Case clerks: Firefly ( Talk) & ToBeFree ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero ( Talk) & Moneytrees ( Talk) & Wugapodes ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Case opened on 18:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Case closed on 17:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 09:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators.
|
Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.
The Arbitration Committee agrees to open a case with the name Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. The parties, drafting arb(s), timetable, and structure will be communicated to the clerks following this motion passing (see ArbCom procedures).
All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.
1) The purpose of Wikipedia 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.
2) Several of Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on Wikipedia 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.
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.
4) The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction over conduct on the English Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, we cannot restrict behavior which occurs outside of the English Wikipedia.
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.
6) Wikipedia 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1) This case concerns the behavior of the parties who primarily edit about the geography, culture, territorial disputes, and history of the South Caucasus.
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.
3.2) 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).
The issues brought to these venues are often factually complex, sometimes involve allegations of off-wiki conduct, and participants may be using these processes to "win" disputes through first-mover advantage and the removal of opponents. The complexities of these reports adds to the difficulty of resolving them. Administrators unfamiliar with the histories are unlikely to get involved because of the high bar of entry, while those familiar with the history grow weary of the repeated disputes. This attrition leads to a growing amount of work falling on a dwindling number of responders which is unfair to volunteers and prevents these processes from working effectively.
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.
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).
6.1) On 12 June 2022, Abrvagl was warned for edit warring by Rosguill ( log entry).
6.2) Abrvagl has routinely failed to constructively engage with ZaniGiovanni. ( Ixtal's evidence)
6.3) Despite being warned, Abrvagl later engaged in edit warring at September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes [1] and Anti-Armenian sentiment [2].
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.
7.2) Arbitration Enforcement, instead of using escalating sanctions, erred by giving Dallavid two warnings within 90 days for edit warring.
8.1) On 17 December 2022, Olympian was warned by El_C for "using subpar sources that are genocide denialist or lean towards it".
8.3) While the case was ongoing, Olympian engaged in edit warring at Shusha massacre. [3]
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 topic banned ZaniGiovanni from September 2022 to November 2022 for battleground behavior ( logged sanction).
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).
9.3) ZaniGiovanni has routinely failed to constructively engage with Abravgl. ( Ixtal's evidence)
9.4) While the case was ongoing, ZaniGiovanni engaged in edit warring at Shusha massacre. [4]
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 nor Golden have engaged in additional misconduct.
11.2) The Arbitration Committee received private evidence alleging off-wiki canvassing and coordination in favor of both Armenian and Azerbaijani viewpoints. Private evidence showed off-wiki canvassing and coordination occurred on Reddit and Facebook, and in this private evidence, editors attempted to associate particular Wikipedia accounts with Redditors and Facebook profiles engaged in canvassing and coordination. Evidence connecting off-wiki accounts to Wikipedia accounts was circumstantial and unconvincing with one exception. The off-wiki posts resulted in some increased editing to linked pages, but the canvassing and coordination did not appear to substantially change the outcomes of any larger discussions.
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.
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.
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.
1.3) Abrvagl is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, ZaniGiovanni anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
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.
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.
Rescinded by
motion subject to a 18 month probationary period starting 18 April 2024
|
---|
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. |
3.2) Olympian 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.
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.
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.
4.3) ZaniGiovanni is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Abrvagl anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
5.2) Golden and Grandmaster 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: [Editor name] 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. For a topic ban imposed under this remedy, an editor may make their first appeal at any time; further appeals may be made every twelve months after an unsuccessful appeal.
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.
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.
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals 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:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
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:
|
Remedy 3.1 of the case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 ("Topic ban (Olympian)") is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting eighteen months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.
Case clerks: Firefly ( Talk) & ToBeFree ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero ( Talk) & Moneytrees ( Talk) & Wugapodes ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Case opened on 18:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Case closed on 17:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 09:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators.
|
Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.
The Arbitration Committee agrees to open a case with the name Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. The parties, drafting arb(s), timetable, and structure will be communicated to the clerks following this motion passing (see ArbCom procedures).
All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.
1) The purpose of Wikipedia 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.
2) Several of Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on Wikipedia 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.
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.
4) The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction over conduct on the English Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, we cannot restrict behavior which occurs outside of the English Wikipedia.
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.
6) Wikipedia 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1) This case concerns the behavior of the parties who primarily edit about the geography, culture, territorial disputes, and history of the South Caucasus.
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.
3.2) 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).
The issues brought to these venues are often factually complex, sometimes involve allegations of off-wiki conduct, and participants may be using these processes to "win" disputes through first-mover advantage and the removal of opponents. The complexities of these reports adds to the difficulty of resolving them. Administrators unfamiliar with the histories are unlikely to get involved because of the high bar of entry, while those familiar with the history grow weary of the repeated disputes. This attrition leads to a growing amount of work falling on a dwindling number of responders which is unfair to volunteers and prevents these processes from working effectively.
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.
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).
6.1) On 12 June 2022, Abrvagl was warned for edit warring by Rosguill ( log entry).
6.2) Abrvagl has routinely failed to constructively engage with ZaniGiovanni. ( Ixtal's evidence)
6.3) Despite being warned, Abrvagl later engaged in edit warring at September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes [1] and Anti-Armenian sentiment [2].
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.
7.2) Arbitration Enforcement, instead of using escalating sanctions, erred by giving Dallavid two warnings within 90 days for edit warring.
8.1) On 17 December 2022, Olympian was warned by El_C for "using subpar sources that are genocide denialist or lean towards it".
8.3) While the case was ongoing, Olympian engaged in edit warring at Shusha massacre. [3]
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 topic banned ZaniGiovanni from September 2022 to November 2022 for battleground behavior ( logged sanction).
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).
9.3) ZaniGiovanni has routinely failed to constructively engage with Abravgl. ( Ixtal's evidence)
9.4) While the case was ongoing, ZaniGiovanni engaged in edit warring at Shusha massacre. [4]
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 nor Golden have engaged in additional misconduct.
11.2) The Arbitration Committee received private evidence alleging off-wiki canvassing and coordination in favor of both Armenian and Azerbaijani viewpoints. Private evidence showed off-wiki canvassing and coordination occurred on Reddit and Facebook, and in this private evidence, editors attempted to associate particular Wikipedia accounts with Redditors and Facebook profiles engaged in canvassing and coordination. Evidence connecting off-wiki accounts to Wikipedia accounts was circumstantial and unconvincing with one exception. The off-wiki posts resulted in some increased editing to linked pages, but the canvassing and coordination did not appear to substantially change the outcomes of any larger discussions.
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.
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.
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.
1.3) Abrvagl is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, ZaniGiovanni anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
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.
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.
Rescinded by
motion subject to a 18 month probationary period starting 18 April 2024
|
---|
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. |
3.2) Olympian 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.
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.
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.
4.3) ZaniGiovanni is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Abrvagl anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
5.2) Golden and Grandmaster 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: [Editor name] 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. For a topic ban imposed under this remedy, an editor may make their first appeal at any time; further appeals may be made every twelve months after an unsuccessful appeal.
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.
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.
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals 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:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
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:
|
Remedy 3.1 of the case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 ("Topic ban (Olympian)") is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting eighteen months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.