Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

---

After some discussion at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan, there seems to be a consensus among myself and several admins who've enforced those sanctions (implemented in January) that they are de jure too broad and, in how they are de facto enforced, ambiguous as to scope.

• De jure too broad: GS/AA is the only extendedconfirmed restriction (out of 4 in effect + 1 repealed) that applies to an entire country or region. That is to say, there are sanctions for the Arab-Israeli conflict but not all aspects of Israeli and Arab life, for the Russo-Ukrainian War but not all aspects of Russian and Ukrainian life, etc. The fact that GS/AA applies to, say, the guy who played Chris-R in The Room or arguably even Kim Kardashian is unprecedented and unparalleled. On an admin level, this mostly hasn't mattered, because admins have declined to enforce these sanctions on non-conflict-related pages. But an ECR also applies to non-admins, particularly in its exemption from Wikipedia:Edit warring, which makes it ambiguous whether 3RR violations are in fact violations. (Consider someone who makes 4 reverts of an IP's valid copy-edit to Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023.)
• De facto ambiguous: As noted, admins have effectively treated this as a sanction for conflicts in the region. However, that is ill-defined. Some users have thought the sanctions only apply if both Armenia and Azerbaijan are involved. And what about matters, such as the Armenian genocide, that are primarily associated with another state? Furthermore, much of the misconduct plays out on articles about ethnic groups' past ties to particular settlements or regions.

Note also that the entire AA area is under ArbCom sanctions, so admins already have discretionary authority here. This is just a question of when that authority should be imposed by default.

Based on discussion with topic-area admins Courcelles, Rosguill, Firefangledfeathers, El_C, Callanecc, and Daniel Case, I propose the following reframing of the sanctions:^{ed. 20:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)}[reply]

• Political, ethnic, and military conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are placed under an extended confirmed restriction.
• In the rest of the Armenia–Azerbaijan topic area, the community endorses administrators making liberal use of extended confirmed protection as an arbitration enforcement action.

The one objection voiced in preliminary discussion, by Rosguill, was about the history of ethnic land claims. I think that this falls solidly under the "ethnic conflicts ... broadly construed", but if that's a hang-up for people, we could that to the "explicitly including" bit. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would write it down as politics (not political conflicts), history (added), ethnic relations (not ethnic conflicts), and conflicts (of any kind) of or involving (for example Azerbaijan–Turkey relations)...—Alalch E. 19:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"History" was discussed in the preliminary discussion. The problem is, what's history? Or, rather, what isn't? Dan Janjigian appearing in The Room is a historical event (happened before quite a few of our editors were born), but I don't think is what you intend. I think Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts would address your concerns, and am fine with that with basically equal preference to what I said above. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think you may be right about "history" after all.—Alalch E. 19:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that new editors will misunderstand the new wording as only narrowly affecting the ongoing NK conflict if we adopt the propose wording, and I think the inclusion of history would aid in their understanding. Then again, the status quo is that many (most?) new editors in the area simply ignore GS/AA or otherwise fail to understand it until they are blocked for repeated violations past warnings, so I'm not opposed to the rewording more generally. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts ... broadly construed should be enough, but perhaps inserting something like "past or present" – eg broadly construed, past or present, and explicitly including the Armenian genocide – would save the occasional back-and-forth. NebY (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As an idea, maybe confine it to the Armenian and Azerbaijani nations, people and ethnicities? As written, the sanction includes the geography and the languages. My view would be that the early history of Zoroastrianism, Alexander the Great's early conquests, and the Armenian tongues and alphabets shouldn't be in scope and aren't what the drafters intended.—S Marshall T/C 11:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest as the community considers these changes, that it also consider whether to match the contentious topics procedure and whether designate that AE can be used for enforcement per contentious topic procedure. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, Tamzin has suggested creating a subproposal for this. I thought about doing so and then realized I'm not sure what benefits this would bring. Since any GS/AA topic, especially so if we adopt this narrowing proposal, would fall under the broader WP:ARBAA, I reason that AE is available already. Are there other potential benefits? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No but that leads me to ask: what's the point of the GS if it's already covered under ARBAA? Barkeep49 (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The GS is really just here to frame the extended-confirmed restriction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I support Tamzin's proposal. The tweaks help match the topic with its current interpretation by admins, and there's reason to be cautious about over-broadness. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both – the same as involving Armenia, or Azerbaijan –? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is. The idea was just to be explicit about it, since apparently some users have been confused. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANDOR is probably a good link to review. Izno (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored this thread from the archive. I've also modified the proposal above to account for the feedback regarding "Political, military, and ethnic conflicts". As to Barkeep49's suggestion, if he or someone else would like to open a subthread to propose putting GS/AA under WP:AE jurisdiction, they're welcome to, but otherwise I think we should focus on the core proposal here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin, please note support by Firefangledfeathers above. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as I trust the judgement of the enforcing administrators: if they believe it is needed, I think the adjustment should be made. Also, as a general principle blanket protection should be used in as narrow an area as is reasonable. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the narrowing and the wording proposed by Tamzin. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd really like for this to not get archived a second time without action. @HistoryofIran, Nythar, Levivich, Kansas Bear, Hemiauchenia, Magnatyrannus, Khirurg, LouisAragon, AirshipJungleman29, Demetrios1993, The Night Watch, LilianaUwU, Abrvagl, LaundryPizza03, Olympian, Guerillero, ProcrastinatingReader, Lol1VNIO, BilledMammal, Red-tailed hawk, Oaktree b, Aza24, Ermenrich, EvergreenFir, Buffs, Semsûrî, InvadingInvader, SilentResident, and TonyBallioni: This is everyone who made a boldfaced comment in the previous discussion and is able to comment here, plus the closer. Do any of you have thoughts on this proposal?
  One person who won't be able to comment here, tragically, is Nosebagbear (Z''L), so I'll copy what he said then, a characteristically wise comment that foresaw the exact problem we've run into:

  I am reticent to support an automatic major restriction on such a scale as the entire (amended as of 2013) AA2 scope. I'm aware, of course, of the gaming risk, but I don't think we'd ever endorse such an action were there (say) a dispute nexus between the US and UK. I would support this restriction on the conflict between the two countries (broadly construed, by all means), but opppose a restriction on the individual countries and their topics.

  -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I opposed the previous proposal because the scope was too broad, per the statistics I presented. While I haven't run the statistics for this narrower scope, I believe that narrowing the scope generally would be beneficial. BilledMammal (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm fine with the proposal. Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This narrower proposal is much better than the last one. I am ever so slightly concerned about the endorsement of "liberal use" of ECP because that has a small potential of sparking an increase of frivolous protection requests in the A-A topic area, but I don't think that most pages that are applied protection will be outside of political, military or ethnic conflicts. The Night Watch (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. ECP is a beyond necessary tool when dealing with the most contentious topics. I trust that admins will do the right thing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Nosebagbear. firefly ( t · c ) 20:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's a reasonable idea of making the ECP restriction more narrow, because no other contentious topic area is this broad AFAIK. Otherwise, I'll echo Nosebagbear's statement: restrictions on the conflicts, not the countries as a whole. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I support the reframing proposed by Tamzin. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – much proved as necessary by now. Thanks to Tamzin for taking the initiative here. – Aza24 (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the narrower application, this will be more effective and clear, focusing on the core of the contentious A-A topic area. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 05:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Last time I specifically objected to the overbreadth of the proposal. I agree that ECP is needed only for topics directly related to conflicts in Armenia and Azerbaijan, as opposed to, say, the Sevan trout (a fish found only in Armenia). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But you know that trouts are VERY contentious on Wikipedia, right? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • *trouts LilianaUwU for even mentioning it* ;-) Buffs (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just making sure I understand this correctly. The proposal is to go from "A community discussion at the administrators' noticeboard has placed all pages with content related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, under the extended confirmed restriction" to "Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are placed under an extended confirmed restriction."? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, though there's the added bullet point about "liberal use" of ECP elsewhere in the AA topic area. I assume we'll keep the info about the community decision and as-of date in a later sentence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The problem with these disputes pertaining to Central Asia and the regions surrounding Iran is that they do frequently creep into matters that may not, at first glance, seem to strictly relate to the direct locii of those respective disputes. On this particular topic, I vaguely remember seeing a thread at ANI relating to the article Caucasus Albania, and I'm sure that anything relating to Iranian, Georgian, etc. cultural history within the geographical confines of what is currently Azerbaijan has the potential of flaring up into conflict. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 21:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I would argue that it is largely due to the Historical revisionism/Historical negationism#Azerbaijan in Azerbaijan [1]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it feels like only yesterday I was reverting some ridiculous genre warrior who felt called to assert that every successful individual and polity over the last thousand years in Asia was the product of a single linguistic group (turns out Semsûrî beat me to the ones on my watchlist), but none of those articles are covered by the current broader scope in any case: Xianbei, Rouran Khaganate, Ghengis Khan, Saladin, etc. Folly Mox (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support proposal is sound. Buffs (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nearing archival once more. Could somebody please close this? Happy to make any necessary changes to the GS/AA page myself. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so presently, but I note that according to policy: If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. You don't need to wait for a closure to enact the results of a discussion where consensus is this strong. --Jayron32 13:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

A user seems promoting his web by adding its links as ref, his username is similar to web name. See his contribution [2] Tesla car owner (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a level-3 warning for spam. Should be indeffed if they continue, but I try to leave open a sliver of AGF for the possibility someone just really likes a specific website. And the usernames both have "sports", but I don't see a WP:U violation. For future reference, this is the kind of situation you can handle by issuing warnings yourself, or, if you feel no further warnings are needed (or none at all for egregious cases), reporting to WP:AIV. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tesla car owner: To add on to what Tamzin said, please read the notice at the top of this page: It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here. Additionally, please regard this notice as well: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. There's little point in notifying them at this point since an admin has taken action now though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello I am being disabled from creating/editing an entry with this title as it seems to be blacklisted. This is an article I wish to publish based on documented research in to verifiable religious text, concerning the discovery of the Name of God hidden in religious text. Can you explain why this not allowed at this time.

Thanks Steve SRDay (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the exact title of the article you are trying to create? RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to discover the Greatest Name of God SRDay (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:OR, then start a blog or something outside of wikipedia. Also make sure you keep a local copy of anything you've submitted at your sandbox and Draft:The Most Great Secret as there's a good chance those will be deleted at any time. Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note:User:SRDay/sandbox. - jc37 20:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. I posted a notice about original research on their talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows it's Momus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the sandbox. Lovely essay, but no. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I always wonder how people end up thinking that Wikipedia would ever be willing to publish stuff like that. Have they read a Wikipedia page before? Do they not notice how none of our other articles are even remotely similar to what they are proposing be written? I've never understood that.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

He has Edited Countless Sikh religion related pages and Have added negative Views with no Valid support.Please look into it. 117.242.32.37 (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please attempt to start discussion with the user first, and explaining why do you think that their edits are wrong (What do Wikipedia's policies and guidelines say?). Additionally, you must inform the other party using {{subst:AN-notice}} for future reference. NotAGenious (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]