Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
For arbitration requests concerning Eastern Europe, broadly construed, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes.

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: KnightLago (Talk) & Mailer diablo (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Coren (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case opened (by motion) on 00:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Case closed on 17:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Case amended (by motions) on 10:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Case amended (by motions) on 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Case amended (by motion) on 00:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Case amended (by motion) on 20:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Case amended (by motion) on 19:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Case amended (by motion) on 23:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Case amended (by motion) on 16:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Case amended (by motion) on 17:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Case amended (by motion) on 15:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Case amended (by motions) on 00:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Case amended (by motion) on 19:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, or 2) an Arbitration Clerk. As this case was opened by a motion, in itself a deviation from the norm, there were no pre-acceptance statements by either parties or non-parties to the case. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

For this case, the /Workshop page will be used to report redacted summaries of evidence that cannot otherwise be made public, and for inquiries to the participants. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties[edit]

Important note: As with all Arbitration cases, this list of parties is a preliminary one, and does not reflect in any way the composition of the final decision. Parties can be added and removed to this list, both during the case and at the point of the final decision.
To propose adding someone other than yourself as a party to this case, please contact the Arbitration Committee by email (details). To add yourself as a party to the case, please contact the Clerk of the case, KnightLago (talk · contribs). To propose removing either yourself or another person as a party to the case, please contact the Arbitration Committee by email (details).

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Motion to open a case[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is aware from multiple sources of the situation and allegations discussed in this thread on the incidents noticeboard. Although no formal request for arbitration has yet been filed, several editors have called for this situation to be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee, and it is clear that no form of dispute resolution short of arbitration is likely to resolve the dispute.

I move that, on the committee's own motion, an arbitration case be opened in this matter.

Evidence should be presented within one week after opening of the case. For purposes of initial presentation of evidence, the case may include all issues reasonably arising from this situation. At a later date, the Arbitration Committee may further clarify the scope of the case and what issues are comprised within it.

Editors are expected to observe appropriate decorum on the case pages and in any other discussion of this incident.

Editors are instructed to refrain from disclosing on-wiki the name or other identifying information concerning any editor who does not edit under or disclose on-wiki his or her real-world identity. Any evidence that would have the potential effect of making such a disclosure shall not be posted on-wiki, but shall be e-mailed to the Arbitration Committee. The committee will take appropriate steps to ensure that no editor is sanctioned based on private evidence without an appropriate opportunity to respond to such evidence, while also seeking to ensure that editors' identifying information is not unnecessarily disclosed.

All editors, whether or not they are potential parties to the case, are strongly urged to exercise consideration and discretion in dealing both on- and off-wiki with all aspects of this highly sensitive situation. Any behavior that would unnecessarily inflame or widen the dispute should be avoided.

This motion is adopted in the interests of expediting consideration of this matter. Neither this motion nor any other action taken today by the Arbitration Committee reflects any predetermination of the merits of the case.

The 24-hour waiting period before opening a case is waived.

The Clerk will give notice of this motion, when adopted, to all editors mentioned in the thread cited above and post notice on the appropriate noticeboards.

Motion offered by Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion passed 7 to 0 at 00:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC); detailed voting statements and signatures are available at the talk page.

Temporary injunctions[edit]

Distribution of private materials[edit]

3.1) Private materials and personally identifying information related to this case and the editors involved should not be circulated or otherwise passed along without the permission of the authors. This includes, but is not limited to, public posting of links to such information and any attempts at outing. Engaging in such activity will be treated as disruption and harming editor privacy. In cases where participants may need to discuss evidence within the pages of the case, a reference of the format of [20090101-0000] may be acceptable and sufficient. Any evidence containing identifying information or other sensitive information should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Enacted on 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC), 5 to 0 with 1 abstention

Speculative and inflammatory comments[edit]

4) Inflammatory comments and speculative musings about user identities, as well as related postings, cause drama and disruption. Editors are reminded that undue speculation, highly charged assertions, attempts at outing (partial or otherwise), and other similar conduct is unacceptable and will be treated as disruption.

Enacted on 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC), 9 to 0

Final decision[edit]

Principles[edit]

Consensus[edit]

1) Wikipedia relies on consensus as its fundamental editorial process. Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages. "Off-wiki" discussions, such as those taking place on other websites, on web forums or on IRC, are not taken into account when determining consensus.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Participation[edit]

2) The determination of proper consensus is vulnerable to unrepresentative participation from the community. Because of the generally limited number of editors likely to participate in any given discussion, an influx of biased or partisan editors is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus in internal processes[edit]

3) Processes internal to the functioning of the Wikipedia project also rely on consensus. Given the more decisive nature of the discussions, and the greater likelihood of harm, it is important that discussion leading to a decision be as representative as possible. In particular, discussion on the deletion boards, arbitration enforcement, and noticeboards are especially vulnerable to biased or partisan participation.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

4) While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. In particular, messages to fora mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience — especially when not public — are considered canvassing and disrupt the consensus building process by making participation lopsided.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a battleground[edit]

5) Wikipedia is not a battleground. It is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. In particular, making list of "opponents" or coordinating actions in order to drive off or punish perceived "adversaries" goes counter to the necessary collegiate atmosphere required to write an encyclopedia.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Gaming the system[edit]

6) Using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship deliberately is gaming, and a disruptive abuse of process. Activities such as coordinating around policy such as the revert rules, or any other attempt to subvert the spirit of any policy or process in order to further a dispute is disruptive.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry[edit]

7) Requesting that another editor perform an action that, if one would have done it oneself, would have been clearly against policy is meatpuppetry and is a form of gaming the system. While it is possible that more than one editor would have independently chosen to act the same way, attempts to coordinate such behavior is improper on its own as it seeks to subvert the normal consensus building processes.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Presumption of coordination[edit]

8) When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions. Evaluation of consensus in particularly divisive or controversial cases need to carefully weigh the possibility and avoid ascribing too much weight to the number of participants in a discussion — especially when policy enforcement or sanctions are considered.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Off-wiki communication[edit]

9) While discussion of Wikipedia and editing in channels outside of Wikipedia itself (such as IRC, mailing lists, or web forums) is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external channels for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is also improper. That such conversations can be, or are, done in secret makes it more difficult to detect but does not reduce the impropriety of holding them.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Consideration of private communications as evidence (I)[edit]

10.1) The Arbitration Committee is sensitive to the serious concerns created when communications originally meant to be kept private are brought to its attention. Such concerns exist for ethical and privacy reasons, and also for practical ones, such as how to ensure that an alleged communication is authentic, complete, and presented in its full context.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Consideration of private communications as evidence (II)[edit]

10.2) As more persons become parties to a communication, for example, a limited-distribution mailing list, the line between a purely private communication and a semi-public one may become less clear. At the same time, the number of members of a mailing list may make it difficult to determine, at a later time, whether a disclosure of information on the list has been made by a member of the list for an appropriate reason, by a member of the list for an inappropriate reason, or by a third party who has obtained access to the list via unauthorized means.

Passed 7 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Consideration of private communications as evidence (III)[edit]

10.3) The Arbitration Committee generally does not encourage forwarding of private communications to it without, at a minimum, the consent of either the sender or the recipient, and in ordinary circumstances, may choose to disregard such evidence. However, the committee may consider such a communication where there is reason to believe that it relates to a situation seriously endangering the well-being of the project or the community, such as harassment of editors, attempting to drive editors from the project, coordinated manipulation of article content, or misuse of adminship or other advanced permissions.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Consideration of private communications as evidence (IV)[edit]

10.4) Where private communications may need to be considered as evidence in an arbitration matter, appropriate steps must be taken by every person connected with the case to ensure that dissemination of the communications and especially of material whose publication could cause harm, such as personal identifying information, is as limited as possible.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Consideration of private communications as evidence (V)[edit]

10.5) The dilemmas created by presentation of the contents of an off-wiki mailing list to the Arbitration Committee are complex ones that cannot be resolved for all cases through a generic policy pronouncement. There may be circumstances where refusing to consider such evidence could be highly unfair to a party wronged by conduct on the list. We can neither announce that our doors are open to the routine forwarding of intercepted communications, nor declare that we will blind ourselves to evidence even if a threat to the well-being of the wiki or the community is disclosed. In sum, situations like these must be addressed by the committee on a case-by-case basis. We can only hope that in light of the principles set forth in this decision, and the widespread recognition that off-wiki activities such as those addressed in this decision are damaging to the project and its community, future instances in which this dilemma must be faced by ourselves and our successors will be nonexistent or rare.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Off-wiki conduct[edit]

11) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or mailing lists in which Wikipedia or its contributors are discussed, is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct. The factors to be evaluated in deciding whether off-wiki conduct may be sanctioned on-wiki include whether the off-wiki conduct was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Opening of arbitration cases[edit]

12) In virtually all cases, the Arbitration Committee opens a full-fledged arbitration case only where a request for a case is presented on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests and arbitrators vote to open the case after considering comments from interested editors. In extraordinary situations, the Arbitration Committee may vote, by majority vote of the total number of active arbitrators, to open a case on its own motion without awaiting a formal request. This step will be taken only in serious situations where a dispute has come to the committee's attention through other means, it is apparent that no other means of dispute resolution will be sufficient to resolve it, it appears inevitable that a request for arbitration would be presented in the normal course, and the value of obtaining input from a request for arbitration is outweighed by factors such as avoiding delay or unnecessary hostility at the request stage. Instances in which the Arbitration Committee will open a case without a formal on-wiki request will be rare.

Passed 8 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Because of the unusual nature of the evidence in this case, much of the references are in the form [YYYYMMDD-HHMM], corresponding to specific emails in the so-called "Wikipediametrics" mailing list archives.

Mailing list sent to Committee[edit]

1) On or around September 21, 2009, the Arbitration Committee received emails from three distinct editors forwarding a link to what was reported to be an archival copy of a mailing list on which disruption of the encyclopedia was discussed by its members. That link was sent to at least eight editors via the Wikipedia "mail this user" function.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Authenticity of archive[edit]

2) Given the gravity of the allegations, the mailing list archive was examined in depth by members of the Committee. It appears authentic, and covers the period from Jan 2, 2009 to Sept 15, 2009. There are no technical inconsistencies, nor any indication that any part of it has been tampered with. While there is no reliable method to determine that it is complete, no significant gaps are evident over the covered period.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No evidence of computer trespass[edit]

3) The mailing list has been emailed via a user account whose password was freely shared between members of the list. The committee finds that the hypothesis that one of the members of the list willingly mailed their own copies of the emails via that shared account to be the most credible, and has received no evidence that any computer trespass ("hacking") has taken place.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

List membership[edit]

4) The members of the mailing list are Wikipedia editors, all of whom are directly or indirectly involved in the Eastern European topic area. The following Wikipedia users have posted to that list: Alexia Death, Biophys, Biruitorul, Digwuren, Dc76, jacurek, Martintg, Miacek, Molobo, Hillock65, Ostap R, Vecrumba, Piotrus, Tymek, Radeksz, poeticbent, and Sander Säde. No other editor has posted to the mailing list during the period covered by the archive.

Passed 6 to 0 with 3 abstentions at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Improper coordination[edit]

6) Much of the traffic on the list that is material to the case was members coordinating in order to protect each other and their point of view in articles against a perceived "Russian cabal". This included coordinating around the three revert rule, commenting in process along "party lines", supporting each other in disputes even when otherwise uninvolved in them. Tactics organized on the list include baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating.

Certain members of the mailing list have further displayed a battleground mentality, encouraging each other to fight editors perceived as being "opponents" and generally assuming bad faith from editors editing from a Russian or against the prevalent Western European point of view.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

6A) Various members of the mailing list participated in an extensive campaign of canvassing coordinated on the list, concerning deletion debates, requested moves and merge proposals, among other discussions.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus[edit]

List secrecy[edit]

8) Piotrus (talk · contribs) was aware that usage of the list was inappropriate, and made efforts to keep its nature and existence secret from Wikipedia editors.

Passed 5 to 0 with 4 abstentions at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of administrative tools in disputes[edit]

9) Piotrus (talk · contribs) has used his administrative tools in disputes he and other members of the list were involved in in order to affect disputes and in furtherance of their point of view. [20090915-0602][20090915-0610][1]

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruption[edit]

10.1) Piotrus (talk · contribs) has participated in a variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including 'tag team' edit-warring (unknown date quoted in [20090102-1220]: [2], [3], [4], [5]; [20090402-2239]; [20090606-1316]: [6], [7], [8]; [20090825-2011]: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]; [20090826-0252]: [14], [15], [16]), abuse of dispute resolution processes ([20090206-1904]; [20090215-2055]: [17]; [20090606-1316] ff: [18], report; [20090619-0038]; [20090731-0652]) proxying for a blocked user ([20090915-1759]: [19]; [20090607-2005]: [20]) and encouraging and advising list members to circumvent Wikipedia policies ([20090402-2239]; [20090601-1730]; [20090701-0204]).

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Resignation[edit]

10A) On November 6, 2009, while this case was pending, Piotrus advised the Arbitration Committee that he was resigning as an administrator.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

10B) Piotrus participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing:

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren[edit]

Mailing list infrastructure[edit]

11) The mailing list uses infrastructure hosted by Digwuren (talk · contribs), and has most likely been set up by him.

Passed 6 to 0 with 2 abstentions and 1 recused at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruption[edit]

12.1) Digwuren (talk · contribs) has participated in a variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including 'tag team' edit-warring ([20090328-1329]: [21], [22]), abuse of dispute resolution processes ([20090102-2219]; [20090205-1849] ff, [23]), treating Wikipedia as a battleground ([20090215-2039] & [20090216-1322]) and encouraging and advising list members to circumvent Wikipedia policies ([20090209-1035]; [20090619-1112]; [20090703-1737]; [20090731-0918]; [20090816-0919]).

Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention and 1 recused at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

12A) Digwuren participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing:

Passed 6 to 0 with 1 abstention and 1 recused at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Tymek[edit]

Account sharing[edit]

13) Tymek (talk · contribs) has willingly shared the password to his Wikipedia user account, offering its use to other members of the list in contravention of both the user accounts policy and the alternate account policy. [20090708-0445][20090814-0455]

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

13A) Tymek participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing:

Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruption[edit]

13B) Tymek has participated in a variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including abuse of dispute resolution processes ([20090606-1316] ff: [24], report; [20090618-1913]; [20090702-1758] & [20090703-0406]), proxying for a blocked user ([20090624-2155]: [25]) and treating Wikipedia as a battleground ([20090610-2315]: [26]).

Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Martintg[edit]

Disruption[edit]

14.1) Martintg (talk · contribs) has participated in a variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including 'tag team' edit-warring ([20090328-1329]: [27], [28]; [20090818-0407]: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]; [20090915-1810]: [36], [37]), abuse of dispute resolution processes ([20090813-0025]; [20090818-0352]; [20090818-0407]) and treating Wikipedia as a battleground ([20090404-0554]; [20090615-0607]).

Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention and 1 recused at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

14A) Martintg participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing:

Passed 6 to 0 with 1 abstention and 1 recused at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek[edit]

Disruption[edit]

15.1) Jacurek (talk · contribs) has participated in a variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including 'tag team' edit-warring ([20090626-1934] & [20090626-2059]: [38], [39], [40]; [20090825-2011]: [41]), abuse of dispute resolution processes ([20090818-0407]: [42]), proxying for a blocked user ([20090902-1512]: [43]) and encouraging and advising list members to circumvent Wikipedia policies ([20090610-2359]).

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

15A) Jacurek participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing:

Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz[edit]

Disruption[edit]

16.1) Radeksz (talk · contribs) has participated in a variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including 'tag team' edit-warring ([20090606-1316]: [44], [45], [46], [47]; [20090626-1934]: [48], [49], [50]; [20090826-0252]: [51], [52], [53]), abuse of dispute resolution processes ([20090606-1316] ff: [54], report), proxying for a blocked user ([20090905-2159]: [55]) and treating Wikipedia as a battleground ([20090621-2036]).

Passed 6 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

16A) Radeksz participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing:

Passed 6 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Biruitorul[edit]

Canvassing[edit]

18) Biruitorul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing:

Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Dc76[edit]

Canvassing[edit]

19) Dc76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing:

Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Miacek[edit]

Canvassing[edit]

20) Miacek (talk · contribs) participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing:

Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Account sharing[edit]

20A) Miacek offered to share access to several unidentified alternate accounts that he controlled to other members of the list in contravention of both the user accounts policy and the alternate account policy. [20090602-1428]

Passed 4 to 2 with 3 abstentions at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba[edit]

Canvassing[edit]

21) Vecrumba participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing:

Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

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.

Piotrus's adminship[edit]

1.1) Piotrus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), having resigned as administrator while this arbitration case was pending, may seek to regain adminship only by a new request for adminship or by request to the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus banned[edit]

2) Piotrus (talk · contribs) is banned for three months. Any other remedy is to be consecutive to the ban and take effect at its expiration.

Passed 5 to 1 with 2 abstentions at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus topic banned[edit]

3)Piotrus (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban.

Passed 6 to 1 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Modified by motion on 00:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Modified by motion on 17:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Digwuren restricted[edit]

4.1) Digwuren (talk · contribs) is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account, and is banned from editing Wikipedia until he advises the Arbitration Committee of the name of the account that he will use.

Passed 7 to 0 with 1 recused at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren banned[edit]

4.2) Digwuren (talk · contribs) is banned for one year. Any other remedy is to be consecutive to the ban and take effect at its expiration.

Passed 4 to 2 with 2 abstentions and 1 recused at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren topic banned[edit]

5) Digwuren (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 recused at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Martintg topic banned[edit]

7) Martintg (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban.

Passed 6 to 0 with 2 abstentions and 1 recused at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Modified by motion on 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tymek admonished[edit]

8) Tymek (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for having shared his account password. He is directed to keep his account for his own exclusive use, and not to allow any other person to use it under any circumstance.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Tymek topic banned[edit]

8.2) Tymek (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban.

Passed 4 to 3 with 2 abstentions at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek topic banned[edit]

9.1) Jacurek (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for six months. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban.

Passed 7 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz topic banned[edit]

10) Radeksz (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban.

Passed 6 to 1 with 2 abstentions at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Modified by motion on 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Rescinded by motion on 20:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors restricted[edit]

11A) The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.

Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Modified by motion on 00:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Modifed by motion on 19:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Participants admonished[edit]

12) All the participants to the mailing list are strongly admonished against coordinating on-wiki behavior off-wiki and directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public.

Passed 3 to 1 with 4 abstentions at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors reminded[edit]

13) All editors are reminded that the editorial process and dispute resolution must take place on Wikipedia itself, using the article talk pages and project space for this purpose. No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process. Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Dc76 topic banned[edit]

17.1) Dc76 (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban.

Passed 4 to 1 with 2 abstentions at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba topic banned[edit]

18.1) Vecrumba (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban.

Passed 5 to 2 with 1 abstention at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Biruitorul topic banned[edit]

19) Biruitorul (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban.

Passed 5 to 1 with 2 abstentions at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Lifted by motion at 19:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Miacek topic banned[edit]

20)Miacek (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban.

Passed 4 to 2 with 2 abstentions at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Lifted by motion at 23:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions[edit]

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Amendments by motion[edit]

Modified by open motion[edit]

Topic ban narrowed[edit]

1) Topic ban narrowed

The topic ban applied to Radeksz (talk · contribs) is amended. Radeksz may edit the articles listed here solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Radeksz is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.
Passed 9-0 at 10:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


2) Tagging and categorizing of unreferenced Poland-related BLPs allowed

The topic ban applied to Radeksz (talk · contribs) is amended. Radeksz may create a category for unreferenced Polish-related biographies of living persons, tag articles for inclusion in that category, and announce the category's existence at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland.
Passed 9-0 at 10:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Modified by open motion[edit]

Proxy authorization[edit]

Malik Shabazz, Xavexgoem, and Durova are authorized to act as proxies for Piotrus by editing, at his direction, the Lech Wałęsa article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to its nomination for Good Article status.

Passed 8-1 at 10:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Modified by motion[edit]

1) Topic ban narrowed (Radeksz)

The topic ban applied to Radeksz (talk · contribs) is amended. Radeksz may edit articles in Category:Poland related unreferenced BLP as of February 8, 2010, solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Radeksz is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.
Passed 7-0 at 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

2) Topic ban narrowed (Martintg)

The topic ban applied to Martintg (talk · contribs) is amended. Martintg may edit the articles listed here solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Martintg is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.
Passed 7-0 at 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Modified by motion[edit]

The current editing restriction affecting Piotrus (talk · contribs) is to be amended to allow Piotrus to raise issues and discuss improvements to articles otherwise under the ban on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland talk page.

Passed 6-1 at 00:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Modified by open motion[edit]

Remedy 10 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Radeksz topic banned") is rescinded.

Passed 7-0 at 20:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Modified by open motion[edit]

Remedy 17 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Biruitorul topic banned") is lifted.

Passed 6-0 at 19:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Modified by open motion[edit]

Remedy 20 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Miacek topic banned") is lifted.

Passed 8-0 at 23:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Modified by open motion[edit]

Remedy 7 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Martintg topic banned") is replaced with the following:

Martintg (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics, until December 22, 2010 (one year from the closing of the original case).
Passed 9-0 at 16:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Modified by motion[edit]

Remedy 3 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Piotrus topic banned") is replaced with the following:

Piotrus (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics until March 22, 2011 (the date on which the topic ban imposed in the original decision was to expire).
Passed 5-0 at 17:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Modified by motion[edit]

The topic ban placed upon Piotrus (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European mailing list and subsequent motions is lifted, effective immediately. Piotrus is reminded that further disruption related to this case may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee.

Passed 7-1 at 3:46 pm, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Modified by motion[edit]

The remedies of the Eastern European mailing list and Russavia-Biophys cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Miacek.

Passed 10-0 on 00:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Modified by motion[edit]

The interaction ban placed upon User:Nug and User:Russavia in the Eastern European mailing list case is lifted, effective immediately. The users are reminded of the discretionary sanctions authorized for their area of mutual interest.

Passed 9-2 on 19:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list

Leave a Reply