Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 18:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

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 it 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.

Contents

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Requests for comment

[edit] Statement by Sceptre

Anonimu is a problem user. I first ran into him during the now infamous "nuclear rowboat" saga on ANI, several months ago. I kept a watch over his contributions to watch out for more examples, and there were plenty. Anonimu has broken as many policies and guidelines as there are arbritators: NPOV, OR, CIVIL, AGF, USER, 3RR. I suggested that he be placed under the general Eastern European restriction, but the incivility he's shown would've got him banned without the restriction. It's time to get an end to this, once and for all. Will (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Biruitorul

I echo Sceptre's sentiments, and it is not my intention to rehash the tedious, draining arguments that for months on end have consumed our time and energy in dealing with Anonimu. Let me just say that Anonimu has clearly and unequivocally violated numerous core Wikipedia policies (most frequently but certainly not limited to NPA, CIV, AGF and POINT). Yes, the complainants here hold rather different political views from his but that is not the crux of the matter: I for one work well with people all over the ideological spectrum, provided they show some modicum of respect and courtesy. That has never been the case with Anonimu, and that is why we are here. All along, he has shown himself a petty, vindictive and dangerous miscreant whose actions threaten the integrity of the project. That is what has pushed our tolerance well past its limits, and why I urge arbitrators to impose a ban. Biruitorul (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Irpen

I would urge the ArbCom to proceed with the case for three reasons. One, unlike in previous cases, Anonimu's dispute is not primarily an ethnic ones; his main antagonists have been fellow Romanians, but certainly not his only ones. Two, this is not, as Irpen seems to imply, primarily a clash of POVs/content differences, but rather a question of severe incivility on Anonimu's part. True, he has avoided the blatantly reckless behaviour of banned User:Vlad fedorov, but he has nevertheless almost single-handedly poisoned the atmosphere where he works by staying just within the bounds of acceptability (or straying beyond them and not being caught); he has managed to game the system so far. Moreover, his antagonists have remained remarkably patient and examples of incivility on our behalf towards him are few and far between. Three, an editing restriction wouldn't help much because almost all of Anonimu's edits are on Eastern Europe, and the great majority consist not in additions of content but in edit-warring and POV-pushing. Given these facts, and given the overwhelming consensus on the RfC page, I urge Arbitrators to give this case a proper hearing. Biruitorul (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by K. Lastochka

Agree with both above statements. Anonimu's behavior is, even ignoring completely any political differences that inflame the issue, completely uncivil and disruptive and obnoxious. For as long as I've known him he spends far more time needling other editors, edit-warring and deliberately provoking arguments and incivility than he does writing anything constructive or useful to the project. There are some editors who contribute prolifically and competently enough that I'm willing to cut them a bit of slack with regards to a bad attitude (tireless mapmaker Panonian comes to mind--where's he been these days btw?) but Anonimu in no way falls into that category. He contributes nothing to the project except headaches and wasted energy on the part of the editors in good standing who have to put up with his beloved pastime of picking fights. K. Lásztocska 05:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by István

I too agree that Anonimu should not edit the Wikipedia. A description of his disruptive behaviour is found at his RfC. Please note that this has nothing to do with POV, but rather the relentless and disruptively incivil assertion of it beyond any standard of reason. Do not be fooled into thinking that this is about content or personality clashes. It's about civility - something the wikipedia is increasingly challenged to maintain as it grows.

In the past we were challenged by bored teenagers writing swear words and blanking pages. Today, we deal more with relentless ideologues (esp. on East/Central European topics) and POV pushers who dont go away because they are convinced they are right and all others (including those who write and publish) are wrong. In the future, when the wikipedia is finally recognized as the "brain of the world" (or something similar) we will have the even more difficult task of removing stealth spam from bored or struggling brand managers; doing so effectively (mark these words) will require a general ethos of civility and a reason-first attitude - one that does not tolerate disruption for its own sake. The alternative is decline (I'm not here to erect the world's largest free billboard - something the universe can do without). Back to point - this is not about Marxism or semantics or content, but disruption. István (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Turgidson

I too agree that Anonimu should not be editing Wikipedia. He is very disruptive, engaging in constant reverts and such, almost never making an effort to actually improve or expand articles. After making numerous attempts at discussing things with Anonimu on talk pages, I've come to the sad conclusion that it's just about impossible to reason with him, or to get him to see that others may have a valid point, or that there is such thing as a consensus against his position among the other editors, or that he should defer to reliable sources when they overwhelmingly contradict his point of view. His tactics are simple: he never budges an inch, he is always on the attack, never seeks compromise or consensus, always ready to spread invective and scorn on people who disagree with him, always ready to impugn the motives of others. To say he lacks civility is the mildest I can put it. It's all very tiring, upsetting, and time consuming, and saps the energies of editors who actually are trying to improve WP, not disrupt it. Turgidson (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by AdrianTM

I will keep it short. The main problems are incivility, personal attacks, and revert warring. The RfC and its talk page are evidence enough for incivility and personal attacks, he uses personal attacks as weapons even when he tries to defend himself of the accusations of incivility and personal attacks. As for revert warring it's detailed here in his RfC. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Irpen

I don't know much about this process and don't know much about Arbitrators and I definitely don't want to lecture them or to push them to do one thing or another, but my hope is that they will listen to this case and follow Wikipedia's policies regarding Civility and Personal Attack (which are set for a reason). Contrary to Irpen I don't think that leaving the situation as it is is going to do any good, on the contrary it will embolden more people to be nastier in the contact with other editors and then claim "well this is Eastern Europe, this is how people behave... everybody is bad, we can be nasty all we want, nothing will happen" -- AdrianTM (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I also feel kind of offended by the idea that Eastern European cases be treated in a different way or by a separate group, if I understand that right, I think a policy should be uniform, equality under the law is a general accepted principle I think. -- AdrianTM (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

[edit] Principles

[edit] Purpose of Wikipedia

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

Passed 8 to 0, 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decorum

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

Passed 8 to 0, 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Passed 8 to 0, 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] Anonimu

2) Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has engaged in a wide variety of inappropriate behavior, including sustained edit-warring, for which he has been blocked numerous times ([1]), and gross incivility, personal attacks, and harassment of fellow editors ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]).

Passed 8 to 0, 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonimu was blocked indefinitely

3) On November 27, 2007, administrator Maxim blocked Anonimu (talk · contribs) indefinitely with a block summary: Personal attacks, persistent BLP vios, edit warring, harassing other users, using the encyclopedia as a battleground ([10]). See discussion on ANI. An unblock request was subsequently posted on 09:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC) ([11]), and declined by User:Nat ([12]).

Passed 8 to 0, 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Anonimu banned

3.2) The Committee confirms that Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia by a community ban and concurrently bans Anonimu for a period of one year. After a period of one year, Anonimu can appeal the ban to the community or the Committee.

Passed 8 to 0, 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Logging of sanctions

1) All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 8 to 0, 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, 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.

  • December 13, 2007, one-year Arbitration Committee ban logged, to run concurrently with the indefinite community ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)