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 Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

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. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. 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.

Expected standards of behavior

• You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
• Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

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. Grandmaster 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. Grandmaster 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]

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]

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. Grandmaster 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]

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]

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 [5], calling him a genocide denier and citing as a proof his personal interpretation of a YouTube video: [6] [7] Is this acceptable? Grandmaster 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:

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]

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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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]

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]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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]

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.([8]). 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]

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: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:20, 25 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:

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]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

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 [20], [21], [22]. 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 doen't demonstrate that. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:20, 25 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:

Comment by others:

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive346#RfC_for_2020_Ganja_missile_attacks 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. [23]

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:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

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:

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:

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]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

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

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:

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

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:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: