Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the arbitration request concerning the Eastern European mailing list, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list.
For another arbitration request concerning Eastern Europe-related disputes, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe.

Case Opened on 21:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Case Closed on 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Case Amended by Motion on 10:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at arbitration request and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

Requests for comment

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

When this statement was made, the casename was Piotrus 2

Introduction

Piotrus is not a new topic for ArbCom by any means, and neither is he for me. I hate doing this kind of thing, but there are issues here that cannot be solved by anything except ArbCom intervention. Let me first introduce my involvement. About two years ago I had a few minor run-ins with Piotrus related to Jogaila, but it never really got bad, and since I've pretty much stayed away from eastern European stuff save editing a few uncontroversial medieval history articles. Piotrus and I have had a normal working relationship, agreeing on a lot of principles, and haven't been in much conflict at all. I'm not from eastern Europe and don't have any ethnic-issues that involve me in most of the disputes. Still, I've seen the arbcom cases, all the AN/I threads, ArbCom enforcement threads ... like watching a soap opera. So, although in the periphery of my wikivision, he has nonetheless been in (and out) of it.

Chronic WP:Battle problems
Main page: User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim/Piotrus_2 § WP:BATTLE_post-Arbcom

Summary:

  • Continued edit-warring and battling, in particular edit-warring with and provoking Lithuanian editors
  • Spamming cut-and-paste provocative new articles
  • Disingenuous blockshopping and ArbEnforcement, Piotrus' secret diff-stack on pl.wiki
  • Block for 3rr violation, misrepresentation of "opponents" on IRC, and attempted bullying of blocking admin
Recent meatpuppetry as further illustration
Main page: User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim/Piotrus_2 § Recent_meatpuppetry

Summary:

Sumary of concerns

We can't use WP:AGF as an excuse to ignore wikipedia's problems. There's been thread after thread about this user's behaviour. Behavioral patterns that should be behind us are being sustained and replicated because senior users like Piotrus are guiding newerusing users such as Alden Jones down this path, teaching them it's acceptable and actually encouraging them for their own ends. His behaviour has proved as thoroughly as any wikipedian's behaviour could ever prove that he is committed to conflict, provocation and partizanship. So this arbcom hearing proposal isn't merely about Eastern European edit-warriors, it's about one of them; one who is a singular problem. Most of his regular "enemies" have no other "enemies" but him, something which strangely tends to be ignored. People are entitled to new chances, to have time to adapt to changing peer expectation. But guidelines like WP:BATTLE are not new, and chances have come enough. Though the wikipedian discourse community is fond of stating without believing that adminship is NBD and involves only access to a few bland "mop privileges", that is in reality far from the truth. His admin status confers on him authority and charisma within his own community, and sets a terrible example to the wider community, while at the same time it gives him the gravitas edit-war and battle subject to higher community tolerance. (I say with deep regret, but) It hence needs, in my opinion, to be removed. ArbCom can't control off-wiki activities, but it is not powerless. Of course, if Arbcom sees a better solution that gets somewhere, that would be even better.

Additional notes

Statement by Piotrus

Per clerk's request, refactored for readability. Full version here: User:Piotrus/Piotrus 2, headings linked.

1. Creating battlegrounds?

I don't believe my actions create a battleground (I am civil, willing to discuss and reach a consensus, withdraw and even apologize when I am proven wrong). I do however think that there are editors out there who edit in bad faith and strive to create a battleground on purpose (see point 3).

2. Alden, the meatpuppet

Alden is not my meatpuppet (I have asked him not to revert, but to create useful encyclopedic content), but 1) it appears somebody did ask him to do reverts to "help" me and 2) I resent the slanderous accusations of meatpuppetry.

I do talk to many editors online and offline about Wikipedia. I resent the slanderous accusations that our talks are damaging to Wikipedia. Such slanderous accusations, based on 1% evidence and 99% bad faith, are what's really creating the battleground and damaging our project.

3. The truth behind all of this

I am a very active user (in Top 50 most active Wikipedians on en-wiki) and I edit in some controversial topics. I believe my contributions ( here's an endorsment by Raul654) prove I understand our policies and goals. I have however made enemies, who resent that I write about certain issues and enforce NPOV and similar policies. This has led to a rise of an identifiable group of users who form one or more tag teams, harassing editors, with successful record of wearing them out and making them stop creating/policing certain content and even leaving the project altogether. Due to my high activity (and thus, visibility) I am a common target for those tag teams, and I believe slandering my name by dragging me through yet another ArbCom - none of the past ones have found me guilty of anything - has a goal of wearing me out to the point I'll finally give up and leave the project.

4. A note on evidence

Simply put, to suggest that one has no right to collect evidence for dispute resolution is ridiculous, and a good example of bad faith and battleground creation.

5. Closing words

A simple solution would be to close this ArbCom by reinforcing power of WP:AE, so admins can deal with troublemakers more easily - currently many of them are in fear of tag teams (see statement by Moreschi). If this ArbCom goes through, I hope ArbCom members will not hesitate to issue bans/content and parole restrictions, as well as to declare other users not guilty (so their name will stop being slandered by past accusations, dropped in past ArbComs but brought up again and again by the tag team members).

-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (7/0/0/0)

  • Accept to look at all involved editors and investigate if users are winning content disputes through organized strategies. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Accept. The "Alden Jones" issue particularly bothers me. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Accept to examine the behavior of everyone involved here. Kirill ( prof) 03:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Accept to consider all involved. I'm wary of this becoming an opportunity to salt old wounds, but leaving it alone is unlikely to be any better. -- bainer ( talk) 15:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Accept. Many issues need to be addressed here. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 21:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Accept. The matters are serious and I don't think they can be handled through individual administrators deciding to implement existing general sanctions. Fairness demands a full hearing on all sides. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Accept per my colleagues' comments. The Clerks will kindly open this case as soon as possible. Given the contentiousness of prior cases and the underlying issues, I urge all participants to make an especial effort to remain civil on the case pages, to focus clearly on the issues under review, and to present concise evidence on the evidence page as well as pragmatic and useful proposals for findings and remedies on the workshop page. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply


Final decision Information

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Conduct of editors

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; 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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary – and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Common sense

4) Not every aspect of Wikipedia activity can be exhaustively prescribed by written policy; experienced editors are expected to have a modicum of common sense and understanding, and to act in a constructive manner even if not explicitly forced to do so.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes

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

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Editorial disputes and "The Wrong Version"

6) Editors—particularly experienced editors—are expected to recognize the onset of an editorial dispute, and to work towards calming it rather than escalating or prolonging it. In particular, once it is clear that a certain revision or passage is disputed, it is unhelpful to revert it to one's preferred version until the dispute is resolved (with certain narrow exceptions). All editors must be willing to allow the article to remain in "The Wrong Version" while dispute resolution is proceeding.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

7) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. This includes accusations concerning off-wiki conduct, such as participation in criminal acts, membership in groups which take part in such acts, or other actions that might reasonably be found morally reprehensible in a civilized society.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

8) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Administrators

9) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Conduct on Arbitration pages

10) The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Endemic conflict

1) Numerous past cases (including Digwuren, Piotrus [1], Occupation of Latvia, and AndriyK) have dealt with conflicts arising from various disputes related to Eastern Europe and the editors working on the affected articles—notably including several of the parties to the present case.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Amnesty

2) On 19 August 2007, as part of the decision in the Piotrus [1] case, a general amnesty was granted to "editors who [had] been involved in disputes in articles related to Eastern Europe, liberally defined".

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

3) All articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted, are currently subject to discretionary sanctions, as outlined in the Digwuren case; these can be imposed by any uninvolved administrator, and include a range of options, from site-wide blocks and page- or topic-bans to revert or other similar restrictions.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Heightened tensions

4) Because of the endemic, long-term conflicts plaguing this topic area, many editors have at times experienced regrettable—but understandable—difficulty with assuming good faith of their counterparts. In such an environment, it is unfortunately possible for certain actions to be regarded as provocative even if the actions are not problematic in and of themselves.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Externally coordinated editing

5) It is almost certain that externally coordinated editing—meaning an off-wiki, premeditated undertaking by several editors to perform certain agreed-upon (whether in specific or general form) edits—has taken place, and continues to take place, on articles within the area of conflict. However, because such external coordination leaves little or no direct evidence, it is generally difficult to distinguish among several possible scenarios:

(a) Editor A edits in support of editor B because A and B have explicitly coordinated their editing.
(b) Editor A edits in support of editor B because A has a personal relationship with B, but where A and B have not explicitly coordinated their editing.
(c) Editor A edits in support of editor B because A shares a national, ethnic, or other viewpoint with B, but where A and B have not explicitly coordinated their editing.
Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Involvement by security organs

6.1) There is no convincing evidence that any of the security organs of the Russian state are involved in Wikipedia editing, directly or indirectly; nor that any editors involved in this matter are acting as agents of or receiving instruction from said organs.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

6.2) Several editors have claimed that they are agents of certain Russian security organs. Such claims are disruptive and potentially intimidating to other editors, even when made in jest.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

7) Participation by various editors in Arbitration enforcement discussions related to this matter has at times been unhelpful, tending more towards the continuation and escalation of existing disputes than to useful analysis of the initial request for enforcement. Further, Arbitration enforcement sanctions in this matter have at times been inconsistently or inadequately applied, or inappropriately reversed.

Passed 5 to 0 (with 4 abstentions) at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Alden Jones

8) Alden Jones ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred ( [2], [3], [4], [5]) and used Wikipedia as a battleground ( [6]).

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Alex Bakharev

9) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by Alex Bakharev ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat

11.1) Boodlesthecat ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has treated Wikipedia as a battleground; his actions to that effect have included repeated edit-warring ( [7]) and incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks ( [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]).

Passed 9 to 0 at 00:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

11.2) Boodlesthecat ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has used the Wikipedia email system inappropriately.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

11.3) There is no convincing evidence that Boodlesthecat ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are accounts operated by the same individual.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim

12) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred ( [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]).

Passed 6 to 3 at 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Greg park avenue

13) Greg park avenue ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has treated Wikipedia as a battleground; his actions to that effect have included violations of the BLP policy ( [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]) and incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks ( [32]).

Passed 9 to 0 at 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Halibutt

14) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by Halibutt ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Irpen

15.1) Irpen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly edit-warred ( [33]).

Passed 7 to 2 at 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

15.2) The interaction between Irpen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Piotrus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to be confrontational, despite having been found wanting in the Digwuren case.

Passed 8 to 0 at 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

15.3) There is no definitive evidence that Irpen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is responsible for any off-wiki editing coordination that may have occurred in this case.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Koretek

16) No definitive evidence is available to link Koretek ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with any other account. The Committee notes that Koretek is indefinitely blocked for his actions.

Passed 4 to 0 (with 4 abstentions) at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

M.K

18) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by M.K ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

M0RD00R

19) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by M0RD00R ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz

20) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Martintg

21) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by Martintg ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Molobo

23.1) Molobo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly engaged in edit-warring ( [34]).

Passed 9 to 0 at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

23.2) Molobo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently subject to a voluntary editing restriction, as outlined below:

"Upon conditions, as we agreed. These are

  • That you stick to a limit of one revert per page per week, and that you discuss all reverts you do make on the relevant talk page. If you violate this limit, you may be blocked by any administrator for any time limit up to a week.
  • That you stick to the Digwuren restriction: if you make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, you may be blocked for any time limit up to a week.
  • After four upheld blocks due to violation of this restriction or other issues, the indefinite block I originally placed will be reapplied." [35]
Passed 8 to 0 at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Novickas

24) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by Novickas ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus

25.1) Piotrus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly edit-warred ( [36]).

Passed 8 to 0 at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

25.3) There is no definitive evidence that Piotrus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is responsible for any off-wiki editing coordination that may have occurred in this case.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

25.4) Piotrus's activity on the Polish Wikipedia lies outside the Committee's remit. There is no evidence that anything related to said activity constituted a violation of policy on the English Wikipedia.

Passed 6 to 1 at 00:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

25.5) There is no evidence that Piotrus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is connected with or has edited on behalf of Armia Krajowa or any other organization.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Poeticbent

26) Poeticbent ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has treated Wikipedia as a battleground ( [37]); his actions to that effect have included violations of the BLP policy ( [38]).

Passed 8 to 0 at 00:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Relata_refero

27) Relata_refero ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly edit-warred ( [39]).

Passed 7 to 1 at 00:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Stor stark7

29) Stor stark7 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has treated Wikipedia as a battleground and engaged in otherwise grossly unacceptable commentary ( [40]).

Passed 4 to 1 (with 3 abstentions) at 00:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Tymek

30) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by Tymek ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-admins

31.1) The #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel is open to current English Wikipedia administrators and former administrators in good standing.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

31.2) The #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel was created to facilitate discussion among Wikipedia administrators, with the intent being the creation of a forum where:

(a) administrators could obtain real-time or near-real-time feedback from other administrators
(b) matters requiring privacy or discretion which are unsuited for on-wiki mention could be discussed
(c) a limited set of users would create a forum with a high signal-to-noise ratio
Passed 5 to 0 (with 4 abstentions) at 00:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

31.3) The official relationship between the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel and the Wikipedia community is ambiguous. The Committee does not exercise any direct control over the channel; instead, it is controlled by an internal hierarchy of channel operators (which includes some members of the Committee acting in a private capacity).

Passed 4 to 0 (with 5 abstentions) at 00:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

31.4) Discussions held in the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel have historically been subject to substantial and unpredictable unauthorized disclosure to parties outside the channel. This limits the channel's usefulness for discussion of matters requiring privacy and discretion, as noted in finding 31.2(b).

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

31.6) There have been numerous instances, both reported on-wiki and known to Arbitrators anecdotally, in which administrators or former administrators have made inappropriate comments in the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Although this channel is not part of Wikipedia proper, and at times the attention paid to particular individual comments can be significantly overblown, such comments can nonetheless reflect negatively on the administrators who make them, on administrators as a whole, and on the project. From time to time, the channel operators have led initiatives to improve the tone of discourse in the channel.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

31.7) There have been several instances, both reported on-wiki and known to Arbitrators anecdotally, in which users have approached administrators on IRC (whether or not in #wikipedia-en-admins specifically) for the purpose of urging that another user be blocked, even though no emergency or other circumstances are present that would prevent the issue from being raised in the appropriate manner on-wiki. At times, these requests involve parties with whom a user is engaged in a content or editing dispute, but the user being discussed has no opportunity to respond to the allegation being made. While it is understandable that an aggrieved user would seek the immediacy of IRC contact rather than have to post a concern about another user on a noticeboard that might be backlogged or unattended, these types of requests still raise serious issues of process and fairness.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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.

Alden Jones mentored

1) Should Alden Jones ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) resume editing Wikipedia, he shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.

Passed 9 to 0 at 00:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Alden Jones restricted

1.2) Alden Jones ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat banned

3) Boodlesthecat ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim admonished

4) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.

Passed 6 to 2 at 00:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Greg park avenue banned

5) Greg park avenue ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Irpen restricted

6.1A) Irpen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about Piotrus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.

Passed 8 to 1 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

6.2) Irpen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 6 to 2 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Lokyz admonished

7.1A) Lokyz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Lokyz restricted

7.2) Should Lokyz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus urged

10.1) Piotrus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about Irpen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.

Passed 8 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus cautioned

11.1) Piotrus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent.

Passed 7 to 1 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus admonished

12) Piotrus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.

Passed 8 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Poeticbent mentored

14) Poeticbent ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Relata_refero admonished

15) Relata_refero ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.

Passed 7 to 1 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors reminded

18) Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world disputes, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. Wikipedia cannot solve any of the national, ethnic, historical, or cultural disputes that exists among the nations and peoples of Eastern Europe or any other real-world conflict. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors counseled

19) Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may best devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious. For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Group X and who finds himself or herself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Group X and Group Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Group X.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-admins users reminded

20.3) Administrators who utilize the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel (or other IRC channels in which Wikipedia-related matters are discussed) are reminded that while the #admins channel has legitimate purposes, they should bear in mind whenever using it:

(A) That discussing an issue on IRC necessarily excludes those editors who do not use IRC from the discussion (and excludes almost all non-administrators from the discussion if it takes place in #wikipedia-en-admins), and therefore, such IRC discussion is never the equivalent of on-wiki discussion or dispute resolution;
(B) That the practice of off-wiki "block-shopping" is strongly deprecated, and that except where there is an urgent situation and no reasonable administrator could disagree with an immediate block (e.g., ongoing blatant or pagemove vandalism or ongoing serious BLP violations), the appropriate response for an administrator asked on IRC to block an editor is to refer the requester to the appropriate on-wiki noticeboard; and
(C) That even though the relationship between the "wikipedia" IRC channels and Wikipedia remains ambiguous, any incidents of personal attacks or crass behavior in #wikipedia-en-admins are unwelcome and reflect adversely on all users of the channel.
Passed 4 to 0 (with 5 abstentions) at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement reform

21) Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will open a general request for comments regarding the arbitration enforcement process, particularly where general sanctions are concerned. Having received such comments, the Committee will consider instituting suitable reforms to the enforcement process.

Passed 8 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute resolution reform

22.2) Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will convene a community discussion for the purpose of developing proposed reforms to the content dispute resolution process.

Passed 8 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration guides

23) Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will publish guides to presenting evidence and using the workshop page.

Passed 8 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

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

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

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

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

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

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

Motions post-closure

There are 17 active arbitrators, so 9 votes are a majority. 08:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

1) The case Piotrus 2 is renamed Eastern European disputes and all subpages moved accordingly. Redirects will be left at the former name to prevent breaking internal links.

Passed 12-0 (with one abstention) at 10:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes&oldid=1141883715"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the arbitration request concerning the Eastern European mailing list, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list.
For another arbitration request concerning Eastern Europe-related disputes, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe.

Case Opened on 21:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Case Closed on 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Case Amended by Motion on 10:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at arbitration request and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

Requests for comment

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

When this statement was made, the casename was Piotrus 2

Introduction

Piotrus is not a new topic for ArbCom by any means, and neither is he for me. I hate doing this kind of thing, but there are issues here that cannot be solved by anything except ArbCom intervention. Let me first introduce my involvement. About two years ago I had a few minor run-ins with Piotrus related to Jogaila, but it never really got bad, and since I've pretty much stayed away from eastern European stuff save editing a few uncontroversial medieval history articles. Piotrus and I have had a normal working relationship, agreeing on a lot of principles, and haven't been in much conflict at all. I'm not from eastern Europe and don't have any ethnic-issues that involve me in most of the disputes. Still, I've seen the arbcom cases, all the AN/I threads, ArbCom enforcement threads ... like watching a soap opera. So, although in the periphery of my wikivision, he has nonetheless been in (and out) of it.

Chronic WP:Battle problems
Main page: User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim/Piotrus_2 § WP:BATTLE_post-Arbcom

Summary:

  • Continued edit-warring and battling, in particular edit-warring with and provoking Lithuanian editors
  • Spamming cut-and-paste provocative new articles
  • Disingenuous blockshopping and ArbEnforcement, Piotrus' secret diff-stack on pl.wiki
  • Block for 3rr violation, misrepresentation of "opponents" on IRC, and attempted bullying of blocking admin
Recent meatpuppetry as further illustration
Main page: User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim/Piotrus_2 § Recent_meatpuppetry

Summary:

Sumary of concerns

We can't use WP:AGF as an excuse to ignore wikipedia's problems. There's been thread after thread about this user's behaviour. Behavioral patterns that should be behind us are being sustained and replicated because senior users like Piotrus are guiding newerusing users such as Alden Jones down this path, teaching them it's acceptable and actually encouraging them for their own ends. His behaviour has proved as thoroughly as any wikipedian's behaviour could ever prove that he is committed to conflict, provocation and partizanship. So this arbcom hearing proposal isn't merely about Eastern European edit-warriors, it's about one of them; one who is a singular problem. Most of his regular "enemies" have no other "enemies" but him, something which strangely tends to be ignored. People are entitled to new chances, to have time to adapt to changing peer expectation. But guidelines like WP:BATTLE are not new, and chances have come enough. Though the wikipedian discourse community is fond of stating without believing that adminship is NBD and involves only access to a few bland "mop privileges", that is in reality far from the truth. His admin status confers on him authority and charisma within his own community, and sets a terrible example to the wider community, while at the same time it gives him the gravitas edit-war and battle subject to higher community tolerance. (I say with deep regret, but) It hence needs, in my opinion, to be removed. ArbCom can't control off-wiki activities, but it is not powerless. Of course, if Arbcom sees a better solution that gets somewhere, that would be even better.

Additional notes

Statement by Piotrus

Per clerk's request, refactored for readability. Full version here: User:Piotrus/Piotrus 2, headings linked.

1. Creating battlegrounds?

I don't believe my actions create a battleground (I am civil, willing to discuss and reach a consensus, withdraw and even apologize when I am proven wrong). I do however think that there are editors out there who edit in bad faith and strive to create a battleground on purpose (see point 3).

2. Alden, the meatpuppet

Alden is not my meatpuppet (I have asked him not to revert, but to create useful encyclopedic content), but 1) it appears somebody did ask him to do reverts to "help" me and 2) I resent the slanderous accusations of meatpuppetry.

I do talk to many editors online and offline about Wikipedia. I resent the slanderous accusations that our talks are damaging to Wikipedia. Such slanderous accusations, based on 1% evidence and 99% bad faith, are what's really creating the battleground and damaging our project.

3. The truth behind all of this

I am a very active user (in Top 50 most active Wikipedians on en-wiki) and I edit in some controversial topics. I believe my contributions ( here's an endorsment by Raul654) prove I understand our policies and goals. I have however made enemies, who resent that I write about certain issues and enforce NPOV and similar policies. This has led to a rise of an identifiable group of users who form one or more tag teams, harassing editors, with successful record of wearing them out and making them stop creating/policing certain content and even leaving the project altogether. Due to my high activity (and thus, visibility) I am a common target for those tag teams, and I believe slandering my name by dragging me through yet another ArbCom - none of the past ones have found me guilty of anything - has a goal of wearing me out to the point I'll finally give up and leave the project.

4. A note on evidence

Simply put, to suggest that one has no right to collect evidence for dispute resolution is ridiculous, and a good example of bad faith and battleground creation.

5. Closing words

A simple solution would be to close this ArbCom by reinforcing power of WP:AE, so admins can deal with troublemakers more easily - currently many of them are in fear of tag teams (see statement by Moreschi). If this ArbCom goes through, I hope ArbCom members will not hesitate to issue bans/content and parole restrictions, as well as to declare other users not guilty (so their name will stop being slandered by past accusations, dropped in past ArbComs but brought up again and again by the tag team members).

-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (7/0/0/0)

  • Accept to look at all involved editors and investigate if users are winning content disputes through organized strategies. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Accept. The "Alden Jones" issue particularly bothers me. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Accept to examine the behavior of everyone involved here. Kirill ( prof) 03:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Accept to consider all involved. I'm wary of this becoming an opportunity to salt old wounds, but leaving it alone is unlikely to be any better. -- bainer ( talk) 15:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Accept. Many issues need to be addressed here. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 21:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Accept. The matters are serious and I don't think they can be handled through individual administrators deciding to implement existing general sanctions. Fairness demands a full hearing on all sides. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 22:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Accept per my colleagues' comments. The Clerks will kindly open this case as soon as possible. Given the contentiousness of prior cases and the underlying issues, I urge all participants to make an especial effort to remain civil on the case pages, to focus clearly on the issues under review, and to present concise evidence on the evidence page as well as pragmatic and useful proposals for findings and remedies on the workshop page. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply


Final decision Information

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Conduct of editors

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; 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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary – and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Common sense

4) Not every aspect of Wikipedia activity can be exhaustively prescribed by written policy; experienced editors are expected to have a modicum of common sense and understanding, and to act in a constructive manner even if not explicitly forced to do so.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes

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

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Editorial disputes and "The Wrong Version"

6) Editors—particularly experienced editors—are expected to recognize the onset of an editorial dispute, and to work towards calming it rather than escalating or prolonging it. In particular, once it is clear that a certain revision or passage is disputed, it is unhelpful to revert it to one's preferred version until the dispute is resolved (with certain narrow exceptions). All editors must be willing to allow the article to remain in "The Wrong Version" while dispute resolution is proceeding.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

7) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. This includes accusations concerning off-wiki conduct, such as participation in criminal acts, membership in groups which take part in such acts, or other actions that might reasonably be found morally reprehensible in a civilized society.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

8) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Administrators

9) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Conduct on Arbitration pages

10) The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Endemic conflict

1) Numerous past cases (including Digwuren, Piotrus [1], Occupation of Latvia, and AndriyK) have dealt with conflicts arising from various disputes related to Eastern Europe and the editors working on the affected articles—notably including several of the parties to the present case.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Amnesty

2) On 19 August 2007, as part of the decision in the Piotrus [1] case, a general amnesty was granted to "editors who [had] been involved in disputes in articles related to Eastern Europe, liberally defined".

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

3) All articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted, are currently subject to discretionary sanctions, as outlined in the Digwuren case; these can be imposed by any uninvolved administrator, and include a range of options, from site-wide blocks and page- or topic-bans to revert or other similar restrictions.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Heightened tensions

4) Because of the endemic, long-term conflicts plaguing this topic area, many editors have at times experienced regrettable—but understandable—difficulty with assuming good faith of their counterparts. In such an environment, it is unfortunately possible for certain actions to be regarded as provocative even if the actions are not problematic in and of themselves.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Externally coordinated editing

5) It is almost certain that externally coordinated editing—meaning an off-wiki, premeditated undertaking by several editors to perform certain agreed-upon (whether in specific or general form) edits—has taken place, and continues to take place, on articles within the area of conflict. However, because such external coordination leaves little or no direct evidence, it is generally difficult to distinguish among several possible scenarios:

(a) Editor A edits in support of editor B because A and B have explicitly coordinated their editing.
(b) Editor A edits in support of editor B because A has a personal relationship with B, but where A and B have not explicitly coordinated their editing.
(c) Editor A edits in support of editor B because A shares a national, ethnic, or other viewpoint with B, but where A and B have not explicitly coordinated their editing.
Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Involvement by security organs

6.1) There is no convincing evidence that any of the security organs of the Russian state are involved in Wikipedia editing, directly or indirectly; nor that any editors involved in this matter are acting as agents of or receiving instruction from said organs.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

6.2) Several editors have claimed that they are agents of certain Russian security organs. Such claims are disruptive and potentially intimidating to other editors, even when made in jest.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

7) Participation by various editors in Arbitration enforcement discussions related to this matter has at times been unhelpful, tending more towards the continuation and escalation of existing disputes than to useful analysis of the initial request for enforcement. Further, Arbitration enforcement sanctions in this matter have at times been inconsistently or inadequately applied, or inappropriately reversed.

Passed 5 to 0 (with 4 abstentions) at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Alden Jones

8) Alden Jones ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred ( [2], [3], [4], [5]) and used Wikipedia as a battleground ( [6]).

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Alex Bakharev

9) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by Alex Bakharev ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat

11.1) Boodlesthecat ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has treated Wikipedia as a battleground; his actions to that effect have included repeated edit-warring ( [7]) and incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks ( [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]).

Passed 9 to 0 at 00:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

11.2) Boodlesthecat ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has used the Wikipedia email system inappropriately.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

11.3) There is no convincing evidence that Boodlesthecat ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are accounts operated by the same individual.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim

12) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred ( [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]).

Passed 6 to 3 at 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Greg park avenue

13) Greg park avenue ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has treated Wikipedia as a battleground; his actions to that effect have included violations of the BLP policy ( [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]) and incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks ( [32]).

Passed 9 to 0 at 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Halibutt

14) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by Halibutt ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Irpen

15.1) Irpen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly edit-warred ( [33]).

Passed 7 to 2 at 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

15.2) The interaction between Irpen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Piotrus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to be confrontational, despite having been found wanting in the Digwuren case.

Passed 8 to 0 at 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

15.3) There is no definitive evidence that Irpen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is responsible for any off-wiki editing coordination that may have occurred in this case.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Koretek

16) No definitive evidence is available to link Koretek ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with any other account. The Committee notes that Koretek is indefinitely blocked for his actions.

Passed 4 to 0 (with 4 abstentions) at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

M.K

18) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by M.K ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

M0RD00R

19) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by M0RD00R ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz

20) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Martintg

21) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by Martintg ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Molobo

23.1) Molobo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly engaged in edit-warring ( [34]).

Passed 9 to 0 at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

23.2) Molobo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently subject to a voluntary editing restriction, as outlined below:

"Upon conditions, as we agreed. These are

  • That you stick to a limit of one revert per page per week, and that you discuss all reverts you do make on the relevant talk page. If you violate this limit, you may be blocked by any administrator for any time limit up to a week.
  • That you stick to the Digwuren restriction: if you make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, you may be blocked for any time limit up to a week.
  • After four upheld blocks due to violation of this restriction or other issues, the indefinite block I originally placed will be reapplied." [35]
Passed 8 to 0 at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Novickas

24) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by Novickas ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus

25.1) Piotrus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly edit-warred ( [36]).

Passed 8 to 0 at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

25.3) There is no definitive evidence that Piotrus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is responsible for any off-wiki editing coordination that may have occurred in this case.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

25.4) Piotrus's activity on the Polish Wikipedia lies outside the Committee's remit. There is no evidence that anything related to said activity constituted a violation of policy on the English Wikipedia.

Passed 6 to 1 at 00:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

25.5) There is no evidence that Piotrus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is connected with or has edited on behalf of Armia Krajowa or any other organization.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Poeticbent

26) Poeticbent ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has treated Wikipedia as a battleground ( [37]); his actions to that effect have included violations of the BLP policy ( [38]).

Passed 8 to 0 at 00:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Relata_refero

27) Relata_refero ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly edit-warred ( [39]).

Passed 7 to 1 at 00:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Stor stark7

29) Stor stark7 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has treated Wikipedia as a battleground and engaged in otherwise grossly unacceptable commentary ( [40]).

Passed 4 to 1 (with 3 abstentions) at 00:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Tymek

30) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by Tymek ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-admins

31.1) The #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel is open to current English Wikipedia administrators and former administrators in good standing.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

31.2) The #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel was created to facilitate discussion among Wikipedia administrators, with the intent being the creation of a forum where:

(a) administrators could obtain real-time or near-real-time feedback from other administrators
(b) matters requiring privacy or discretion which are unsuited for on-wiki mention could be discussed
(c) a limited set of users would create a forum with a high signal-to-noise ratio
Passed 5 to 0 (with 4 abstentions) at 00:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

31.3) The official relationship between the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel and the Wikipedia community is ambiguous. The Committee does not exercise any direct control over the channel; instead, it is controlled by an internal hierarchy of channel operators (which includes some members of the Committee acting in a private capacity).

Passed 4 to 0 (with 5 abstentions) at 00:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

31.4) Discussions held in the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel have historically been subject to substantial and unpredictable unauthorized disclosure to parties outside the channel. This limits the channel's usefulness for discussion of matters requiring privacy and discretion, as noted in finding 31.2(b).

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

31.6) There have been numerous instances, both reported on-wiki and known to Arbitrators anecdotally, in which administrators or former administrators have made inappropriate comments in the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Although this channel is not part of Wikipedia proper, and at times the attention paid to particular individual comments can be significantly overblown, such comments can nonetheless reflect negatively on the administrators who make them, on administrators as a whole, and on the project. From time to time, the channel operators have led initiatives to improve the tone of discourse in the channel.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

31.7) There have been several instances, both reported on-wiki and known to Arbitrators anecdotally, in which users have approached administrators on IRC (whether or not in #wikipedia-en-admins specifically) for the purpose of urging that another user be blocked, even though no emergency or other circumstances are present that would prevent the issue from being raised in the appropriate manner on-wiki. At times, these requests involve parties with whom a user is engaged in a content or editing dispute, but the user being discussed has no opportunity to respond to the allegation being made. While it is understandable that an aggrieved user would seek the immediacy of IRC contact rather than have to post a concern about another user on a noticeboard that might be backlogged or unattended, these types of requests still raise serious issues of process and fairness.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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.

Alden Jones mentored

1) Should Alden Jones ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) resume editing Wikipedia, he shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.

Passed 9 to 0 at 00:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Alden Jones restricted

1.2) Alden Jones ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat banned

3) Boodlesthecat ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim admonished

4) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.

Passed 6 to 2 at 00:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Greg park avenue banned

5) Greg park avenue ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Irpen restricted

6.1A) Irpen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about Piotrus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.

Passed 8 to 1 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

6.2) Irpen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 6 to 2 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Lokyz admonished

7.1A) Lokyz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Lokyz restricted

7.2) Should Lokyz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 6 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus urged

10.1) Piotrus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about Irpen ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.

Passed 8 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus cautioned

11.1) Piotrus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent.

Passed 7 to 1 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus admonished

12) Piotrus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.

Passed 8 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Poeticbent mentored

14) Poeticbent ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Relata_refero admonished

15) Relata_refero ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.

Passed 7 to 1 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors reminded

18) Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world disputes, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. Wikipedia cannot solve any of the national, ethnic, historical, or cultural disputes that exists among the nations and peoples of Eastern Europe or any other real-world conflict. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors counseled

19) Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may best devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious. For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Group X and who finds himself or herself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Group X and Group Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Group X.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-admins users reminded

20.3) Administrators who utilize the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel (or other IRC channels in which Wikipedia-related matters are discussed) are reminded that while the #admins channel has legitimate purposes, they should bear in mind whenever using it:

(A) That discussing an issue on IRC necessarily excludes those editors who do not use IRC from the discussion (and excludes almost all non-administrators from the discussion if it takes place in #wikipedia-en-admins), and therefore, such IRC discussion is never the equivalent of on-wiki discussion or dispute resolution;
(B) That the practice of off-wiki "block-shopping" is strongly deprecated, and that except where there is an urgent situation and no reasonable administrator could disagree with an immediate block (e.g., ongoing blatant or pagemove vandalism or ongoing serious BLP violations), the appropriate response for an administrator asked on IRC to block an editor is to refer the requester to the appropriate on-wiki noticeboard; and
(C) That even though the relationship between the "wikipedia" IRC channels and Wikipedia remains ambiguous, any incidents of personal attacks or crass behavior in #wikipedia-en-admins are unwelcome and reflect adversely on all users of the channel.
Passed 4 to 0 (with 5 abstentions) at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement reform

21) Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will open a general request for comments regarding the arbitration enforcement process, particularly where general sanctions are concerned. Having received such comments, the Committee will consider instituting suitable reforms to the enforcement process.

Passed 8 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute resolution reform

22.2) Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will convene a community discussion for the purpose of developing proposed reforms to the content dispute resolution process.

Passed 8 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration guides

23) Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will publish guides to presenting evidence and using the workshop page.

Passed 8 to 0 at 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

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

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

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

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

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

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

Motions post-closure

There are 17 active arbitrators, so 9 votes are a majority. 08:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

1) The case Piotrus 2 is renamed Eastern European disputes and all subpages moved accordingly. Redirects will be left at the former name to prevent breaking internal links.

Passed 12-0 (with one abstention) at 10:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes&oldid=1141883715"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE