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International a number of times, even when they were added by such perfectly neutral members of wiki community as User:Francis Tyers (who is neither Azeri nor Iranian). Francis explained many times that those sources are reliable, [35] but his edit was reverted nonetheless with the same accusation of soapboxing: [36] Moreover, AlexanderPar even reverted along the way the edit by the admin User:Alex Bakharev, who tried to present the different positions in a more balanced form. In its current form Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy article is pretty far from WP:NPOV standards, as it suppresses the info about ethnic tensions in Iran and presents them as nothing but foreign conspiracy. As of now, AlexanderPar keeps deleting HRW quotes from other articles under various pretexts. [37] As one can see, this user violates WP:NPOV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. As result of edit warring, this user has recently been blocked: [38]

Since this case is titled Armenia – Azerbaijan, I would also like to draw the attention of the arbitrators to User:Hetoum I, User:MarshallBagramyan and User:VartanM. Hetoum I is known for being engaged in vandalism of my user page about one year ago. At that time he was using the name of User:Hetoum. Overall, Hetoum vandalized my user page 18 (!) times, inserting obscene images and insulting comments. The fact was established by the admin User:Nlu, who placed multiple sockpuppeteer tags on Hetoum's user page [39] [40] and left this message: [41] Nlu removed the tags only on a condition that Hetoum would stop edit warring and vandalizing: [42] I think admins Nlu and User:Khoikhoi can provide additional info about this. It was not really difficult to establish that Hetoum was the puppeteer since he was using the same IP to vandalize my page and edit his own: [43] [44] But soon after the Armenia – Azerbaijan arbcom case Hetoum (who changed his name to User:Hetoum I) returned to editing pages related to this topic in his usual style, edit warring and making personal attacks on other users, contributing under both his registered name and anon IP: [45] [46] As result, the page Church of Kish got protected. I raised the issue at WP:ANI: [47] Hetoum has an active support of User:VartanM, who keeps reverting the same page to Hetoum's version. When the page was unprotected, Hetoum and VartanM resumed edit warring, each breaking the 3RR rule, [48] [49] and the page got protected again.

As for User:MarshallBagramyan, this user has been actively edit warring on a number Armenia - Azerbaijan related pages. On Khachkar destruction in Nakhchivan he was removing sources that contradicted his claim that deportation of Persian shah Abbas affected only Armenian population, until the admin Khoikhoi restored those sources. Only then Marshall stopped edit warring. On Armenian Revolutionary Federation Marshall was removing the sources about involvement of ARF in ethnic massacres and assassination of Russian officials in the beginning of the 20th century. Only when admin User:Thatcher131 evaluated the sources and confirmed that Marshall should not be removing verifiable info Marshall stopped his edit warring: [50] The same behavior continues on other articles this user is involved in, he even removes the tags that are attached to indicate that the contents of the article are disputed. [51] I think it was a mistake to place some users on parole and let others go, as those not on parole instantly took advantage of the situation and resumed edit warring. I would propose as a better solution placing all topic related pages on parole, that would be a more effective measure.

I would like to ask the arbitrators to review the situation with the account of User:Pam55. Checkuser proved that Pam55 was a sock of User:Behmod: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pam55. Subsequently, both Pam55 and Behmod were banned indefinitely by admin User:Alison. However, later admin Alex Bakharev unblocked both accounts, stating that they belong to the students in the same university. [52] The account of User:Pam55 was used to make reverts to controversial articles like Azerbaijani people, History of the name Azerbaijan or 300 (film). It is highly improbable that a new user would accidentally become aware of the disputes on those articles and appeared right in time to rv in favor of a certain POV. I raised the issue at WP:ANI: [53] I think that unblocking Pam55 was a mistake, it is either a sock or meatpuppet and as such should be banned. Grandmaster 06:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by user:Dacy69[edit]

I would like to draw attention to user:Hajji Piruz (formerly known user:Azerbaijani disruptive activity in Wikipedia where he drew several meatpuppets like user:AlexanderPar, user:Pejman47, user:Alborz Fallah and others to launch edit war on page Iranian Azerbaijan, Azeri cartoon controversy in the Iran newspaper, Ethnic minorities in Iran.

user:AlexanderPar has placed misleading comments on his comment section. He is still continue edit warring, removes neutral sources from several pages (see for example Ethnic Minorities in Iran and claims that he do nothing and shoudn't be here.

Summary of request:

NOTE on the title of the case I don't agree with a new title of the case. It is not only about Armenia-Azerbaijan. It should be also focused on Iranian editors. There is linkage - user:Hajji Piruz was involved in previous one on the side of Armenian editors and now he is attacking Azerbaijan related pages with a group of Persian editors. It is pity we should distingiush editors by ethnic affiliation but that is important to understand the nature of the problem. --Dacy69 18:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST for Temporary Injunction While consideration of this case is pending I request urgent action with regard to user:AlexanderPar. He continues edit warring and removes multisourced information without any discussion on the talkpage [60]

Statement by user:Alborz Fallah[edit]

Statement by non-involved Ghirla[edit]

Despite the ArbCom's efforts to defuse the situation, the Armenian-Azerbaijani-Turkish-Iranian articles are still a mess of never-ending revert-warring. When I wrote the page Third Perso-Turkic War and made a few edits to Church of Kish, I unexpectedly found myself in the middle of some massive hostilities whose purpose escapes me. I don't know which side of the dispute is right (if any), but I feel that even the most harmless edits on the Armenian-Azerbaijani-Turkish-Iranian articles are now perceived as a deliberate offense. The situation is not good, since it makes editing a large swath of articles rather stressful, therefore I urge the Arbitrators to investigate the case. It appears to me that the newest drama hinges on the person of Hajji Piruz, but I may be mistaken. Now a more general observation. ArbCom's decisions concerning the "hot spots" of Eastern Europe do not appear to work as they were probably intended. Once some folks are banned, new revert warriors instantly take their place in the ranks. For crying out loud, Occupation of Latvia 1940–1945 is currently subjected to intense revert warring which may (or may not) involve sockpuppetry. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by VartanM[edit]

This argument between Iranians and Azeris has nothing to do with me or any other user from Wikiproject Armenia. I hereby request that the name of this case be changed and my name taken off this arbcom case. VartanM 06:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by non-involved Hetoum I[edit]

I second VartanM. This has nothing to do with Armenians. I request my name off as well.Hetoum I 06:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex Bakharev[edit]

I do not know if I am involved or not, I have learnt that my name was on the original list but it is not now (obviously I am ready to explain my edits if needed). One of the sources of the problems is that most of active Azaeri and Armenian editors are either banned or on probation. As a result there is a balanced peace in Armenian-Azeri conflicts but disbalance in other perennial conflicts like Armenian-Turkish and Azeri-Iranian. It looks like one revert per week make impossible even the normal WP:BRD cycle. I (and probably other users) was contacted from the both sides asking to make edits (reasonably founded) on their behalf as they afraid that by doing it themselves the edits maybe considered a partial revert. There are also many throw-away accounts that look like socks. It is not good amd make people nervous.

The immediate reason for the conflict was the content dispute over Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy. I think the editing was sort of hot but the article is in good shape, went to WP:DYK and reasonably neutral as it is now.

I would think that maybe we can lift the 1RR parole for the involved users from the articles outside the Armenian-Azeri conflict, e.g. Armenian-Turkish and Azeri-Iranian may improve things. Alex Bakharev 06:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by non-involved Marshal Bagramyan[edit]

I'm at complete odds as to why I am supposed to be here. I'm currently on vacation, I have been for almost a week. I do not even what this dispute is even about.--Marshal Bagramyan 06:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlexanderPar[edit]

I have no idea how I can be considered a "party" to this ArbCom request. Evidently, User:Dacy69 simply added me to this ArbCom request as a retaliatory measure, since I reported [64] him for a 3RR violation a few days ago. Otherwise, and I have never edited any Azerbaijan Republic or Armenian pages (expect for one article I created myself), I have a clean block log, and if there is anything wrong with my editing, from what I understand there should be a RFC filled against me first. User:Dacy69 has also added a bunch of other people to the list of parties who are either uninvolved, or have minimal involvement in this dispute. I suspect that User:Dacy69 is doing this to make this ArbCom case unworkable, and deflect attention away from himself and others who were involved in the previous ArbCom.

I first encountered User:Dacy69 on Iranian Azerbaijan, responding to a RFC filled by User:Dacy69 [65]. After expressing my opinion about the dispute, I immediately became a target of personal attacks, threats, and accusations [66] by User:Dacy69 and User:Atabek. From the discussions there, I found my way into two other articles involving these two users. I soon noticed that User:Dacy69 is on some sort of ethnic/political crusade to turn Wikipedia into a soapbox. Always aided by User:Atabek and User:Grandmaster, he kept copy-pasting some poorly-sourced human rights reports on multiple articles, even geography articles, in an activist mode, which looked like blatant soapboxing, I raised the issue on admin's board [67] [68], and an admin confirmed that human rights/political websites are not reliable sources. [69] But User:Dacy69 not only did not stop soapboxing, but actually he along with User:Atabek and User:Grandmaster, broadened the scope of the dispute into new Iranian pages, in a deliberate attempt to provoke.

My own observation is that User:Dacy69, User:Atabek and User:Grandmaster appearer to be extremely disruptive editors who deliberately provoke edit-wars by soapboxing, ethnic activism, and gaming their revert parole. I also believe that the previous ArbCom did not fully examine their disruptive behavior. For example, as noted by an admin [70], it's astonishing that despite User:Dacy69's revert parole restrictions imposed by ArbCom, he still manages to violate 3RR on a page by making 4 reverts in less than a day.AlexanderPar 08:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Behmod[edit]

Moreover, these users take time and energy of many users by their unnecessary bustles. I really believe that they decrease the efficiency of many other users that have high potential of having good contributions in Wikipedia by this. These days, above users use this strategy to misdirect the Arbcom case from themselves who are the main people involved in these dispute and most of people who are here are not really involved. They are fussing about nothing these days just to misdirect attentions from themselves. For example, from the case that I personally observed, they started accusing two users that are obviously different users to be sockpuppet of each others. These users have several edits at the same time, never be involved in any 3rr, they are interested in many different topics and one of them just reverted one time in favor of the other one in all of her 6 months of editing in Wikipedia. Anyhow, asuming good faith. I initiated the first step of dispute resolution with Atabek [[71]], hope to hear a good feedback from him.--behmod talk 01:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aynabend[edit]

I honestly do not understand what was the purpose and need for this arbitration, why Hajji Piruz who is of an Iranian descent is initiating arbcom naming it "Azerbaijan-Armenia" and not "Azerbaijan-Iran"? Is the plan to make users contributing to Azerbaijan and Armenia related articles to fight all the time? I have only contributed to Wiki with original, third party sources and maps in the articles related to Azerbaijan/Armenia. Trying to cover and drown as many as possible who do not agree with you must be the aim of this evil initiative. I hope such a destructive users will be unsuccessful in their attempts. --Aynabend 20:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by non-involved Aivazovsky[edit]

I'm not sure why I'm here. I haven't been involved in any major Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute in awhile and it seems that this RfA has more to do with Iranians and Azeris than Armenians and Azeris. Needless to say, I don't want to be involved in this at all. Therefore, I removed my name and thus I am uninvolving myself from this mess. -- Aivazovsky 02:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last 7-day block was for edit-warring on Azerbaijan article [72]. If other Armenian users are involved, so are you.--TigranTheGreat 09:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I still consider myself non-involved in this case, I guess if other Armenian editors (including our vacationing friend, Marshall) are in on this thing than I am too. I still say that this is mostly an Iranian-Azeri dispute though. -- Aivazovsky 11:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles[edit]

Negotiation

1) Willingness to negotiate in a more or less civil way with the other editors of an article is a condition of editing the article.

Passed 6-0 at 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources

2) Armenian, Azeri or other local sources are subject to the same requirements of reliability as any other scholarly or journalistic sources. Use of material from propagandistic nationalist sites is unacceptable.

Passed 6-0 at 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring considered harmful

3) Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Passed 6-0 at 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

4) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Passed 6-0 at 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground

5) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable.

Passed 6-0 at 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

6) Users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site.

Passed 6-0 at 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy

7) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Passed 6-0 at 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith

8) Users are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those whom they had conflicts with in the past.

Passed 6-0 at 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers

9) Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers is not a label that is appropriately placed by one user on another user they are in conflict with.

Passed 6-0 at 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Diplomacy

10) It is when there are serious disagreements that courteous negotiation is most necessary.

Passed 6-0 at 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

11) Determining the reliability of sources is a matter of sound editorial judgment informed by expertise.

Passed 6-0 at 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment

12) A user-conduct request for comment represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her behavior, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her behavior.

Passed 6-0 at 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability

13) Significant verifiable information from a reliable source can generally be included in an article, per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Passed 6-0 at 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Provocation

14) When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate. Provocation of a new or inexperienced user by an experienced and sophisticated user is especially inappropriate.

Passed 6-0 at 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet abuse

15) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.

Passed 6-0 at 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Users national background and neutrality

17) Editors with a national background are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view.

Passed 6-0 at 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Findings of Fact[edit]

Results of the prior Arbitration

1) The remedies imposed by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies have somewhat reduced edit warring, but have had the effect at times of increasing incivility on talk pages.

Passed 6-0 at 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Supervised editing

Superseded

1) Hajji Piruz and the other users placed on revert limitation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies are subject to supervised editing. They may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should they fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in their interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise.

Passed 6-0 at 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Superseded - see below.

Applicability to all disruptive editors

Superseded

2) The remedies of revert limitations (formerly revert parole), including the limitation of 1 revert per week, civility supervision (formerly civility parole) and supervised editing (formerly probation) that were put in place at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan shall apply to any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them.

Passed 6-0 at 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Superseded - see below.

Contentious topic designation

3) Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed, are designated as a contentious topic.

Amended by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

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.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Amendments[edit]

Amended Remedies and Enforcement

Superseded

As at 19 January 2008, the remedies and enforcement provisions of Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 were replaced with the following:

1) Discretionary sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

2) Appeal of discretionary sanctions

Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

3) Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of discretionary sanctions.

4) Other provisions

This shall not affect any sanctions already imposed under the old remedies. All sanctions imposed under these provisions are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Log of blocks and bans.
Passed 8 to 0 02:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Superseded by an alternate sanction passed 14 to 0, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Standard discretionary sanctions

Superseded

Topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

Passed 14 to 0 by motion, 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Superseded by motion on 05:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted.

Superseded by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Amendments by motion[edit]

Modified by motion

The section entitled "Standard discretionary sanctions" in the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case is replaced with the following:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted.

Previous or existing sanctions, warnings, and enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.

Passed 10 to 1 on 05:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)

As part of the 2022 adoption of the contentious topics procedure, the Arbitration Committee adopted the following motion to re-designate existing discretionary sanctions remedies as contentious topic designations.

21) Each reference to the prior discretionary sanctions procedure shall be treated as a reference to the contentious topics procedure. The arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Enforcement log[edit]

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.

old
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

List of users placed under supervision[edit]

List here editors who have been placed on civility supervision, supervised editing, and revert limitation by notice on their talk page. The template ((subst:uw-sanctions|topic=a-a)) may be used, or a personal message containing the same information.

List of editors warned about possible discretionary sanctions[edit]

Editors warned about this decision as provided for in the discretionary sanctions remedy may be listed here. On 3 May 2014 Arbcom established a new method of notifying for discretionary sanctions which is explained at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. All notices given prior to the May 2014 cutover date will expire on 3 May 2015. New notices are to be given using ((Ds/alert)) and they expire one year after they are given. No new notices should be logged here.

2009[edit]

2010[edit]

2011[edit]

2012[edit]

2013[edit]

2014[edit]

Category