Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Scope problem.

Why are arbitrators signing up to a decision that has issues raised about in the workshop witch have not been addressed? At least agreeing Arbitrators should leave a note why they are being disregarded...--Alexia Death the Grey 17:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop exists to post comments and to propose solution (and other items), but the final say rests with the arbitrators. Rest assured that they have taken into account what people have commented, but still feel the motion should pass. Cbrown1023 talk 21:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, I would still expect at least a note in workshop or next to their vote why they have disregarded those questions even if just to signify that they have at least seen them.--Alexia Death the Grey 14:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 8

No comment on the rest so far, but I like this remedy very much. It will send a strong message about what isn't tolerated here. But could you please consider extending it to all accusations of national or ethnic groups holding fascist sympathies and all accusations of genocide denial, too? The latter seems appropriate especially in regards to conflicts in the ongoing Armenia-Azerbaijan issue.

Also, would adding an "any three administrators" clause as an alternative to forwarding the issue to the committee be appropriate, or do you consider this sort of sanction to need tighter control on its implementation? Picaroon (t) 23:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second. Enforceable remedies are nice. It's high time to show we enforce our policies.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 07:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit asymmetric?

Kirill's remedies seem to be a bit asymmetric for me. Suva and Irpen have about equal amount of otherwise equal incivility, Irpen gets slap on the hand, Suva one year block. Alexia Death has no blocks (one block by Alex Bakharev was an obvious error that was immediately overturned) and her incivilities are minor. RJ CG has five blocks for edit warring (he is blocked at the moment as well) numerous cases of personal attacks, incivility and edit warring - not to mention, almost only activity of that user is to insert POV information to Estonia-related articles - and yet his remedy is same as Alexias. If I err here then never mind, just paranoia born out of constant harassment. -- Sander Säde 01:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is slightly incorrect to discuss a ban of user without notifying him and giving him a chance to say a word in defence. I mean Petri Krohn.--Dojarca 01:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He has been notified of the case.[1][2] Cbrown1023 talk 01:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies tend to be structured around behavior rather than previous blocks; if you're doing X, and we want to stop you from doing X, we'll have a remedy that prohibits you from X regardless of whether you've been blocked for X before.

(For what it's worth, principles #1 and #5 sum up my own feelings on the case fairly succinctly.) Kirill 02:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, good to get my hands on the knowledge. Get one year ban for one deleted template? Both of these templates were created in good faith. Although the wording might have been not the best. Not because I wanted to offend anyone but because I am having trouble of finding the neutral ground lately. The message to Petris page was asking why he acted like he did on estonian related articles. Right now I have no problems with him, the latest event of Moderated Nuclear Explosion was just coincidence. As of Ghirlas ban, I was already blocked for it and I have apologized repeatedly.

So I don't understand how exactly I have deserved one year ban. Suva Чего? 05:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that restrictions may be better than ban, but I trust the ArbCom has more experience then I. I would however enquire why a user who has been subject to significant evidence presented - Ghirlandajo - is excused from the remedies? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 07:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How curious, why is that you and not somebody else mentionning Ghirla? Coincidence, perhaps, but I don't think so... <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there should be a remedy for Martintg as well. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies

While no one has proposed bans as a remedy in the workshop, and ofcourse this is entirely up to the arbitrators to decide, and no doubt will undergo many revisions, having Estonian editors carry the greater burden of the penalties in a case where the locus is Estonian history, may do more harm to Wikipedia than good. A better remedy, if bans are required, could be to ban certain editors like Petri Krohn from editing Estonia related articles, for example, rather than a blanket one year ban. Given the tiny demographic of university educated english speaking Estonians, it would be a great loss to Wikipedia if Digwuren and Suva were banned from Wikipedia, and thus editing Estonia related articles for which they have already made great contributions, such as fascinating articles on Estophilia and Estonian National Awakening, or articles related to the Soviet Union with interesting well sourced articles such as Soviet historiography. Martintg 06:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, which is why I'd suggest editing restrictions instead. Although a topical ban on Soviet Union subjects for certain editors may be worth considering, too.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 07:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies are too harsh

Guys, the proposed remedies are too harsh, they involve many very productive editors, there long bans should be the weapons of the last resort:

I have been in a number of conflicts with Digwuren and I find many of his edits to be quite disruptive. On the other hand, he certainly is very enthusiastic editor who creates significant non-controversial content. Taking into the account the particular situation around the network configuration in Tartu as found by the checkuser the only way to enforce the bans is to ban all the new accounts from Tartu that show vaguely pro-Estonian government POV. It would certainly generate a lot of collateral damage. Can we instead put him on a sort of disruption parole, there any uninvolved admin (that is basically any admin but me) could block him for up to a week for any editing appearing disruptive? We could add 1RR restriction or something. I think we can find a way for him to make productive editing while limiting the disruption and soapboxing.
The same goes for Suva
Petri's main area of interests lays outside the Estonian-Soviet-Russian relations, while all the problems found lay inside. Petri also a very productive editor who generate a lot of good content. He also voluntarily stays off the Estonia-related themes for weeks. At the most banning him from Estonia-related articles would solve the problem. It would actually be a pity as he is one of a few of editors independent from the pro Estonian government POV, who is able to check Estonian-language sources. Maybe we can only restrict his editing as per Alexia Death?
The conflict between Piotrus and Irpen (or widely between "Russian and Ukrainian mafia" and "Polish Cabal") lays outside the topic of this case. Irpen's main interest is Ukrainian history, Piorus's one is Polish history. As both topics are tightly intersected the editors are bound to communicate with each other. Stopping their communication would hinder the development of many articles.
Finally I agree with R8, but can it also include accusations of supporting Stalinism? It can also be quite offensive

Alex Bakharev 07:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]