Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:53, 24 January 2022 editGrandmaster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers25,518 edits I don't change anything, only add additional comments. I'm short of spaceTags: Manual revert Reverted← Previous edit Revision as of 16:57, 24 January 2022 edit undoGeneralrelative (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,193 edits Undid revision 1067681160 by Grandmaster (talk) Changing comments after they've been replied to is against talk page guidelines, which apply here. Simply create a new short comment and sign it separately.Tag: UndoNext edit →
Line 332: Line 332:
{{u|Rosguill}}, please note that I only cited epress.am once, at the talk page of Agdam. I made no further reference to that source. Every other mention was in response to Armatura, explaining the purpose of that single mention. Also, the article was not nationalist, quite the contrary, it was critical of those people who made racist comments about Azerbaijani people and justified destruction of Azerbaijani cities. I never proposed to use it as a reference in the Misplaced Pages article. {{u|Rosguill}}, please note that I only cited epress.am once, at the talk page of Agdam. I made no further reference to that source. Every other mention was in response to Armatura, explaining the purpose of that single mention. Also, the article was not nationalist, quite the contrary, it was critical of those people who made racist comments about Azerbaijani people and justified destruction of Azerbaijani cities. I never proposed to use it as a reference in the Misplaced Pages article.


Regarding epress.am, it is certainly not a nationalist publication. Some information about them could be found here And here is an interview with its chief editor, who says that his publication is against nationalism, militarism, homophobia and violence. It won ] in 2014. If you check English Misplaced Pages, it is used a lot in Armenia related articles. Regarding epress.am, it is certainly not a nationalist publication. Some information about them could be found here And here is an interview with its chief editor, who says that his publication is against nationalism, militarism, homophobia and violence. It Won ] in 2014. If you check English Misplaced Pages, it is used a lot in Armenia related articles.


{{u|ZaniGiovanni}}: {{u|ZaniGiovanni}}:
# 1st diff, which should be , Billion was quoted by ], a major French news outlet. I used this quote on ], not Armenian genocide. If France24 considers him a leading French expert on OSCE Minsk Group, I don't see why we cannot quote him. # 1st diff, which should be , Billion was quoted by ], a major French news outlet. I used this quote on ], not Armenian genocide. If France24 considers him a leading French expert on OSCE Minsk Group, I don't see why we cannot quote him.
# 2nd diff, I trimmed a large unnecessary quote, most of which was about ], and I kept only the part that was about Talysh, because the article is about Talysh, not Lezgins. The only info about Talysh there was that their number could be understated, and that remained. I don't think Cornell is generally a good source here, as he is referring to private conversations with some people. But it is there. # 2nd diff, I trimmed a large unnecessary quote, most of which was about ], and I kept only the part that was about Talysh, because the article is about Talysh, not Lezgins. The only info about Talysh there was that their number could be understated, and that remained.
# 3rd diff, I only provided official Azerbaijani position on that issue. Whether that position is right or wrong, it needs to presented too, per ]. We cannot write an article without reflecting the official position of one of the warring sides, with proper attribution, which I made. EU parliament was already mentioned. ]] 08:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC) # 3rd diff, I only provided official Azerbaijani position on that issue. Whether that position is right or wrong, it needs to presented too, per ]. We cannot write an article without reflecting the official position of one of the warring sides, with proper attribution, which I made. ]] 08:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


====Statement by Dennis Brown==== ====Statement by Dennis Brown====

Revision as of 16:57, 24 January 2022

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    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

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

    • request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
    • request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
    • request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
    • appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

    For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

    Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

    To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

    All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

    The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (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 ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

    Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

    A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

    An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

    • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
    • The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
      • the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
      • the restriction was an indefinite block.

    A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

    • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
    • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
    • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

    Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

    Standard of review
    On community review

    Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
    On Arbitration Committee review

    Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    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 the amendment requests page ("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 topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized 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.
    Information for administrators processing requests

    Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

    A couple of reminders:

    • Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
    • When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
    • Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
    • More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

    Closing a thread:

    • Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
    • Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
    • You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
    • Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

    Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346

    Saad Arshad Butt

    Temporarily closing without comment on the merits, and without prejudice to bring up the same diffs in a future filing if the issues resurface. No admins have commented in over a week, it seems the editor has stopped editing, for now. This should not be seen as a "no action" close, but rather a pause in enforcement by an uninvolved admin, which can be taken up at a later date if needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:26, 19 January 2022 (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 Saad Arshad Butt

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Saad Arshad Butt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan (or Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons if that's preferred)
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 20:46, 26 December 2021 Adds unreferenced date of birth to living person Saad Hussain Rizvi (all future edits refer to this article, unless stated otherwise)
    2. 21:23, 26 December 2021 Edit wars to repeat previous edit
    3. 22:32, 26 December 2021 Adds date of birth with fake reference (the only date of birth referred to in the article is the 1966 date of birth of his father)
    4. 14:16, 30 December 2021 Edit wars to repeat previous edit
    5. 14:25, 30 December 2021 Amends reference from previous edit to one that still doesn't supported the claimed 1994 date of birth
    6. 14:30, 30 December 2021 Adds unreferenced, and incorrect, claim that Dars-e-Nizami is equivalent to a Master's Degree (although that only says "Master" see Talk:Saad Hussain Rizvi#Education where the claim is expanded upon
    7. 14:33, 30 December 2021 Adds claim unsupported by reference that he is an "Islamic Scholar"
    8. 14:52, 30 December 2021 Adds "Allama" and "Hafiz" honorifics (in violation of MOS:ISLAMHON, unreferenced "Islamic Scholar" claim and date of birth (again!), and truly hopeless "This surely is a result of grooming offered by the movement TLP as he accompanied his father Khadim Hussain Rizvi at every stage from the beginning of his religio-political career"
    9. 00:21, 31 December 2021 Re-adds "Allama" and "Hafiz" honorifics, claiming they are part of his name (false)
    10. 01:15, 31 December 2021 Adds absolutely hopeless section, "Unfortunately organization and workers couldn't notice but Khadim Hussain Rizvi R.A in his life", and more blatatly " This allowance after 25 years by Khadim Hussain Rizvi was a great sign for intellectuals of TLP that Khadim Hussain Rizvi is preparing for his temporal final breath. I would take liberty mentioning that recently Liaqat Bagh to Faizabad Namoos-e-Risalatﷺ March, which later transformed to Dharna Faizabad against French Blasphemy, was officially under the superintendence of late Khadim Hussain Rizvi R.A but it was actually administrated and led by his son Allama Hafiz Saad Hussain Rizvi in the field, leading from the forefront against 22,000 tear gas shells and direct firing of thousands of bullets. As per my understanding, Allama Hafiz Saad Hussain Rizvi holds a loyal place among grass root level organization and supporters of TLP especially in youth of modern education sector because of his backstage strenuous and protracted innings from the beginning with Khadim Hussain Rizvi"
    11. 01:24, 31 December 2021 More hopeless writing, most blatantly "After Hifz-e-Quran under his father Khadim Hussain Rizvi's superintendence he again entered school for further education but as per ALLAH's will, he was not meant for English schooling"
    12. 02:15, 31 December 2021 Edit warring to re-add hopeless writing
    13. 02:20, 31 December 2021 More of the same
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    n/a

    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

    IPA notification, BLP notification

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Diffs #10 and #11 are the most damning. Per this, the editor is associated with Saad Hussain Rizvi, and even offers to provide his ID documents to prove a date of birth. The editor identifies as Saad Arshad on their userpage, if required I can provide a social media link proving someone of that name is a member of the political party Saad Hussain Rizvi is in charge of. They are also editing while logged out, the minimal difference between the IP's version and Saad Arshad Butt's version isn't likely to be a coincidence.

    @Ymblanter: I believe they are also editing as 182.191.178.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in the last couple of hours reinstating Saad Arshad Butt's disputed additions despite the lack of consensus at Talk:Saad Hussain Rizvi#Education, this IP is the same ISP and geolocation as this talk page edit by an IP signing as Saad Arshad Butt (and Saad Arshad Butt edited one minute later, so I don't think there is any dispute about the IP and Saad Arshad Butt being one and the same). FDW777 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    If there is to be a topic ban, please make it all BLPs based on the current disruption they are causing while editing logged out at Ilyas Qadri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), who appears to be a rival. This is a long way beyond the pale. FDW777 (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    @CaptainEek: see Bhat for the many Asian people with that name. FDW777 (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified


    Discussion concerning Saad Arshad Butt

    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 Saad Arshad Butt

    Statement by TrangaBellam

    There are 90+ "Arshad Butt" profiles in Linkedin .... TrangaBellam (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

    moved by me to her own section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by Jehochman

    1. The username is plausibly legitimate, per Google searches for the name and fragments of the name.
    2. Looking at the contributions, this is a WP:SPA behaving badly after multiple warnings, WP:IDHT. They have no other global contributions.
    3. The standard remedy for such an SPA is indefinite block. Please don't make bureaucracy or pass the buck; please indef block (if there’s current disruption) and leave a friendly block message with the standard offer to unblock if they demonstrate an understanding of what they did wrong and can explain how would like to participate constructively. Jehochman 13:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    4. They haven’t made a consequential edit for over two weeks. This may be stale. Jehochman 21:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Saad Arshad Butt

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • On one hand, the edits do not look good, and the user only has 124 edits. On the other hand, it looke more like WP:CIR case than WP:NOTHERE case, and, judging from their talk page, they are willing to learn, even if the learning curve is not particularly steep. The bad edits are more for BLP case than for India-Pakistan case, and they have not edited in the articles after being notified specifically on BLP. I am curious what the user has to say, but preliminary I think some sanction like a topic-ban from BLP may be needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm not so sure it's not a WP:NOTHERE case. On the face of it, the editor has only one interest (and possible COI), Saad Hussain Rizvi, and that's usually best addressed with an indef nothere. But a topic ban might achieve the same thing so, sure, let's go with that. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
      Both Arshad as well as Butt are common South Asian Muslim names so I don't think that's an issue at all. The editor is obviously an SPA and should be blocked as WP:NOTHERE. They haven't edited since January 4th so, perhaps, we can hold off on this. But, if they reappear, and continue on the same vein, I'll likely just block them as a normal admin action.--RegentsPark (comment) 00:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
      @FDW777: I've blocked the IP and semi-protected both articles. @Ymblanter: not much point with a topic ban imo, they're going to ignore it, we'll issue escalating blocks, and they'll end where an indef NOTHERE block will take them anyway. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
      Yes, I think blocks are fine. I would give one block for smth like a week, and then if they do not improve their behavior the second one indef. I see no reason to do it in too many steps.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I would actually be interested to hear from Saad Arshad Butt regarding this request. Specifically, do you understand that many, if not most, of your edits have been inappropriate, and that continuing to do that is not acceptable? Perfection is not expected, but a willingness to listen and respond to feedback from more experienced editors very much is. If so, I might be amenable to a sanction like a topic ban. Otherwise, I think we would be wasting time and effort with that; an editor who won't respect any of our other policies probably won't respect a topic ban either, and will just end up indeffed anyway. Seraphimblade 03:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    • On the one hand, the name might be legit. But on the other, "Sad Arse Butt" looks a lot like a troll name. Not an expert on the linguistic origin of names though, so take me with a grain of salt. CaptainEek ⚓ 04:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
      I'm generally willing to AGF as that goes, as long as it's not too outrageous. There are plenty of "foreign" names that sound like some type of joke in English, but are entirely legitimate and real. Seraphimblade 05:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

    Lokeshwaran V R

    Indef blocked as a standard admin action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:43, 23 January 2022 (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 Lokeshwaran V R

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    DaxServer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Lokeshwaran V R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Move log Most of the moves were reverted back to their original location, per WP:COMMONNAME
    2. 05:20, 3 January 2022 Move after my final warning on 29 December 2021
    3. 13:00, 14 January 2022 Same as above
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    n/a

    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    The user has a long history of not abiding to the naming conventions. See move log. The talk page is full of warnings and discussions on this particular topic: WP:COMMONAME, Article title, Article moves, December 2021, Page moves. Almost all of the moves, if not every, doesn't have a move summary as to why the move is made by the user. This long-lasting moves against the naming policy suggests the user has no understanding the policy itself. I'd request an indefinite move ban within the topics of India, broadly construed.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified

    Discussion concerning Lokeshwaran V R

    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 Lokeshwaran V R

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Lokeshwaran V R

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

    Cygnis insignis

    96 hour block for 1RR and personal attacks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:55, 19 January 2022 (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 Cygnis insignis

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Cygnis insignis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Discretionary_sanctions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 16:53, 18 January 2022 - a revert on page Mass killings under communist regimes, user say in edit summary that "restore backdated ...". Hence, that was a revert, and they knew it.
    2. 20:10, 18 January 2022 - this is a violation of 1RR restriction on the page
    3. 17:42, 19 January 2022 (please note edit summary) - WP:NPA violation in response to polite advice/warning
    4. 20:59, 19 January 2022 - false personal accusations
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    31 October 2010 Toddst1 ask me, no sanctions or topic bans on this or any other pages. ~ cygnis insignis 22:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • The user was given a notification
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I am not sure if 1RR violation alone would justify this request, but the comments and behavior by this user are highly confrontational, including diffs 3 and 4 above and their removal of comments made by other contributors , removing their own signature , edit warring about tag date (diffs 1 and 2) etc.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Here


    Discussion concerning Cygnis insignis

    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 Cygnis insignis

    I did restore that, noting the warning about 1rr within 24 hours above the edit window and reckoned that I hadn't. I then mentioned this in an active discussion on the tag, those opposing its presence also objected to an indication of how long synth concerns had existed (which spun off to two or three sections as things do on that talk). After a substantive period of time, with no further edits to that page by me, the user thought to undertake a sanction process. I am also currently involved in discussion with this account on the Abortion article's talk page, where their concerns are as creepy and bizarre as their username. And how are you? Have a lovely day, wont you? ~ cygnis insignis 22:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

    Any editor in good standing can query the edits I made, including those assembled by trolling and baiting for this purpose. ~ cygnis insignis 22:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Cygnis insignis

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

    in re Sushant Singh Rajput

    Protected talk page as a standard admin action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Request concerning Sushant Singh Rajput

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions, WP:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#May 2014
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    This is a very unorthodox request, to be sure, but the situation is such that the alternative is just spamming RFPP every few months and the standard AE template is of absolutely no use to me. I'm seeking to make the current 500/30 on Sushant Singh Rajput · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · - presently set to expire in 2024 - indefinite and to likewise indefinitely semi-protect the talk page of the article.

    Since Rajput died by hanging in June 2020 the article's been facing cyclical disruption from drive-by IP editors who are pushing conspiracy theories, fed mainly by right-wing Indian media, that he was murdered by his girlfriend or someone else who was/is part of either of their inner circles. (Reliable sources report that it was suicide, based on the initial autopsy and a review of that autopsy.) Every time the article proper is unprotected, IPs/unregistered users quickly come in and reintroduce content in support of this conspiracy theory. The issue is less pronounced on the talk page but still present, in that every few months we get a surge of drive-by IPs demanding we add the conspiracy theory material in meritless edit requests, ignoring an FAQ written and pinned at the top of the page. Because of the nature of the disruption, editor-level sanctions are not viable as an option to stem the tide, since the IPs make their edit and never show up again, making sanctioning them directly moot.

    While content about Rajput specifically will lose BLP protections in June, there is no guarantee that the conspiracymongering - which, again, focuses on people who are still alive - will stop at that point, especially given Rajput's family members have stirred the pot a couple of times, triggering another surge every time.

    Again, I apologise for the grossly nonstandard template, but it is not built to request page-level sanctions in a situation where the users themselves are drive-bys.

    Discussion concerning Sushant Singh Rajput

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Sushant Singh Rajput

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I'm...sorta-involved here from an administrative perspective? I've handed out a few of the SSR-related page protections. I would be willing to carry out these requests as a normal administrative action. I think applying existing DS here are a bit of a stretch, and with the persistent disruption I think these actions are entirely warranted. Part of this, of course, stems from my general reluctance to use DS when normal admin actions are already justified. Will hold off for a while to hear what other folks have to say. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    • DS is a stretch. In fact, BLP should be considered expired and the template on the talk page removed, if not now, by June when it will be 2 years since his death, the maximum we extend BLP protection. I can see semiprotecting the talk page as a standard admin action, although given the traffic, that is a little extreme but would likely stand up to scrutiny. 1 year max, 6 months would be much easier to justify the use of the admin tools. If EC is already good for 2 more years, we absolutely can't extend that, there is zero justification. The expiration is simply so far in the future, we can't predict what the traffic will be like in two years. You need to bring it up when it is about to expire. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    The talk page has been protected before, so I went and protected it for 6 months as a regular admin action. When it expires, if there are more problems, you don't need to ask at WP:AE to get it reviewed. You can ask me directly on my talk page, or WP:RFPP, or any uninvolved admin. At this time, that's all we can do, but it should be enough. And as for your format and confusion, it's fine, no worries. It isn't always obvious where to go or how to format. Leaving open in case another admin has a comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

    Devesh.bhatta

    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 Devesh.bhatta

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Hemantha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Devesh.bhatta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    Source (my bolding) - "... Mughal ruler Babur who ordered its construction in 1500s. Hindu tradition maintains that the mosque was built on the site of a Hindu temple destroyed by the Mughals
    Edit The prominent hindu temple was demolished by Mughal commander Mir Baqi under the orders of Babur – the first Mughal emperor, who then constructed the Babri mosque.. Searching the book fails to show any mention of Mir Baqi anywhere in it.
    Source only says Officials privately admit ... as many of the accused belonged to the influential "khadim" (caretaker) families of the dargah (of Moinuddin Chishti), as do all others available.
    Their two edits (my bolding) - Main accused Farooq Chishtee was descendant of Moinuddin Chishti
    • On Tablighi Jamaat - bulldozing of source's very careful, nuanced wording to imply link between Jamaat and covid spread. One sentence added as is from the source.
    Source An increasing number of people in Kyrgyzstan are calling on the government to review its policy on religious organizations and learn more about the activities of Tablighi Jamaat
    Edit Kyrgyzstani People called on the government to ban Tablighi Jamaat.
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    The listed instances are just from this past month after DS notice was given. There is more instances of reckless sourcing from before for which I had, politely and later forcefully, asked them to be more careful. There was no response or an attempt at cleanup, but they have also not tried to restore my reverts yet. But their slow edit war at Krishna Janmasthan Temple Complex and a continued misrepresentation of sources show that their contributions in this topic area are to push a POV, not to improve articles.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion

    Discussion concerning Devesh.bhatta

    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 Devesh.bhatta

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Devesh.bhatta

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

    Grandmaster

    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 Grandmaster

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Armatura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 19:49, 16 January 2022 pushes outrageous website EPRESS.AM to prove his point that "even Armenian media makes analogies with nuclear weapons" for Agdam. The fact the "article" does not even have an author, that it is copy paste of unknown person's delusionary Facebook post, that it contains passages like "nomadic barbarian-vampires" and "they deserve this, I have f****d the city and the Turks' mother" about Azerbaijanis and that the whole website is a trash can with no editorial oversight or domain registration details, full of extreme profanity like "caught when jerking" or "I'd f***ed your mothers" does not worry Grandmaster. He does not want to hear, and keeps beating the dead horse again and again, and once again in ANI, by saying  he just “quoted epress.am just to show that the analogy with devastation by nuclear weapons is used by Armenian media too.” , then accusing me for “making so much drama over one news link posted at a talk page, and bringing it to this board.” Such an "article" with racial remarks towards Azeris/Turks would not be normally tolerated another time, yet since it supports his “even Armenian media uses Hiroshima” POV, he isn’t bothered.
    2. 17:02, 16 January 2022 Grandmaster turns a blind eye on pro-Azeri propaganda; he won't see why Azerbaijani president's aid Hikmet Hajijev's "this is Hiroshima" phrase applied to literally all cities damaged in 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, in front of BBC camera, constitutes propaganda; on the contrary, he justifies it by saying it is because every settlement in 7 districts that were under Armenian occupation "looks like Hiroshima... What is propaganda here?"... and "BBC report shows the town of Jabrayil that looks like another, smaller Hiroshima".
    3. 13 January 2022Grandmaster uses double standards, putting undue weight on "Armenianness" of the source, giving it undue weight, by downplaying Armenian village head's quote about Azeri president origin despite it was cited by neutral RS", or overplaying it like in Epress.am example above, depending on what better suits POV-pushing.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. En Wiki block log previous 10 blocks in English Misplaced Pages, mostly in AA topic
    2. Ru Wiki block log previous 10 blocks in Russian Misplaced Pages, again mostly in AA topic
    3. 29 May 2010 RU AE case - 6-month ban on Russian Misplaced Pages for leading the meatpuppetry Anti-Armenian group of a dozen Azerbaijani editors, some of which still support Grandmaster in discussions on English Misplaced Pages.
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Grandmaster has veteran experience of POV-pushing with extensive history of blocks in Armenia-Azerbaijan topic in two Wikipedias. The provided diffs are just a few recent examples to show he has not changed but learned how to avoid bans by WP:CPUSH-ing as shown in diffs above. I think he is there not as much as to build encyclopedia, but to advance official Azerbaijan' positions on Misplaced Pages, in a nationalist mood, prohibited by WP:ADVOCACY. He is apparently unable contribute neutrally in topics he has ethnic conflict of interest with, hence I believe a topic ban from AA area, broadly construed (including Turkey and Turkic world), for at least 1 year, is required to help to sober him up, while allowing him to edit in topics he does not have conflict of interest with. I was advised by admins Rosguill and Robert McClenon to take the case from ANI to AE, and so I did.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified on talk page by standart alert.

    Discussion concerning Grandmaster

    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 Grandmaster

    This is already 4th report filed on me by Armatura. Such persistence in filing frivolous reports one after another indicates that this user is engaged in WP:Witchhunt. Previously Armatura joined now banned user Steverci to accuse me of various things, but that report was dismissed as retaliatory. Then he filed a 3RR report on me , which was dismissed without action, and he did it when I reported a banned IP user, so it appears to be another retaliatory report. After that he filed a report on WP:ANI, asking to ban me: So this is the report # 4, which for the most part repeats the report at WP:ANI.

    Regarding Agdam, one can see that Armatura started the latest discussion by bringing up a BBC report that has no relevance to the city of Agdam, to support his claim that the term "Hiroshima of Caucasus" is used as propaganda by Azerbaijan (BBC says nothing like that, btw). But as was demonstrated by myself and other users, the term Hiroshima of Caucasus is used not just by Azerbaijan, but it was coined by British journalist and political analyst Thomas de Waal, and is used by mainstream international media such as Euronews, France24, AP, The independent, and even Armenian reporter for IWPR. I quoted epress.am just to show that the analogy with devastation by nuclear weapons is used by Armenian media too. I did not propose to include it into the article. In fact, Armatura's claiming that the term Hiroshima of Caucasus is propaganda after it was demonstrated that it originated outside of Azerbaijan and is used by media all over the world is tendentious editing in itself.

    Then he accuses me of removing claims of an village head about late president of Azerbaijan allegedly concealing his place of birth for political reasons, but how qualified is a villager to make judgements about the motives of the Soviet leadership? Even if it is reported by a reliable source, it does not make the claims of a man in the street reliable or notable. But I only removed that line once, and when Armatura restored it, I left it at that. There was no edit war, or anything of the kind. I just tried to attract attention to questionability of that claim, per WP:BRD.

    Regarding my blocks in en:wiki, as you can see, they are from 15 years ago, and incident at Russian wiki is from 12 years ago, and has nothing to do with en:wiki.

    Per WP:Boomerang, I think the admins need to look at Armatura's own activity. Armatura repeatedly violated WP:AGF and WP:Civil, making personal attacks and incivil comments every time I try to have a polite discussion with him. For example, in his report at WP:ANI, he accuses me of having a "narrow vision in which Armenians are "the bad guys"", which clearly is a bad faith assumption. In this report here, he accuses me of "advancing official Azerbaijan' positions on Misplaced Pages, in a nationalist mood", with no credible evidence whatsoever, which is again not in line with WP:AGF. How civil is it to write to another editor: do not test the patience of other editors with nonsense, it may be viewed as trolling? Here he told me: Because you simply refuse to understand when I explain anything, in a nihilistic fashion Bad faith assumption like this, when he accused me of not reacting to another user's erroneous closure of RFC, even though Armatura was explained by a Misplaced Pages admin that he cannot hold against someone not doing something: Another bad faith assumption at the same page: Here he demands from me "repentance", which he would "perhaps accept"? As was noted by an uninvolved user at WP:ANI, Armatura WP:BLUDGEONs the discussion by arguing with my every vote and every comment, . You may wish to check Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement and Talk:Agdam#RfC_for_"Hiroshima_of_Caucasus" to get the full picture of my interactions with this user.

    Previously, Armatura was placed on interaction ban with another user: .

    In sum, Armatura has difficulties with keeping it cool when engaging in discussions with other editors, which is why admins may wish to see if editing such a contentious topic as Armenia-Azerbaijan relations is something that he should be allowed to do. His behavior creates nervous and unhealthy atmosphere, when you expect to be attacked for everything that you do (or don't do) or write.

    Rosguill, please note that I only cited epress.am once, at the talk page of Agdam. I made no further reference to that source. Every other mention was in response to Armatura, explaining the purpose of that single mention. Also, the article was not nationalist, quite the contrary, it was critical of those people who made racist comments about Azerbaijani people and justified destruction of Azerbaijani cities. I never proposed to use it as a reference in the Misplaced Pages article.

    Regarding epress.am, it is certainly not a nationalist publication. Some information about them could be found here And here is an interview with its chief editor, who says that his publication is against nationalism, militarism, homophobia and violence. It Won Free Media Awards in 2014. If you check English Misplaced Pages, it is used a lot in Armenia related articles.

    ZaniGiovanni:

    1. 1st diff, which should be this, Billion was quoted by France24, a major French news outlet. I used this quote on OSCE Minsk Group, not Armenian genocide. If France24 considers him a leading French expert on OSCE Minsk Group, I don't see why we cannot quote him.
    2. 2nd diff, I trimmed a large unnecessary quote, most of which was about Lezgins, and I kept only the part that was about Talysh, because the article is about Talysh, not Lezgins. The only info about Talysh there was that their number could be understated, and that remained.
    3. 3rd diff, I only provided official Azerbaijani position on that issue. Whether that position is right or wrong, it needs to presented too, per WP:Balance. We cannot write an article without reflecting the official position of one of the warring sides, with proper attribution, which I made. Grandmaster 08:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by Dennis Brown

    Grandmaster, you are over the word limit by over 100 words. You need to trim it down a bit if you expect to reply again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

    Ok, will do. Grandmaster 01:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    Is it ok now, or more trimming needed? Grandmaster 01:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    If you look above, the limit is supposed to be 500 words total, which is often overlooked if you don't push it too far, but just be aware, that's all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    Ok, thanks a lot. Grandmaster 13:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by ZaniGiovanni

    Since the ANI discussion, I was thinking wheter the suggested AE case would be opened or not, as there are other diffs of Grandmaster's POV pushing that weren't discussed. I believe as an involved party with the previous case, I should add my input. Some recent edits by Grandmaster that I believe weren't posted in either of noticeboards:

    • diff 1 - Grandmaster adds Didier Billion as a source which supports Azerbaijani point-of-view. Billion is an Armenian genocide denier, (link). Billion trivializes genocide as "events" . He's essentially a Turkish lobbiest, . This isn’t the first time Grandmaster added an Armenian genocide denier as a source, see diff of him adding Christopher Gunn, another denialist.
    • diff 2 - Huge WP:ALLEGED violation. Grandmaster removed any mention of the government falsifying records and just attributed it to belief.
    • diff 3 - Grandmaster added WP:UNDUE Azerbaijani POV that a group of Armenian prisoners of war from 2020 Karabakh War were apparently a “saboteur group”. Even the Eurasianet source he cited casts a lot of doubt on them being labeled as saboteurs. It reveals one of the “saboteurs” is actually a civilian. And it also quotes an Armenian human rights activist saying they were taken as hostages. Yet another example of Grandmaster only citing what benefits his agenda and giving it a huge undue weight. Notable to add that the European Parliament source in the article states:
      • “whereas credible reports have been made that Armenian service personnel and civilians have also been taken prisoner since the cessation of hostilities on 10 November 2020; whereas the Azerbaijani authorities claim that these hostages and prisoners are terrorists and do not deserve POW status under the Geneva Convention;”
      • “whereas Azerbaijani forces detained these civilians even though there was no evidence that they posed any security threat that could justify their detention under international humanitarian law;”

    I'm not an admin, I don't know what appropriate measures are against users in such cases. As someone involved in the ANI discussion, I wanted to share the problematic edits of Grandmaster I've noticed recently. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

    • 1st diff, which should be this, Billion was quoted by France24, a major French news outlet. I used this quote on OSCE Minsk Group, not Armenian genocide. If France24 considers him a leading French expert on OSCE Minsk Group, I don't see why we cannot quote him.
    As I said, this isn't the first time you used "not Armenian genocide" defense when called out on your sources. You said the same thing about Christopher Gunn, another denialist, "This article is not about genocide". I struggle to understand how you don't get the point here, so I'll make an analogy: Do you think if someone is a holocaust denier, calls holocaust "events", says "JEWISH DIASPORA SHOULD LEAVE LIVING IN THE PAST” (he published an article about Armenian diaspora ), they can be considered credible on issues related to Jewish people?
    I don't think so, but maybe you'll defend him again, as it seems like when your view is challenged, you go extra defensive missing the point entirely. And btw, unsurprisingly, Didier Billion takes the Turkish/Azerbaijani point of view regarding Minsk Group, and has articles published about himself and his views in pro-Turkish government paper Daily Sabah , denies the Armenian genocide, etc. Do you honestly not see the conflict of interest here?
    • 2nd diff, I trimmed a large unnecessary quote, most of which was about Lezgins, and I kept only the part that was about Talysh, because the article is about Talysh, not Lezgins. The only info about Talysh there was that their number could be understated, and that remained.
    2 sentences hardly counts as a "large unnecessary quote", this was a complete exaggeration by you used to embellish your point. The Lezgins part is there because in the next sentence, author directly makes the comparison to Talyshs, and how Azerbaijani government denies figures for both ethnic groups, "These figures are denied by the Azerbaijani government but in private many Azeris acknowledge the fact that Lezgins – for that matter Talysh or the Tat population of Azerbaijan is far higher than the official figure." (Cornell, Svante E. Small Nations and Great Powers. Routledge (UK), 2001. p.269). You also didn't explain why you attributed Cornell's words to “belief”.
    • 3rd diff, I only provided official Azerbaijani position on that issue. Whether that position is right or wrong, it needs to presented too, per WP:Balance. We cannot write an article without reflecting the official position of one of the warring sides, with proper attribution, which I made.
    I re-checked the source you cited just to be clear, and have a couple of things to say. Firstly, that Eurasianet article concluded that the POWs even included a civilian among them, so the Azeri position of "sabotage group" is UNDUE and clear propaganda. And interestingly, somehow, you failed to include this information in your edit at all. On top of that, as I already said, the European Parliament source disproves the Azeri version, solidifying that it's UNDUE. Again, you cited only what benefited your agenda ignoring rest of the source, and gave it huge UNDUE weight. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

    Result concerning Grandmaster

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Having only reviewed the main diffs presented by Armatura and immediate context, it's hard to see the repeated invocation of epress.am as representative of Armenian media as anything other than disruptive; the assertion by Armatura that these are ultra-nationalist ravings with no significant editorial oversight or cachet appears correct. I'm less inclined to see the other two diffs as sanctionable, and am unimpressed by their inclusion in this report. I haven't yet read through Grandmaster's response and boomerang case at this time. signed, Rosguill 00:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)