Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Proposed decision

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

For this case, there are 10 active arbitrators of whom none are recused, so 6 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

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

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Neutral point of view

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

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 20:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Reliability of sources

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

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 20:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Consensus

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

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 20:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Courtesy

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

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 20:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Context

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

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 20:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

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

Amnesty

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

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 20:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Probation and parole

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

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 20:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Application of remedies

1) The remedies in this decision apply to the parties to this case and any other editor of articles related to eastern Europe (in particular, but not limited to, the nexus of historical interaction among Russia, Poland, and Germany) who has been notified on their user talk page of this decision. Notifications to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus#Log_of_notifications.2C_blocks_and_bans with a diff of the notification.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

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

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 20:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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

Vote

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