This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision Information

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Initial thoughts. Kirill 19:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Initial thoughts. Kirill 19:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editorial process

3) 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 editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Initial thoughts. Kirill 19:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

External beliefs

4) Users are not prohibited in holding external beliefs such as political ideologies. However, using these solely to either support or oppose an editor's position is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A proposed two-way extension of WP:NPA's nutshell: "comment on content, not the contributor" - in cases such as these, not only will people discredit an editor's views as "{country}ian nationalism", the reverse will happen and people will support an editor just because they are native in the same language (most notably in the ANI thread about Anittas). Will ^{( talk)} 01:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Area of conflict

1) The disputes presented in this case, while focusing specifically on issues related to Romania, are part of a broader set of conflicts prevalent over the entire range of articles concerning Eastern Europe; see, for example, the Occupation of Latvia case, the Piotrus case, and the Darwinek case. Many of these conflicts are grounded in matters external to Wikipedia, including long-standing historical, national, and ethnic disputes in the region. The area of conflict in this case shall therefore be considered to be the entire set of Eastern Europe-related articles, broadly interpreted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Initial thoughts. Kirill 19:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, the Darwinek case was actually about diacritic disagreements and so forth, rather than historical type wars. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 23:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Somewhat opposed. I agree with Kirill that there are some broader trends here. Also, I have great respect for the opinions of PētersV, who I find to be a model of clear-headed, logical thinking. And yes, Peters is absolutely right that it's not correct to call words like "invasion" and "occupation" POV and judgmental when used in the context he describes. But I tend to agree more in this specific instance with Biophys and AdrianTM—in that it would be a mistake to put this arbitration in some kind of cosmic light, and treat it as an East-West confrontation or something (sorry if this is too much of a hyperbole). The basic issue is still the extreme incivility of this specific user, and I would urge everyone to keep the eye on the ball, and not lose sight of what is really the essence in this case. Turgidson ( talk) 01:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Strongly Supported Some editors limit themselves close to home, others engage in Eastern Europe more broadly. The area of conflict absolutely extends beyond Romania and is fundamental to the portrayal in Wikipedia of Soviet actions in Eastern Europe. Only on Wikipedia are words like "invasion" and "occupation" called POV and judgemental even when employed by the vast majority of reputable sources. PētersV ( talk) 04:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I think it would be better to treat this specific conflict as a local problem, rather than to make the problem bigger than it really is. Biophys ( talk) 00:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Strongly opposed This is about the incivility of a specific user, it's not about Eastern Europe or any special group of people. I'm sure there are other hotly debated issues Greeks/Turks, Basques/Spanish, Communists/Capitalists and so on, the basic principle is that all these discussions have to be held in a civilized manner without accusing the other party of bad faith, CIA collaboration, taunting them, calling people "a clique", using the nationality or the residence of the other party as a weapon in the discussion, calling them ultra-nationalists, and so on (as other people and I will provide in the evidence) -- AdrianTM ( talk) 00:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Opposed per AdrianTM above. The issue here is user behavior, not content. Moreover, all problems are on Communism-related articles, more precisely on the ones concerning Soviet occupations, which is much less than Eastern Europe. Dpotop ( talk) 14:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment In case you really need an area of conflict, it's Soviet occupations. The same as for Darwinek and Piotrus, I'd say. Dpotop ( talk) 14:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment I have to agree with Dpotop here. The common denominator is an issue of the interpretation of the role of the Soviet Union in recent Eastern European history. It is certainly not ethnic. If the part including long-standing historical, national, and ethnic disputes in the region was replaced by including certain political beliefs I would support this statement. Martintg ( talk) 21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Anonimu's conduct

2) Anonimu has a history of incivility, assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, and denial of reliable sources that conflict with his personal views. This behaviour continued throughout the request for comment and this request for arbitration, and as a result he was blocked indefinitely by Maxim ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for "personal attacks, persistent BLP vios, edit warring, harassing other users, using the encyclopedia as a battleground".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Required diff: here. See also remedy #3. Will ^{( talk)} 10:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Anonimu was blocked indefinitely

3) On November 27, 2007, administrator Maxim blocked Anonimu ( talk · contribs) indefinitely with a block summary of (Personal attacks, persistent BLP vios, edit warring, harassing other users, using the encyclopedia as a battleground). See discussion on ANI. As of 02:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC), Anonimu has not posted an unblock request.

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply

An unblock request was subsequently posted 09:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC) ( [1]), and declined by User:Nat ( [2]). Neil  ☎ 13:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment. I think Anonimu should be allowed to edit the arbitration pages. If he uses or not this opportunity, is his problem, but he should have the right to defend himself. Dpotop ( talk) 14:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

He previously stated he would not defend himself in the case as he already had done in the RfC. However, I'd support an unblock for and ONLY for the AC case. Will ^{( talk)} 14:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I have unblocked Anonimu so that he can participate in this arbitration case. He is restricted to editing case pages only. Paul August ☎ 23:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Bonaparte

4) Anonimu has been subjected to harassment by banned sockpuppeter Bonaparte ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Evidence: Bonaparte created a similar username User:Anonimul with the only purpose to harass User:Anonimu as it can be seen in Anonimul's contribution page. -- AdrianTM ( talk) 18:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Please provide diffs supporting this proposed finding. Paul August ☎ 18:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Proposed, for fairness. Will ^{( talk)} 12:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I added some evidence, I'm sure there were many other instances, but as someone said two wrongs don't make a right. -- AdrianTM ( talk) 18:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Be that as it may, this Bonnie episode occurred after Anonimu was blocked indefinitely, so I don't see how it affects this particular issue, one way or the other. And, incidentally, another one of those socks, User:Anonimu din Constanta, vandalized my userpage -- first time (and hopefully, only time) this has happened to me here at WP. Turgidson ( talk) 18:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Huh? Was not Bonaparte adding the whole threads with forged signatures by multiple editors to ANI where the original proposal was to community ban Anonimu and forged signatures of other users were supposed to show the support for such proposal? It is difficult to find diffs for old ANI threads but others, I believe, should have no problem remembering that. -- Irpen 19:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I actually remember that. And he signed once in AfC of Anonimu. But again, I don't think Bonaparte is being judged here, he was banned and I'm glad he was, I'd support that at any time. The actions of Anonimu for which he was banned were not in response to Bonaparte. -- AdrianTM ( talk) 19:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Discretionary sanctions

1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Initial thoughts. Kirill 19:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I understand the concerns raised by Irpen and others but I think they are overstated since any admin already has the discretion to impose these sanctions. The key here is that it sets out the sanctions so all editors realize the sanctions are possible by being warned properly before they are imposed. Also it works with Remedy 2, Appeal of discretionary sanctions, to make sure that the sanctions imposed are not overturned by a single admin that may not be familiar with the situation. FloNight ( talk) 04:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Support, but only if it's enforced. Will ^{( talk)} 21:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hesitant support. It sounds a bit draconian, and I certainly understand Irpen's concern that such a protocol would be easily abused, but desperate times call for desperate measures and SOMETHING has to be done to make Eastern Europe a workable area on Wikipedia again. (Perhaps this could be a temporary measure?) K. Lásztocska ^talk 22:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Very hesitant support. Per Lastochka, while endorsing caveat by Biophys. Let's make sure we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater in the process. Turgidson ( talk) 02:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

An absolutely bad proposal. This is effectively ArbCom handing a loaded gun to any block happy admin who happens to be at ANI having been come there in the mood to kick some butts and run some Wikipedia. Such remedies would simply give an advantage to more skillful block-shoppers rather than better content editors. -- Irpen ( talk) 21:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hesitant support. Per Lastochka, moreover, as Irpen himself was quick to accuse me of block shopping when I made it clear to start with that I wasn't ( re: edit warring evidence in prior RfC)--these ugly incidents always include unsubstantiated allegations attempting to make this into something "personal"--I am compelled at this point to sadly conclude that a loaded gun is better than no gun. No gun has proven itself to be an invitation for abuse. If Irpen successfully made the case in that instance I was block shopping, then so be it, block me for X period. I would rather be blocked for something I didn't do than to allow the current situation to continue. It would be a small price to pay for other editors to work unmolested. As for block shopping, feel free to investigate how many formal actions I have instigated against other editors versus how many Irpen has instigated. PētersV ( talk) 04:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Does not look good. This gives too much power to a single administrator. The sanctions should be more specific, decided now, and focused on certain user(s) in my opinion. Biophys ( talk) 00:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose It's usually only one or two individuals who are the root cause of disruption, so why is such a blanket remedy necessary? What's wrong with good old fashioned ban? Since the bans were issued in the Digwuren case, relative peace and calm has returned to Estonia related articles. If a year long ban was imposed, I would also offer the prospect of parole after some months. Martintg ( talk) 22:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Strong oppose, per Martintg. No need for special rules. Dpotop ( talk) 22:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Appeal of discretionary sanctions

2) Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Committee. Reversing or otherwise interfering with the imposition of a discretionary sanction without (1) the consent of the administrator who imposed it, (2) extensive discussion and clear consensus at the administrators' noticeboard, or (3) the permission of the Committee will be grounds for summary desysopping.

The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations. (Wording on the proposed decision page)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Initial thoughts. Kirill 19:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Add wording that we are reconsidering on proposed decision page. FloNight ( talk) 04:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not supported Based on empirical observation, just an invitation for recriminations. I would counter-propose that on any block of six months or longer, that the blocked party be permitted to apply for parole (to uninvolved ArbCom) after 1/2 of the block is completed. Editors would be invited to comment on the applicant's statement (but not start commenting on each others responses, avoiding said recriminations). ArbCom could then conditionally allow the editor to participate once more, however, violation of good behavior norms resets the clock and re-starts the original block from its beginning. PētersV ( talk) 04:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Anonimu banned

3) For continued and blatant personal attacks and incivility, even during a request for arbitration, Anonimu is banned indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There really isn't any lawyering from this: [3] [4] [5] - blatant WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL/WP:BLP violation. RfCs haven't stopped him, he's totally ignoring the RfAr, and were he placed under RFAR/Digwuren, he'd still be banned before AC caught wind of it. Will ^{( talk)} 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Support -- As I said from the beginning I'm not usually for banning people, however in this case I see no other way, the user ignored RfC conclusions of fellow editors, even more he attacked them in the same RfC: he assumed bad faith, he insinuated that fellow editors are "anglo-american imperialists" (his words) and he used a mocking tone all over the RfC talk page. In other pages he removed sourced materials claiming that authors are "fascists" and claimed that only fascist editors could support such versions, in other case he accused an author of " anti-semitism" -- by the way, in this case Anonimu is talking about a living author who doesn't accept that label of "anti-semitic", that's probably a libel. In any case I don't see him changing his attitude and I don't see any other remedy in Anonimu case. As I said in other comment this is not about a specific situation in Eastern Europe, there are many conflicts in the world and many divergent interests, by allowing discussing things in such a manner (contrary to Wikipedia policies WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL) is a recipe for disaster for Wikipedia. -- AdrianTM ( talk) 01:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Support. I don't see any other way to resolve the issue, barring an outright miracle such as Anonimu finally deciding to behave in a civilized fashion. Agree strongly with Adrian that this is not a blanket East European issue, rather an issue of one spectacularly disruptive editor. Let's not blow it out of proportion. K. Lásztocska ^talk 02:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Support — per AdrianTM and K. Lásztocska. Not only is Anonimu extremely rude, uncivil, and disruptive, he is also a huge drain of time and energy on otherwise productive editors, who are put in a situation to spend way too much time arguing with him (and about him), in a clearly futile effort to resolve the situation by themselves. In the meantime, Anonimu remains a loose cannon, with his attacks now spreading beyond the editors directly involved — to other editors who have tried to intervene, and even to (living) authors who have published works with which he disagrees. Turgidson ( talk) 03:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Support. I guess he appeared again as a User:Anonimu din Constanta and was blocked after serial edit warring. Biophys ( talk) 05:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

It is very possible any subsequent Anonimu "sockpuppets" (such as User:Anonimu din Constanta) were created by others to smear Anonimu, rather than by Anonimu himself - unless a positive checkuser result is made, I would place little weight on any such accusations. Neil  ☎ 13:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Restriction on articles in the area of conflict

4) All articles defined to be inside the area of conflict are subject to a one revert per 24 hours restriction and indefinite semi-protection.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Two reasons for this: the 1RR is to stop or prevent the eternal edit wars on the subject - there are normally two or threads about EE on WP:ANI at any one time and I think this is at least the fifth AC case from this area of conflict. The second is to stem the flow of edits by Bonaparte's socks, which have been going on for nearly two years. Similar restrictions have previously been applied to the LTTE area of conflict.

Comment by others:

Oppose. Given previous discussions in various places, I assume that the area of conflict is politics in Eastern Europe (including Soviet-era stuff, minorities, etc.). Then, restricting editing for all editors on these articles is not better than what Irpen proposed (i.e. other editing rules for Eastern European editors). Why? Because there are really few editors from outside EE interested in these subjects. Dpotop ( talk) 10:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Moreover, such a restriction will have the negative effect of prolongating conflicts, or freezing them instead of promoting mutual understanding and NPOV construction by moderate editors. POV pushers such as Anonimu or Bonaparte will not disappear, they will just adapt to the rules and drag on the conflicts for a long time. These conflicts will manifest themselves anyway, because Wikipedia exists in the real world. Dpotop ( talk) 10:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Recall that the current process works, as many of these conflicts are now practically solved. I know of the Romanian-Hungarian issues 2 year ago, Moldova-related conflict one year ago, and both have been settled once the obvious or less obvious trolls were banned. Transnistria-related stuff is now settling, and with Anonimu gone some Soviet-era issues are settled (there's consensus). Dpotop ( talk) 10:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {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: