Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific/Proposed decision

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

''Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Arbitration Committee/Procedures.''

Template
1)

{text of proposed motion}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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

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

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

=Proposed final decision=

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) 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.


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 13:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * kelapstick(bainuu) 08:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Mkdw  talk 21:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Neutral point of view
2) 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.


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 13:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * kelapstick(bainuu) 08:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Mkdw  talk 21:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Criticism and casting aspersions
3) An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 13:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * kelapstick(bainuu) 08:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Mkdw  talk 21:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 13:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * kelapstick(bainuu) 08:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Mkdw  talk 21:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Locus of the dispute
1) The dispute centers around the conflict between and conduct of Keysanger and MarshalN20. This conflict centers around the article on the War of the Pacific, as well as other articles relating to this conflict and aspects of the histories of Peru, Bolivia, and Chile.


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 13:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * kelapstick(bainuu) 08:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Mkdw  talk 21:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Conflict between Keysanger and MarshalN20
2) There is ongoing conflict between Keysanger and MarshalN20, stretching over many years. The two parties have repeatedly been the subject of attempts at dispute resolution.


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 13:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * kelapstick(bainuu) 08:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Mkdw  talk 21:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Aspersions and battleground conduct (Keysanger)
3) Keysanger has cast aspersions and exhibited battleground conduct. This has been in the context of what has been a long-running and occasionally hotly contested dispute. .   Older but indicative:-  and this chronology


 * Support:
 * Support as an accurate summary of Keysanger's behaviour towards other editors. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * kelapstick(bainuu) 08:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Mkdw  talk 19:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 10:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Aspersions and battleground conduct (MarshalN20)
4) MarshalN20 cast aspersions and exhibited battleground conduct at earlier stages of the dispute. Indicative:- This behavior has moderated over time. After extensive review of the diffs and respective edit histories, there is insufficient evidence to support a formal finding that this misconduct has continued on en-Wikipedia in recent years.


 * Support:
 * Correct that there isn't enough recent evidence, however this is a recent example of Marshal casting aspersions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Moderated in tone, yes. Though there are still some instances, often with a character of surface civility, like the example Callanecc provided. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Per OR. --kelapstick(bainuu) 08:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Mkdw  talk 19:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 10:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * I just want to think about this some more without holding anything up. Something about this reads like "well, they used to do it years ago, but we can't really say they do anymore" to me, so I'm trying to wrap my mind around why we're including it at all in this form.  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 20:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The diffs are eight years old. That seems too stale even for a "background" finding, but perhaps there's a reason for inclusion that I am missing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * agreed. There's some evidence, but perhaps insufficient for a FoF. Entirely agree re the older material. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Included this FoF for completeness, given there was a substantial body of evidence presented in support of these particular allegations. The purpose of the FoF, I suppose, is to indicate that this evidence was reviewed but was insufficient to support anything other than the above. As there's only two parties to the case, the alternative (not including this FoF) might have implied that we had not considered that 50% of evidence provided by Keysanger. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Keysanger and MarshalN20 interaction ban
1) and  are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).


 * Support:
 * The evidence suggests that an interaction ban is necessary to contain and stop this dispute from continuing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for this clerks. I support this only if remedy 1.2 and remedy 3.2 do not pass. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw this was needed from day one of this case. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 07:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * kelapstick(bainuu) 08:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 17:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll support this now. I think the wording should be more explicit and state, as WP:IBAN actually does, "Although the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other." I'd prefer the wording to be included in ordinary exceptions which is where I think most people would look. Doug Weller  talk 17:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 21:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sensitive to Casliber's point below, and a modified wording could be used for that reason, as we did awhile ago in the Abtract-Collectonian case. But I doubt very much that MarshalN20 wants to spend any more wikitime interacting unnecessarily with Keysanger, and so I am okay with this wording, especially since it's past time to finish the decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I can't support sanctions against an editor with no findings to support it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * I'm with Cas here while I think about the associated finding, though I'm not quite in the oppose boat at the moment. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 20:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments:

Keysanger and MarshalN20 interaction ban - additional matters
1.1) and  are indefinitely prohibited from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly.


 * Support:
 * Doug Weller talk 13:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing this as above although I'd prefer the wording to be directly in the remedy rather than in the link. Doug Weller  talk 17:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * In preference to 1.2 or 1 passing. But have no issue if this passes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * The language here is from a community ban found at Editing restrictions. This will allow them both to continue editing. It's clearly not a perfect solution but I think it may be a better one than a topic ban on one editor. Doug Weller  talk 13:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Keysanger and MarshalN20 suspended interaction ban
1.2) For 12 months following the closure of this case, any administrator may impose, as an arbitration enforcement action, the following restriction on Keysanger and MarshalN20 should misconduct between the two occur. Misconduct could include personal attacks, battleground conduct or failure to comply with remedy 3.2. Appeal of such a restriction would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.
 * and are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).


 * Support:
 * Even if 3.2 doesn't pass. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Second choice to Remedy 1. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Second choice, prefer 1 (and see my comment there). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * per lack of findings against MarshalN20 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * I've proposed this to avoid the probability of breaching the IBAN while complying with remedy 3.2, while also providing admins an avenue for acting to prevent further issues if the requirements of remedy 3.2 aren't followed or if there is misconduct between the two regardless. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Keysanger topic ban
2.1) is indefinitely prohibited from making edits relating to the War of the Pacific, broadly construed and necessarily including the economic and military histories of nineteenth century Peru, Chile or Bolivia. This ban is subject to the ordinary exceptions.


 * Support:
 * Second choice to 2.2. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * kelapstick(bainuu) 09:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Second choice to 2.2. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Prefer to wait and see if abides by other items below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * I'm thinking on this, still deciding whether there is sufficient evidence in this decision to support a TBAN in addition to an IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have some doubts about a one sided topic ban.  DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also undecided for the time being. Opabinia regalis (talk)

Keysanger warned
2.2) is warned not to cast aspersions on other editors, or to unnecessarily perpetuate on-wiki battles.


 * Support:
 * First choice over 2.1. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 13:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * First choice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * kelapstick(bainuu) 09:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 23:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Kirill Lokshin (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * Proposed as an alternative to 2.1, which is not making progress. Warning seems justified per the diffs in the Findings; and suggest if this passes we would dispense with 2.1 entirely. Other views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Military history sources
3.1) Where the dispute relates specifically to the interpretation of individual military history sources, the Committee recommends that these disputes in this topic area be formally raised at the Military History Wikiproject talkpage to ensure a wider audience and further expert input. Evident manipulation of sources, or disregard of a MILHIST consensus, should be considered disruptive editing and addressed via regular administrative action where appropriate.


 * Support:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Other editors with knowledge of South American history should also please weigh in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * kelapstick(bainuu) 09:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 17:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 21:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I support this as I see it as workable and preferential to an iBan Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Should help. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 20:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * The IBAN really throws a wrench into any hopes for dispute resolution between these two. If they engage in any sort of dispute such as sourcing, they're essentially violating their IBAN, unless it involves third editor. Any sort of consensus building exercise would fundamentally require both sides of the argument to be presented. I don't think there's an appetite to to bring out the topic ban hammer but this case is almost certainly missing a remedy to resolve the issue. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 06:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly, though the Iban wording optimistically suggests that editing in the same field remains psosble. I've never seen this work inpractice, but hope springs eternal that it will do so here. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Made a mild amendment to the first word of this remedy, to allow for the one below. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Other content disputes
3.2) Where any content dispute involves both and, those editors must seek wider input by raising the matter at any one of: the Military History Wikiproject talkpage, WP:3O, or WP:RFC. Both editors must abide by any subsequent consensus that arises from this process. Disregard of consensus should be considered disruptive editing and addressed via regular administrative action where appropriate. Nothing in this remedy restricts the editing of the disputed topic area by other editors.


 * Support:
 * Tentative support. In addition to 3.1, which relates specifically to source manipulation in the military history sphere. This proposes a mechanism to force engagement with others on general content grounds, which may help shift the issues along. Of course its possible that raising a dispute at RfC etc generates no interest beyond these two editors. That's fine - at least it was attempted and there was a chance for wider community involvement. Note also the wider scope than 3.1 - as has been pointed out on the talkpage, elements of this dispute go beyond the military field. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We could quibble over the wording - it's not a violation of their iban to both be participants in the same discussion without referring to each other, but in this case there's so few other local editors that that's unlikely. Really the problem here is that two people who disagree all the time and don't want to work together are the only ones interested in editing in a very obscure topic area, and any kind of safety valve mechanism that results in more eyes on the articles is a good thing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * kelapstick(bainuu) 09:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I support only if remedy 1 or 1.2 passes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Although I can imagine that for some subject-matters a Latin American history wikiproject, if active, could also be a suitable venue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Per Ks0stm's comment below. Doug Weller  talk 10:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * WP:BANEX expressly prohibits engaging in dispute resolution unless it's to address concerns about the ban itself. Without granting them a modified IBAN that explicitly allows them to engage in DR, then I think this remedy only invites confusion for the parties and community at large. I should note that I'm not opposed to them receiving a modified IBAN, but I this remedy needs to be mutually inclusive of that modification to be effective. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 17:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Kirill Lokshin (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * I'm not sure on this. Currently (with the standard IBAN passing) for there to be a content dispute involving both of them one has to have breached the IBAN. In fact, I imagine that there'd be a fairly strong argument that if one brought the issue to one of those venues they would need to mention to other and so would have breached the IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not completely sure either, but more on the grounds that we might be needlessly complicating things. Still, posted on a speculative basis to collect any views (and help move the case along) -- Euryalus (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This and remedy (1) are mutually exclusive and in conflict of each other as currently written. The IBAN would need to be modified to state notwithstanding remedy 3.2. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 23:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm an optimist, but I think it should be perfectly doable to participate in dispute resolution without violating an IBAN. Comment on the content and not the contributor, so to speak. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 05:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's only an issue between optimism and good-will collaboration. Unless they receive a modified WP:IBAN, they are cannot "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;" including discussions. WP:BANEX explicitly states that the only time Dispute Resolution may be engaged is when "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself". We're putting them and the community into a very unclear situation if we're suggesting they can engage in DR while under a standard IBAN. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 17:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

1RR
4) and   are subject to a 1RR on the article War of the Pacific, as well as other articles relating to this conflict and aspects of the histories of Peru, Bolivia, and Chile, broadly construed.


 * Support:
 * I'm not sure if the 1RR should apply to a wider range of articles but I felt this was at least in line with the FOF. As I mentioned above, this case is still missing a critical remedy, but I would easily see this remedy being implemented in conjunction to whatever that may end up being. The idea being that the terms of that remedy being either implemented or enforced at an earlier stage of the process to a formed consensus or resolution process. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 06:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * weakly, only because 1RR is a widely-used and useful tool in contentious areas. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I understand the goal here, but I don't think this makes much sense as a remedy in the absence of evidence for edit-warring. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Evidence of edit warring would need to be included for me to support this. The wording might also cause us problems (regarding "other articles relating to this conflict" and "aspects of the histories of" as they aren't well defined so could lead to disagreement about what is and is not covered). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * At least temporarily. Agree 1RR is often useful but not sure routine reverting is a key issue here. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * This proposal was put forward as an additional required measure if an IBAN was the only remedy introduced. The purpose not being to stop existing edit warring, but to preemptively prevent edit warring in the future. The IBAN revokes their access to any form of dispute resolution. Given the history and FOF of these two editors, I don't see how we could possibly expect them to continue to edit in the same topic area without dispute resolution and not expect there to be problems. There have been recent developments and other remedies since proposed but I think 1RR is a reasonable half-step measure if a topic ban was on the table. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 23:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

 * Comments:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

General
Will provide some commentary here in about an hour, not so much on what is in the PD but on what isn't. In the meantime, questions or commetns welcome on the PD talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

These notes were last updated by Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 01:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on  by User:.


 * Notes

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

''Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority needed to close case. The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously; otherwise, it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast.''


 * Support
 * While some proposals aren't yet at the majority to pass, we have enough that are passing that this case can be closed. It's time we moved pass this and let everyone involved move on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 10:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Callanecc. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 00:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Comments