Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2/Proposed decision

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 11 active Arbitrators of whom none is recused, so 6 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template
1)

{text of proposed motion}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions
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.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Negotiation
1) Willingness to negotiate in a more or less civil way with the other editors of an article is a condition of editing the article.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 15:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Edit warring considered harmful
3) Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 15:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Consensus
4) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 15:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a battleground
5) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 15:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Disruptive editing
6) Users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 15:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Courtesy
7) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 15:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Assume good faith
8) Users are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those whom they had conflicts with in the past.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 15:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers
9) Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers is not a label that is appropriately placed by one user on another user they are in conflict with.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC) For that matter, I am not entirely certain that there is any legitimate use for it.
 * Paul August &#9742; 15:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Diplomacy
10) It is when there are serious disagreements that courteous negotiation is most necessary.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 15:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Reliability of sources
11) Determining the reliability of sources is a matter of sound editorial judgment informed by expertise.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 15:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Requests for comment
12) A user-conduct request for comment represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her behavior, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her behavior.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 15:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Verifiability
13) Significant verifiable information from a reliable source can generally be included in an article, per Verifiability and Reliable sources.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 15:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Provocation
14) When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate. Provocation of a new or inexperienced user by an experienced and sophisticated user is especially inappropriate.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 15:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Sockpuppet abuse
15) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 15:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Walks like a duck
16) For the purpose of dispute resolution similar remedies may be applied to users who engage in similar behavior.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Overly broad, "similar behaviour" can cover a lot of ground. SimonP 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but something along these lines would be useful. James F. (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Per SimonP. Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Users national background and neutrality
17) Editors with a national background are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, though these principles also apply to everyone irregardless of nationalism. SimonP 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 15:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
18) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Results of the prior Arbitration
1) The remedies imposed by Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan have somewhat reduced edit warring, but have had the effect at times of increasing incivility on talk pages.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 15:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.

Supervised editing
1) Hajji Piruz and the other users placed on revert parole in Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan are subject to supervised editing. They may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should they fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in their interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Changed terminology.
 * Paul August &#9742; 16:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The new terminology seems overly convoluted. Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Applicability to all disruptive editors
2) The remedies of revert limitations (formerly revert parole), including the limitation of 1 revert per week, civility supervision (formerly civility parole) and supervised editing (formerly probation) that were put in place at Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan shall apply to any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Changed terminology.
 * Paul August &#9742; 16:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
3) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Enforcement by block
1) Violations of limitations, supervision, or bans imposed by the remedies in this case may be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * SimonP 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 16:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

General
Per discussion on arbcom-l, the Committee is striving to avoid use of judicial language and metaphors in its decisions. I have updated the remedies accordingly. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Supervised" is probably not the best term for this, though. Kirill 13:02, 24 August 2007 (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 until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.''


 * There is currently nothing in the enforcement section to enforce remedy #2. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 13:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The blanket enforcement seems to apply. All editors named in the first case are placed on probation in addition to parole.  Any other editor of these articles who edits in an aggressive POV manner marked by incivility may be placed on probation, civility parole and revert parole by notice on their talk page, and then the probation and paroles may be enforced by block per usual. Thatcher131 02:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Vote
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.


 * Close. Kirill 13:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Close. Paul August &#9742; 15:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Close, though I'm unhappy with the broadness of the overall case, on retrospect. James F. (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Close. SimonP 13:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)