Revision as of 18:45, 10 March 2023

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.

Support:

1. --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
5. Izno (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
6. SilkTork (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
7. Cabayi (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
8. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

National and territorial disputes

2) Several of Misplaced Pages's most bitter disputes have revolved around national or ethnic conflicts such as rival national claims to disputed territories or areas. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds. Such editors may be the most knowledgeable people interested in creating Misplaced Pages content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so consistent with Misplaced Pages's fundamental policies. However, conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on Misplaced Pages should receive special attention from the community, up to and including sanctions. It is perfectly possible to present a balanced, accurate, and verifiable encyclopedia article about contentious issues or preexisting disputes.

Support:

1. --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. This is an important principle for me as I consider how to think about the FoF and what appropriate remedies would be. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
5. Izno (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
6. SilkTork (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
7. Cabayi (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
8. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

3) The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. Content areas the committee has previously ruled on are sometimes designated as contentious topics or subject to ongoing special restrictions. As necessary, the Committee may revisit previous decisions and associated enforcement systems in order to review their effectiveness or necessity.

Support:

1. --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
5. Izno (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
6. SilkTork (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
7. Cabayi (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
8. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee

4) The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction over conduct on the English Misplaced Pages and retains jurisdiction over all matters previously heard, including associated enforcement processes. While the Arbitration Committee may take notice of behavior outside of the English Misplaced Pages, we cannot restrict behavior which occurs outside of the English Misplaced Pages.

Support:

1. --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Izno (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
5. SilkTork (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
6. Cabayi (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
7. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments

Recidivism

5) Editors sanctioned for disruptive behavior are expected to improve their behavior, should they continue to participate in the project. Sanctioned editors should be afforded assistance and reasonable time to improve (especially if they demonstrate the ability to engage positively with the community), but if their conduct does not improve they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions.

Support:

1. This might be the most important principle --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. This could probably be a relevant principle in nearly every case this committee hears. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Izno (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
5. SilkTork (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
6. Cabayi (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
7. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Standards of editor behavior

6) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of their own.

Support:

1. --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Most people are taught that "two wrongs don't make a right" at a very young age. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Izno (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
5. SilkTork (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
6. Cabayi (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
7. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Edit warring

7) Edit warring is disruptive and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.

Support:

1. --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
5. Izno (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
6. SilkTork (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
7. Cabayi (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
8. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Tendentious editing

8) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from editing these articles. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site.

Support:

1. --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
5. Izno (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
6. SilkTork (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
7. Cabayi (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
8. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Arbitration Enforcement

9) Arbitration enforcement (AE) is the noticeboard, set up by the Arbitration Committee and staffed by administrators, for editors to report suspected breaches of arbitration decisions. When enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators act as delegates of the Arbitration Committee and, in that role, they review the facts and, if necessary, take action.

Support:

1. --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. This and 10 are particularly important principles to me in this specific case. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
5. Izno (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
6. SilkTork (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
7. Cabayi (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
8. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Arbitration Enforcement-imposed sanctions

10) In enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators should seek to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment within contentious topics. Administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance (1) the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers, and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with (2) the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum.

Support:

1. --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. This and 9 are particularly important principles to me in this specific case. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
5. Izno (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
6. SilkTork (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
7. Cabayi (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
8. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

1) This case concerns the behavior of the parties who primarily edit about the geography, culture, territorial disputes, and history of the South Caucasus.

Support:

1. --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Izno (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Primefac (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Previous Arbitration Committee interventions

2) This topic area has been the subject of two prior arbitration cases Armenia-Azerbaijan and Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, both in 2007. The next year, the committee converted the bespoke sanctions regime into discretionary sanctions by motion. The discretionary sanctions remained on the topic area until they were converted into a contentious topic designation in 2022.

Support:

1. Historical information --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Izno (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Primefac (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Recent attempts at dispute resolution

3) Between November 2021 and January 2023, the topic area has been the subject of 18 threads at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (list), 4 unsuccessful threads at the Dispute Resolution noticeboard (list) as well as postings at various Administrators' noticeboards and the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Overall, 30 user and page-level restrictions were imposed as arbitration enforcement actions during this time period (log).

Support:

1. One of the issues with this dispute is how sprawling it is --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. I recognise the point raised by SilkTork below, but I do not see this FoF necessarily as a comparison to other areas, but to indicate its spread. I think if these figures were the smallest count of any contentious topic it probably would not merit a finding, but since we seem to be somewhere in the middle it is at least worth doing a head count of locations this has appeared. Primefac (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

There are better areas of Misplaced Pages, and there are worse areas. This is a factual listing of problems, though a casual reading of it is that this area is particularly bad, rather than just simply bad. It doesn't tell us why this area, rather than say American Politics, or India-Pakistan, or Gender and Sexuality - which are all worse - has been selected for ArbCom to look at. I made a longer comment on the Workshop page: . SilkTork (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This FoF, as written, is true and on that level I could support it. But I think SilkTork makes a good point that it fails to capture the challenges specific to this topic area, which do have some differences from American Politics, India-Pakistan, and Gender and Sexuality, as three other hot button topic areas. Instead I think we're meant to infer it from the AE FoF, but I'm not sure that actually works in the end. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

December 2022 Arbitration Enforcement request

4) On 28 December 2022, Abrvagl (talk · contribs) requested action against ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs) at Arbitration Enforcement (permalink). Abrvagl alleged edit-warring, battleground conduct, and civil POV pushing. Responding administrators were concerned that the issues were too complex and wide-ranging for Arbitration Enforcement to resolve adequately. The thread was closed on 5 January 2023 by Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with a consensus of administrators recommending referral to the Arbitration Committee under the contentious topics procedure. Following the closure, Callanecc opened a request for amendment. After feedback and discussion, the Arbitration Committee opened the present case by motion.

Support:

1. How we got to a case --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Izno (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Primefac (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
5. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Community-imposed extended confirmed restriction

5) Following an Administrators' Noticeboard discussion, the community imposed an extended confirmed restriction on all pages with content related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, effective starting 3 January 2023. In the following 2 months, only two pages have been protected under this authorization (log page).

Support:

1. I voted against these sanctions, but they were passed. --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Primefac (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Abrvagl

Sanction history (Abrvagl)

6.1) On 12 June 2022, Abrvagl was warned for edit warring by Rosguill (log entry).

Support:

1. History --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Primefac (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Interpersonal issues (Abrvagl)

6.2) Abrvagl has routinely failed to constructively engage with ZaniGiovanni. (Ixtal's evidence)

Support:

1. Abrvagl and ZaniGiovanni do not get along and can not stop interacting with each other --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. Primefac (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Edit warring (Abrvagl)

6.3) Despite being warned, Abrvagl later engaged in edit warring at September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes and Anti-Armenian sentiment .

Support:

1. Companion to 6.1 to show recidivism --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Primefac (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Dallavid

Sanction history (Dallavid)

7.1) Dallavid has been repeatedly sanctioned for edit warring. On 19 September 2022, they were blocked for 72 hours by Daniel Case for edit warring on September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes. On 18 October 2022, they were warned by Seraphimblade for edit warring. On 15 January 2023, Dallavid was warned by Callanecc for edit warring and battleground behavior.

Support:

1. History --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Primefac (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Arbitration Enforcement erred

7.2) Arbitration Enforcement, instead of using escalating sanctions, erred by giving Dallavid two warnings within 90 days for edit warring.

Support:

1. Warnings are a great first-line tool, but users who do not heed them should be sanctioned --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. In most areas of Misplaced Pages, warnings (even repeated warnings) can be useful ways to guide and mentor editors into more productive patterns of contribution. However, this optimism can be exploited by tendentious editors, and in contentious topic areas, it is a mistake to be lenient when faced with repeated misconduct. — Wug·a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Primefac (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
4. While meaning no disrespect to any of the AE admins. Mistakes happen. It's a mostly thankless job but I really appreciate those admins that contribute their time and energy there. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Olympian

Sanction history (Olympian)

8.1) On 17 December 2022, Olympian was warned by El_C for "using subpar sources that are genocide denialist or lean towards it".

Support:

1. History --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Primefac (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I might propose an edit warring FOF after today's issues at Shusha massacre --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. Primefac (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Use of Sources

8.2) Following the warning, Olympian has shown additional issues identifying high quality reliable sources (El_C's talk page).

Support:

1. Having to ask if a source is genocide denialist with statements such as "how subjective in character are the claims of Armenian genocide" makes me think Olympian should not be in the topic area at all. --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Primefac (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

ZaniGiovanni

Sanction history (ZaniGiovanni)

9.1) In November 2021 ZaniGiovanni was partial blocked from Uzundara by HJ Mitchell as an arbitration enforcement action for edit warring (AE discussion). In February 2022 they were warned by El_C for edit warring and was "expected to be more diligent in pages covered by the AA2 DS" (logged warning). They were reminded by Dennis Brown in July 2022 to stay civil within the topic area (AE discussion). Tamzin unilaterally topic banned ZaniGiovanni from September 2022 to November 2022 for battleground behavior (logged sanction).

Support:

1. History --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Primefac (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Edit warring (ZaniGiovanni)

9.2) Despite past warnings and a topic ban, ZaniGiovanni edit warred at 2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh in December 2022 (AN3 report).

Support:

1. And more today at Shusha massacre. --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Primefac (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Interpersonal issues (ZaniGiovanni)

9.3) ZaniGiovanni has routinely failed to constructively engage with Abravgl. (Ixtal's evidence)

Support:

1. --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. Primefac (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Other Parties

10) Two parties have received topic bans through the Armenia-Azerbaijan contentious topic designation. Grandmaster received a topic ban on 18 February 2022 which was lifted on 14 October 2022. Golden received a topic ban on 22 October 2021 which was lifted on 23 April 2022; Golden received another topic ban on 16 September 2022 which is still in place. Since their most recent sanctions, neither Grandmaster not Golden have engaged in additional misconduct.

Support:

1. --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Primefac (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Off wiki conduct

11) The Arbitration Committee received evidence alleging off-wiki canvassing and coordination in favor of both Armenia and Azerbaijan viewpoints. After inspecting the allegations, we could not find any breaches of policy by related parties.

Support:

1. If any party would like to dispute this statement, they should only do so via email. Editors who post information that needs to be OSed due to OUTTING concerns will be partial blocked from the case and may face more severe sanctions --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. The critical phrase here is "by related parties". I wouldn't say that the off-wiki conduct seen is good, but in my reading the bulk of off-wiki-related disruption is done by non-EC editors not party to this case. — Wug·a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I would like to point out Rosguill's comments on the talk page. I think we either owe the community a) a more robust summary of what we found - because it can't make the evaluation itself - or we decide that b)there was alleged but unproven OUTing so we can post the links we received (stripped of the acompannying allegations) so the community can decide itself. Personally I don't think policy supports doing B, so I support a more robust FoF. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link to comments. Primefac (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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.

Abrvagl

Topic ban (Abrvagl)

1.1) Abrvagl is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. In addition to other sanctions --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. First choice — Wug·a·po·des 21:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. First choice, per Wugs comments on the 1RR restriction below. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

One Revert Restriction (Abrvagl)

1.2) Abrvagl may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. People need to put the revert button down --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. Second choice to 1.1; mutually exclusive (sorry clerks). I think the edit-warring issues are related to the topic area, so a 1RR seems superfluous to a topic ban. — Wug·a·po·des 21:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Interaction Ban (Abrvagl)

1.3) Abrvagl is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, ZaniGiovanni anywhere on Misplaced Pages (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. I dislike I-bans, but Abrvagl and ZaniGiovanni need to leave each other alone. This is a de facto 2-way i-ban due to #Interaction Ban (ZaniGiovanni) --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. I'm not real sure why we are doing this as two one-way bans instead of one two-way ban, but whatever, it seems needed. I'd advise both users that interaction and topic bans are the last level of sanctions below just being site banned altogether.

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Dallavid

Topic ban (Dallavid)

2.1) Dallavid is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. In addition to other sanctions --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. — Wug·a·po·des 21:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

One Revert Restriction (Dallavid)

2.2) Dallavid may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. People need to put the revert button down --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. Given the history of edit warring, including a block for it, I think this would still be useful in addition to the topic ban. — Wug·a·po·des 21:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. We expect users to learn basic policies like "don't edit war, ever" fairly quickly. There is an apparent failure to learn that in this case. Frankly, it's ridiculous that we ever have to place anyone under such a restriction, and failure to abide by it would be more than enough for me to support a full site ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Site ban (Dallavid)

2.3) Dallavid is indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

Oppose:

1. I don't see sufficient cause for a site ban; issues seem very localized to the topic area. — Wug·a·po·des 21:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

I am on the fence due to the OSed edits --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Olympian

Topic ban (Olympian)

3.1) Olympian is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. Due to the issues in the FOFs plus the recent edit warring --Guerillero 21:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

ZaniGiovanni

Topic ban (ZaniGiovanni)

4.1) ZaniGiovanni is topic banned from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. First choice. — Wug·a·po·des 21:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

One Revert Restriction (ZaniGiovanni)

4.2) ZaniGiovanni may make only 1 revert on any page in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. .

Support:

1. People need to put the revert button down --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. Second choice; mutually exclusive. — Wug·a·po·des 21:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Interaction Ban (ZaniGiovanni)

4.3) ZaniGiovanni is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Abrvagl anywhere on Misplaced Pages (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

1. I dislike I-bans, but Abrvagl and ZaniGiovanni need to leave each other alone. This is a de facto 2-way i-ban due to #Interaction Ban (Abrvagl) --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. Per my comments on the other half of this sanction. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Parties placed on probation

5) All parties to this case not already topic banned are placed on indefinite probation. If any party to this case is found to be edit warring within the area of dispute by an uninvolved administrator, the administrator should impose the following sanction: is indefinitely topic banned from all pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. Topic bans imposed via this remedy may only be appealed to the arbitration committee.

Support:

1. People need to put the revert button down --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. Edit warring is a problem among the parties, and I think this is a better intervention than a topic-wide 1RR. — Wug·a·po·des 21:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. This will hopefully give AE admins the tools needed to avoid a fourth full case on this topic area. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Picking a remedy out of a hat: Some chatter elsewhere had me wondering whether we need/want the "behavior during arbitration" set of principles/findings/remedies. Izno (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended confirmed restriction

6) The community imposed 500/30 rule is rescinded. In its place, a extended confirmed restriction is imposed on Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed.

Support:

1. If it is going to be a thing, I would rather the sanctions come from a single source with a single rule set --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Insufficient evidence presented in this decision to indicate this is necessary for the entire area. I would expect to see an FOF indicating there are issues outside the set of parties here to make this necessary, who moreover are all currently EC (and likely only one or two would have been impacted by this remedy). Moreover, I don't see it as broadly necessary given 1) the community has chosen to put ECR on the books already and 2) our current CT mechanism allows them to enforce that at AE if this wish. Izno (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. I actually like that the community is hooking-in to our standard set of restrictions; our restriction regimes should be seen as tools for the community to impose, and it saves us some work if ECR can be managed without the Committee's involvement. Like Izno, I also don't see any real need for us to take responsibility right now. — Wug·a·po·des 22:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

I am not ready to vote on this yet as I haven't completed my review of my notes in comparison to the FoF. However, in regards to Izno's oppose, I think the fact that the restriction retains our previous wording (500/30) rather than our current wording, along with the benefits that can happen by having all the standard restrictions for a topic listed on the Contentious Topic page for that area, will incline me to support this remedy. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Then it needs an FOF with evidence to indicate that ECR is necessary for ArbCom to impose. The drafters did not show their work here. I expect decisions to be reasonably self-consistent, and right now, neither remedies 6 nor 7 are. The FOF presented is "it happened" and not "it should have happened". In fact, the current FOF puts some doubt to the necessity for even the community to have added the restriction given only two pages have been protected since its institution. Izno (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a long history of the committee taking on community sanctions for the ease of record keeping and administration. I would also say that "The Arbitration Committee received evidence alleging off-wiki canvassing and coordination in favor of both Armenia and Azerbaijan viewpoints." covers the why. There have been a bunch of not great activities. We just can't tie them to our parties. -- Guerillero 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, you're basing this remedy on that finding. That's good to know. I will consider it in that context. Izno (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Separate to that, I'd rather expect a wit's end proposed principal for levying ECR/1RR on the area. Izno (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

One Revert Restriction (1RR)

7) Editors who make changes to content about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed, are subject to a one revert restriction (1RR). Editors may not make more than one revert per page per 24 hours to content about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. Reverts made to enforce the #Extended confirmed restriction remedy are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Normal exemptions to revert restrictions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be sanctioned per the standard enforcement provision or with a contentious topics restriction.

Support:

1. Due to the large number of parties edit warring, I think the whole topic area needs to be restricted --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Insufficient evidence presented in this proposed decision to indicate this is necessary for the entire area. A half dozen parties causing 1RR for the several thousand articles in scope is not an appropriate restriction. I would expect to see an FOF that indicates the issues go beyond these 6. Izno (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. Agree with Izno. Remedy 5 is a better way to deal with the issues observed. — Wug·a·po·des 22:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
3. I appreciate the intent, but this seems almost guaranteed to create more problems than it would solve. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Administrators encouraged

8) When deciding on whether or not to issue an Arbitration Enforcement sanction, Administrators are encouraged to consider all behavior, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question. For instance, users who do not heed warnings or who engage in sustained, low-level misconduct should be sanctioned rather than re-warned. Where editor conduct frequently results in enforcement requests that are dismissed or closed with warnings, administrators are encouraged to impose robust restrictions on editors.

Support:

1. While reviewing the evidence, something that I have seen is that AE has been very hesitant to impose sanctions on more established editors and reaches for warnings when issues get complex. I hope that this nudges admins towards other options when editors show that they are not listening to warnings --Guerillero 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
2. We delegate ArbCom's authority to admins at AE, and when deciding on sanctions, administrators need to consider what best achieves the over-arching goals of the authorizing arbitration case. This includes ensuring that AE sanctions contribute to decorum in the entire topic area, so the outcome of reports may be more severe than in areas not designated as contentious topics. If an editor keeps getting brought to AE, serious consideration should be given to removing them from the topic area even if that outcome seems harsh compared to the inciting report. That's not easy, and it's not lost on me that in the absence of clear directions, administrators may choose to be cautious and avoid seeming overly harsh or reprimanded for over-stepping. The goal of this remedy is to provide clearer guidance: administrators are not merely authorized but encouraged to deal with repeated misbehavior robustly. I appreciate that AE admins escalated this issue to us, and I hope this remedy demonstrates our support of administrators who use their delegated authority boldly and effectively. — Wug·a·po·des 22:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I'd rather give admins some useful tools or guidance to assist in dealing with problems. For example - if a user has been previously warned twice at AE, then a third valid appearance at AE automatically results in a TB. Rather like 3RR. SilkTork (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

   Too bad WP:3STRIKES is already occupied for the CBAN-by-CU. That said, I agree with this point rather more than Wugapodes does above. ArbCom changes faces too often to encourage AE admins to be more forceful without something or another written down to indicate reasonable administrative lines. There was internal discussion about errs above, and without some guidelines, that word could turn into an WP:ADMINCOND case request for an admin that takes what we're throwing over the fence and runs with it, whether deservedly or not. Izno (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

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

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

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by ~~~~ (replace after each update); the last edit to this page was on 18:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC) by Beeblebrox.

Notes

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

Oppose

Comments