Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Additional statements

[edit] Comment by Moreschi

Eastern Europe is something of a battleground (understatement of the decade), and I'm sure everyone's heartily sick of the sight of this sort of thing (not another case...), but I don't think this can be ducked. Yes, ANI does not equate to dispute resolution, but I think the Arbitration Committee is needed here to sort things out. This has been coming for a while. Moreschi Talk 18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Note to arbitrators: yes, something can be done here. Yes, we already know (I see that the Piotrus case has just closed) that Eastern Europe is all screwball, but in this instance there are some genuinely worrying accusations of atrocious user conduct that deserve investigation. I don't think this can be fully fixed, and perhaps it never will, but at the moment the Committee is better placed to attempt some sort of fix than the wider community. Moreschi Talk 12:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, for heaven's sake, that was a comment on Eastern European Wikipedia articles. Do get a sense of proportion. Also, no legal threats. Attitudes such are yours as doubtless part of the problem. Moreschi Talk 16:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Martintg

This seems like a snowjob. No evidence of any real dispute resolution such as mediation or RFC being attempted by the complainant in the first instance. Do we really want to short circuit this and go straight to Arbitration for what is essentially a content dispute over the interpretation of Soviet history? Martintg 20:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks to Bishonen for resurrecting Petri Krohn's RFC, which btw was deleted due to insufficient prior mediation before bringing case for RFC/U. As an aside, it must be said there was a good faith attempt at mediation by one side during the existance of the RFC/U, thanks to the efforts of DrKiernan, but was subsequently ignored by the other party, as indicated here [1]. However, I don't see how Petri Krohn's RFC could in any way be possibly used as a substitute for an RFC on Digwuren. Irpen wasn't a party in that previous RFC and Petri Krohn is not a party to this current RfA. The kernel of this complaint is the interpretation of Soviet history, in this instance concerning Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, the rest, such as the so called "Tartu based accounts" and groundless accusations of computer intrusion is just fanciful embellishment with no basis in fact. Certainly Digwuren's behaviour is comparably better than Petri Krohn's as documented in his disqualified RFC/U.
  • If Irpen was serious about this he should have taken it to mediation as a first step, therefore I propose this RfA be declined and mediation attempted first. Martintg 22:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Irpen mentions the nebulous "Tartu based accounts" in the title of this RfA and as one of the parties to this RfA. Who are they? It's not clear to me, what has this mysterious group allegedly done to warrant ArbCom intervention? Where is the evidence of mediation, as required by ArbCom when groups are involved. And the accusation of intrusion and hacking an admin's computer, as if a regular editor would know the IP address of an admin, what a complete joke. This RfA is ill considered, malformed and premature, and a waste of time until other dispute resolution methods are exhausted. Martintg 10:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • p.s. Digwuren appears to be presently offline, so I doubt he is even aware of this RfA. Martintg 10:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • In regard to RJ CG's statement in regard to "co-ordinated effort", perhaps he should realise his edits may be against concensus. Estonians ought to have some idea of their own history and be able to form a consensus without having to "co-ordinate". The notion that Estonian editors are somehow massively disrupting and edit warring Estonian related articles and should thus be punished is truly mind boggling. Digwuren was blocked for a week for attempting to expand an article anti-Estonian sentiment, thanks to the "Administrator with balls" FayssalF Since when did blocks become a tool in resolving content disputes? Why wasn't he given the opportunity for mediation for this particular article, rather than a block without warning out of the blue? Martintg 06:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Response to Petri Krohn

"absolutely no contributions", !!! Wow, what an amazingly audacious lie! Digwuren is one of the most competent and balanced editors in Wikipedia, with over 4000 edits [2] to his credit since joining in May. A great contribution by any standard. As for you claims of incivility, it is certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black! Martintg 23:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What I would like this arbitration case to achieve if accepted?

As per Alexia and Sander, continued unsubstantiated accusations of sock puppetry by the so-called "Tartu based accounts" is also uncivil and a slur, plus FayssalF admonished for slurring Digwuren's reputation with unsubstantiated accusations of computer hacking and intrusion [3]. Martintg 20:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Ghirla's statement

Ghirla's anti-Estonia sentiment is very much a reflection of the view many Russophones hold towards eSStonia. It is a rather extreme view that has no place here in Wikipedia. As an aside, Digwuren's one week block which Ipen cites as evidence of bad behaviour was for defending the article anti-Estonian sentiment, against someone who was blanking and turning it into a redirect [4], a redirect that Irpen himself subsequently objected to [5]. Ghirla's idea of a central committee on Eastern Europe-related topics is positively frightening, and I would oppose as it goes against the whole philosophy of Wikipedia. Martintg 21:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question by GRBerry

Would the proposed findings at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Proposed decision be sufficient (if so, reject the case), or is more needed?

[edit] Statement by FayssalF

I have to say that i've spent around 90 minutes to get all the following facts posted as they look below now. That's really a hard and unencyclopaedic task. I'd have rather gone editing. But well, for the benefit of Wikipedia? Hell, yes. There you go...

I have to agree w/ my fellow admin Moreschi in that Arbitration Committee's intervention is needed here to sort things out. Estonia-related articles have witnessed a massive edit warring w/o any attempt from any side to take that seriously and try to go through WP:DR. It has been a ground for multiple accusations from multiple parties.

Well, in brief. I was the admin who blocked Digwuren back on July 2007 as well as a couple of 2 other users which i'd identify as the "other side" in what follows.

Timeline

  • I can't recall the [AN/I thread] which lead to the following but i'll leave that to maybe someone else who can find the link. This is the link which i got from user:Irpen. That's the link and that's the one i referred to. One of the keys to this enigma is there.
  • On July 20, 2007, i've experienced some online intrusion attempts made against my machine (for what i could record, the experience lasted no more than a couple of hours). I've already got a C# userbox posted at my userpage. I am saying this responding to User:Suva's request to know about the IP in question. I am a programmer. I know about hacking but please don't accuse me of hacking anyone. The problem is that User:Suva insists in knowing about the exact location of the IP in question. No, that's IMPOSSIBLE as long as you are not an ADMIN. I've explained to everyone that any admin can contact me to know about this issue. Suva, i am an admin and admins are trusted by the community. Only an admin can get that kind of information. So please, stop insisting. I've already explained that it was not my intention to talk about that but since matters arrived to this point then i considered it is right to talk about it.

I could have easily blocked User:Ptrt indef as it is clear that the account has been created for a single purpose as explained above by User:Irpen. Anyways, this case would make that clear. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Petri Krohn (in reply to GRBerry)

The cases cannot be compared. User:Piotrus is one of Wikipedia's most valuable contributors. User:Digwuren on the other hand had absolutely no contributions to article space when I took up the issue in June. (See: ArbCom or block?) Since then there has been notable improvement in his contributions, but his uncivility and disrespect for WP:NPOV have remained. -- Petri Krohn 23:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by JdeJ

I must agree that Digwuren is a particularly unhelpful contributor. Looking at other comments here, it's obvious that he's defended by some other Estonians as Alexia Death (whom I consider a very good editor) for taking part in conflicts regarding Estonia. For the same reason, it's clear that those who have held the opposite views on some of these matters aren't too fond of him. Personally, I find some articles where I disagree with his opinions and others where I do disagree, but that's beside the point because: regardless of whether I think his opinions are right or wrong, I always find his way to behave out of line. My first contact ever was when he left a message on my talk page, calling me a "crackpot" [6]. The reason he did so was that I had dared to request a source for the claim that Estonians are the oldest people in Europe. After that, I've seen him revert pages he doesn't like with no explanations given, I've seen him call other users vandals for reverting his own edits etc. So the user is a consant POV-pusher who often attacks other users. JdeJ 07:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Digwuren and his woes

In reply to Alexia's statement, I'm not familiar with the user Ghirlas but it's true that I've been surprised by Petri Krohn's actions many times. Looking at the topics in which Digwuren and Petri have both been involved, my sympathies have almost always been with Digwuren as I consider Petri to be engaged with very weird kind of [[7]]. Having said that, it does nothing to defend Digwuren. I can understand him becoming frustrated, but that is no reason for him to start acting in a disruptive and uncivil way himself. There are people you don't like at Wikipedia. If you cannot deal with that without copying their behaviour, Wikipedia might not be the best place. So I understand the frustration he must have felt but I can't see it being very relevant to this discussion. JdeJ 17:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by RJ CG

I would like to bring to community's attention another example of coordinated efforts of group in question [8], see times of edits [9], [10], [11], [12]. Within 3 minutes after one member of the team exhaused his revert limit (and within a minute after I, being an author of a change not to the goup's liking, reverted), another member of the group popped up, failed to identify his changes as a revert in edit history but did not contribute anything BUT a revert. RJ CG 16:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Sander Säde

  • "Behind Tartu University firewall" accusation is ridiculous and can be easily verified by a checkuser. I have never edited Wikipedia from Tartu University - I've even been in Tartu only twice during last year, both times less then three hours and without using a computer. I guess that Martintg (from Australia) is also flying daily to Tartu? Tartu University cache servers are 193.40.5.245 (talk · contribs) and 193.40.5.100 (talk · contribs) (both IP's from DNS queries). Afaik, all Tartu University IP's should start with 193.40.* (hey, I just remembered my old IP from while I was in Uni, 193.40.8.80 (talk · contribs). Sad, isn't it? I can remember an IP I haven't used in years...).
  • As for RJ CG's accusations of "coordinated efforts" - I have my watchlist as a RSS feed in FF live bookmarks, I tend to check it every 15..30 min or so when I am using the computer. Also, some time ago I wrote a script, cleverly named "Estonian articles to watchlist page" that utilizes AJAX to display changes in all WikiProject Estonia articles on top of your watchlist. Said script can be easily changed to support any WikiProject or category. That helps people easily to see changes in WP:E-related articles without a need to add them to watchlist.
For both "Korps! Tartuensis" and "coordinated efforts", I think that next user who accuses us to be sock/meatpuppets or coordinating "attacks" outside en.wikipedia without rock solid evidence must apologize. If he fails to do so, I think that he should be warned by a block.
  • Now, as for hacking accusation, I see no way to verify that it actually happened. Even if it did, there is no way to link it with any Wikipedian - as none of so-called "Korp! Tartuensis" is not an admin and therefore just would not know FayssalF's IP. I recommend that he creates a checkuser case with all of us and the IP. However, note that checkuser admin must do a reverse DNS and actually check what IP's are proxies (major ISP's redirect all traffic through proxy servers) and what are geographically close to each-other. Last checkuser cases involving Estonia were ridiculous, accusing basically all Estonian editors to be sockpuppets. Note, that I am unaware what data do admins doing checkuser queries see - or how knowledgeable they are of networking in general.
  • And finally, to Digwuren. I fully agree with Alexia and Martintg - Digwuren followed the behavioral patterns of users such as Ghirlandajo and Petri Krohn (I could mention few other users, some who have given their statements here as well). There is no forgiving for behavior such as this, for all three of them. But, there seems to be a special "out-of-the-jail card" if you have a lot of edits - and Digwuren does not have yet 20000+ edits. Others do.
However, he always sources his edits, is fully willing to overturn his own edits when new sources contradict them and follows NPOV guideline by trying to give a neutral viewpoint and sources from both "sides". He is also willing to discuss controversial edits in talk pages. All that cannot be said by far most Wikipedia editors. If you follow his edits, then you can see how he gradually became more and more frustrated when other editors (so-called "other side" or "opponents") are making unsourced or one-sided edits - or even insert clear falsehood to the articles.
In many ways it is Digwuren, who revived WikiProject Estonia - although I wish us WP:E editors could have more time to actually contribute, instead of wasting our time to patrol for pro-Soviet/anti-Estonian edits and be involved in cases such as this. Digwuren has contributed to great many articles and if he stops behaving in the same way as those Estophobic users, I see him as a very valuable editor to Wikipedia - in future, perhaps among most valuable contributors. He is relentless in chasing sources and improving articles.
I've said it before, my recommendation is for an admin to warn Digwuren about his edit summaries - and clearly state that he will be blocked unless he stops those. It might be useful, though, if an uninvolved administrator follows all changes in WP:E articles for a while - if not for nothing else, then to actually witness what we have to go through daily.
  • As for the "Statement by non-involved Ghirla" below, I think that is the biggest pile of hypocrisy I've seen on Wikipedia. Far from being "non-involved", he has been the biggest "inspiration" for Digwuren when it comes to incivility. He is accusing (once again, without evidence) of sock/meatpuppets, being a fascist/neo-nazi, tendentious editing ("neo-Nazi flavoured revisionism" - which strangely enough, has been published in scientific journals... Those evil Estonian Nazis must have taken over those as well.). How long will this have to go on until he will be warned for personal attacks and incivility?
Ghirla has one excellent idea, though - committee on Eastern Europe-related topics. I would include Baltics to the scope of that committee as well - apparently Ghirla forgot, that Estonia (and rest of the Baltics) is a part of Northern Europe, not Eastern Europe. Committee on Eastern bloc, perhaps? Committee such as that is badly needed - to check that edits follow valid sources.
What I would like this arbitration case to achieve if accepted?
  1. End for "Korps! Tartuensis" and sockpuppet accusations, unless someone actually manages to find some proof. So far there is none. Any editors continuing such attacks to be blocked.
  2. Rules must apply equally for all. Huge edit count is not an excuse to insult other editors, disrupt Wikipedia or misbehave. Civility is not optional.
  3. An uninvolved administrator (or more then one) to keep an eye on changes in WikiProject Estonia articles. Hopefully that would be enough to stop this smear campaign.
  4. Digwuren to be warned - and if he doesn't change his ways, blocked for a month. Same applies for all other involved editors - warning for any signs of incivility and block if that is continued.

Sander Säde 19:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC) (updated 19:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Statement by probably non-involved Ghirla

The Digwuren case is crystal clear. If there is a troll in the project, he is one. User:Molobo was blocked for a year for less serious revert-warring sprees and boorishness. I have seen no useful edits from Digwuren, except provocations, taunting, and reverts. The leniency of the community to the obnoxious tendentious accounts is appaling. Before Digwuren's appearance in the project, Estonia-related topics were the only quiet haven in the Eastern Europe-related segment of the project. He has effectively turned Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia into a hate group. An attack page against Petri Krohn is a good example of what it's all about. Given the number of vocal meatpuppets, only ArbCom may realistically ban him from the site, for a year at least.

I don't consider myself a party to this case. I'm not interested in Estonia and I don't give a hoot about Estonia-related topics, but I cannot help being alarmed about the way in which the dispute has evolved. A weekly diarrhea of sterile ANI threads is particularly distracting. As soon as I opine in favour of deleting an Estonia-related tendentious page, I have to face harrassment and provocative remarks ("a clearly bad-faith vote", etc) from an indetermine number of Estonian accounts. Briefly put, their strategy is: 1) to make a provocative edit and to wait for my angered reply; 2) to report the perceived "infraction" on the administrators' noticeboard; 3) to repeat the complaint again and again, one after another, so as to make the thread appear as long and beefy as possible. Some of the dormant Estonian accounts instantly resume their activity once they see me cast an Estonia-related vote, prompting me to defend myself on the administrators' noticeboard for hours. I can't spend all of my wikitime debunking allegations of Estonia-based accounts, especially as I have no interest in anything related to Estonia. This relentless campaign of public harassment made me remove all Estonia-related articles from my watchlist.

I infer from this activity that there is simply no way of countering POV-pushing on this scale, involving a dozen accounts, most of them based in the same institution and recruiting friends in real life. You may neutralize a revert warrior or two or three, but not a group of determined users who share the same real-life background and exhibit divergent patterns of behaviour. I really don't think ArbCom may devise a remedy against this sort of disruption. We are thinking of some sort of committee on Eastern Europe-related topics that would include a trusted wikipedian from each nation. Such a committee could take care of mild content arbitration, that is, of determining whether a complaint has some merit before bringing it to the attention of the entire community on WP:ANI, WP:RfAr, or elsewhere. The ArbCom's examination of the proposal is very welcome. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Bishonen

There is no RFC on Digwuren to point the ArbCom to (and it's no wonder people can't face starting one). There is, however, an RFC from June 2007 on User:Petri Krohn, brought and certified (inadequately) by Digwuren, Suva, Alexia Death, and E.J.. This RFC was deleted after 5-6 days, by DrKiernan, for want of good-faith attempts at dispute resolution, but before then it was used for lively discussion of the issues at stake here, especially on the talkpage. As RFCs will, it scrutinized the behavior of both sides, and the accusations of Digwuren et. al. against Petri Krohn throw light on their own practices. Therefore I think it serves quite a bit of the same purpose as an RFC on Digwuren would do. I have temporarily undeleted it so it can be referred to for this purpose. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Statement by Suva

I myself have stopped editing for all. And am trying to talk us out of the situation. Digwuren is one of the few people who still tries to edit and haven't stood back like most others. Don't know if it's good or bad. But I can fully understand him. One thing is sure though, we can't get anywhere with editwarring, neither are any kinds of blocks going to help much, only upset people more. I myself call all the parties for a debate or just chat in IRC or MSN, maybe we could settle our differences in more direct communication, or atleast find better ways to continue. Suva 07:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusations

The main editors, Sander Säde, Digwuren, Alexia Death are all real people and more or less known in estonia IT circles. They are also enough normal people so it is highly unlikely they have any sockpuppets. About meatpuppetry, there seems to be some polarization going on where people align on sides and vote accordingly.

At the same time, if someone says "Police beated peaceful people on streets" most estonians who were on tallinn or viewed the TV live broadcasts would get upset and revert. It doesn't need any meatpuppetry if someone writes blatant lies and people who has seen the truth with his own eyes cares to disagree with him.

Suva 16:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by uninvolved Vassyana

I believe that the Piotrus case is sufficient to set bounds for this dispute. It specifically places the articles in question under probation and grants a general amnesty for most users, with a stringent call for immediate compliance with Wikipedia rules. It empowers sysops to deal with continued edit warring, or other behavioral issues, sharply and decisively. Since the checkuser results have been inconclusive, there is no demonstration of substantive attempts to resolve the dispute and bad faith accusations are abundant, this case should probably be rejected. A possible exception may be if the arbitrators wish to specifically examine the behaviour surrounding this dispute or of particular users, to determine if there should be exceptions in this instance to the general amnesty being offered by the Piotrus decision. Otherwise, this case seems well-covered by the proposed decision for the preexisting case. Just some thoughts. *hands out grains of salt* Vassyana 09:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments of probably involved Alex Bakharev

I want to ask arbitrators to accept the case there are a few reasons why I think it is worth valuable arbitrator's time:

  1. The first reason is personal, User:Erik Jesse alleged that I have improperly used administrative tools in the Estonia-related disputes. Obviously, I want to either clear my name or be desysopped.
  2. The second reason is the allegations by User:FayssalF that Digwuren attempted to hack his computer. I think the allegations are serious and by there natire require some confidentiality. I do not see any other body other than arbcom could either confirm or deny the allegations.
  3. The third reason is Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Digwuren and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DLX. A large group of Estonian editors were identified as identical as far as Check User is concerned. It is the third case in my career as an admin then I was able to unblock editors blocked by the results of a "confirmed" check user case. In the previous two cases the condition of the unblocking was that the suspected multiple accounts never edited the same article again. This case is different many of the suspected accounts are clearily belongs to different people. Still there constantly surface a number of new accounts that jump directly into the Revert wars, XfDs, or AN/I discussions and then disappear. I guess the Checkuser of them will be useless. Still some sanity must be kept. Can we decide that in Estonia-related themes any user with less than say 500 edits is discouraged from reversions and !voting? To be fair lets have the same rule for all participants.
  4. The fourth reason is that many admins fail to persuade Digwuren to label good-faith contributions of the established users as vandalism. In the long run it is very annoying. It might help to have some parole on such edit summaries.
  5. The fifth reason is the usual bunch of the problems that many Easter European edit wars have: stalking User:Petri Krohn, absurd near trollish edits on Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, etc. I think application of the Piotrus remedies might be helpful

Digiwuren seems to be a useful editor, who generates some content. I am strongly against preventing him doing good job. On the other hand he is very disruptive and drains energy from many very productive editors. This disruption should be somehow stopped Alex Bakharev 15:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments of probably involved Grafikm

Digwuren's case is, all political considerations set aside, a clear disruption to a huge sector of Wikipedia. 3RR violations, total NPOV ignorance, personal attacks, trolling, stalking, possible sock/meatpuppetry, you name it, you got it. He's already got a sheet as long as my arm and shows no intention of changing his attitude. Alas, some users support him purely out of ridiculous political reasons and prefer breaking WP rules rather than following them.

Alas as well, it would seem that ANI board and community discussion are not enough anymore to sort such a clear-cut case out. That is why I believe the ArbCom should accept this case. However I must insist that it is infinitely less complicated that Piotrus case, since the Wikipedia rules' violations are so blatant.

Finally, to answer Uninvited's question (even if I'm not Irpen): Digwuren is a classic case of a problematic editor that admins are unwilling, for whatever reasons they might have, to deal with. So the case should IMNSHO be about his behaviour and obviously about puppetry as well. It should also perhaps be about personal attacks made by other users, such as the trolling and offensive statement made in this very case by this Erik Jesse guy. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Termer

In my opinion the case here is a politically motivated attempt to shut off the Tartu University WP accounts in general. My opinion is based on the pattern of political attacks against the articles on WP concerning the Baltic countries, Poland etc. Regarding the case against the accused directly: Even though in my opinion he/she could slow down a little while fighting the viewpoints on WP that in my opinion belong to the Radical nationalism in Russia, I appreciate his/her efforts made by protecting the related articles against the attacks.

  • Suggestions to Digwuren. Please consider not to react accordingly even if provoked. Please consider that in the end of the day, it’s not going to make any difference in the real life out there if the POV of your political opponents is going to dominate an article on WP overnight. So, please just take it easy, every contributor to the related articles is valuable on WP and it would be a great loss if an editor who can spell in Greek [13] and has shown competence in the history of his country could be discredited on the basis of the accusations listed above. Thanks--Termer 09:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I second Termer's advice. The facts can speak for themselves, there is no need to respond to baiting. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Balcer

Accusations that reduce one to being just a member of a rogue group of editors are among the most painful one can encounter in Wikipedia. The claim that some users discussed here are just "Tartu based accounts" is an extremely serious one. It should be throughly investigated, and if found to be false, the editors who made it should be severely reprimanded.

Let me also make another point, one that some might easily miss. Estonia is a relatively small country of only 1,3 million people. As such, it has very few universities (see List of universities in Estonia). By far the largest and most significant is the University of Tartu. So, making a reasonable assumption that university students are particularly prone to editing Wikipedia, it would not be surprising at all, and definitely not sinister, if a significant number of Wikipedians in Estonia were somehow connected to that university. It would then follow that what some are trying to paint as an evil conspiracy of a fringe group based in some obscure institution is in fact a completely natural and entirely innocent phenomenon. Balcer 04:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Statement of probably non-involved Hillock65

I have to admit off the bat that I am not familiar with User:Digwuren or any other Estonian editors and have made only a couple of edits related to the Baltic or Estonian topics. However, I do know very well the other side of this argument and have dealt with many of them, and not only in this WP. I have been here for almost a year, wrote several articles, one of them was featured in DYK but soon had to abandon this community in part because of the atmosphere that had been created here. No, I don't want to name them cartel USSR forever!, as someone did above, but some of them are definitely well organized and are actively pushing their own agenda and what is most disturbing, harass and intimidate whoever stands in their way. And I certainly am familiar with User:Irpen and User:Ghirlandajo, who not only edit in tandem and pounce on their opponents in tandem, but tend to use the same vocabulary: "Sterile edit-warrior, disruptive edit, edit warrior". Mind you, those are standard accusations against editors whom they don't like. That is only if the editors are more or less established, the new editors almost by default are called sock- and meat-puppets irrespective of whether there is proof or not. That Irpen has a clear agenda at Wikipedia, even he doesn't make any bones about it: To start with, very few editors can claim a greater credit for keeping the Ukrainian nationalism out of the wikipedia articles than myself. --User:Irpen 22:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[14]. And he concedes that he finds nothing wrong with it either [15]. Not that it is wrong to fight against a nationalism per se, but one only has to wonder if he claims the same exploits in fighting the Russian nationalism of his friends, to which Polish, Estonian or Ukrainian editors can testify as well. Irpen does not hesitate to mention his mission in this community and moreover he works on it every day. Recently I have been an object of his attacks and constant complaints at the WP:ANI just for trying to step in a content dispute. Him and his friends have assumed virtual ownership of Eastern European articles and don't tolerate any dissent whatsoever. The Kievan Rus' article is the clear example of how all this works. There is no room for WP:BRD when Irpen and his friends are around, his clear message to myself and User:Balcer who was trying to reason with him at talk page was tantamount to asking to submit the changes for his approval at the talk page before he allows it to be published in the articleTalk:Kievan Rus'#Infobox. That was supposed to be the only way to deal with an introduction of an infobox. Mind you, not a substantial change of the story, but an infobox! And his main objections to it were, that modern Ukrainian symbols resemble too much the Rus ones in the infobox (per his mission statement in bold above). It exemplifies the virtual ownership of articles (WP:OWN) that him and his friends have established in WP. So, I am not at all surprised that Estonian or any other editors might have been subjected to the same kind of treatment. I don't envy the ArbCom's task, as the East European topics in opinions of many have become a virtual mine-field. One of the admins, who thankfully only on the second day had enough courage to deal with Irpen's behaviour explained quite clearly that he was not going to get involved in the East Europen/Former Soviet topics. Given the sorry state of affairs there and viciousness with which opponents are harassed, who can blame him? I hope ArbCom can find a solution at least to rein in the pro-Russian zealots, who prevent other users from participating in the project. --Hillock65 12:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Pēters J. Vecrumba

If I have the energy, I will go back to find diffs. This is a typical pattern of attack on Wikipedia. Antagonize Eastern European editors to the point they comment on the pro-(official)Russian viewpoints, aka, Stalinist propaganda living on in the post-Soviet era, for example, all Latvians are Nazis, the Baltics invited the Red Army and were never occupied, ad nauseum. Then attack those editors for making those comments. Frankly, after a review of edits, I quite agree with Digwuren's characterization which Irpen cites as the first piece of "evidence" against him.

We see endless attacks on users and articles. Since the attacks on articles never succeed (since the articles are based on fact), the next behavior is to tar and feather editors who stick in the craw of those who advocate some other position.

Of all the editors on the other side of the fence from me, so to speak, I have the most respect for Irpen because he is consistent in his position and his edits. But I am sorry to see him get on the editor-attack bandwagon. The Cold War had found a new home on Wikipedia. The answer is not to punish those who react to provocation, the answer is to punsh the provocateurs. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • P.S. Thanks for moving to the proper place! —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • P.P.S. My solution is to disallow all arbitrations/mediations/etc. for six months so that all editors on both "sides" of historic "interpretation" of Eastern European events can focus on editing. That includes citing reliable sources, not simply tagging things as POV with no explanation--if you want to tag something, tag specific places with a dated {{fact}} tag. This endless torrent of accusations has to stop. Good, honest, editors with much to contribute have been driven away from editing Eastern European related articles by this sort of activity. And all of those editors have been victims of the camp accusing Eastern Europeans of nationalistic POV-pushing. And why is that? Because they got fed up and disgusted with the POV pushing and slurs that Wikipedia indulges. (Including not admonishing people for comments that the majority of Latvians were all too glad for the opportunity to pick up rifles and kill Jews.) The only way we will return to editing is to enforce a moratorium on these sorts of actions. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Instead, on Irpen's user page there appear two awards from the editor, Grafikm_fr, who made those (majority of Latvians eager to kill Jews) comments. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Response to Ghirlandajo
  • Ghirlandajo fails to mention that Petri Krohn (despite his excellent editing elsewhere) labels as a "Holocaust denier" anyone who paints Soviet WWII activities as less than liberating and glorious. If that is not POV provocation, I don't know what is.
  • There's a much simpler solution as I've suggested, put a moratorium on these actions and give editors 6 months to put facts where their mouths are.
  • And delete content from Eastern European articles which is not related to the article topic, e.g., Bronze Soldier of Tallinn has become a forum for accusing Estonians of being Nazis--which has NOTHING to do with the statue, the movement of the statue, or the direct reactions to the movement of the statue. There are plenty of appropriate articles already to expand on historical background without making each new article a battleground. The contention that Baltic articles are being turned into hate groups--of what, exactly?--is absurd. If anything, it is the reputation of the Baltic and Eastern European nations that is under attack here on Wikipedia.
  • I welcome a debate with any editor based on reputable sources. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Petri Krohn

  • Regarding "Since then there has been notable improvement in his contributions, but his uncivility and disrespect for WP:NPOV have remained." As constant as the day follows night, one can always count on Petri finding a new (Eastern European) article disparaging Soviet glory and accusing everyone of Holocaust denial. If that is not the grossest violation of WP:NPOV, I don't know what is. If Eastern European editors have taken up the mantle of following Petri's contributions to insure they can counter his accusations of "Holocaust denial" in a timely fashion, that's hardly "stalking" as has been described. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Irpen and Petri Krohn

  • Let us not forget this microcosm: derision by Irpen followed by tagging by Petri (and subsequent invocation of Nazism) regarding the Soviet occupation of Romania (from [16])
How could this pearl have been missed? Soviet occupation of Romania by several users. Enjoy! -- Irpen 08:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have labeled this as {{totallydisputed}} -- Petri Krohn 01:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
     
...and Petri's classic comment that if you call liberators occupiers, then you can't be told apart from a Nazi [17]. Exactly what is the basis for tolerating this behavior and allowing these editors to attack others with apparent impunity? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum - Irpen smear campaign

  • I see Irpen has wasted no time in furthering his smear campaign agains Digwuren in gross violation of "Discuss article content, not other editors." See his comment on this talk page, describing an article as "created by a notoriously disruptive user" (Digwuren). Irpen now states his charges as objective verified fact, frankly, masquerading as ArbCom et al.--only someone in a position of authority would denounce an editor as they tag their work. This is not about editing, it is about smearing anyone who stands up to anti-Baltic and anti-Eastern European POV pushing done in the guise of defending neutrality and objectivity against rabid "nationalists." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum - Proposal

Let's see, how much time have we already wasted here? We have all seen the charges and counter-charges before, all from the same people, instigated by editors who believe "Soviet" + "occupation" is judgemental at best, Nazist at worst, or, on the other side, by editors who feel the occupation disputing side should produce some sources or shut up.
   I propose that all editor-related RfAs/RfCs/mediations/et al. involving editors with a proven history of participation/edits in Baltic and Eastern European topics be summarily banned for a year, from "both" sides because this is a monumental waste of time which further polarizes both sides leading to ever uglier confrontations.
   I, for one, have pretty much lost all respect I had for Irpen as an editor--as opposed to coming to understand his position better. The good news is that I still feel this is a loss. The bad news is that after a month or so more of this, I will feel absolutely no sense of loss at all. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Piotrus

I'll keep it short since others (Martintg, Termer, Balcer, Hillock65, Pēters J. Vecrumba), whose views I endorse, already said most of what needed to be said.

Yes, Digwuren lost a temper a few times - and paid the price. His behaviour doesn't seem to be more disrupive then that of many other users; if he has a fault it would be that of concentraiting on discussions, not content; I'd strongly advise him to start building an encyclopdia - this project is not a discussion forum. That said, since my ArbCom decided that such behavior is acceptable, Diwurgen is a saint by comparison in any case...

There is however another aspect of this ArbCom that deserves our attention: the editors whose POVs were challenged by Diwurgen, the same editors who launched this ArbCom and/or are active in building the case against him, trying not only to portray a slightly-problematic editor as a major troll, but apparently arguing - with no serious evidence - that there is either an entire cabal or some nefarious puppetmaster working against them. I wonder in how many ANI threads, DR proceedings and ArbComs certain editors must be mentioned, again and again, until somebody realizes they are one of the routes of our problem? Unfortunatly, considering their activity and knowledge of wikilawyering, I am afraid that the answer is: "in too many".-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In response to The Uninvited Co.'s query

What I would like the arbitration committee to do in this case is examine the evidence presented regarding all editors involved in editing Estonian-Russian related articles, such as Rein Lang (which is what has drawn me to this case). --Deskana (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction

I request clarification of this Remedy. El C applied two blocks [18], [19], and over 24 hours later Thatcher131 places a notice of restriction [20]. Is the action of these two admins against the spirit of this particular remedy in that the notice of restriction should be applied first as a warning to that editor that any further violation may invoke an enforcement block, the intent being that the editor is given fair opportunity and chance to cease that particular behaviour? My concern is that the action of an over zealous admin may have driven a very productive editor away [21]. Martintg (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor note: What did you expect when this botched ArbCom ended? I mean, here we are, with El_C, admin and Che Guevara (Communist) wannabe considered "uninvolved" when the whole issue here is not "Eastern Europe", but the heritage of Communism and Soviet Russian occupation. Not to mention that you have the same definition of the "conflict area" in the recent Anonimu ArbCom. Just take a look who is defending the Communist and Soviet POV-pusher User:Anonimu. It's the "uninvolved" Communist User:El_C and the Russian User:Irpen. Miraculous, isn't it. :) Dpotop (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
In this case the block was issued because of this one single comment on a user's talk page [22], yet there is seemingly no action when grossly more disruptive behaviour is brought to light here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Dr._Dan_inflaming_Eastern_European_topics Martintg (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Action has finally been taken. Martintg (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The intent of the notice (not "warning") clause was to ensure that parties subject to sanctions would be informed of the existence of the general restriction prior to it being applied to them. Editors obviously aware of the restriction—notably, the parties to the case—are not meant to receive additional notifications. Kirill 13:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Kirill, so you are basically saying that the meaning of this remedy is that all and every single editor of EE topics, is already subject to this general restriction? So why is it worded "may be made subject to an editing restriction" if this is the case. So as editors of EE topics, we either all are subject to this editing restriction, or we all may be subject to the editing restriction given the appropriate notice, which is it? Most confusing. Should not every single editor of EE articles be now notified on their talk page that they are all subject to this general editing restriction? This need to be clarified. Martintg (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The remedy says that if someone is uncivil, makes personal attacks, or assumed bad faith, then an administrator may make them the subject of an editing restriction (ie, a block). How is that confusing? Obviously not everyone is currently affected by such a restriction, as not everyone is blocked. Kirill already answered your question regarding notification: those that are unaware should be notified, those that are already aware need not be. --Deskana (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the clarification. So who should start with this notification process, I suspect that there are a lot of regular EE editors who may not be aware of this General Restriction. I suppose this notification should be similar to this User_talk:Sander_Säde#Notice_of_editing_restrictions, which warns "future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking". Martintg (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Deskana, I am still confused by this template {{subst:Digwuren enforcement}}, which you and Kirill must admit is structured as a warning notice, which must be logged in the appropriate place to take effect, according to the text below:

[edit] Notice of editing restrictions

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.


I am not wiki-lawyering here, I just think it is necessary to clarify this mechanism for the benefit of not only us editors at the coal face, but also the admins who have to administer this. Let's have some clarity here to ensure the smooth running of Wikipedia, that is all I ask. Martintg (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, Deskana, not wanting to labour the issue, but there is a distinction between an editing restriction and a block, is there not? You both seem to be implying that that they are the same thing, the block is the editing restriction. But this is at odds with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement_by_block: "Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked", an explicit distinction which Kirill himself drafted. I mean, there are all sorts of general editing restrictions in force, 3RR being one for example. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this suppose to operate thus:

  1. Misbehaviour -> Editing restriction placed via notice on user talk page and logged
  2. Further misbehaviour -> block applied and logged.

I know admins are encouraged to ignore the rules, but we do need clarification here before some over zealous admins begin driving good people off the project for the slightest infraction, as in the case of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Estonia coordinator User:Sander Säde. Martintg (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, you're correct. Keep in mind, though, that the main intent of the notification requirement is not to serve as a warning, per se; but, rather, to make sure that editors unaware of the existence of this remedy would not find themselves blocked without finding out about it beforehand. When the editor in question, having been a party to the actual case, is already well aware of the need to conduct themselves civilly, we're not going to crack down on admins for forgetting some of the paperwork. To be quite honest, anyone involved in the case has no excuse for being uncivil at this point; I think that we made it very clear that the poor behavior seen in this area is not acceptable. Kirill 05:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm not looking to have an admin flogged for forgotten paperwork, just clarification and guidance for the benefit of editors and admins alike, because this does apply to the entire Eastern Europe, broadly defined. It must be noted that User:Sander Säde did subsequently apologise in his block review request.
How ever it appears that in his exuberance User:El_C used this remedy (which is aimed at incivility) for blocking User:Alexia Death for basically revert warring [23]. The revert warring was over this comment [24], and to interpret this as incivility is an asumption of bad faith. In fact this comment is a salute to Ghirla for the tough battles of the past with well wishes for the future. Using this remedy for edit warring is an inappropriate, so therefore I request that User:Alexia Death's logging of her enforcement block and associated notification log be removed from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement_2. Martintg (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you, Kirill, please comment on the fact that logging this block as enforcement block happened at least in my case 2 hours after the fact. Is this appropriate? See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Daniel_Case. If logging blocks is allowed with this much delay it opens up venues for block laundry. I propose that blocks that are made as enforcement blocks must be logged immediately.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This was apparently a case of forgotten "paperwork". Kirill has confirmed that for those who were not a party to the original case 1. Misbehaviour -> Editing restriction placed via notice on user talk page and logged, 2. Further misbehaviour -> block applied and logged. For those who were a party: both applied at the same time. Martintg (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there seems to have been a fair amount of confusion regarding what exactly the remedy was. For future use, I've created Wikipedia:General sanctions to keep track of these wide-area remedies. I'd appreciate it if people could leave links to it where appropriate. Kirill 06:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not talking about the notice. I was part of the case and I acknowledge it to be unnecessary. I talking about logging the block itself and requesting comment on delay in logging it as an enforcement block, witch I personally doubt it was.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:General sanctions sounds like a good idea. I have taken the liberty to add the second Armenia-Azerbaijan case (with some rewording, for consistency) to it. I submit it to your and other members of the Committee's approval. El_C 09:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Good catch, but keeping the actual wording is probably the better approach, to reduce potential confusion. Kirill 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Kirill. Please see my refractored comment here. El_C 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill, one more clarification needed on applicability. This remedy is only applicable to EE topics right? I mean if it happens in areas outside EE, for example, an editor gets into a discussion with an admin on another admin's talk page and they start revert warring over the editor's comment "So these are "Durova-style" rules! LOL. I cant take Wikipedia seriously any more. This is ridiculous!", [25], [26], [27], [28], and rightly or wrongly that admin ends up blocking this editor as a result [29] (I've searched and searched but cannot find this alleged inflammatory comment "you guys could do with little sunshine in your lives"), is it appropriate that this block be logged under this particular remedy? Martintg (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The remedy, as written, is applicable to any editor working on EE topics, but places no limitations on where the actual incivility would need to occur. Given that a large part of the past problem was EE editors sniping at each other on user talk pages, noticeboards, etc. (often on topics unrelated to EE, but merely continuing personal fights that had started on EE matters months or years before), I think it's appropriate that editors subject to this remedy need to watch their behavior generally, not only on article talk pages or when directly engaged in article disputes.
(The comment is made here, incidentally.) Kirill 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
While it is true that the initial statement by Alexia on Ghirla's talk page (do we assume good or bad faith here?) was the trigger, it quickly descended into a personal conflict between Alexia and User:El_C spanning across several user's talk pages. I don't believe that Alexia or User:El_C have had any personal fights in the past related to EE. By no means was User:El_C blocking action uncontroversial as another admin overturned the un-noticed block (forgotten paperwork) as evidenced here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Daniel Case. User:El_C clearly states that the main reason for the block was for this subsequent dispute, not the original triggering event:[30]. Of course the irony here is that User:El_C himself was as much a contributor due to his own combative and inflamatory approach.
In what way inflammatory you may ask? People like us Kirill, who were brought up in comfortable USA or Australia where images of Che may be considered mere t-shirt art, need to be sensitive to the fact that many people suffered under communist rule in Eastern Europe. For example I read that in the Baltic states, almost everyone had some family member who was deported or otherwise repressed. It touched everyone. So when an admin with a "vanity page" consisting of figures associated with communist oppression and terrorism wades into a dispute involving Eastern Europe, not only is this highly provocative, but alarm bells start ringing as to the impartiality of this admin. This was the substance of this dispute that lead to Alexia's block. Would you trust the judgement of an admin with images of Adolf Hitler on their user page wading in and handing out blocks in a dispute regarding the Holocaust? This is same admin who saw no problem with the behaviour of the recently banned Anonimu, uncivilly branding those who brought the complaint as "ethno-nationalist editors", and exhibited continued assumption of bad faith against the unblocking admin in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Daniel Case. Common sense dictates that controversial admins of questionable partiality should not be involved resolution of EE disputes, particular given the extra powers afforded by this remedy.
Anyway, thanks again for your clarifications. Rather than continuing on here, I'll be putting together a case to address this issue of involved admins and will putting it before the Committee in due course for consideration. Cheers. Martintg (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
These uninhibited attacks by this user, who feels it necessary to link to my user page five times in a single five-sentence paragraph, are nothing more than cheap theatrics. Of course, I am far from being a supporter of the Social imperialist Eastern European caricature-communist regimes, and of course I saw a problem with the the behaviour of Anonimu (still, he was ruthlessly attacked, too; just the Bonparate front, tens of socks). I already responded to many of these other distortions elsewhere at length. El_C 14:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I cite: "far from being a supporter of the Social imperialist Eastern European caricature-communist regimes". Hm, the photo of Lenin on your page seems to say something else. In case you don't know, it was him who presided the imperialistic occupation of Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaidjan by the USSR. But imperialism was not his worst deed: He and his buddies created the Cheka and the widespread famine, and the politicide, a.s.o. Dpotop (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
In conclusion, don't pretend to be an honest broker on these subjects. Dpotop (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
In case you don't know. I have long ago ceased to respond to the crude, intentionally-insulting demagoguery of Dpotop. El_C 16:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
My formulation was based on an assumption of good faith from your part. Otherwise, I can't see how you could state on one side that you don't support imperialist communists, and on the other side support Lenin. Dpotop (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I also believe that such accusations of "demagoguery", "combativeness", a.s.o. would have ended in a block for any other Wikipedia users. It's sad to see that some editors (you, for instance) can do whatever they want with impunity. Dpotop (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Above, he calls me he a wannabe, a few days ago he calls me a hypocrite. It's all standard practice for Dpotop. El_C 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion to Dpotop. Why dosen't he make a few edits that are not related to targeting myself or reverting Eastern European articles. It'd go along way toward establishing calm on these two unrelated fronts. El_C 16:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The original question has been asked and answered. In the case of Alexia Death, the formal notice I placed on her talk page was not required as she was a listed party to the case and was informed of the decision at the time it closed. Editors who were not parties to the case should be notified about the editing restrictions before any enforcement action is taken pursuant to those remedies. Are there any points that need additional clarification? Thatcher131 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Nothing that doesn't involve targeting me, I'm sure. El_C 16:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hang on a moment, I just looked at the Case again, and civility restrictions 1 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Alexia_Death_restricted and 10 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Sander_S.C3.A4de_restricted were never adopted, so I don't think El_C was correct in blocking them with enforcement blocks. At most he should have placed the notice of general restriction first. Surely if ArbCom wanted the parties to be blocked without further notice as you suggest Thatcher131, they would have passed those remedies. Martintg (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Lack of ArbCom action does not condone bad behavior nor prevent admins from dealing with bad behavior through the normal means. Since these folks were party to this case, they were well aware of the general restrictions, so there was no need for further notification. The fact that they have been given additional notification subsequently is a courtesy intended to help them comply. - Jehochman Talk 21:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Note JamesF's vote in opposition, "oppose in favor of the general restriction." As the general restriction applies to all parties upon notice, and the closing clerk notified both Alexia [31] and Sander [32], then the notification requirement has been met. I applied the warning template as a formality and because Sander was listed as a party in the case opening, but he clearly was considered a party when the case closed, as noted on the proposed decision page and as demonstrated by Cbrown's notification. Thatcher131 21:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
And FloNight in support of the general restriction said "I prefer this to keep newer users from gaining the upper hand by bashing our established editors over the head with our decision at the time these established users are trying to adjust their conduct to match our remedies." Didn't the thing that FloNight wanted to avoid just happen in this case, Alexia and Sander were bashed over the head without a chance to adjust by being notified first according to remedy 11? Martintg (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, the notices you linked were provided at the conclusion of the case and only mentioned Remedies 2, 5 and 10. There was no mention of Remedy 11 in that notice. I am particularly concerned about the other Involved Parties, User:Erik Jesse, User:3 Löwi and User:Klamber, who were offline long before the case even started, never participated in the case, and continue to be offline to this day, returning some time in the future and being clobbered over the head without a chance to adjust. Martintg (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The general restriction is indeed linked in that notice. Thatcher131 23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed you are correct, I mis-read the notice. However what of FloNight's concern and the issue of the three involved parties I mentioned being potentially bashed over the head without being given a chance to adjust? It's pretty tough on them, isn't it? No finding of fact against them, yet they have this threat of instant block hanging over their heads. Martintg (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
As I read Flo's comment to mean that she does not want new unnamed editors to have the upper hand on older editors named in specific remedies, hence the general remedy. (Although you are welcome to ask her specifically.) Regarding inactive editors, I can only say that I would hope that they read their talk pages (and indeed, they have an obligation to follow up on an Arbitration case naming them that was pending when they last edited), but even so I personally would issue another warning before issuing blocks. And in any case, the initial blocks are meant to be brief, and only escalate on repeated violations. If you wish to specifically exempt these editors you will need Arbcom to vote a motion modifying the decision. Thatcher131 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you would personally issue them with a warning, but other admins may not. As for your stated obligation that they should follow up any ArbCom case pending since their last edit, the fact is they have been off line long long before this case was ever requested, let alone pending. I have no idea why they were even listed as involved parties, apart from their ethnictiy. It would be bit of a nasty surprise if they ever return to find this notice on their talk page related to a case that they never participated in let alone a finding of fact made against them. And yet they have been singled out for no other reason that they happen to live in Estonia and subjected to harser regime than you or me, we get a second chance because we get a notice only after the first infraction, and they get none. Don't you find this disquieting?
So I ask ArbCom to amend the case such that their names are struck from the list of involved parties and thus the notices removed from their talk pages. In fact a motion to this effect Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Motion_to_strike_3_L.C3.B6wi_and_Klamber_from_the_list_of_parties was made during the case and seconded by the clerk User:Cbrown1023 at the time, but may have been overlooked in the general noise of the Workshop page. Martintg (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Requested motions to /Digwuren

I request that the Committee consider the following motions. It is not clear where request for motions in a prior cases ought be placed, so could the clerks move this to the right spot if this is not it. Thanks. Martintg (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: I have moved these requests to the "requests for clarifications" section as probably the best place for them. I agree with Marting that it is not clear from the instructions where a request for relief from a prior decision should be posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Committee will be discussing these motions soon-ish. They have move toward the top of our To-do-list. FloNight (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspension of bans for both User:Digwuren and User:Petri Krohn

It is now obvious, after an initial bit of confusion and subsequent clarification, that the remedy 11 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction will be most effective in combating incivility, which was the core issue of this case. No one was calling for year long bans for either party in the original case, in fact most involved and uninvolved were explicitly against any ban, as Alex Bakharev succinctly argued here and seconded by many others including Geogre and Biophys in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Remedies_are_too_harsh. Note too that Digwuren did make a reflective and conciliatory statement aplogising to those he had wronged and forgiving those who had wronged him Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_Digwuren. Compare this to the recently banned Anonimu, where there was a clear concensus for a ban and he was defiant and un-remorseful to the end.

While a year is a long time, and shortening it may be useful, I'd like to see those users expressing remorse, telling us what they have learned and promising not to continue behavior that led to their ban before any shortening or suspension of a ban is considered.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no point in banning these editors, especially Petri, who unlike Digwuren, even sincerely apologized long before the case and was still punished for his actions taken prior to the apology, unlike Digwuren who continued to create "occupation" badwagons, revert war and bait contributors even while his arbitration was ongoing. Still, as far as Digwuren is concerned, I neither proposed nor supported a year-long ban. I have a very thick skin towards incivility and this aspect of his conduct did not bother me much. But if he is unblocked, he must be on the short leash regarding the number of reverts and coatracking.

Overall, I think that case needs a new hearing in light of how editors see it now in the retrospect and by the hopefully wisened up ArbCom as well. Also, there were several new developments, chiefly, editors using the "editing restrictions" to blockshop and vigorously "investigate" each other. This whole matter needs a fresh look, perhaps by a renewed Arbcom after the election which is almost over.

I would object to selective reversals of the original decision. The case was handled badly in a hands-off-by-ArbCom-type way during the entire precedings. Selective return of Digwuren and doing nothing else would just make matters worse. Rehashing that decision overall may be a good thing and hearing all parties in an orderly way by the arbitrators who actually listned and engage would be a good thing though. --Irpen 19:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think most of the involved parties had findings of fact regarding revert warring. The differentiating aspect for Digwuren and Petri Krohn was using Wikipedia as a battleground. Note that the root cause of this battle was the Bronze soldier controversy, which has now largely resolved itself, the threat for further battling has significantly diminished. Also given that bans are in principle intended to stop further damage to Wikipedia, rather for retribution and punishment for its own sake, and they have already served some months of this ban, I see no reason to continue this ban, particularly since there seems a concensus against a ban in the first place, the parties have shown remorse as I have linked above and the Bronze soldier issues have dissipated. I am not asking for selective reversals, just a suspension. Martintg (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I would support suspension of the ban of Digwuren and Petri. It would make sense to match it with some sort of the revert parole and/or topic bans Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to re-confirm my opinion since it has been mentioned above. Yes, I support the suspension of the ban of Digwuren and Petri since they are highly productive editors. The ban could be replaced by a restriction on the number of reverts per week if necessary.Biophys (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strike User:Erik Jesse, User:3 Löwi and User:Klamber from the Involved parties list

These people were offline long before the case even started, never participated in the case, and continue to be offline to this day. No or little evidence was presented against them and no finding of fact either. In fact they had absolutely no involvement in the issues of this case and were only mentioned because they were included in an earlier checkuser case. Note however it is a finding of fact that Petri Krohn used Wikipedia as a battleground, and the checkuser case against these and other Estonian users was a part of that warfare. We don't want to perpetuate this wrong against these three editors.

Therefore I ask ArbCom to amend the case such that their names are struck from the list of involved parties and thus the notices removed from their talk pages. In fact I made a similar motion to this effect Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Motion_to_strike_3_L.C3.B6wi_and_Klamber_from_the_list_of_parties during the case and it was seconded by the clerk Cbrown1023 at the time. I know it is a minor issue, but it is an important gesture that ArbCom ought to do to further heal the hurts and encourage them to return, particularly User:3 Löwi who has been an editor of good standing since 2005.

[edit] Expand definition of "uninvolved admin" in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction

The principle of involved admins not being permitted to issue blocks is founded on the issue of conflict of interest and that trust should be maintained in the impartiality of the blocking admin. Generally "involved" means personal involvement in the immediate issue or article. However, given that the span of this general restriction covers all of Eastern Europe, and the principle that trust should be maintained in the blocking admin's impartiality, and that political issues (the role of the Soviet Union and communism) is the basis for much of the conflict on Eastern Europe; the definition of "involved" should be expanded for this remedy to include admins with overt and obvious political view points or past significant involvment in content disputes within Eastern Europe

The recent episode concerning blocks issued by El_C illustrates this problem. An admin with a "vanity page" consisting of figures associated with communist oppression and terrorism wades into a dispute involving Eastern Europe, not only is this highly provocative, but alarm bells start ringing as to the impartiality of this admin. Note that this is same admin saw no problem with the behaviour of the recently banned Anonimu, uncivilly branding those who brought the complaint as "ethno-nationalist editors". This fact of questionable impartiality and lack of trust only served to inflame the situation resulting a commited and significant editor and wikiproject coordinator Sander Säde to leave the project.

While one must endeavour to assume good faith, never the less, there would be an issue of trust in the judgement of an admin if, to illustrate with an example, they had a vanity page consisting of images of Osama bin Ladin and Hezbollah on their user page wading in and handing out blocks in a dispute regarding Israeli related topic. Common sense dictates that controversial admins of questionable partiality should not be involved enforcing this remedy.

Good point, but it all boils down to the issue of anonymity. El C at least declares some of his POV on his user page. I, for example, declare quite a few more things. Would you prefer to trust a user who declares nothing? How can we be sure if such declarations are truthful, and not ironic or simply deceptive? Looking back at the Essjay controversy I still think all admins should be required to reveal their identity, education, and POVs... but I am well aware this will not fly. I think "uninvolved admin" should be one that is accepted by the parties; but of course that creates a possibility for the parties to evade judgment by refusing to accept any admin as uninvolved. Perhaps to avoid that but deal with the problem you outlined, we should have a procedure parties can lodge complains about admin's involvement, where this could be reviewed by other admins and if involvement is determined (something like CoI), the admin's action is reverted and warning issued? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that I am one of the most sought-after admins by both the Armenian and Azerbaijani factions. They never cared what is on my user page, they just care that I'm fair, and indeed I have such a record dating back years. Conversely, I've had pro-Palestinian groups or extreme-right Europeans refuse to have me as an uninvolved admin because I am fluent in Hebrew, requests which I always denied. El_C 15:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
In this particluar case, I fear the problem isn't actual conflict of interest so much as perceived lack of impartiality. While people knowing El_C may very well feel quite comfortable that he does not let his political leanings influence his judgment, the fact that they are very visible nonetheless will give the impression that he might be siding with one side of a debate, or "overcompensate" for the other. This does not mean that other editors with less visible politics would do a better job, but giving such ammo for complaints is probably a relatively bad idea. — Coren (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It's important to assume good faith. You are not calling to ban people who exhibit the flag of Israel on their userpage from admin actions on Israeli-Palestinian issue, so why this? Both Azerbaijan and Armenia were former Soviet republics, why are editors there acting differently than editors here? The reason, I think, has more to do with a perceived [33] personal dispute than political (see for example the attempt by the user above to delete Bishzilla (thread)). Anyway, I would gladly delete my user page, but such ruling need to be applied consistently, anticommunism should not be getting a priority because of easy targets. El_C 20:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried to specifically make the point that I didn't feel your impartiality was at issue, and I'm sorry if you understood this differently. My point is that perception is the key here and that leaving the enforcement to another admin would not be so much more trouble. And, personally, yes I would expect someone who displayed an Israeli flag on their userpage to also avoid admin action in Israeli-Palestinian issue — not because I think them unable to act fairly and impartially, but because the appearance of impropriety is a probable source of heat. — Coren (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a trap, but I'll answer. Appearances do count (for example, I never edited the Communism article even once), but this is far from it. What about someone displaying the American flag in relation to articles about 911 or modern Iraq? Some would have me cease enforcing Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute which I have been doing for years, even though both factions seek this, due to abstract appearance of political correctness. It's a red herring (pun intended), anyway; Wikipedia is not a free-for-all.[34] El_C 02:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I support the proposal by Piotrus to have a review procedure for such cases. The reviewrs have to decide if the blocking admin is indeed an impartial side. If there are any doubts about that, the block should be lifted immediately.Biophys (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal against notice to ban for incivility by user Mrg3105

The action was taken under the premise of:
General restriction

11) Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Before the restriction shall come into effect for a particular editor, that editor shall be given an official notice of it with a link to this decision.

I would like to appeal against this action and the finding of my incivility based on the following points:

1. My incivility was never explicitly stated by the administrator who imposed it despite a request to do so. Another administrator (Thatcher) simply suggesting the need for Dispute resolution, without considering that a 'request to move' is a form of dispute resolution.

2. Under some circumstances incivility is justified such as when the Wikipedia user is found to be using methods of argument during a discussion which are easily likened to abuse of logic, lying or propaganda, all of which contradict Wikipedia NPOV policy. The ruling is therefore largely the administrator's POV who may be unaware of the behaviour of the other party.

3. In order for the 'personal attack' to be personal, a person needs to be explicitly named. Since no such person was named in the cited evidence against me, the attack could only have been directed at the line of argument offered by the opposers of the 'proposal to move', which was in part lacking in supporting evidence, and therefore deceptive. In fact the proposition that I directed a personal attack contradicts my personal values that "one talks about ideas and not people"

4. If I am accused of assumptions of bad faith, then I submit that the action of the other party was in fact the precursor of the 'request for move' as a means of remedies in equity due to my inability to assume good faith given the action of renaming the article in the first place, which, without discussion, was tantamount to negation of good faith as per Wikipedia's policy that "Bad faith editing can include deliberate disruption just to prove a point, playing games with policies, and vandalism". In this case the points being attempted to be proven are that: a) the article is focused on places in the event name and not on the historical event itself, and b) that Romanian and European Union naming policy over-rides that of WP:UE, WP:MILMOS#NAME, and WP:ROR, for which I can find no evidence in Wikipedia policy.

5. That in any case, I could not be warned under the Digwuren enforcement as an "editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe" since the article is intended to be an NPOV description of of a military operation by an armed force which at one time could be claimed to have been present in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Pacific Ocean and the Arctic. It is not a topic related to Eastern Europe despite being situated in Eastern Europe in the same way that all discussion of Architecture will inevitably include Eastern Europe. This would require similar enforcements to be enacted every time any editor chose to document operations by the Soviet Army in any of these global regions should anyone fund them controversial, or any topic that might include Eastern Europe, which is a large majority of Wikipedia content.

I look forward to my user name being cleared of these accusations.

Thank you --mrg3105mrg3105 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now what happens to the undiscussed arbitrary renaming of the historically non-extant Battle of Romania into the non-WP:UE, non-WP:MILMOS#NAME, and non-WP:ROR compliant Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive, and the subsequent denial of the RM based on arguments that did not apply to the reasons given for the RM?--mrg3105mrg3105 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification: Digwuren

[edit] Statement by Moreschi

I'm requesting clarification as regards this FoF and this remedy. I've just blocked said user, RJ CG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) for edit-warring yet again. Time for the "summary bans" bit to be enforced? Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 23:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that reminds me: if an arbitrator/checkuser with knowledge of the Estonian sock stable could figure out who on earth 84.50.127.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), also blocked for his part in the edit-war, actually is, this might be helpful. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 23:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Martintg

I see that Kirill is wishing to apply additional remedies from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. What's the scope? I don't think it is necessary in Estonia related articles, there has hardly been any activity, let alone disputes, with only User:RJ CG popping his head in briefly after a long break before being promptly blocked for two weeks for 3RR. As I said previously, Wikiproject Estonia has been chilled to the bone with most of the editors leaving the project, with no significant articles created or expanded, except for football it seems. I suppose if you are going to turn the screws even tighter, how about also adding:

  • The applicable scope: Eastern Europe broadly defined, or just Estonia related articles?
  • The definition of uninvolved admin for enforcement from that case as well Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Uninvolved_administrators
  • Lifting of the ban for Digwuren. Nobody from either side wanted year long bans. Given Digwuren only joined around April 2007, had not been previously subjected any other genuine dispute resolution attempts before being taken to ArbCom (obviously Irpen's opinions carry a lot of weight with ArbCom), this newbie certainly has been bitten hard. We need at least one person from Estonia who can speak the language and willing to contribute meaningfully to articles.

Thanks. Martintg (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Biophys

Unlike Israeli-Palestinian conflict, "Eastern European subjects" are not clearly defined. Does this include every Russia-related topic, like Russia-China relations or Soviet intelligence operations in the United States? If we want to follow the "Israeli-Palestinian" remedy, the "conflict area" should be clearly defined, say "Russian-Polish" or "Russian-Estonian" conflicts. Anything that is not area of conflict (e.g. articles on Russian-Turkish subjects or internal Russian affairs) do not belong there. Could you please clarify which subjects are covered?Biophys (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So, I would highly appreciate any answer. ArbCom members are votiong below, but about what?Biophys (talk)

[edit] Statement by User:Vecrumba

I would like to know better what's being defined as the scope of applicability and what, if any, specific history of warnings is being proposed as moving sanctions to the "next level." My concern is that as the scope is expanded, "uninvolved" will also extend to "uninformed"--there has to be substantial awareness of editors' past histories in order to draw an objective judgement. If you just go by who accuses whom in the latest trail, it's quite possible that all that happens is a blanket conviction of the guilty and the innocent--if you come in on a fight, how do you know who started it? The notion that someone who is attacked is just going to sit and smile and assume good faith is only good for one round of edits; if an editor persists in behavior that is taken as an attack, the attacked editor(s) will respond and should not be held equally to blame for any escalation. —PētersV (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest a code of etiquette. I have debated (civilly) paid propaganda pushers by sticking to sources, so I know it is possible not to escalate into conflict. What has worked is...
  • Always stick to what a source says. This is not as simple as it sounds, I've had to buy $150 sources (not even available at the library) just to prove they were being quoted correctly, literally, but being grossly misrepresented to push a patently false POV.
  • Corollary: Article content should be based on what sources say, not on what editors interpret sources to say. Editors have summarized content coming to different conclusions regarding content in characterizing reputable sources which differ from the authors' own summaries appearing within those self-same materials.
  • Corollary: Use the same terminology in the article as in reputable sources. For example, neither embellish nor dilute words such as "occupied." That "occupy" can be taken to be "accusatory" is irrelevant, if it is what the reputable source uses, that is what the Wikipedia article uses.
  • Discuss any major changes prior to making them, whether additions, modifications, or deletions. If consensus is not reached, the change is not made. If consensus is reached, then changes are implemented. Delete first, discuss later (in the area of articles where there is significant polarization of position or initial "disapprovals" are lodged by historically known antagonists) is looked upon as an act of bad faith, that is, preemptive removal of content without discussion or consensus is viewed as edit warring. —PētersV (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Relata refero

I have recently stumbled across Denial of the Holodomor, which I discovered while cleaning up Historical revisionism, and am startled by the level of hostility and accusations of bad faith that seem to be acceptable in this area, even towards those manifestly uninvolved. I would like some firm statements adjuring editors to read and follow WP:OR and WP:AGF, as well as some sense that adminstrators will be able to evaluate those who are 'involved' accurately, and that there will be some appealing of that judgment. Relata refero (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I assume that the area of "conflict" is all those articles that have as their subjects the history and current status of the relations between Russia and the former states of the USSR/Warsaw Pact. Relata refero (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd mention regarding Denial of the Holodomor that several editors including myself were reprimanded when Gatoclass made some assertions which led to a degenerating spiral we could not escape from. All participants were "put on the list" by Thatcher. I disagreed with Thatcher's conclusion regarding my personal editorial conduct, however, I still prefer that to the alternative.
  You're only coming to the discussion there on what I think is its third round. I completely agree that the general "divide" is along versions of history which echo Sovietism and versions by the countries formerly subjugated under Sovietism. I say "versions" because basic facts are often in dispute, they are not "views" or "POVs" regarding a common set of facts or circumstances. —PētersV (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It must be said that "stumbled across Denial of the Holodomor" consisted of Relata refero initially deleting huge sections of referenced content on February 12th from that article without first discussing the issues or obtaining consensus on the talk page. Not the best way to introduce one self to the other editors of any article, however Relata refero's edit history only goes back to October 11, 2007, so perhaps it was inexperience. Despite this, the other editors have been exceedingly patient and civil with him/her. Martintg (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean?
Yes, the article's one of the worst imaginable, and I acted on WP:BRD. About "exceedingly patient and civil"... wow. What a mess EE articles must be if someone thinks that was "exceedingly patient and civil". Strengthens the case for stringent restrictions, I'd say? Relata refero (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we can continue on the article page. It's only the "worst imaginable" partly because (I believe) you believe it is something in scope which it is not, so perhaps we can keep disparaging Q.E.D. remarks to article talk where editors would expect to find them to comment on them. :-) Was there bolding I missed? PētersV (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
(cross posted with additions) Mass deletion of EE content is most typically (historically) associated with "I don't like it" edit wars, so I would ask editors to be sensitive to that and discuss prior to deletion, not delete as an act of improvement and then (appear to deign to) discuss. Because of past experiences, that sort of editorial conduct is looked upon as not acting in good faith. Generally speaking, EE article etiquette is to discuss major changes, additions, and deletions prior; to never impose what is written elsewhere in Wikipedia as a "model" or "standard" but to stick to sources, etc. —PētersV (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Even unreliable ones...
We shouldn't make excuses for departures from core Wikipedia policies, but look for ways to enforce them. Relata refero (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk notes

  • Closed and archived 14:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC), with no new votes or discussion in 20 days. 14:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrator views and discussion

I have read this but am recusing from commenting due to my involvement in that case. I will ask the others to look over this. --Deskana (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case, comment is probably best given in the first instance by arbitrators who were active when that case was being heard. Deferring to othes to clarify the above. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The "summary bans" bit predates some of the more useful methods we've developed since then; I'd prefer not to funnel everything through a bottleneck by having the Committee do everything itself, but rather to take the standard approach we've used for other conflict areas recently. See my motion below. Kirill 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am recusing myself due to my prior involvement as an administrator. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed motions and voting

For this motion, there are 14 active Arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.

Clerk note Having been left open for voting for 30 days and not being approved by a majority of Arbitrators, the motion is rejected. Thatcher 02:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Motion:

The general restriction in the Digwuren case is replaced with the following:
1) Discretionary sanctions
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.
2) Appeal of discretionary sanctions
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
3) Other provisions
This shall not affect any sanctions already imposed under the old remedies. All sanctions imposed under these provisions are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

  1. I remain convinced that this is the best solution, at least until the working group develops something more useful. Kirill 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. This is more helpful to those who find themselves involved in editing disputes over Eastern Europe, whether as participant or administrator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    Support so as to conform the rules for discretionary sanctions in this area to the ones we have developed in more recent cases, and without prejudice to any steps we might take later based on recommendations of the working group. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Marting reminds me on my talk that some of his points from above have not been addressed. Would urge that the motion be clarified to address them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain: