Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
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 Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk 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 10 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

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.

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision Information

Purpose of Wikipedia

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.

Support:

1. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Izno ( talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. SilkTork ( talk) 22:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Cabayi ( talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Primefac ( talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
10. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

National and territorial disputes

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.

Support:

1. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
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) reply
4. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Izno ( talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. SilkTork ( talk) 22:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Cabayi ( talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Primefac ( talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. I feel strongly about this. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
10. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Izno ( talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. SilkTork ( talk) 22:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Cabayi ( talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Primefac ( talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
10. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee

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.

Support:

1. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Izno ( talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. SilkTork ( talk) 22:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Cabayi ( talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Primefac ( talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. This could probably be a relevant principle in nearly every case this committee hears. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Izno ( talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. SilkTork ( talk) 22:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Cabayi ( talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Primefac ( talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Standards of editor behavior

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.

Support:

1. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
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) reply
4. Izno ( talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. SilkTork ( talk) 22:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Cabayi ( talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Primefac ( talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Izno ( talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. SilkTork ( talk) 22:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Cabayi ( talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Primefac ( talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
10. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Izno ( talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. SilkTork ( talk) 22:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Cabayi ( talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Primefac ( talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
10. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. This and 10 are particularly important principles to me in this specific case. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Izno ( talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. SilkTork ( talk) 22:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Cabayi ( talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Primefac ( talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
10. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. This and 9 are particularly important principles to me in this specific case. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Izno ( talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. SilkTork ( talk) 22:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Cabayi ( talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Primefac ( talk) 09:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
10. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Izno ( talk) 21:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Primefac ( talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. SilkTork ( talk) 13:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
10. Cabayi ( talk) 10:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I paused on this for a while as I felt a significant rationale for the case was to find ways to assist AE admins in preventing disruption in the topic area, and that should be acknowledged in the Locus, so there would be a degree of focus on not just whacking a few moles now, but also on preventing future moles from popping up. But, essentially, this Locus description works fine. SilkTork ( talk) 13:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Izno ( talk) 21:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Primefac ( talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. Factual. SilkTork ( talk) 13:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
10. Cabayi ( talk) 10:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Recent attempts at dispute resolution

3.1) 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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

   — Wug· a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

   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) reply

2. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. A review of how many disputes have arisen out of the topic area is useful. It doesn't tell the whole story though, which is why we're having this case and examining particular problem users/areas. But that's no reason to exclude such information in our thinking. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Equal with 3.2 Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 22:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

   Cabayi ( talk) 10:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. In favour of 3.2 SilkTork ( talk) 13:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer other. Izno ( talk) 03:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Prefer 3.2 — Wug· a·po·des 20:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Prefer 3.2. Primefac ( talk) 10:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. 3.2 is passing. Cabayi ( talk) 11:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

There are better areas of Wikipedia, 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: [1]. SilkTork ( talk) 22:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Before support, I also would like to part of this FOF be the context for this area. We have a principle on the point, but that principle would also apply to two of the other areas noted. Izno ( talk) 23:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Difficulties faced during dispute resolution

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.

Support:

1. SilkTork ( talk) 13:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. equal preference -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Equal with 3.1 Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 22:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Izno ( talk) 03:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. — Wug· a·po·des 20:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. slight preference over 3.1 Cabayi ( talk) 10:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Primefac ( talk) 10:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I've made an attempt to better incorporate the feedback on the prior version. I've held off on supporting so that we can more easily modify and make changes. — Wug· a·po·des 23:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I like this and am willing to give it my support. SilkTork ( talk) 01:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Izno ( talk) 21:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Primefac ( talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 10:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

My reading of the requested action is that initially the request was going to be dismissed ("This report seems unripe", User:Rosguill; " I agree with Rosguill", User:El C; "I don't have a strong feeling at this time about whether admin action is necessary", User:Tamzin; "The best solution is that you both see the bigger picture per El C's comment above and recognise the situation you're in and try to engage constructively with each other", User:Callanecc). Then El C, in a longer comment, said "I think WP:AA2 needs a full AA3 WP:RFAR case refresher, with wider evidence submission and parties", to which ArbCom member User:Guerillero said " If you think this needs a case, under the new CT procedure you can refer a subject to the committee", which got support, and then the matter was brought to ARCA, and a decision made to open a case. The sense I got from that discussion is not so much that the named parties were in themselves the cause of the case being opened, more that there was a sense of fatigue and helplessness among the AE admins about how to cope with "policing" the topic area using the tools they had. SilkTork ( talk) 13:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Primefac ( talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. This is true. I also think the restriction was a bad idea, and clearly hasn't done much. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. A true statement, though I agree with Barkeep that only is doing a lot of lifting there (which I leaned on below, as it happens, which is likely why Barkeep points it out). Well, for a comparison area, PIA is broadly protected and for the most part I think that protection happened fairly swiftly when the protection level itself was developed (ECR there having preceded the technical implementation for full pages). Not so here, as this FOF points out. Izno ( talk) 23:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Agree with Barkeep as well. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 22:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Cabayi ( talk) 10:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. The restriction is there on all pages with-in the scope of the restriction. The fact that other pages haven't been logged doesn't mean that ECR doesn't exist on them and an editor could revert someone who is not ECR. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Restrictions are also in place on September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes; Nagorno-Karabakh conflict; Nagorno-Karabakh; First Nagorno-Karabakh War; and Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. SilkTork ( talk) 14:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC) And Armenian genocide. SilkTork ( talk) 15:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I'd be more comfortable in supporting if the word "only" was removed. SilkTork ( talk) 14:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

These statistics are interesting: [2]. SilkTork ( talk) 14:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Abrvagl (FoF)

Sanction history (Abrvagl)

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

Support:

1. History -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Primefac ( talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Izno ( talk) 23:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. SilkTork ( talk) 00:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
10. Cabayi ( talk) 10:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Primefac ( talk) 09:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Izno ( talk) 23:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. — Wug· a·po·des 00:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. SilkTork ( talk) 00:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
10. Cabayi ( talk) 10:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Edit warring (Abrvagl)

6.3) Despite being warned, Abrvagl later engaged in edit warring at September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes [3] and Anti-Armenian sentiment [4].

Support:

1. Companion to 6.1 to show recidivism -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Primefac ( talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Izno ( talk) 23:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. SilkTork ( talk) 00:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
10. Cabayi ( talk) 10:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Dallavid (FoF)

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Primefac ( talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Izno ( talk) 23:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. SilkTork ( talk) 11:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 10:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
10. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. In most areas of Wikipedia, 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) reply
3. Primefac ( talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
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) reply
5. I think this was an oversight, but I don't fault the AE admins. Stuff happens. But now that we're here looking at the case, we can re-examine the matter and consider that in handing out sanctions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Recognizing this is what's leading to the suggested remedy below imploring AE admins to prefer being quicker to levy sanctions, I agree that this was at least a miss. Izno ( talk) 23:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. And I think this could be partially attributed to the issues described in 3.2. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 22:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Cabayi ( talk) 10:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I find Callanecc's thought processes on the talk page reasonable and don't know that this strikes the process not person balance that my fellow arbs do. However, the spirit of this FoF is fair which is why I find myself here rather than opposing. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments:

To add to what's been said in the voting, this FoF was drafted specifically to avoid finding fault with the AE admins. The goal was to focus on the process and outcomes which are the result of many different players and factors. Tendentious editors can thrive in ambiguity and make responding more difficult, who shows up (or doesn't show up) can influence how those on-the-fence eventually decide, poor guidance can accidentally limit the kinds of solutions that are considered. In hindsight, two warnings in 90 days for similar conduct was not the right outcome, and with the luxury of time we can recognize that. However, AE admins do not have the same luxury of time that we do, and setting them up as the problem here would be incorrect; this is why the FoF takes issue with the process as a whole rather than any particular participants in the process. — Wug· a·po·des 00:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Callanecc said at the time "I'm considering whether a logged warning or a TBAN would be most appropriate": [5], so a stronger sanction was considered. I'm still pondering if there would be any benefit to having a guideline that says after two warnings or infractions, a user is topic banned (which means that in this case, Dallavid would have been topic banned, taking the discretion away from Callanecc), or if, as Dennis Brown argues, an encouragement by ArbCom would have been enough to help Callanecc decide on a topic ban rather than another warning. It would be helpful if Callanecc could give us their thinking on why they rejected the option of giving a topic ban. SilkTork ( talk) 11:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Based on Callanecc's comments on the talkpage, I don't see this quite as the error outlined in the FoF. Perhaps there is an error in the procedures that govern AE, as Wugapodes indicates above, which we can look into; meanwhile using this as part of the basis for Remedy 8 Administrators Encouraged, is perhaps unsound. I am though, paradoxically, moving closer to accepting Remedy 8 based on Wugapodes comments - though wondering if we need a new FoF to support it. SilkTork ( talk) 10:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

If this is intended as a process rather than person criticism that's just not how it reads to me. Callanecc's explanation on the talk page is sensible and gives a reasonable explanation for why what happened did. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Olympian (FoF)

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Primefac ( talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Izno ( talk) 23:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. Sympathetic to SilkTork's analysis in his oppose vote but, as a finding of fact, this fact has been found. Cabayi ( talk) 10:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Olympian used sub-par sources, then after this was pointed out, replaced them with academic sources. The status of the Armenian genocide is in dispute: Armenian genocide recognition; Armenian genocide denial, and the UK government's position is that "the evidence is not sufficiently unequivocal", so the "genocide denialist" tag is not quite as serious as it might appear, and that tag is somewhat inappropriate given that Olympian was writing an article detailing the Armenian genocide, so was clearly not being a denier, and was merely using those sources for information, not bias. (This is the state of the article at the time of the complaint by Dallavid that Olympian was a genocide denier: [6]). So, yes, Olympian was warned. But was it an appropriate warning? I don't think so. Olympian wasn't promoting a genocide denier stance, and improved the sources when their quality was pointed out. So, I cannot support this. I can see, though, why the AE admins wanted ArbCom to look into this area, because it can be difficult to work out who is actually in the wrong. SilkTork ( talk) 15:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

1. Olympian used sub-par sources, then after this was pointed out, replaced them with academic sources. That is what we expect of people. Folks should be sanctioned for being intransigent, but should be encouraged to listen and adjust. The "genocide denialist" tag is dubious for me. As far as I'm aware, no country is denying the mass slaughter of Armenians; what is in dispute is the terming of it as genocide - see Armenian genocide recognition. It appears to be largely political as regards which countries support the term genocide. I found this sentence helpful: "Denmark believes (2008) that the genocide recognition should be discussed by historians, not politicians.". In essence, one side calling the other side a denier or believer, is pretty much the same as calling them a follower of their nation's position - the same as calling them an Azerbaijani or an Armenian. When dealing with misbehaviour when editing nationalistic disputes I feel that we should acknowledge there is a national dispute, but not take sides, and just concentrate on the misbehaviour. If we accept that it is appropriate to sanction someone for following their nation's political beliefs, then we are accepting that it appropriate to sanction someone for belonging to their own nation - for being an Azerbaijani or for being an Armenian. SilkTork ( talk) 09:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

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

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

Done -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm striking my oppose, as I realise I misread the article and thus the intention behind it. SilkTork ( talk) 19:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I've rewritten my oppose. When glancing at the article that Olympian was writing I didn't pay close enough attention and misread "Azerbaijanis in Armenia were ethnically cleansed on a large scale" as "Armenians were ethnically cleansed on a large scale", and assumed that Olympian was writing about the Armenian genocide as the Armenian genocide was what was on my mind. Then I wondered why Olympian would be writing about the Armenian genocide, and considered if it was a POV fork so went back to check, and realised that they were writing about the massacre of Azerbaijanis. SilkTork ( talk) 09:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

   Primefac ( talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

3. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

   CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

4. On the balance of the earlier warning, yes, I think this is a fair FOF. I am concerned about the plural on issues. Is there another case? Izno ( talk) 23:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

   Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

   Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I cannot accept as evidence of wrong doing, someone asking for advice on a source. This is the source Olympian is asking about: [7]. Routledge is a respectable publisher. The author is Jamil Hasanli. All looks fine, and Olympian says that the bulk of the book is useful for information on "the topic of interwar Azerbaijan's diplomacy with Armenia"; however, he is uncertain if he should use it because it contains some statements he finds "strange", such as the one Guerillero quotes. The "subjective in character are the claims of Armenian genocide" statement appears to be the stance of various countries, including the UK: Armenian_genocide_recognition#United_Kingdom. The massacre is recognised, but terming it a genocide is a political hot potato. So, this is a subtle and complex area, and I understand why El_C didn't wish to say yes or no, and instead referred Olympian to RSN - something I would also have done. I can't accept someone asking for clarification on a subtle and sensitive issue as being an example of wrong doing. SilkTork ( talk) 16:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Upon reading the AE further and thinking about this more. I see this as Olympian acknowledging a potential problem with the source and checking for another opinion, which is the sort of communication there needs to be more of in the area. This would have been an issue if they hadn't asked. I really don't agree with the reasoning about the status of the Armenian genocide being "a political hot potato", though. Some governments and bodies may "dispute" it, but our (featured!) article on Armenian genocide denial-- written by an editor who isn't a party to this case-- says right in the opening that it is "a crime documented in a large body of evidence and affirmed by the vast majority of scholars", followed by 12 or so academic sources. We follow those sources. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 19:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. I'm not ready to label the request for another editor's opinion as an "issue". It's commendable behaviour. Cabayi ( talk) 11:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Per the above upon reflection and reconsideration. Primefac ( talk) 08:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Cabayi puts it well. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. I'm not sure I'd call it commendable. It still indicated that Olympian wasn't able to independently assess the source, and I'm not liking that he decides to ask El_C, instead of say RSN. No offense to El_C, he's one of our best admins, and was kind and helpful to Olympian. But I don't like users running to the person who sanctioned them and asking "is this okay?" It puts a burden on the sanctioning admin that is unfair. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Moneytrees, I'm regretting I commented on the Armenian genocide. My thinking was along the lines that those who are looking into conduct should remain impartial on the content aspects which divide the parties when there is legitimate evidence of that dispute. One side calling the other side a denier or believer, is pretty much the same as calling them a follower of their nation's position. We acknowledge there is a national dispute, don't take sides, and just concentrate on the misbehaviour. As far as I'm aware, no country is denying the mass slaughter of Armenians; what is in dispute is the terming of it as genocide - see Armenian genocide recognition for more information on this. It appears to be largely political as regards which countries support the term genocide. And all that aside, as El_C points out, it requires a lot of research to really understand the subtlety of some of these positions. I am, I wish to underscore, not making a stand either way, I'm just looking at the material and noting that "subjective in character are the claims of Armenian genocide" statement appears to be the stance of various countries who are not wishing to make it a political issue, such as "Denmark believes (2008) that the genocide recognition should be discussed by historians, not politicians." - hence "political hot potato". SilkTork ( talk) 03:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Edit warring (Olympian)

8.3) While the case was ongoing, Olympian engaged in edit warring at Shusha massacre. [8]

Support:

1. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Izno ( talk) 18:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. To quote the protection log "while WP:AA3 is still open!" — Wug· a·po·des 00:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 22:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Reverting during a discussion when everyone is against you is poor enough, but to do it during an ArbCom case is tantamount to suicide by proxy. SilkTork ( talk) 16:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Primefac ( talk) 10:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Cabayi ( talk) 10:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

ZaniGiovanni (FoF)

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 topic banned ZaniGiovanni from September 2022 to November 2022 for battleground behavior ( logged sanction).

Support:

1. History -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Primefac ( talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Izno ( talk) 00:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. This is the thread for which Tamzin topic banned ZaniGiovanni: "Recently there was an RFC for the 2020 Ganja missile attacks article, concerning whether a sentence verified by several sources should continue being in the article. A WP:RfC is meant to be "a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes". Every single user that voted to remove the sentence, mentioning Azerbaijan bombed Armenian civilians before Ganja was attacked, was an Azerbaijani.". Underlines the issues at the heart of this ethnic dispute. SilkTork ( talk) 17:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
10. Cabayi ( talk) 11:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

@ Guerillero, Primefac, Beeblebrox, CaptainEek, Izno, and Moneytrees: I've removed "unilaterally" per HJ Mitchell's talk page comment. It shouldn't change the substance of the FoF, but letting you know in case you take issue with it. — Wug· a·po·des 23:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Primefac ( talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Izno ( talk) 00:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. That was 3RR: [9]. SilkTork ( talk) 17:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
10. Cabayi ( talk) 11:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Interpersonal issues (ZaniGiovanni)

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

Support:

1. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Primefac ( talk) 09:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. I agree, but I get the sense based on the edits displayed by Abravgl above that Zani has had to deal with POV pushing. Izno ( talk) 00:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 06:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. SilkTork ( talk) 14:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 11:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Additional edit warring

9.4) While the case was ongoing, ZaniGiovanni engaged in edit warring at Shusha massacre. [10]

Support:

1. Not 100% needed, but it shows that ZaniGiovanni can not stop pressing the revert button -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Izno ( talk) 18:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. — Wug· a·po·des 00:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 22:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. SilkTork ( talk) 17:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Primefac ( talk) 10:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Cabayi ( talk) 11:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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 nor Golden have engaged in additional misconduct.

Support:

1. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Primefac ( talk) 09:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Izno ( talk) 18:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 22:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. SilkTork ( talk) 11:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
10. Cabayi ( talk) 11:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

neither Grandmaster not Golden have engaged in additional misconduct. Given that Golden is still topic banned, is this a statement that he has abided that topic ban? Izno ( talk) 00:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, it is. Golden's second topic ban is also from a limited subset of the area of conflict. Elsewhere he has been editing respectfully. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Off-wiki conduct

11.1) 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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

   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) reply

Oppose:

1. Think the alternate wording is a better finding of the facts in this case. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer below. Izno ( talk) 03:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. In favour of the alternate. Primefac ( talk) 10:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. favour 11.2 Cabayi ( talk) 11:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. In favor of 11.2 — Wug· a·po·des 23:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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

• I agree with Barkeep that a more robust FoF would be nice here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
• I as well. Izno ( talk) 00:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Off-wiki conduct (alternate)

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.

Support

1. The one exception mentioned above is Dallivd. The most concerning post given to us could best be described as gravedancing and is not something I'm willing to sanction him for in this instance. I also am open if other arbs have further tweaks but it seems like this is ready for votes given a few rounds of copy-edits. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. equal preference -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. The evidence demonstrates that both sides have interest in having Wikipedia conform to their POVs. However, most of the private evidence came down to a post complaining about an article at some offsite place, and then speculation that editors were coordinating with each other or reacting to these posts. This speculation essentially boiled down to "they might be talking to each other/they might have seen this"; I did not find it very convincing. On the other hand, there was some evidence I found compelling regarding editors who are not parties to this case or who have already been blocked; any further concerns with that behavior can be addressed separately from this case. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 23:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Per above. Izno ( talk) 03:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Primefac ( talk) 10:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Cabayi ( talk) 11:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. — Wug· a·po·des 23:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

This is my attempt to write that more robust FoF discussed above. I'm intentionally not voting on it yet to make it easier for other arbs to do some editing around it, to refine it further. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for getting this started. I've made a few edits. The main substantive change is to clarify that the evidence connecting off-wiki accounts to on-wiki accounts was not only circumstantial but also unconvincing. We can and do find fact on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the decision is based on how convincing we find the circumstances supporting the inference of a fact. The reason for not finding as fact the link between particular accounts isn't that the evidence was circumstantial, but that the evidence was not convincing enough for us to infer that the connection is factual. — Wug· a·po·des 00:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

alleged-> showed; use "canvassing and coordination" since that's a more complete accounting; ce. — Wug· a·po·des 02:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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 (remedies)

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. First choice — Wug· a·po·des 21:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. First choice, per Wugs comments on the 1RR restriction below. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Izno ( talk) 00:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Primefac ( talk) 07:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. On the whole I'm not finding most of the parties to this case to be seriously problematic users - there's mostly a bit of fairly gentle and slow edit warring, and this is particularly the situation with Abrvagl. However, if you're reported to the police for careless driving, you can expect a restriction on your licence. SilkTork ( talk) 17:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Reluctantly. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 01:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 11:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
10. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Izno's convinced me that this is reasonable even with the topic ban. — Wug· a·po·des 00:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC) 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) reply
3. I don't see 1.1 and 1.2 as exclusive, even if the area motivates the edit warring. Someone who has been on notice for edit warring should have that remedied. Izno ( talk) 00:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. In addition to 1.1. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. The revert button creates resentment and hostility. The very least people can do is use the edit button and make constructive adjustments, working slowly to a compromise or consensus. If the material is contentious, then entering into a discussion must be attempted, and if no agreement can be found, then seek assistance or at least a third opinion. I do not see this 1RR as being in any way inhibitive of productive editing. Indeed, I think Abrvagl (and the encyclopedia) would benefit if Abrvagl voluntarily decided not to make any reverts at all unless it is clear and obvious vandalism. And to note that productive users do not vandalise the encyclopedia. SilkTork ( talk) 00:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 01:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Cabayi ( talk) 11:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I do not see this as strictly necessary in addition to the topic ban, but recognise that others may find it useful. Primefac ( talk) 07:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. I lineup with Primefac here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Note to Primefac: if you are not in favour of this, but do not wish to oppose, then making a comment is more neutral than abstaining, because by abstaining you make it more likely that this will pass, by lowering the amount needed to achieve a majority. Essentially your abstain vote here becomes a support vote. SilkTork ( talk) 00:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

With L235 moving to inactive my above comment no longer applies. SilkTork ( talk) 13:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ SilkTork That logic is double edged. If 7 support and 8 oppose, then a motion fails 7-8-0; but if 7 support and 8 refuse to vote a motion fails 7-0-0. I wouldn't call the boycotting arbitrators "more neutral" in that situation as they essentially cast 8 oppose votes but avoided accountability by putting their rationales in "comments" instead of "oppose". Our procedures work best when everyone (1) does their duty by voting and (2) votes their true preference. Does abstention lower the support threshold? Yes, but if the motion passing is a concern then the proper vote is to oppose since being a blocker to adoption is the true preference. — Wug· a·po·des 20:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I just wanted to highlight the peculiarity of our voting system in which a single abstain vote can sometimes quietly impact the outcome of a remedy and cause it to fail or pass, which may not have been the intention. In your example of 7 support and 8 refuse, then the motion fails. If one of those non-voters had made an abstain vote, not wishing to support, then one of the non-voters is marked as inactive by a clerk, that abstain vote alters the count, thus allowing the motion to pass, but if they hadn't abstained, the motion would have failed. In that scenario their single abstain has become a deciding support, which wasn't their intention. SilkTork ( talk) 02:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I can see your point; one of my first cases had a motion where it did not matter whether I voted to support or abstain it would pass, which made it incredibly difficult to justify abstaining over support. On the other hand, this motion does not look to be headed in that direction. If it does, I will reconsider my abstention. Primefac ( talk) 10:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Interaction Ban (Abrvagl)

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.

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
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. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:29, 10 March 2023‎ (UTC) reply
3. Izno ( talk) 00:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Primefac ( talk) 07:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. If and only if 4.3 passes. SilkTork ( talk) 14:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. If and only if 4.3 passes, per SilkTork's comment below. — Wug· a·po·des 20:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Dependent on 4.3 passing. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 01:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. Cabayi ( talk) 11:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
10. Would've preferred one, two way ban, but I'll live with two, one-way bans. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. If and only if 4.3 fails. SilkTork ( talk) 14:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

If 1.3 and 4.3 both pass it'll strike me as silly to have them as two seperate remedies. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm pondering your comment Barkeep49. Is there any technical difference between having two one-way bans instead of one two-way ban? I'm not generally in favour of one-way bans because of the potential for intentional or unintentional gaming. I'd kinda prefer to have a conventional two-way ban which would then be mutually appealed, rather than have two separate one-way bans which may be appealed separately, thus creating a potential imbalance. However, I'm not sure if it's worth drawing up a new remedy. What is your thinking Guerillero in having this set up as two separate bans? SilkTork ( talk) 01:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

There is no functional difference between 2 one-way i bans and 1 two-way i ban. This was mostly done as a stylistic choice to. Make every remedy for a person in the same "namespace" for ease of reference by AE admins. The probation breaks it, but everything else is nice and orderly -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I also note that there is value in having separate proposals in case an Arb wishes to iban one party but not the other. SilkTork ( talk) 11:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Izno stated, below, that he is considering it -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 12:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm supporting this only as a two way ban, so if one remedy doesn't pass, then I'm opposing both because in this arena I think a one way iban could be gamed and cause problems down the line. SilkTork ( talk) 14:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Dallavid (remedies)

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. — Wug· a·po·des 21:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Izno ( talk) 00:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Primefac ( talk) 07:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Too much reverting, even after several warnings. SilkTork ( talk) 13:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Also reluctantly. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 01:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Cabayi ( talk) 11:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. Per SilkTork. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply
10. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply
4. Izno ( talk) 00:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Primefac ( talk) 07:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Too much reverting. Reverts should be reserved just for clear and obvious vandalism, and should not be used to assert one's own preferred wording. Reverting established and productive users is hostile and aggressive. SilkTork ( talk) 01:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Given the history of edit warring. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 19:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Cabayi ( talk) 11:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. In addition to the proposed topic ban. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply
10. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Site ban (Dallavid)

2.3) Dallavid is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. 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) reply
2. Per Wugapodes. Primefac ( talk) 07:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Izno ( talk) 03:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Other than reverting in the topic area (which got out of hand), there isn't much else of concern. SilkTork ( talk) 13:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Weighing the evidence, I cannot support this. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 19:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Cabayi ( talk) 11:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. I am willing to site ban on the basis of conduct even with in a singular area but it needs to be particularly egregious and/or after multiple topic ban violations. Neither is true here. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I am on the fence due to the OSed edits -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

You will need to add that as an FOF if you want support for this remedy I think. I agree with Wugapodes presently that there is insufficient evidence for a full ban presented in this case without discussion about case behavior. It is also another factor that leads in to one of adding the standard set of behavior during arbitration motions (as I suggested elsewhere). Izno ( talk) 00:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Olympian (remedies)

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Izno ( talk) 18:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Edit warring during the case pushed me over on this one. — Wug· a·po·des 00:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

   Edit warring during the middle of a case makes this an easy support for me. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

4. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Primefac ( talk) 09:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. This is a tough one. I think the conduct is borderline. And I see that Olympian mainly edits in the AA area. But it is also an area that is at wits end. When you're in such a volatile topic area, while a case is ongoing, you should know to keep your act together. Olympian couldn't. Its that sort of borderline, low level actions that evade sanctions, but contribute to making the topic area toxic. For me, this topic ban is (rightly) an expression of a zero tolerance policy in the AA topic area. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. The only issue in the FoF I agree with is that Olympian edit warred during the case. I'm not seeing the evidence that this is a problematic user. SilkTork ( talk) 17:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. This remedy goes beyond the FoFs with which I agree. The #One Revert Restriction (Olympian) remedy is an adequate response to the edit warring during the case. Cabayi ( talk) 11:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Slightly. This goes a bit beyond the FOF and the evidence presented in the case. I think probation + 1RR is better. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 22:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Upon re-review of the evidence I don't think the totality of the conduct supports a topic ban and the suspended topic ban is sufficient in this case with the accompanying 1RR. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I would probably support here with the additional FOF you're considering. Izno ( talk) 00:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

It is this committee's job to "break the back" in situations involving problematic behavior. Edit warring while a named party to a case about the topic area you are edit warring in is a special kind of clueless and I believe is more to do with the topic area than a propensity for edit warring in general, therefore I am re-affirming my support for this specific sanction. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply

One Revert Restriction (Olympian)

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.

Support:

1. The evidence around edit warring isn't as robust as it is for the other two editors I'm supporting this restriction for, but I put a lot of weight on an inability to resist edit warring while a case is going on (and at the PD stage none-the-less). Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Izno ( talk) 03:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Edit warring during a case is pretty daft. SilkTork ( talk) 17:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. I'll have to think more about the TBAN but given the edit warring I will support this. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 20:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. — Wug· a·po·des 20:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Primefac ( talk) 10:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Cabayi ( talk) 11:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

ZaniGiovanni (remedies)

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. First choice. — Wug· a·po·des 21:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Primefac ( talk) 07:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. SilkTork ( talk) 17:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Cabayi ( talk) 11:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I think some of ZG's evidence has outlined some real issues in the area, but their editing has also been problematic. I feel like I can't vote to kick them out of the area because of this, but I won't oppose here. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 01:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Similar to MT here. Izno ( talk) 22:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice; mutually exclusive. — Wug· a·po·des 21:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. In addition to 4.1 Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. In addition to 4.1 SilkTork ( talk) 17:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Regardless, the edit warring needs to stop. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 01:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Cabayi ( talk) 11:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Izno ( talk) 22:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. It was really out of hand. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I do not see this as strictly necessary in addition to the topic ban, but recognise that others may find it useful. Primefac ( talk) 07:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments:

Interaction Ban (ZaniGiovanni)

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.

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Per my comments on the other half of this sanction. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Primefac ( talk) 07:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. If and only if 1.3 passes. SilkTork ( talk) 14:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. If and only if 1.3 passes, per SilkTork's comment below. — Wug· a·po·des 20:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Dependent on 1.3 passing. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 01:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. Cabayi ( talk) 11:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
9. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. If and only if 1.3 fails. SilkTork ( talk) 14:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. Izno ( talk) 22:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments:

If 1.3 and 4.3 both pass it'll strike me as silly to have them as two seperate remedies. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I am not personally totally sold on the Zani IBAN here, so I actually prefer having the two separate one ways. Should an appeal come, ARCA's filing form puts parties on the list of people who should know about the appeal. Izno ( talk) 07:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm supporting this only as a two way ban, so if one remedy doesn't pass, then I'm opposing both because in this arena I think a one way iban could be gamed and cause problems down the line. SilkTork ( talk) 14:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Parties placed on probation

5.1) 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: [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.

Support:

1. People need to put the revert button down -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

   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) reply

2. 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) reply

   Primefac ( talk) 07:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Oppose in favour of 5.2 SilkTork ( talk) 01:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Per below. Izno ( talk) 02:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. Prefer the clarifications made in 5.2 — Wug· a·po·des 20:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. Prefer the alternate. Primefac ( talk) 10:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Cabayi ( talk) 11:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Before supporting this remedy, I'd like to see the time-related term after which probation may be appealed by an individual editor, if any. Izno ( talk) 00:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Parties placed on probation (alt)

5.2) All parties to this case not already subject to an active topic ban as a remedy of this case 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.

Support:

1. I'm happy to support as written. SilkTork ( talk) 01:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Izno ( talk) 02:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. equal preference -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. — Wug· a·po·des 20:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Support this wording. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 01:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. Primefac ( talk) 10:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Cabayi ( talk) 11:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I support the concept of this but don't like how it applies to Golden. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Not supporting yet to give some time for edits. Two main changes: (1) clarify the first sentence per Red-tailed hawk on talk page (2) add an explicit time frame per Izno's comment. W.r.t. appeal timelines, I think we should allow immediate appeal in case there is some kind of mistake in the imposition, but after that safety check we go back to our usual once-a-year appeal cycle. — Wug· a·po·des 00:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

You mean topic banned by these remedies in that first sentence? As discussed above, Golden is presently topic banned but with an apparently lesser scope than this would apply. Izno ( talk) 02:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ SilkTork and Izno: Clarified "at the case's conclusion" -> "as a remedy of this case". Pinging since it might be substantive to you. — Wug· a·po·des 02:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Wug·, I think I'm OK with the change. Essentially, all parties are either topic banned or under a suspended topic ban. However, I think the previous wording ("at the case's conclusion") was clearer in that it included those sanctioned here and elsewhere - such as Golden, while the current wording ("as a remedy of this case") does not include Golden so they don't come under the scope of this remedy. I'm not sure if that matters, as Golden is topic banned anyway, but the first version sort of neatly grouped all parties together including Golden, this version leaves Golden out. I'm not sure it matters, but it has got me sort of scratching my head. SilkTork ( talk) 03:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

What would including Golden do? Now that said, I think there is enough evidence to justify an FoF and then to place a remedy making Golden's TBAN an arbcom rather than AE restriction. This would make it a tad more likely, I suspect, that a successful appeal would be accompanied by probation. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm reading it again, and it does include Golden, as they are not "subject to an active topic ban as a remedy of this case", but they are a party, so in addition to their existing topic ban they would also be on probation if this passes. SilkTork ( talk) 13:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

You're right. But that doesn't change my underlying point: I think it would be better to assume the topic ban for Golden than to pass this restriction on them. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Per my vote in the offsite evidence finding. I'm thinking about what SilkTork says in his oppose below, about "ArbCom should only do what the community cannot do"-- one of the reasons this went to us was because of the offsite issues, and my general assessment of the offsite threads is that there is increased interest in gaming Wikipedia's rules. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 01:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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) reply
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) reply
3. Primefac ( talk) 07:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. For the same reasons I opposed this when it came to us previously. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 20:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. I feel that ArbCom should only do what the community cannot do. The community already have a " extended confirmed restriction imposed on Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed", in place so there is no need for ArbCom to do anything. SilkTork ( talk) 14:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. All parties to the case are extended confirmed. The proposal has no material impact in the scope of this case. Cabayi ( talk) 11:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. There was some intent to hook in the community's restriction to us but the way that was done was to start the poll and then come to ArbCom and say "please assume this sanction". That's not the way it works. The community has a way to hook it into CT if they want, but there's been no effort to do that and so I can't help but think the community doesn't want to hook this in and I see no compelling evidence to override that community consensus. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
4. As above. Primefac ( talk) 07:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. I don't think this will work. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 01:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. too broad Cabayi ( talk) 11:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. I agree with Guerillero, but also with Beeblebrox. I'm not sufficiently against the idea to oppose, but enough to abstain. SilkTork ( talk) 14:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
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) reply
3. Having opposed the general imposition of a #One Revert Restriction (1RR) it's worth reiterating that 1RR and other remedies are still in the toolbox at AE and should be used when needed. Cabayi ( talk) 11:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. For basically the same reasons as Wugapodes. Contentious topics are named precisely because they are to quote wikt:contentious marked by heated arguments or controversy. The idea with the extraordinary powers granted by those procedures is for admin to use their skills and knowledge to reduce disruption to the community in a more agile way than ArbCom can do. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Barkeep and Wugs say it best. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 22:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. We should have zero tolerance in AA. If the question is between sanctions or not, weigh in favor of sanctions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

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) reply

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) reply

Despite the timestamps, I spent a while drafting mine so wasn't actually considering SilkTork's comment when writing mine because I hadn't yet read it. I'm not particularly against formalizing new guidelines, but I'm also not particularly worried about future committees; nothing in this encouragement is particularly new. The text is based on principle 5 of the 2015 Arbitration Enforcement case which was added to our procedures a few years afterwards per its sole remedy; to this day our procedures still sits making the same recommendation that the severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question.[...E]ditors engaging in egregious or sustained misconduct should be dealt with robustly. A "recidivism" principle like the one mentioned here has been used in no fewer than 12 cases dating back to 2009. This remedy reiterates guidance we've been giving administrators at AE for at least 8 years, so while I'm open to clarifying what "robustly" means, I'm not particularly worried about us imposing new expectations or rapidly changing tack. — Wug· a·po·des 02:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. I understand the principle behind this, though I am not comfortable with urging others to do stuff I'm not doing myself. I had considered offering an alternative along the lines of of two warnings and you're out, though recognise that may be gamed. A better remedy would be to somehow limit the amount of inappropriate complaints a user can make, though I think such a remedy would be applicable not just to this topic area, but the whole of Wikipedia, so such a remedy/guideline could/should be generated and owned by the community. As I'm not going to offer an alternative, I'm no longer opposing this, but I cannot support, so this is an abstain (which as it currently stands, is effectively a ghost support). SilkTork ( talk) 13:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. Izno ( talk) 20:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments:

I would rather have an open conversation with AE admins, whom I consider important colleagues to the committee itself. We can clarify these things without it being in the form of orders from on high. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree with what Beeblebrox writes here and think this is us having the conversation with AE admins (see also what's playing out on the talk page). My trust in them is why I prefer this encouragement to a brightline rule. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm open to the idea, but logistically not sure how to do that effectively. The last RfC remedy didn't achieve its goals, so I hesitate to recommend another "let's come up with guidelines" discussion. — Wug· a·po·des 02:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Wugapodes suggested offwiki that we might try a remedy like Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement#Drafters delegated, except he didn't want to volunteer anyone (including the drafters), for something like this. I said it wasn't a terrible idea to work through it. The objective would be to have direct discussion with AE admins I think about what guardrails they'd like and what kind of social contract we might add to the existing guideline/policy. We'd probably have to set a timeline, and IDK how much effort we want to put into that with Poland. Izno ( talk) 07:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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:

General

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 — Wug· a·po·des 20:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 15:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC) by Donald Albury. reply

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	10	0	0		·
2	National and territorial disputes	10	0	0		·
3	Role of the Arbitration Committee	10	0	0		·
4	Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee	9	0	0		·
5	Recidivism	9	0	0		·
6	Standards of editor behavior	9	0	0		·
7	Edit warring	10	0	0		·
8	Tendentious editing	10	0	0		·
9	Arbitration Enforcement	10	0	0		·
10	Arbitration Enforcement-imposed sanctions	10	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of the dispute	10	0	0		·
2	Previous Arbitration Committee interventions	10	0	0		·
3.1	Recent attempts at dispute resolution	4	5	0		Cannot pass
3.2	Difficulties faced during dispute resolution	8	0	0		·
4	December 2022 Arbitration Enforcement request	9	0	0		·
5	Community-imposed extended confirmed restriction	8	0	1		·
6.1	Sanction history (Abrvagl)	10	0	0		·
6.2	Interpersonal issues (Abrvagl)	10	0	0		·
6.3	Edit warring (Abrvagl)	10	0	0		·
7.1	Sanction history (Dallavid)	10	0	0		·
7.2	Arbitration Enforcement erred	8	0	1		·
8.1	Sanction history (Olympian)	9	1	0		·
8.2	Use of Sources	4	5	1		Cannot pass
8.3	Edit warring (Olympian)	9	0	0		·
9.1	Sanction history (ZaniGiovanni)	10	0	0		·
9.2	Edit warring (ZaniGiovanni)	10	0	0		·
9.3	Interpersonal issues (ZaniGiovanni)	9	0	0		·
9.4	Additional edit warring	8	0	0		·
10	Other Parties	10	0	0		·
11.1	Off-wiki conduct	1	5	0		Cannot pass
11.2	Off-wiki conduct (alternate)	8	0	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1.1	Topic ban (Abrvagl)	10	0	0		·
1.2	One Revert Restriction (Abrvagl)	7	0	2		·
1.3	Interaction Ban (Abrvagl)	10	0	0		·	−3 support and +1 oppose if 4.3 fails
2.1	Topic ban (Dallavid)	10	0	0		·
2.2	One Revert Restriction (Dallavid)	10	0	0		·
2.3	Site ban (Dallavid)	0	9	0		Cannot pass
3.1	Topic ban (Olympian)	6	4	0		·
3.2	One Revert Restriction (Olympian)	9	0	0		·
4.1	Topic ban (ZaniGiovanni)	8	0	2		·
4.2	One Revert Restriction (ZaniGiovanni)	7	0	1		·	+1 support if 4.1 fails
4.3	Interaction Ban (ZaniGiovanni)	9	0	1		·	−3 support and +1 oppose if 1.3 fails
5.1	Parties placed on probation	2	5	0		Cannot pass
5.2	Parties placed on probation (alt)	8	1	0		·
6	Extended confirmed restriction	2	7	0		Cannot pass
7	One Revert Restriction (1RR)	1	6	2		Cannot pass
8	Administrators encouraged	6	0	2		·
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		·	Passes by default
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		·	Passes by default

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

1. Everything that can (or cannot) pass, is, and unless folks start jumping ship (in either direction) there is nothing more to do. Primefac ( talk) 09:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
2. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 11:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
3. SilkTork ( talk) 14:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
4. We have a result here and I don't anticipate it changing at this point. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
5. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 17:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
6. — Wug· a·po·des 17:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
7. Cabayi ( talk) 17:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply
8. We're clearly ready to close. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Comments