Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:AA3)

Case opened on 18:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Case closed on 17:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Case information[edit]

Involved parties[edit]

Prior dispute resolution[edit]

Preliminary statements[edit]

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

Preliminary decision[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (8/0/1)[edit]

Motion to open Armenia-Azerbaijan 3[edit]

The Arbitration Committee agrees to open a case with the name Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. The parties, drafting arb(s), timetable, and structure will be communicated to the clerks following this motion passing (see ArbCom procedures).

Support
  1. Per my comments above. I suggest we add a week to the Evidence phase to allow evidence to be submitted, as we did in Conduct in deletion-related editing, about others who should be named as parties but that we start with ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl as parties. I think we'll also likely need to consider evidence of off-wiki coordination, though I expect that most evidence will be about onwiki conduct. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Per my comment above --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. I am not overly thrilled with the name, which to me implies that we will be looking at the topic area and not just the individuals in it, but there does seem to be enough to start a case looking into those individuals. Primefac (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Shifting to Oppose per SilkTork. Primefac (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No point in holding up the process. Primefac (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. I'm willing to accept as a case of "at wit's end" at AE, though I still want people to be thinking about what ArbCom can do to keep us from getting into this situation in the first place. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. I'm willing to accept a case here, with the understanding that there is some evidence of off-wiki canvassing, and if there is no evidence put forward that the participants are likely to be sanctioned making such accusations without evidence. WormTT(talk) 14:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Keeping in mind North8000's comment, I'm slightly concerned over the current lack of parties but will accept since there appears to be enough of a case here and the input from AE admins. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. We should generally accept good faith referrals from administrators to whom we delegated arbitration committee authority, and this was formalized in the forthcoming contentious topic procedures. I'm inclined to believe the referring administrators when they say this is a problem their tools are poorly suited to handle, especially when the authorizing case is nearly 16 years old. For reference, the page on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict has twelve sections dedicated to armed conflicts which have occurred since we last looked at this topic area systematically, and that's ignoring the Wikipedia-internal technical and social changes that have occurred over the last 16 years. The best case is we review a case older than many of our editors in order to identify and help resolve issues through a thorough and well reasoned inquiry; the worst case is we arbitrate an intractable dispute potentially involving off-wiki evidence (which is still our job even if it's not as glamorous as passing topic-wide restrictions). On the merits, I think the requesting administrators have made a sufficient showing as to why a case would be justified.
    The alternative on offer is that we resolve this by motion here through a case amendment, but quite simply I don't believe that's an actual solution. No actual solution-by-amendment has been suggested, and this board's clearance rate is so abysmal that we passed a motion a few days ago in order to sweep our 3-month-old unresolved requests under the rug once everyone's forgotten about it. In that context, I simply do not believe an unstructured "discussion" with no accountability or timeline will actually work because it almost never has. We already have an established procedure by which arbitrators and the community collect evidence and discuss potential solutions: it's called a case and it has an exceptionally better track record than this board does. Administrators who work this area have requested a case because they believe its procedures will yield the best outcomes, and given the track records of this board and cases, I'm inclined to agree with them and support opening a case. Wug·a·po·des 20:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Moved to accept in order to speed up resolution of the matter. SilkTork (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose
After considering the issues I am landing here. I see three issues here. One is the allegations of off-wiki campaigning, another is the relationship between ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl, and the third is the ongoing difficulties keeping the Armenia-Azerbaijan area under control. I am not opposed to looking for a solution to the problems in the Armenia-Azerbaijan area, including the relationship between ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl, but I'm not convinced by the evidence here and in the related discussions that a case is the answer to these issues. I am unsure of the value of opening a case looking into allegations of off-wiki campaigning without some evidence. If we had been sent an email with even the smallest hint of these off-wiki campaigns, I'd be more encouraged; but we haven't. The relationship between ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl should be able to be solved by existing AE restrictions, and if not then a discussion here with Arbs and AE admins should be able to arrive at a motion to amend AA2 with a more useful set of restrictions. The third issue is even greater reason not to have a case, but rather to look for a workable solution here with the admins who are experienced in the area, and know best what solutions might work. What I am hearing is that if a case clears out the current set of trouble-makers, all that will happen is that another lot will come along, and that what is really needed is a better set of restrictions to stop that from happening. That then is not a case but an amendment to the current restrictions. I think what is needed here to best address all the related issues is for AE admins to suggest to us what sort of solutions they feel might work (or at least to point out where and why the current restrictions are failing); for us to consider those solutions, work on them through discussion, and then draft those solutions into a motion and vote them into place. I think that would be making the most effective use of the new procedures - focussing attention on finding a solution via those most experienced in the area rather than going through what promises to be a long, drawn out and possibly inconsequential case. SilkTork (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per the above rationale. Primefac (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abstain
  1. My ArbCom energy of late has focused on DS and I haven't had the chance to review all the relevant information yet but I don't want to hold this up. I therefore abstain. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Arbitration Discussion (Motion to open Armenia-Azerbaijan 3)[edit]
  • The circumstances are those which would be appropriate for a case request, though with so little evidence I'm not certain that I'm ready to jump straight to a case. Could this be presented as a case request with appropriate evidence so we can consider it before actually opening a case? I'd be happy to accept email evidence. SilkTork (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We told AE admins we would accept referrals from them - even if that technically hasn't been fully implemented - at ARCA. If we would prefer they go to ARC then we should change our guidance, but I don't think we should ask people to do more work when they followed the guidance that we had given them. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    More substantively I think we do have some evidence, namely the AE thread that led to the referral which then references a lot of the history. I think that thread, combined with the request, is sufficient to look at ZaniGiovanni/Abrvagl. For me - and I certainly understand that not all arbs look at this the same way - I take the first person accounts offered here, particularly by the AE admins, as its own set of evidence. While that wouldn't be enough for an FoF, it is enough for me to weigh the request with the expectation that actual diffs could be produced at the Evidence stage, rather than asking people to go through the rather time consuming process of gathering diffs when ArbCom might not even be willing to evaluate them. On this second piece YMMV. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Here are some recent AA topic area AE threads: Olympian (December 2022), Kheo17, Grandmaster, Dallavid (October 2022), Golden, Zenzyyx (August 2022), Armatura, ZaniGiovanni, Grandmaster (July 2022), Abrvagl (May 2022) --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @SilkTork: The last time the committee looked at the topic area was 2007. Don't you think that after 16 years of issues that we need to do more than a motion? Your proposed discussion with AE admins seems like a perfect thing to happen in the context of a case. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 10:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we are agreed on the need to look for a solution. I think we are agreed on involving the AE admins. Where we differ is in the need for a case in order to find a solution involving the AE admins. If we can find a solution via ARCA which allows AE admins to sanction not just those who are problematic today, but those who will be problematic tomorrow without going through a case, would that be an acceptable outcome? Is it worth trying that first? SilkTork (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SilkTork: My worry is that ARCAs have a bad habit of stalling out when they are complex, like this seems like it will be. We also need to look at evidence of how and why the current restrictions are failing (evidence phase) and then work with AE admins on what the solutions should be (workshop phase). That seems like it would be case in a much less user and arb friendly format. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 12:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are good points, and I have thought about them. My thinking is that the issue of the problems in the Armenia-Azerbaijan area is not complex in itself, but has the appearance of being complex by the merging of the personal dispute, and the allegations of off-wiki campaigning. All three are related, but are distinct.
The problems in the Armenia-Azerbaijan area are ones we encounter in other areas across Wikipedia where there are real-world national or ethnic disputes, be it Northern Ireland, Palestine, India-Pakistan, etc. Very often the participants are well meaning, and from their own perspective their views are correct. From the evidence we have been given, we are aware that there is a dispute. We don't need more evidence of the dispute, we need, as you indicate, precise, targeted evidence of "how and why the current restrictions are failing". It seems to me that the exact place to fine tune or adjust existing ArbCom sanctions is ARCA. (Now, if ARCA is not the place to discuss how and why the current restrictions are failing, then perhaps we need to look into that as a failing of ARCA, and seek to resolve that. But I'm not considering or suggesting that - I think that ARCA works.) Reopening cases when the restrictions are felt not to be working may open up the dispute and possibly invite relitigation. Reopening a case would have value where there is fresh evidence that might indicate the original solutions were wrong, but where the solutions are felt to be correct (as here) but not working (as here) then going for the more focused solution of fine-tuning at ARCA seems appropriate. Whichever route we go down, it will culminate at the point where an adjustment or new solution needs to be formulated. Let's cut to the chase and simply ask AE admins (and interested others) why they think DS/CT is not working, and what suggestions they have for improvements.
On the matter of the personal dispute between ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl, that doesn't need an ArbCom case. The community can decide if the dispute is so disruptive it requires an interaction ban.
On the matter of allegations by ZaniGiovanni that Abrvagl and others are involved in "canvassing through social media/off-wiki groups", and allegations by Abrvagl of "serious and extensive evidence of meat puppetry raised against ZaniGiovanni"; those are serious allegations, and matters which ArbCom is fitted to investigate. But while these matters remain allegations without evidence, we can't really open a case. If User:Abrvagl and/or User:ZaniGiovanni email ArbCom with evidence, then we can consider a case. But at the moment these remain unfounded allegations by two users in a dispute.
Strip out the ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl allegations and personal dispute, and we are essentially left with a request "for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic)", which is the purpose of ARCA. SilkTork (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the AE admins have told us what is not working: examining the nitty gritty and figuring out who is right between ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl is beyond what they're willing to do as volunteers. I think it fair for volunteers to say "I don't want to deal with disputes like this, this is why we elect an ArbCom so we can pass the buck to them." I think one of the reasons AE works is that ArbCom generally backs-up admins who work it, making the delegation of powers credible. I see accepting this dispute as another way of backing up AE admins. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosguill, @Seraphimblade, @Callanecc @Lord Roem, I realized I probably shouldn't put words in your mouthes as the referring admin. So why do you think DS/CT is not working, and what suggestions you have for improvements? Courtesy pings to @El C and @Tamzin as other admins who participated in that AE discussion but did not appear to be part of the consensus to refer to ARCA. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My opposition is not to ArbCom dealing with the dispute, it is to the way that ArbCom deals with the dispute. My feeling is that if the community is enabled with appropriate procedures to deal with disputes, then coming to ArbCom to open a case should not be necessary (or, at least, less necessary). And if the procedures are not quite working, then we need to upgrade the procedures through discussion at ARCA. We are still not entirely clear why AE is not working in AA - issues mentioned are the number of tendentious attempts to use AE, acceptance of sources, off-wiki canvassing, and a conflict between ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl.
If we have a three strikes limit on the number of dispute complaints a user can make in the AA area which do not result in an agreement that the dispute complaint was appropriate (so if User X makes two sock allegations against other editors in AA, and a claim of a sanction violation against an editor in AA, all three of which are assessed as unfounded, then User X is prohibited from making any other AA complaint for six months), that might help.
Making a decision on sources is not something that ArbCom can or should do. That is a matter for RSN. What we can do, though, is perhaps encourage debate on the sources rather than edit-warring, and have people try to resolve matters themselves before going to RSN or AE. For example, if User X objects to Source A in an article, then User X does not revert, but raises a query on the article talkpage, during which time Source A cannot be used again in that article. If after seven days the query has not been resolved on the talkpage it is referred to RSN.
Off-wiki canvassing is something we should be looking into. I am not objecting to that principle. I am saying we need more evidence before we open a case. I don't feel it is appropriate to open a case to look into allegations without some evidence first. User:ZaniGiovanni, it would be helpful if you did email us the evidence you have.
When there are conflicts between two users, such as ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl, there are procedures in place whereby the community can attempt to resolve the matter. If such attempts have failed, then ArbCom step in. ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl have been mentioned in this request, but there is no evidence showing that attempts have been made to resolve that matter.
Part of my hesitation here regarding opening a case is that there appear to be a number of issues, which perhaps could be more quickly resolved by other means. I do see, though, that consensus is against me, and that my objection is merely holding up matters, so I will withdraw my opposition and move to support to speed things up. SilkTork (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SilkTork I think you intended to strike your oppose but at the moment you have votes supporting and opposing. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 16:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

National and territorial disputes[edit]

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 16:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

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

Passed 10 to 0 at 16:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

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

Passed 9 to 0 at 16:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Recidivism[edit]

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

Passed 9 to 0 at 16:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Standards of editor behavior[edit]

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

Passed 9 to 0 at 16:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

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

Passed 10 to 0 at 16:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Tendentious editing[edit]

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

Passed 10 to 0 at 16:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement[edit]

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

Passed 10 to 0 at 16:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement-imposed sanctions[edit]

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

Passed 10 to 0 at 16:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Locus of the dispute[edit]

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

Passed 10 to 0 at 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Previous Arbitration Committee interventions[edit]

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Difficulties faced during dispute resolution[edit]

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

The issues brought to these venues are often factually complex, sometimes involve allegations of off-wiki conduct, and participants may be using these processes to "win" disputes through first-mover advantage and the removal of opponents. The complexities of these reports adds to the difficulty of resolving them. Administrators unfamiliar with the histories are unlikely to get involved because of the high bar of entry, while those familiar with the history grow weary of the repeated disputes. This attrition leads to a growing amount of work falling on a dwindling number of responders which is unfair to volunteers and prevents these processes from working effectively.

Passed 8 to 0 at 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

December 2022 Arbitration Enforcement request[edit]

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

Passed 9 to 0 at 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Community-imposed extended confirmed restriction[edit]

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

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Sanction history (Abrvagl)[edit]

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

Passed 10 to 0 at 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Interpersonal issues (Abrvagl)[edit]

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

Passed 10 to 0 at 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring (Abrvagl)[edit]

6.3) Despite being warned, Abrvagl later engaged in edit warring at September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes [1] and Anti-Armenian sentiment [2].

Passed 10 to 0 at 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Sanction history (Dallavid)[edit]

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

Passed 10 to 0 at 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement erred[edit]

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

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Sanction history (Olympian)[edit]

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

Passed 9 to 1 at 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring (Olympian)[edit]

8.3) While the case was ongoing, Olympian engaged in edit warring at Shusha massacre. [3]

Passed 9 to 0 at 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Sanction history (ZaniGiovanni)[edit]

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

Passed 10 to 0 at 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring (ZaniGiovanni)[edit]

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

Passed 10 to 0 at 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Interpersonal issues (ZaniGiovanni)[edit]

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

Passed 9 to 0 at 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Additional edit warring[edit]

9.4) While the case was ongoing, ZaniGiovanni engaged in edit warring at Shusha massacre. [4]

Passed 8 to 0 at 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Other Parties[edit]

10) Two parties have received topic bans through the Armenia-Azerbaijan contentious topic designation. Grandmaster received a topic ban on 18 February 2022 which was lifted on 14 October 2022. Golden received a topic ban on 22 October 2021 which was lifted on 23 April 2022; Golden received another topic ban on 16 September 2022 which is still in place. Since their most recent sanctions, neither Grandmaster nor Golden have engaged in additional misconduct.

Passed 10 to 0 at 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Off-wiki conduct[edit]

11.2) The Arbitration Committee received private evidence alleging off-wiki canvassing and coordination in favor of both Armenian and Azerbaijani viewpoints. Private evidence showed off-wiki canvassing and coordination occurred on Reddit and Facebook, and in this private evidence, editors attempted to associate particular Wikipedia accounts with Redditors and Facebook profiles engaged in canvassing and coordination. Evidence connecting off-wiki accounts to Wikipedia accounts was circumstantial and unconvincing with one exception. The off-wiki posts resulted in some increased editing to linked pages, but the canvassing and coordination did not appear to substantially change the outcomes of any larger discussions.

Passed 8 to 0 at 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

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.

Topic ban (Abrvagl)[edit]

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

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

One Revert Restriction (Abrvagl)[edit]

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.

Passed 7 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 17:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Interaction Ban (Abrvagl)[edit]

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban (Dallavid)[edit]

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

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

One Revert Restriction (Dallavid)[edit]

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban (Olympian)[edit]

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

Passed 6 to 4 at 17:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

One Revert Restriction (Olympian)[edit]

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

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban (ZaniGiovanni)[edit]

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

Passed 8 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 17:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

One Revert Restriction (ZaniGiovanni)[edit]

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

Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Interaction Ban (ZaniGiovanni)[edit]

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

Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Parties placed on probation[edit]

5.2) Golden and Grandmaster are placed on indefinite probation. If any party to this case is found to be edit warring within the area of dispute by an uninvolved administrator, the administrator should impose the following sanction: [Editor name] is indefinitely topic banned from all pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. Topic bans imposed via this remedy may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. For a topic ban imposed under this remedy, an editor may make their first appeal at any time; further appeals may be made every twelve months after an unsuccessful appeal.

Passed 8 to 1 at 17:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Administrators encouraged[edit]

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

Passed 6 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 17:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

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

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  1. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  2. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  3. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log[edit]

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.