The Workshop phase for this case has closed. Any further edits to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without further reason. If you need to make further edits to the page please make a request on the talk page.

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

Purpose of the workshop

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reliable sources

Editors should always try to use the most reliable sources available for any given topic, with the editorial oversight, fact-checking and bias within the source taken into consideration. Depending on the context, non-neutral or biased sources can be used if they are the best sourcing for information held on a subject. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight and should not be used for citing contentious claims. Where the use of questionable or biased sources is agreed to be appropriate, information about their nature should be indicated so that readers can judge their value.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Consensus

Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The problem Grandmaster identifies of general editor fatigue/disinterest and extreme interest among motivated parties is a challenge I feel like we're increasingly seeing. I don't have great answers yet. I do wonder if setting up certain parameters of the debate, as Callanecc suggests below, is one strategy that could help with this to some extent? Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I do not object to this in principle, but how do we get the wider community involved? The requests to various boards usually remain unanswered. I always try to get disputes resolved via recommended DR procedures. The problem is that there is very little wider community interest in AA topics. For example, we have multiple disputes at 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh, as one can see from talk. I tried to take one to WP:NPOVN to get third party opinions: [1], got no response from third parties. Then we have a dispute whether information about the role of Karabakh state minister Ruben Vardanyan was a BLP issue. I took it to WP:BLPN, again, only involved parties commented. [2] I followed admin Callanecc's advice and started an RFC on this at talk of the aforementioned article, again there's almost no third party involvement. Maybe I did not do everything perfectly, but I genuinely tried to get outside opinions to help solve the disputes, to no avail so far. It was the same situation when we had an RFC on the article title, and there was a suspicious voting pattern with SPA accounts turning up. Again, there was almost no third party involvement. As I wrote in my evidence, I understand that third party users have no obligation to get involved in topics they are not familiar with, and for many people from outside the region the topic is obscure. But maybe there is something that could be done to encourage outside users to get involved in dispute resolution in AA related topics? Then the wording of this section should reflect such measures. Grand master 09:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Barkeep49: I think measures proposed by Callanecc may work. Sometimes disputes turn into endless walls of text that no outside person is going to read. Someone needs to put a stop to it, because the parties normally make their points early in discussion, and then just keep repeating themselves. Also with sources, once there is a community consensus on reliability of certain sources, it needs to be enforced. But these measures do not address the problem of RFCs, where often the votes are equally split, and they are closed as no consensus. No consensus means that the issue is not resolved, and will resurface again. More outside votes usually help form a wider consensus that would be binding on the involved parties, at least for a reasonable period of time. But that does not always happen. An example of such vote is here: [3] The article was kept with the title that clearly violates WP:COMMONNAME, as the current name is not used by most reliable sources. As was demonstrated in the discussion, the vast majority of reliable sources use "Nagorno-Karabakh blockade". And there was some very suspicious voting involved, with SPA accounts joining in to vote. I think the best solution to this would be not to close such votes as no consensus, but close them based on the weight of the arguments. In general, RFCs in this topic area also remain a problem that need addressing. Grand master 10:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Barkeep49 @ Callanecc I would agree with @ Robert McClenon, and add up. The reason why third party editors are not interested in being involved in AA disputs is that some editors simply cannot or do not want to make any compromises, and third party editors who decide to help dispute are frequently not listened to and strongly challenged. This often continues to the point where third-party editors just drop the case and never return.

The elephant in the room (the root cause of AA issues) are editors who demonstrate battlefield behavior and are unable to control their bias. It is nearly impossible to establish a healthy editing atmosphere and achieve consensus when certain editors perceive Wikipedia as a battleground, persistently engage into edit wars, create rather a toxic and harsh situations, always believe in the bad faith of opposing editors, bludgeon the discussions, and use various sets of criteria for situations that benefit their view and those that do not.

As a consequence most of the dispute resolution tools are affected. DRN is at best ineffective; 3O, BLP, RSN, and NPOV have minimal participation of third editors; Hence RfC is the most effective way to resolve disagreements in AA. But, RfC, which is essentially the last choice for resolving the dispute, periodically closes with no consensus leaving dispute without solution. A recent example would be the requested move( [4]) of the 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh article, which despite strong policy based arguments was closed with no consensus owing to huge off-Wiki canvassing. As a result the article left with the title, which breaches Wikipedia policies.

I would suggest following: First, not allowing editors who fail to control their bias and has battleground perception to AA will at drastically improve situation. Second, reinforcing civility rules and making them more strict for AA would be beneficial. AA is already a challenging editing environment, and any further stress caused by non-civil users should be minimized. At last, make it a rule that every AA-related dispute resolution should be written in a neutral tone, with just one word count limited comment from dispute participants. This will prevent conflict resolution from being bludgeoned and turned into a wall of text, and will allow for the engagement of third-party editors. A b r v a g l ^{( PingMe)} 11:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Abrvagl, which part of the evidence is "owing to huge off-Wiki canvassing" based on? ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 15:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Evidence for that I had sent to ArbCom email. If it is not a problem and if there is a need - I can share some openly available links proving off-Wiki canvassing here as well. A b r v a g l ^{( PingMe)} 15:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the clarification. E-mail is okay and you had probably sent an e-mail for a reason. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 17:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I would appreciate if the arbitration committee advised on how to resolve disputes in Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area in a situation when appeals to dispute resolution boards and RFCs generate little or no response from the wider Wikipedia community. I believe if the content disputes get timely resolved, there will be less edit warring and tendentious editing in this topic area. Maybe there is something that could be done to encourage the wider Wikipedia community to help with dispute resolution in this topic area? Grand master 21:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Behavioral standards

Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutrality and sources

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Academic historical sources

The use of sources by academic historians is preferred for Wikipedia articles about historical topics, including subject areas that are designated as contentious topics. Such sources may have biases introduced either by nationalism or by historiographic approach. Editors using such sources should not consider the sources to be unreliable, but should present a neutral point of view even if the sources do not present a neutral point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This should probably come from the community -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The guideline on types of sources is WP:SOURCETYPES. SilkTork ( talk) 11:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply

• @ ZaniGiovanni, Dallavid, Abrvagl, and Grandmaster: Please cease this foray into the weeds about individual sources. Arbcom isn't going to make any rulings about which ones are correct and which ones are not. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

How about news reports that are not third party? There might be reports from the region by partisan sources that provide important information. The rules allow the use of partisan sources with proper attribution of the bias. But we often have disagreements as to whether they are allowed to be used at all. I also like Callanecc's idea of allowing admins to step into a discussion and pass a judgement on acceptability of certain sources. But I would prefer that it would be not an arbitrary decision of 1 person, but a consensus between at least 2 admins on whether or not a certain source or sources are acceptable. Grand master 11:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Wp:Biased mentions reliable sources not just any source, please read the second sentence. A partisan website making claims not collaborated by third party RS is generally undue and unreliable, but this also depends on the context/claim and the article. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 17:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Guerillero, My point was about the abuse of the "Genocide denial" argument, which is not about the sources, but rather one of the ongoing issues which I believe require attention. I used a couple Diffs as an example of abuse, and I didn't even name editors because it wasn't necessary. Can you please have another look at my comment? I can trim it if required. A b r v a g l ^{( PingMe)} 21:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Content arguments -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Based on what I've seen, the “Genocide denial” argument against sources is frequently abused. It’s used to remove any content from any article, even if the content is unrelated to the supposed denialism of the genocide. Here are a few prominent examples: OSCE Minsk Group: Properly attributed content referencing France 24 was deleted with the rationale that Billion, who was quoted in the article, “is a genocide denier” ( [5]). Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907: Content referencing historian Tadeusz Swietochowski was deleted ( [6]) based on unsubstantiated claims that Swietochowski is a genocide denier, to support this, editor linked an irrelevant YouTube video which didn’t support aspersions ([ [7]) Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921): Content referencing an Oxford University book by Mark Levene that quoted an element of McCarthy’s book (which itself was unrelated to the Armenian genocide) was deleted because the author once referenced McCarthy, a genocide denialist ( [8]). Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921): Editor deleted content referencing the reknown author and academic Jörg Baberowski, fictitiously claiming that he’s a Holocaust denier in order to dismiss his work regarding Armenia-Azerbaijan ( [9]). When asked for clarification, editor stated: Baberovski is a defender of Ernst Nolte,[2] who has his own section on Holocaust denial., therefore, they literally argue that Baberowski is Holocaust denialist just because they had ties with the Ernst Nolte, who editor thinks to be a “genocide denier” ( [10]). It is obvious that additional rules should be implemented to avoid abuse of this practice. I propose the following: 1) Anybody who asserts that an author is a genocide denier should provide a reliable source to substantiate their allegation or take the matter to the RSN and gain consensus there through the neutral volunteers. 2) The genocide denier argument, which now makes the author unreliable for any article, should be limited to articles about genocide or particular books by the author. Attributed material, such as what an author stated elsewhere, should not be deleted solely on the assertions of genocide deniers. As an example, the article Sasun (historical region) cites McCarthy in 8 footnotes and is unrelated to genocide denialism. A b r v a g l ( PingMe) 18:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply I think this is a valid question. I would appreciate if Arbcom could clarify if allegations of genocide denialism are sufficient grounds to disqualify any source for any topic. Grand master 19:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply First of all, these aren't 'allegations'. I'll comment on what I have knowledge about and was involved on article/talk: (re OSCE Minsk Group) – Didier Billion is an Armenian genocide denier, [11]. Billion trivializes genocide as "events" [17]. He exhibits the basic tropes of Armenian genocide denial. (re Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907) – Not sure why the editors here who keep saying 'allegations' don't bother to even reply or mention my last comment on the article talk page, where in his book review, Swietochowski is described as "egregious" in his treatment of Armenian issues and is clearly described as a genocide denier who uses the works of notorious denialists such as Standford Shaw, quote: "The most serious problems with Swietochowski's book, and they are egregious, are found in his treatment of Armenian issues related to Azerbaijan. The contested territory of Nagorno-Karabagh has been the scene of armed struggle between Armenians and Azerbaijanis since 1989, and the war over it has cost in excess of 20,000 lives. Swietochowski describes the coerced acceptance of Azerbaijani rule by the Congress of Karabagh Armenians in 1919 as ". . . an act that recognized the realities of geography, economy, and transportation..." (p. 76). In fact, none of these three criteria, nor history and demography, could justify such a transfer of administrative authority to Azerbaijan. Elsewhere, Swietochowski contributes to genocide denial by citing the Shaw's tainted source, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modem Turkey, on the Armenian genocide." [12]. I would also add that some suggestions here aren't constructive because: A) deniers of Armenian genocide usually don’t have neutral stance towards Armenia-Azerbaijan issues, B) users citing genocide deniers in Armenia-Azerbaijan topic should be aware of the above and the fact that using sources not only explicitly denying genocide but even leaning towards it are frowned upon in Wikipedia, as demonstrated by El_C's warning in AE. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 21:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by others:

I like this a lot, but I think the wording of the last sentence should be improved. The wording "editors using sources [with biases] should not consider the sources to be unreliable" may allow for lawyering that would harm dispute resolution when biased sources are involved. Perhaps something closer to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources could be preferable, i.e. "Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid." (emphasis my own). — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 15:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I think that this sort of sentiment should also reflect the degree of production of explicitly nationalist historiographies of the conflict in both Armenia and Azerbaijan by professional historians. Unfortunately I don't have the text on me right now so I can't provide quotes or page numbers, but Small Nations and Great Powers: a Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus by Svante Cornell (arguably the most authoritative English-language author on the NK conflict, based on research work I've done in this area outside Wikipedia) documents the divergent historiographies that were produced in Armenia and Azerbaijan SSR, beginning primarily in the 1960s and then accelerating as the conflict unfolded. I'm seeing just now that our article about him notes criticisms that he may be less-than-impartial when it comes to Ilham Aliyev; nevertheless, the book is widely cited, and from my recollection the account of rival historiographies in Armenia and Azerbaijan did not seem to pull any punches when it came to criticizing the Azerbaijan line. At any rate, I'm not married to this source and would still suggest investigating the historiographic dimension with other sources if Cornell isn't neutral enough) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I also like this idea. I think adding a restriction the standard set for this topic area that allows admins to mandate the use of historical sources on particular articles or in particular discussions as well as is prohibit the use of particular sources in certain discussions might be helpful in this topic area. Effectively an admin could use CT to step into a discussion and dismiss sources that are clearly or obviously biased or that have no chance of being accepted in a discussion. This will prevent the circular discussions that I've seen in this topic area where editors point to their own sources and then aren't willing to consider others. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree with Guerillero that this should come from the community, but it already has: WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP are part of the WP:RS guideline. I think it would be helpful for Arbcom to make a statement of principle about these two parts of WP:RS, and if the evidence shows that there are editors who chronically and unreasonably do not follow these sections of WP:RS, I think there should be FOFs and remedies about that, just like any other guideline. Cf. WP:KURDS#Sourcing of articles. Levivich ( talk) 22:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Content arguments -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to see a harder stance taken against sources that promote WP:FRINGE claims, so that they cannot weasel their way onto the site. For example, anything that advocates any kind of Armenian genocide negationism or promotes the Caucasian Albanian theory should be considered unreliable. Recently there have been a number of loopholes causing issues, such as the author being fairly unknown and thus not much has been written critical of them, authors specializing in another field that make undue claims about Armenia-Azerbaijan subjects, and just the assumption that anything published by an academic publisher is reliable. The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey was widely criticized and rejected by eleven universities before finding one that would publish it, which according to WP:TIERS means it's reliable. A source does not deserve the benefit of the doubt of being reliable just because it was published by an academic institution, which are not immune to bribery. -- Dallavid ( talk) 19:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply Here is a question that needs addressing. Is it Ok to label a scholar a genocide denier and reject him as a source on any other topic? A person can have views that differ from general consensus in certain area, but be a prominent expert in other areas. And also, can one label a prominent scholar a genocide denier without citing any reliable sources that call this person a denier? For example, Tadeusz Swietochowski was a prominent US scholar on history of Azerbaijan, and his books on the history of Azerbaijan received positive reviews from his colleagues. Dallavid removes reference to Swietochowski [13], calling him a genocide denier and citing as a proof his personal interpretation of a YouTube video: [14] [15] Is this acceptable? Grand master 09:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Bias in historical sources

There is a difference between sources of questionable reliability and sources with a nationalistic or other bias. A nationalistic or other bias in historical sources does not render these sources unreliable, and such sources should be used, but must be used so that a neutral point of view is presented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I feel like a word is missing in the second sentence here; it doesn't seem to flow well to my ear. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 00:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

At wit's end

In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This , to me is not a wits end case. I am not seeing room for draconian sanctions -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I haven't given much thought to this outcome until this proposal. Guerillero, what criteria do you use when trying to decide if something has reached wits end or not? Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

National and territorial disputes and similar conflicts

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Battleground conduct

Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battleground. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Borderline personal attacks and edit-warring are incompatible with this spirit. Use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals, and is prohibited. Editors who are unable to resolve their personal or ideological differences are expected to keep mutual contact to a minimum. If battling editors fail to disengage, they may be compelled to do so through the imposition of restrictions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sockpuppetry

The general rule is one editor, one account, though there are several legitimate uses of an alternate account. The creation or use of an additional account to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly disclosed are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Casting aspersions

An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Allegations of sockpuppetry

The policy against casting aspersions applies to accusations of sockpuppetry. The claim that an editor is a sockpuppet account or is evading a block should be made at an appropriate forum, in particular, sockpuppet investigations, or not at all. The unsubstantiated claim of sockpuppetry is a personal attack and is subject to sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Findings of fact

Results of Prior Arbitration

The last arbitration concerning Armenia and Azerbaijan was sixteen years ago with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. In recent years the amount of conflict over these areas has increased. Many disputes are being considered at DRN, WP:ANI, WP:ANEW, and Arbitration Enforcement,

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Conflict Between Editors

The conflict between certain editors over articles on Armenia and Azerbaijan has been unacceptable. The number of requests for intervention in these disputes has been excessive, and is tiring the editors who try to resolve the disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I agree that an FoF that outlines where we are now and how we got there (essentially this and the previous FoF proposed by Robert) feel appropriate and needed. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

+1. SilkTork ( talk) SilkTork ( talk) 12:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Absolutely agree with this which is effectively the crux of this case. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Reliability of Sources and Neutrality of Sources

Many Wikipedia editors do not understand the difference between unreliable sources, which should be either avoided or used with caution, and biased or non-neutral sources, which may be used provided that a neutral point of view is presented in the encyclopedia. Some editors have sought to exclude the use of sources having a national viewpoint with which they disagree, but neutral use of the sources is preferred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Remedies

Revision of Guidelines

The community is advised to discuss the revision of the guidelines on reliability of sources, neutral point of view, and neutrality of sources to clarify the guidelines on the use of academic historical sources having nationalistic or other viewpoint.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Interesting, but this is far too close to content for my liking. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm not convinced that these "community advice" remedies are particularly effective. What's different here from the past times the Committee has asked the community to RfC/discuss/whatever? GeneralNotability ( talk) 00:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree with the principle, but as with Guerillero and GN, I see this as a community issue. As an individual/member of the community I am interested in exploring ways our guidelines could be improved, and would be willing to get involved if pinged. It's likely others would be willing to get involved as well, particularly with our sourcing and NPOV being criticised in a recent academic journal. SilkTork ( talk) 12:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: I've started with remedies only as I think Robert McClenon's proposal clearly summarise the principles and facts in this case.

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Addition to standard set: binding closes

1) Under the contentious topics procedure administrators are permitted to place the following restriction as part of the standard set in this topic area: Administrators may close discussions or parts of discussions with a binding summary of consensus and policy. Time-limited moritorums on further discussion of the same issue(s) may also be applied as part of the close.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@ Callanecc: can you point to me to which evidence do you see this being a response to? Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I think there is a tension between our principle of openness, flexibility, ongoing discussion and consensus with the desire to end disputes by imposing some form of rigidity. We reserve binding restrictions for ArbCom, and hope to use such restrictions as little as possible. I am hesitant regarding the idea of giving the power of binding restrictions to more people and more situations. And I'm dubious as to the real value of shutting up discussion, tempting though that can be in certain situations. I think if the focus were not on the discussion itself, but on users who were misusing our discussion process (like a vexatious complainant), then I feel we might be getting somewhere. Local authorities in the UK have procedures they use for dealing with vexatious complainants in which someone who is repeatedly making unjust or unreasonable complaints is given a warning, and if they continue, they will be restricted or banned from making further complaints. I don't think, though, that ArbCom should be the ones to create such a policy. The community could start a RfC on creating a guideline or policy on Vexatious Complainants without the need for ArbCom to get involved. And then that guideline could be adapted and adjusted more easily by the community moving forward, rather than needing to have ArbCom pass a motion for minor adjustments. SilkTork ( talk) 14:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Robert McClenon; I think the nearest RSN gets to a binding close is via well advertised RfCs with a telephone directory of closers in good standing as in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC, which is then listed at WP:RSP, and may be revisited by the community. "Binding" is something that as a community we are reluctant to do because Consensus (and circumstances) may change. SilkTork ( talk) 11:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is, really, just an enhanced version of what adminstrators can already do in closing discussions but making it more 'official'. My hope in this is that the circular discussions about sourcing and ways to descrive things can be closed relatively early in the circular pattern rather than continuing and then becoming confrontational. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Barkeep49: Not in particular, no, but Robert McClenon's evidence re past DRN requests speaks to it. That is, this remedy it would be intended to prevent some of the issues that either led to DRN requests being filed or RfCs being opened, discussed (closed or not closed) and then re-discussed afterwards. For example, in the Jan 2023 DRN request either the validity or the inability for editors to agree were raised either in the initial request or in the (failure) close. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree with what SilkTork has said. I also think this is not fit for purpose for what seems to me (from the perspective of an infrequently involved editor) as a small number of highly biased editors disrupting matters in a topic area with few editors to begin with. In other words, I'm unconvinced a wider hammer will deal with the 'many piranhas in a small fish bowl' nature of most of the disputes that led to this case being requested. The upsides seem limited and the downsides hard to predict and easy to find concerning. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 17:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Binding closes at RSN would have permitted me to continue the mediation concerning massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia. I had to fail the mediation because there was conflict over what sources were reliable. (The mediation might have failed later, but that would have allowed it to continue a little longer.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

User:SilkTork - Yes, I am aware that the closest RSN gets to a binding close is RFCs on periodical sources, which function to all practical purposes as binding closes. The question here is whether to give administrators the power to make binding closes at RSN when the topic is contentious. Since content issues cannot be resolved if sourcing issues cannot be resolved, we need some way of dealing with cases where disputants argue at RSN. A first option is binding closes of sourcing issues. A second option is to topic-ban the editors who argue with the neutral volunteers at RSN. That is already permitted. The question is whether to encourage administrators to hand out topic-bans in such situations, or to allow them to make binding closes. Each option has its disadvantages, but doing nothing has more disadvantages. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ SilkTork: I think this comment from Robert McClenon nails it. Effectively what has happened here was that the dispute become too intractable to resolve with just topic bans at AE (noting what I said in answer to you below). As you noted, the original ARCA request was about asking for more options to deal with it, and - I guess - permission to do so. In theory, under discretionary sanctions, a single admin could already do binding closes and impose a sourcing restriction like WP:APLRS (which I've done with success in other topic areas). With contentious topics, that would need to be done with a rough consensus at which is difficult to organise. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Addition to standard set: sourcing

2) Under the contentious topics procedure administrators are permitted to place the following restriction as part of the standard set in this topic area: Prohibitions on the use of particular sources or a class of sources in discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think the general principle Callanecc outlines in all of the workshopped remedies of allowing admins more authority to set "guardrails" to the debates are a really interesting concept and a potential way forward for the issue Grandmaster identified in the consensus principle above. Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Levivich might be on to something here -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I like the idea of "reliable-source consensus required" when there is a dispute about a source (including a dispute about "a high quality source", as academics are not always uncontroversial), though I am aware of the situation that Robert McClenon mentions, regarding arguments taking place at RSN (do you have a link Robert?). SilkTork ( talk) 11:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the link Robert. I think that discussion does indicate that academics can be controversial, and that it can be difficult for anyone, including an admin, to get to grips with how to deal with a controversial academic source. Our usual approach is that in contentious topics we prefer to have multiple sources giving varying viewpoints to help achieve a balanced article. We have to be careful to avoid shutting out one source because of greater pressure from one group over another. I feel it may be more appropriate that discussions about the credibility or reliability of a source should be decided independent of those who are involved in disputing or supporting the source. We should be wary of relying on what Wikipedians are saying because Wikipedians, by default, are not reliable as we are not reliable sources. Decisions about the reliability of a source should be decided by looking at what reliable sources say, and decisions on that should be done by those who are active at RNS through their experience of looking at sources. A decision on a source by an editor who is in good standing, has made over 100 edits to RSN, and is not actively engaged in a dispute over a source would, for me, count for more than a decision by a person simply specified as an admin. SilkTork ( talk) 11:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is a stronger version of 1) which could be used where the usual (but enhanced) administrative action in 1) isn't effective. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Maybe WP:APLRS should be made a general restriction like WP:ARBECR, and then applied to WP:ARBAA. Levivich ( talk) 20:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Yep, that's what I was after. Thank you :) I wonder whether adding WP:APLRS to the standard for general use might be beneficial in any case? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Barkeep49: Yes that's primarily what I was aiming for. Certainly in my experience of moderating topics where editors have very strong positions (eg Rupert Sheldrake and G. Edward Griffin), having a range of tools that admins can use, particularly with the knowledge that the Committee wants them to 'go hard', makes it much easier to helo editors move forward. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

This seems... extremely prone to abuse, and it would place administrators as content arbiters. Rather having individual admins give their own take on specific sources and then implement a ban if they don't like it, WP:RSN is much better equipped to handle this sort of thing. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 17:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I respectfully partly disagree with User:Red-tailed hawk, because RSN is non-binding, and nationalistic editors argue with the volunteers at RSN. Administrators should be able to make the decisions at RSN binding. The dispute over massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia failed because the editors argued with RSN. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

In what way is the community consensus of the reliability of a source for facts not... currently binding? That seems like a WP:CONLEVEL issue if people are disregarding established community consensus attained at RSN regarding the reliability of a source in the same context. Persistently using sources the community has deemed unreliable to try to push a POV is already something that can be dealt with—namely by page blocks and topic bans for WP:POVPUSHing editors who repeatedly do so. I don't see why we would restrict the closing of RSN discussions to admins for sources in this topic area, nor why the current tools are insufficient. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 20:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

User:SilkTork, User:Red-tailed hawk - Here is the case in point where the disputants argued with RSN:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_396#Reliability_of_Sources_on_Azerbaijan_and_Armenia
Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Administrators encouraged (robust restrictions)

3) Administrators are encouraged to adopt robust restrictions on editors who contribute to this topic area in a disruptive manner, particularly where that conduct involves persistent edit warring, nationalistic, tendentious editing or where editors fail to genuinely engage in dispute resolution. This is especially the case where editors persistently engage in 'low-level' behaviour over a period of time that may result in a number enforcement requests that are dismissed or closed with warnings.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think what we've seen leading to this case is admins looking at conduct through the lens of almost every other area of Wikipedia which is that editors can be encouraged, supported and guided to edit in a more constructive way by education and warning. In this topic area we've seen that that just isn't working (Guerillero's evidence) and hence that admins need to be encouraged to act more robustly. There's very likely a better way to word this but hopefully I've made the intent clear. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Does this mean that arguing over sources at RSN should be considered tendentious and should result in topic-bans? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Robert McClenon: I missed this but yes. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Iranian politics -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Iranian politics -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a battleground

3) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Kurds and Kurdistan -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing

4) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit warring

4) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Catflap08 and Hijiri88 -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standards of editor behavior

5) 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 his or her own.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Catflap08 and Hijiri88 -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Mostly the modern day states of Armenia Azerbaijan, but also the surrounding countries -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

History at the Arbitration Committee

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Setting the scene -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

History at the Arbitration Committee

3) Between November 2021 and January 2023, the topic area has been the subject of 18 threads at the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard, 4 unsuccessful threads at the Dispute resolution noticeboard as well as postings at Administrators' noticeboard, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. In the same time frame 30 user and page-level sanctions were added to in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Setting the scene -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I've just glanced at Arbitration enforcement log. There are dispute areas which have fewer sanctions than AA3, but also there are dispute areas which have more sanctions: Palestine-Israel articles, India-Pakistan, Gender and sexuality, Eastern Europe, COVID-19, Biographies of Living Persons, and American politics 2. I've not checked the threads at AE or elsewhere. But I am wondering how helpful this statement is if it is not put into context. The impetus for this case appears to me to have been this discussion, which was originally received in 29/30 Dec 2022 as not being an AE issue: "This report seems unripe" User:Rosguill, "Please at least attempt to WP:ENGAGE the matter prior to filing reports here." User:El C, "I don't have a strong feeling at this time about whether admin action is necessary." User:Tamzin. After El C made this comment other admins agreed that a full case was required: "Anyway, my sense (from memory, mind you) is that Abrvagl and ZaniGiovanni report one another on various instances in various venues, with some regularity. When it will end, no one knows. What, however, is clear from the log is that each have received a logged warning this year, ZaniGiovanni as mentioned by myself (in Feb), and Abrvagl by Rosguill (in June). Then, there's ZaniGiovanni 2-month TBAN in Sept.... Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I get the sense that Abrvagl may well have been similarly sanctioned, and that it's sort of luck and circumstances that ZaniGiovanni was and they were not (neither one is better or worse from the other is what I'm getting at). Still, it does give Abrvagl somewhat of an edge (a lead) in this perennial dispute. Anyway, much of this back and forth seems unfocused, with both seemingly determined to have the other removed from the topic area. Honestly, I've been feeling less and less inclined to look into these, in general, for some time now. As I've mentioned on number of occasions, I think WP:AA2 needs a full AA3 WP:RFAR case refresher, with wider evidence submission and parties." My impression (though more insight from the AE admins who initiated this would be helpful) is that it is not so much the amount of complaints at AE, but the nature of them - such that the AE admins are unable to work out who is right and who is wrong. A solution to topic ban both of the main litigators, ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl, was considered insufficient as other "bad actors" could simply step in and take their place. SilkTork ( talk) 13:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A posting at the Reliable Source Noticeboard is usually not evidence that a topic is contentious. However, this was an unusual case, because the posting itself became contentious. I am restating the observation that sometimes nationalistic editing results in arguments over the reliability of sources, which in turn make it nearly impossible to resolve content disputes. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Abrvagl

Sanction history (Abrvagl)

4.1) In June 2022, Abrvagl was warned by Rosguill for edit warring. (Guerillero's evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Setting the scene -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ User:ZaniGiovanni. Abrvagl had barely made 500 edits at the time of the incident, so would be classed as a relatively new user. Though they had registered in Nov 2020, they only became active in Jan 2022. SilkTork ( talk) 13:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC) They had, though, received several warnings on their talkpage regarding edit warring: [16]. SilkTork ( talk) 13:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

"1 revert per week" was in force at the time: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Remedies. My understanding is that this is one revert per article, and per edit war rules ( WP:3RR) regardless of material; so, even though these were reverts of separate material, Abrvagl reverted several edits on the same article in the same day, and so continued edit waring after being warned. SilkTork ( talk) 14:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I think it is important to clarify that I was warned for "slow motion edit warring". It was when I was relatively new to Wikipedia. As I explained in the AE after not getting talk-page reply for 3 weeks I decided to made an edit in which I tried to consider points raised by other editor.( [17]). At the time I did not recognize that my actions can be considered as edit warring. However, I accepted the warning and learnt from it. As a consequence, I adjusted my behavior and was never warned or banned for edit warring afterwards. A b r v a g l ^{( PingMe)} 20:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I am writing to address the recent claims made by ZaniGiovanni. I would like to clarify that the warning that I received was specifically for slow motion edit warring, as clearly stated by the admin Rosguill: I'm leaning towards closing this with a logged warning for Abrvagl regarding slow-motion edit warring. I have not received any edit warnings thereafter.

Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that the alleged "edit warring reverts" provided by ZaniGiovanni are actually a collection of unrelated diffs, none of which constitute actual cases of edit warring. I am not inclined to dissect each Diff from rather a long list off irrelevant Diffs, but here are some examples: For instance, ZaniGiovanni has linked diff ( [18]) where I made a correction to newly added material, then reverted myself ( [19]) to conduct further research, and eventually restored ( [20]) my own edit. How can reverting and restoring one's own edit be considered edit warring?

Similarly, in diff ( [21]), I fixed POV edit with explanation and my edit was not challenged, while diff ( [22]) is not even a revert. In diff ( [23]) I removed unnecessary photos added by a new editor and explained why, and when ZaniGiovanni restored one of the photos ( [24]), I did not object to it. In diff ( [25]) an editor with only 7 edits in total removed content related to the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, and I subsequently reverted unwarranted removal of the properly sourced and attributed content. Yet, ZaniGiovanni claims that these instances are cases of edit warring, which is not at all accurate.

Also I find it perplexing that these baseless allegations are being brought up after the evidence collecting stage has already ended. A b r v a g l ^{( PingMe)} 13:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ User:SilkTork, I was aware that certain articles have a one-revert a day limit, but I wasn't aware that there is a one-revert a week per article rule that applies to every AA article. Could you please point me to where that rule is? I found it in the link you provided, and it states that it was superseded, but doesn't say what rule it was superseded with. I think it's safe to say that most editors in AA are unaware of such a rule if it really exists.

I admit that I am not ideal, and looking at the well-established editors, I recognize that there is always room for improvement. Rule is rule and I will obey it, however, I'd want to explain my view: Edit-warring, in my opinion, is a behavioral issue in which editors repeatedly revert each other instead of cooperating to solve a dispute. Nevertheless, as I have shown in the above comment, the supplied diffs include examples where I fixed errors in recent edits; prevented unexplained removal of sourced content; and so on. All of those were explained, and were not challenged and/or reverted a second time, therefore I never considered them edit warring, but rather part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. An example similar to the provided diffs, I recently reverted( [26]) a good faith edit since it was not an improvement; I explained myself in the edit comment and on that user's talk page( [27]), and he thanked me for that. Does this edit, similar to alleged edit warring Diffs, constitute a case of edit warring? A b r v a g l ^{( PingMe)} 21:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ SilkTork They had, though, received several warnings on their talkpage regarding edit warring - can you please clarify which ones are those? Because I rechecked it and couldn’t find any after I received formal warning on 12 June 2022. Thanks. A b r v a g l ^{( PingMe)} 21:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Evidence phase has been closed a while ago. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 20:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Abrvagl was formally warned that "further instances of edit warring, including slow motion edit warring, will result in sanctions." as is clear from the admin notice on their talk page - so it is not just "slow motion edit warring". Abrvagl claims they were a newbie editor at the time of the warning, which to me reads like a WP:CIR considering their editing expericne at the time. Abrvagl says they adjusted their behavior and learnt from it, but in reality the edit-warring reverts didn't stop. In fact, it was the opposite and on several articles, repeteadly. Just a few examples: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 23:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply SilkTork You're right, but I was mostly referring to their account age and familiarity with AE/ANI as they have opened reports at the time and I remember them being fairy familiar with guidelines/policies, I can provide talk page diffs if needed. But the larger point in my opinion is their repeated edit-warring on several instances, and the continued refusal to recognize wrong doing here even in the face of clear diffs above. Comments like this, Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that the alleged "edit warring reverts" provided by ZaniGiovanni are actually a collection of unrelated diffs, none of which constitute actual cases of edit warring., imo demonstrates Abrvagl's incompetence as they're trying to somehow justify their actions of repeatedly edit-warring on numerous articles (most egregious one being this sequence in one article alone [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]) all of which happened after their warning, and complete denial of wrong doing here. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 13:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Interpersonal issues (Abrvagl)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dallavid

Sanction history (Dallavid)

5.1) Dallavid has been repeatedly sanctioned for edit warring. In September 2022, they were blocked for 72 hours by Daniel Case for edit warring on September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes. (Dallavid's block log) Less than a month later, they were warned by Seraphimblade for edit warring. Dallavid was warned for a second time by Callanecc for edit warring and battleground behavior in January 2023. (Guerillero's evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Setting the scene -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

As I have pointed out in the past, the single page September 2022 block was also applied to User:Viewsridge, and User:Daniel Case stated the intention of the blocks were "so as to work things out on the talk page". [49] The thing is, that I had already been initiating the talk page discussion several days earlier and multiple other users disagreed with Viewsridge, who kept reverting my sources for being "opinion pieces" even though they clearly weren't and Viewsridge never explained why. Viewsridge had also put the warning on my talk page and then went straight to making a complaint on the noticeboard (I had made no edits in the brief meantime). I figured a three-day one-page block wasn't worth appealing, but it's frustrating how this keeps being brought up out of context a year later when I had done everything possible to prevent an edit war. -- Dallavid ( talk) 22:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Arbitration Enforcement erred (Dallavid)

5.2) Administrators at Arbitration Enforcement erred by warning Dallavid for a second time in less than 6 months for edit warring rather than imposing a topic ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This might make it into the PD. I can't decide if this is too harsh -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you NYB. I will mull over this -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I've not looked into this in detail, but there appears to be a software glitch by Lowercase sigmabot III as [50] and [51] are duplicates, and were archived without admin closure or comment. SilkTork ( talk) 14:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks Callanecc. SilkTork ( talk) 10:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Callanecc, is this ArbCom case unfolding the way you hoped? The impression I got from the discussion that prompted the request, and the request itself, was that you were looking for something more lasting and significant than Ibans and Tbans, which AE admins could have done, because the feeling was that if a few individuals got wacked, then more would pop up later. If the solutions proposed so far appear to be in line with what you were hoping for, then fine. But if you were looking for more, could you indicate what else might be useful? SilkTork ( talk) 10:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I do think that the arbitration committee should provide public feedback regarding arbitration enforcement requests, if nothing else but for accountability's sake. Would something like Administrators at Arbitration Enforcement, in warning Dallavid for a second time in less than 6 months for edit warring rather than imposing a topic ban, failed to take adequate measures to prevent future disruption in this topic area be a perhaps better articulation of this point? (This is purely feedback on the rhetoric; I haven't looked into the evidence enough to see if the sanction of a topic ban is warranted.) — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 00:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

To declare that the AE administrator (there was only one) "erred" would imply not just that the Committee members might have handled the situation differently if they had closed the thread, but that a logged warning was a clearly unreasonable outcome and outside the bounds of discretion. I've reviewed the AE thread and I don't agree with that conclusion; and the wording as proposed would strike me as harsh even if I did. Note that I'm not saying an AE closure should never be overturned or criticized—I cast several votes myself to do so over the years—but in this case I think it would be more productive to examine whether the editor did or did not learn from the warnings. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

A few thoughts on this, especially since, as NYB points out above, it would effectively be a finding against me:

I think this partially demonstrates the reason that I, among other AE admins, asked the Committee to open a case to examine this topic area especially when also considering that there was an AE request about Dallavid that no admins commented on. That is, that the timeline and complexity of information that needed to be presented at AE to make an effective case for a topic ban was more detailed than was being presented, or, potentially, could be presented effectively in that forum.

Admins at AE are limited by knowledge of the subject area, knowledge of the editors and limited time to thoroughly investigate more than is presented in an AE thread. An AE admin would then need to be able to justify a sanction with reference to evidence that refutes arguments the sanctioned editor makes whenever and wherever they're asked including at AE to other admins and AN to the community. In this instance, without searching for much more evidence than was presented in the AE thread, I wasn't confident that I would have been able to do that.

Further to NYB's point above, if this were passed, the Committee would be saying that a logged warning in circumstances like this is grossly disproportionate and an unreasonable exercise of administrative discretion. This would effectively clarify/amend the contentious topics procedure that in any similar situation a topic ban would be automatic, I'd guess that this circumstance happens not irregularly. If this is the intention, then potentially there needs to be a remedy (or FoF or principle) that clarifies this intention (that is, more than one warning within a few months generally wouldn't be appropriate).

@SilkTork, you can see the history of the archiving here. The thread was automatically archived after 7 days with no edits (the bot doesn't check if it's been closed or not). Abrvagl added it back but it was automatically archived again (creating the duplicate in the archive) as no new edits were added. Abrvagl then added it back again and was reverted by Black Kite. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ SilkTork: I believe it's definitely a step in the right direction, yes, and appreciate the work and time Guerillero has spent on it. I think crux of the issue occuring with DS/CT was that it was too complex and intractable to work out who needed to be banned and who was actually in the right. The AE thread I closed with a warning is a good example of it I think, Dallavid's responses to the evidence were all believable and without the benefit of the time and knowledge to do a deep dive through contribs I didn't have the resources to work out who was actually in the wrong. An option was to levy some TBANs and move on, but without a 'robust restrictions' type remedy from the Committee I can't really justify going that way in an appeal. I also don't think AE does a very good job of determining when IBANs are necessary - I don't think there's a way around that, it's just how it's set up. My impression of contentious topics, whether correct or not, is that it's a bit of a watering-down of discretionary sanctions too. As far as where to from here, I think ECP is a good step (even if harsh) and that 1RR and the suspended topic bans in the topic area will help. Even without a robust restrictions-type remedy these sanctions will empower admins to lean more towards tougher restrictions while also preventing the edit warring that was leading to conflict. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Black Kite I just looked through the archive and noticed that a random IP moved the case from archive to AE mainspace. Not sure who's this IP and if it's being used as a sock, but it's strange to me that a random IP unarchives a specific AE case of all things. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 14:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Outting (Dallavid)

5.3) Dallavid posted private information about another editor which required oversighting.

Support:

1. As an intensifier -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Could you please clarify what private information I posted? I had merely acknowledged what ZaniGiovanni had written, and his comment had already been abridged to remove protentional outting parts. -- Dallavid ( talk) 22:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Golden

Sanction history (Golden)

6.1) Between October 2021 and April 2022, Golden was topic banned by GeneralNotability as an unblock condition. After the topic ban was lifted, they were warned by Dennis Brown for disruptive editing. The topic ban was reinstated by Tamzin in September 2022.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Just stating the history. Working through to see if we need anything else -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Golden violated their latest tban on a number of occasions [52], [53], [54]. Though they self-reverted, at this point after being sock-indeffed, then tbanned as an unblock condition, after the tban being warned, and tbanned again after the warning, Golden should've been more careful to stay away from the topic area - their repeated violations don't demonstrate that. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 23:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

How can you in good faith pull up literally accidental violations that were immediately self-reverted as evidence? We're not robots, we all make errors sometimes, and it's clear that Golden showed extreme conscientiousness by immediately self-reverting, so I can't see why you would the thought of bringing this up even crossed your mind. – Olympian ^loquere 14:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Important distinction: I didn't reinstate the full TBAN. Rather, I imposed a new TBAN from conflicts involving Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly construed, with a note that Any disruption at all elsewhere in the AA2 topic area may lead to this sanction being summarily broadened. -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 19:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Grandmaster

Sanction history (Grandmaster)

7.1) Grandmaster was topic banned from Armenia and Azerbaijan from February 2022 to October 2022.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Just stating the history. Working through to see if we need anything else -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Olympian

Sanction history (Olympian)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Just stating the history. Working through to see if we need anything else -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Evidence phase has been closed a while ago. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 20:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@ Callanecc, @ Guerillero I don't think this is a sufficient explanation: Olympian was edit-warring [55], [56], and adding a POV tag isn't "disruptive" as they claim especially when POV issues were brought up in the article several times by different editors [57], [58] ( discussion) and there is also an ongoing discussion on talk. Additionally, upon looking through Olympian's contributions, there were some serious POV reverts recently with very subpar sources: Restores historical info based on a non-academic and random non-RS website that isn't even available to access and only exists as an archived article: [59], [60] Restores historical info based on a primary written single source, complete disregard to WP:SECONDARY: [61], [62], [63], [64] Restores “Rediscovering Armenia” self-publishing source directly discussed and explained to them not being appropriate source for Wikipedia, especially given the historical topic. Some of the other diffs are based on "gegharkunik.am" primary website which is again a non-academic and random non-RS and that is currently available only as an archived article. Gegharkunik.am doesn’t exist, and when it did – it was a primary source without visible owners (nothing in about us section): [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76] Restores the same self-publishing "Rediscovering Armenia" which doesn't even support the cited text: [77] There are other similar reverts, the above are some of the examples I looked through The recent edit-warring of Olympian and their borderline POV reverts with subpar sources needs attention imo. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 13:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply Callanecc and Guerillero, ZaniGiovanni tries to affirms something which has been expounded to not be the case: reverting two different disruptive edits that were made on false premises cannot constitute edit warring. Regarding the content restorations in Armenian villages, I was simply restoring what was sourced to the consensus version pending a proper evaluation of the sources per WP:NODEADLINE (the onus is on the one seeking to change the consensus version to prove why the content should be deleted). The vast majority of KhndzorUtogh's POV deletions didn't correspond to their edit summaries nor did their edit summaries correspond to the articles' content, i.e. in numerous occasions, they claimed that the source(s) doesn't support X, when clearly, in Armenian or English the source(s) stated X. I was careful to word the edit summaries of the reverts with the rationale for keeping the deleted, in most cases, I quoted the part of the source that stated "x". On top of these baseless accusations, ZaniGiovanni is also misrepresenting me to claim that this restoring sourced text "doesn't even support the cited text", when in in fact, it does, and I quoted the relevant section in the edit summary. I think it's important that the Arbitration Committee pays special attention to ZaniGiovanni's misrepresentations and conduct against other editors that have evidently leaked from their battleground edits into this case. – Olympian loquere 14:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply I looked closely at several of Olympian's recent reverts before commenting here: as demonstrated above, Olympian was restoring random inaccessible website's archive that isn't even close to appropriate especially for such historical information – the website itself doesn't exist and those random archives reaffirm the subpar quality of this "source". Olympian was also restoring WP:SPS that was already discussed and explained isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, let alone historical context. Furthermore, they keep saying they were not edit-warring here and according to them, adding a POV tag was "disruptive" – which I don't really understand since the talk discussions/comments ( [78], [79], [80], [81]) alone are evidence that the article has POV issues, also I think it's important to note that Olympian created the article and wrote the bulk of it. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 15:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Just a note that Olympian has been edit warring in the topic area as recently as today (that is, it would breach 1RR) [82]. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Callanecc I'm not quite sure what you mean; first of all, I didn't realise that a 1RR rule applied to the article nor was it evident (unlike the Nagorno-Karabakh article which clearly states it in editing mode). Secondly, the user was adding a POV tag to the article on false premises and without consideration to the article's extensive talk page discussions, as I explained to them in talk; said user also demonstrated a poor ability to assess an article, especially after they initially put {{ citation needed}} tags in the lead—needless to say, the lead reflected the article's sourced content per WP:LEAD. Lastly, I can't see how reverting 2 disruptive edits (that were not even the same) constitutes edit warring. – Olympian ^loquere 12:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm not suggesting that those two edits were necessarily problematic, and 1RR doesn't apply at this stage. My point was that these two edits would likely be covered under the proposed remedies. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Callanecc if you're not suggesting that those edits were problematic, could you please amend your comment to remove/reword the "edit warring" part to avoid misinterpretation? – Olympian ^loquere 08:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

My point was that your edits would have breached 1RR (and so would technically have been edit warring) and covered by the remedies below. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

ZaniGiovanni

Sanction history (ZaniGiovanni)

9.1) In November 2021 ZaniGiovanni was partial blocked from Uzundara by HJ Mitchell as an arbitration enforcement action for edit warring. In February 2022 they were "warned against edit warring and is expected to be more diligent in pages covered by the AA2 DS (and peripheral ones, like WP:KURDS, WP:ARBIRP, etc.)" by El_C. They were reminded by Dennis Brown in July 2022 about staying civil within the topic area. ZaniGiovanni was topic banned from September 2022 to December 2022 for battleground behavior by Tamzin. (Abrvagl's evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Regarding my topic ban, there are a few things I want to make clear. Firstly just a minor correction, the topic ban was only in effect for two months (from September 15 to November 2022), not three as mentioned above. When I was tbanned in September 2022 for mentioning all users voting for a discussion's outcome were Azerbaijani (in the closure review I opened), I had been referring to several off-wiki groups containing the name and a campaigning Reddit post regarding a specific change in the article (that was later launched as RFC) ( evidence, and more emailed to ArbCom). The RFC itself was canvassed by members of off-wiki group which I shared via email to ArbCom and was removed from evidence page because of outing. I was never actually speculating on any user's ethnicity, but couldn't clarify at the time as I had forgotten that the Admins didn't know what I had sent ArbCom, which I was still waiting to hear back from. I decided to just accept the ban because it was only for two months.

After the tban expired, a month later in December, I did make reverts in an article, in the below mentioned [ EW report – I know and understand that I should've been a lot more diligent. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 23:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Interpersonal issues (ZaniGiovanni)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit warring (ZaniGiovanni)

9.3) Despite the past warnings and topic ban, ZaniGiovanni engaged in edit warring at 2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh in December 2022. [83]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Abrvagl

Topic ban (Abrvagl)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

The problem is Newyorkbrad that we are seeing issues outside of the conflicts into things that can be "claimed" by one side of the irl conflict -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I understand that it is proposed to impose identical sanctions on Abrvagl and ZaniGiovanni. But according to the presented evidence, Abrvagl has only 1 formal warning, while ZaniGiovanni has 2 blocks, 2 warnings, a 2 months topic ban and a 3RR violation upon return from the topic ban. In my opinion, this should also be taken into consideration. Grand master 21:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Dear ArbCom I appreciate your consideration in my case, however, I must express my concerns about imposing a Tban on me: Although I received a warning for edit warring when I was new to Wikipedia, I have since consistently followed instructions and recommendations given by admins, without receiving any other warnings. In contrast, some other editors have displayed battleground behavior from day one of their editing and continued to it to this day despite their many warnings, bans, and Tbans. Therefore, I don't think it'd be fair to group me with those editors and impose identical sanctions to all. Looking back, I realize I could have done even better, and I acknowledge that I'm not perfect and make occasional mistakes. However, I believe what sets me apart is my willingness to learn from my mistakes and adapt my behavior to Wikipedia standards, as evident from my edit history since being warned. I urge you to consider these points and hopefully reevaluate my outcome. Thank you for your time and consideration. A b r v a g l ^{( PingMe)} 06:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Is Grandmaster's comment violating WP:NOTTHEM? -- Dallavid ( talk) 22:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

General comment on all the proposed topic-bans, if they are imposed (I'm not commenting on whether they should be or not): It may or may not matter in this case, but a topic ban from "pages about Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly construed" is significantly broader than one from pages or edits about the Armenia/Azerbaijan disputes and conflicts. For example, an editor might struggle to be objective about the conflict with the other country but have no issue in editing about internal matters in his or her own country. I do recognize, though, that a narrower scope raises issues of line-drawing. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Abrvagl, I think you'd benefit from understanding that this ban is preventative, not punitive. In other words, it will prevent you from continuing to cause disruption to the topic area while you learn and not necessarily representative of identical actions to other editors. Speaking as someone that also received bans (in my case a page ban) as a new editor (see block log), you will benefit more from learning outside the AA2 topic area and can then use your learned skills and knowledge in the topic area if you successfully appeal. If you truly are willing to learn and improve I'm sure 12 months won't feel as long as they seem now. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

1RR (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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

With confirmation from User:Abrvagl that they understand that the 1 revert restriction applies to any material - it doesn't have to be the same material or same section on a page. SilkTork ( talk) 14:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I get that I Bans are not always the best, but it seems like an option we will need to give the committee -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dallavid

Topic ban (Dallavid)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1RR (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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Golden

Topic ban (Golden)

3.1) The Arbitration Committee takes over Golden's topic ban at AE. This ban may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee and only twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Without commenting on the specifics of this case, in general I think it right to have parties with similar culpabilities face similar remedies. So if editor A got a topic ban imposed under ArbCom's delegated authority (CT/DS) and editor B has done similar misconduct but has received no topic ban, it feels appropriate to make sure they both have a topic ban that is equivalent and Editors A and B having different places they could appeal their topic bans because Editor A got caugt sooner is not equivalent. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

@ Guerillero: Has anyone provided evidence that led you to this proposal? Since my last topic ban, there have been no problematic edits from my end, and my activity has been significantly reduced due to real-life constraints. So, this proposal comes as a surprise. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 22:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Per Golden, I'm not sure why the current situation is broken. The only rationale I could see for the condition that the ban may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee is if there is off-wiki evidence that plays into ArbCom's decision here that couldn't be revealed at WP:AE or WP:AN, but I'm unaware of any such evidence. I'd also like Tamzin's opinion on whether or not she thinks it's wise for this to be only appealable to ArbCom, as she is the sanctioning admin here. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 00:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I have no problem maintaining appellate jurisdiction here, but at this time have no opinion on whether this restriction of appeals is needed. -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 01:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I will also note, in line with my analysis of evidence below, that the current topic ban is (more than) sufficient as a preventative measure. The ArbCom should not consider a site ban for Golden. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 00:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Not sure if intended, but this would make the scope of Golden's topic ban (Armenia-Azerbaijan conflicts) different from the ones for ZaniGiovanni, Dallavid and Abrvagl (Armenia or Azerbaijan). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Grandmaster

<4 is a placeholder>

Olympian

<5 is a placeholder>

ZaniGiovanni

Topic ban (ZaniGiovanni)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1RR (ZaniGiovanni)

6.2) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Interaction Ban (ZaniGiovanni)

6.3) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I get that I Bans are not always the best, but it seems like an option we will need to give the committee -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Suspended topic ban

7) If any party to this case is found to be edit warring within the area of dispute, they are to be indefinitely topic banned from Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No more warnings. If you edit war you are out. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I would think that It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. would make that not so, but I understand where the issue comes from. Adding These topic bans can only be appealed to the arbitration committee. would fix the issue -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 12:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Noting that this would make the topic ban appealable to AE & AN under the standard provision which may or may not be intended. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

My understanding of These topic bans can only be appealed to the arbitration committee is that that's been interpreted to apply only to restrictions directly placed by the Committee their decision rather than applied by admins under delegation (as it would be in this one). I agree that making it specific re appeals is a good idea just to clear up any potential confusion. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Extended confirmed restriction

9) The community imposed 500/30 rule is rescinded. In its place, a extended confirmed restriction is imposed on Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't like it, but all restrictions in this topic area should answer to one group for easy logging -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

One Revert Restriction (1RR)

10) Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content about Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly construed. Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No more warnings. If you edit war you are out. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Suggest replacing the last sentence with Editors who violate this restriction may be sanctioned per the standard enforcement provision or with a contentious topics restriction. This will allow admins to use page and topic bans as well as blocks to enforce it, especially if the intention is to remove edit warring editors from the page/topic area. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks, @ Callanecc, that makes sense. Pinging myself ( Guerillero) so I make this change on arbwiki this evening -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 11:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

I wonder if it might also be worth syncing the wording of the restrictions (1RR, TBANs, etc) with the contentious topics one so it's clear that the scope is the same. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

My bad, I will also update my draft of the PD with this tonight -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 12:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Conflict de-escalation

1) Wikipedia editors have an equal and shared duty/responsibility to de-escalate heated discussions, especially in contentious topic areas.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This seems like a reasonable addition to #Standards of editor behavior, Ixtal. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 11:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Just thought this would be a useful and necessary addition to the conduct principles laid above by others. I understand the wording of this is very simple, but I believe it best to leave it to the arbs to settle on more detailed/extensive wording if they take up this principle or merge it. The inability of editors in this and other DS topic areas to not recognize this responsibility is partly to blame for the quality of discussion.— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks and I agree, Guerillero. I see it as a stronger wording of the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of his or her own and somewhat different, as the phrase in standards of editor behaviour focuses on avoiding inappropriate conduct while my proposed phrase makes explicit the responsibility of de-escalation. In my eyes, we have a constant and never-ending duty to de-escalate while the standards of editor behaviour makes it seem like a one-and-done attempt is sufficient. Both phrases together (not necessarily combined) seem strongest. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 12:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of evidence by Red-tailed hawk

No evidence was presented of misbehavior by Golden that occurred since Tamzin topic banned him from conflicts involving Armenia and Azerbaijan on 16 September 2022 (see: Red-tailed hawk's evidence for more on the events that led to the TBAN). As such, the ban's current phrasing appears to have been sufficiently broad to have prevented future disruption. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 00:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: