From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

For this case, there are 9 active arbitrators of whom none are recused, so 5 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

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

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

Neutral point of view

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding a subject. If there is controversy regarding the subject, all sides of the controversy should be fairly represented.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 20:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Fred Bauder 01:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. SimonP 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. FloNight 12:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. Charles Matthews 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Reliability of sources

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

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 20:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Fred Bauder 01:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. SimonP 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. FloNight 12:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. Charles Matthews 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Consensus

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

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 20:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Fred Bauder 01:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. SimonP 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. FloNight 12:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. Charles Matthews 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Courtesy

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

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 20:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Fred Bauder 01:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. SimonP 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. FloNight 12:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. Charles Matthews 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Context

1) The areas of Wikipedia that relate to eastern Europe (in particular, but not limited to, the nexus of historical interaction among Russia, Poland, Lithuania, and Germany) have been contentious almost since the project's inception. The variety of disputes on these articles—both content-related and behavioral—has been exacerbated both by long-standing personal enmity between some of the editors working in the area, as well as by the broader historical and cultural circumstances of the region. In the course of these disputes, many of the editors involved have acted in some manner that violates Wikipedia policy; this includes both occasional editors as well as some of the primary producers of content on the topic.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 20:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Fred Bauder 01:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. SimonP 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. FloNight 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 22:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. Charles Matthews 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Disruptive editing by M.K

2) M.K ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) displayed bad faith, engaged in personal attacks and harrassing of other editors involved with Poland-related articles in various discussion spaces ( [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). As for content edits, he showed questionable judgement in relation to neutrality and reliability on Poland-related articles (ex. WP:NPOV#Undue_weight issues with edits like additions of minor facts distorting general articles [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], removal of important facts ( [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]) and for reliability, using unreliable sources related to Vilnija extremist organization and its supporters (like Kazimieras Garšva) - ex. [18], [19], [20], [21]).

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Mostly a content decision; it's not for us to decide which facts are "important" and which aren't. As for the sniping, I'm unconvinced that singling out any particular editor is worthwhile, given its prevalence. Kirill Lokshin 16:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Per Kirill. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. Mostly agree with Kirill, but I do feel the incivility is a problem. It is widespread, but perhaps that simply means we should be less hesitant to chastise other users. - SimonP

Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies

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

Amnesty

1) There is a general amnesty for past behavior for editors in good standing who have been involved in disputes in articles related to Eastern Europe, liberally defined; this amnesty is combined with the expectation that all future editing will conform with Wikipedia policies. Future behavior problems may be addressed by the Arbitration Committee on the motion of any Arbitrator or upon acceptance of a request for inquiry by any user who edits in this area.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 20:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    Fred Bauder 01:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. SimonP 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:


Amnesty, reworded

1.1) There is a general amnesty for most editors who have been involved in disputes in articles related to Eastern Europe, liberally defined; this amnesty is combined with the expectation that all future editing will conform with Wikipedia policies. Future behavior problems may be addressed by the Arbitration Committee on the motion of any Arbitrator or upon acceptance of a request for inquiry by any user who edits in this area.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kirill Lokshin 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. SimonP 13:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Although I'm a little concerned about the precedent this sets. reply
  6. Yes, amnesty but users put on notice that we expect collaborative editing per policy in the future. Please heed the warning that the use of ArbCom for nitpicking or stalling to avoid a consensus forming will be seriously frowned on. Best for editors to work together in a collaborative manner going forward in order to avoid harsh sanctions. FloNight 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Charles Matthews 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Probation and parole

2) All articles which relate to Eastern Europe, liberally defined, are placed on general probation and parole. Any uninvolved administrator may ban any editor from any set of such articles—ranging from a single article to the entire topic area—for any length of time up to one year. Administrators may, at their discretion, apply a revert or civility parole rather than an outright ban; such a parole applies to the same range of articles that the ban would have covered. All bans and paroles are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Sanctions imposed under this remedy may be appealed to the Committee.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 20:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Open to gaming as currently crafted Fred Bauder 12:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Too open, yes. James F. (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. This is too huge a swath of articles. Only a tiny minority of pages relating to Eastern Europe have ever been in any way controversial. SimonP 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:

Probation and parole

2.1) All articles which relate to Eastern Europe, liberally defined, are placed on general probation and parole. Any three uninvolved administrators may ban any editor from any set of such articles—ranging from a single article to the entire topic area up to one year. Any three uninvolved administrators may, at their discretion, apply a revert or civility parole rather than an outright ban; such a parole applies to the same range of articles that the ban would have covered. All bans and paroles are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Sanctions imposed under this remedy may be appealed to the Committee. All proposed sanctions shall be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or such special page as may be designated. Opposition by any administrator, involved or not, to a proposed remedy shall transfer jurisdiction over the matter to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. There are several admins among the parties that would almost certainly oppose remedies involving themselves. Kirill Lokshin 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Per Kirill. James F. (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. SimonP 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:

Probation and parole

2.3) All articles which relate to Eastern Europe, liberally defined, are placed on general probation and parole. Any three uninvolved administrators may ban any editor from any set of such articles—ranging from a single article to the entire topic area—for any length of time up to one year. Any three uninvolved administrators may, at their discretion, apply a revert or civility parole rather than an outright ban; such a parole applies to the same range of articles that the ban would have covered. All bans and paroles are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Sanctions imposed under this remedy may be appealed to the Committee. All proposed sanctions shall be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or such special page as may be designated.

Support:
  1. Second choice. Kirill Lokshin 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. FloNight 18:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 05:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. SimonP 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:

M.K banned

3) M.K is banned for one year from articles and talk pages which concern Eastern Europe.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 05:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Per my comments in FoF #2. Kirill Lokshin 16:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. SimonP 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:

Parties reminded

4) All parties are reminded of the need to edit courteously and cooperatively in the future. Failure to do so will be looked upon harshly by the Committee, and may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions against those editors who continue to act inappropriately.

Support:
  1. Kirill 02:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. SimonP 13:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Fred Bauder 14:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. FloNight 16:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Charles Matthews 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Application of remedies

1) The remedies in this decision apply to the parties to this case and any other editor of articles related to Eastern Europe, liberally defined, who has been notified on their user talk page of this decision. Notifications are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus#Log_of_notifications.2C_blocks_and_bans with a diff of the notification.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 01:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Fred Bauder 01:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. FloNight 18:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Overly broad. - SimonP 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Abstain:

Enforcement by block

2) Users who violate any ban or parole imposed under the remedies of this decision may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus#Log_of_notifications.2C_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 20:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Fred Bauder 01:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. James F. (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. SimonP 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Housekeeping. At present it would not appear that any of the ban or parole remedies will pass. reply
  6. FloNight 18:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Charles Matthews 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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

  • Passing at this time are proposed principles 1-4, proposed finding of fact 1, and proposed remedies 1.1 (amnesty, reworded) and 4 (parties reminded). Because no paroles or bans pass, the proposed enforcement is moot. Newyorkbrad 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Vote

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

  • Support
  1. Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) It looks to me like we're done. Remedy 4 (parties reminded) is close but is not especially critical to the decision. reply
  2. Close. Everything that should pass has. - SimonP 12:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Close. Held open long enough now. Charles Matthews 19:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Close. With the understanding that soon action may be taken against users that do not heed our remedies in this case. FloNight 20:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Close. James F. (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose
What about the article probation remedies? I'm going to look at these proposals. FloNight 12:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Striking now. No vote to close; and no oppose to close vote. FloNight 12:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  1. Major issues remain Fred Bauder 14:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Hold open for a bit, per Flo/Fred. James F. (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Now happy to let proceed. James F. (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus/Proposed_decision&oldid=431109344"