Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 19:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 19:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Involved parties[edit]

Requests for comment[edit]

Statement by M.K[edit]

Piotrus contributing to Wikipedia for several years, sadly his valuable edits are marked and with history of inadmissible actions, starting from misused of administrator tools [1][2] ending with mocking from contributors [3] and trolling [4][5]. Preserving time I will keep to the minimal. His actions still are the major problem to contributors, who have dealing with related articles, some examples:

  • [6] removal referenced information, which not suits his POV with edit summary “rv inappopriate tag and preposterous claim”
  • [7] reverting with edit summary “you are joking? please stop restoring Soviet propaganda”
  • [8] removes referenced terminology which not suits his POV, important to note he personally expanded his part some time ago, but did not classified it as POV back then [9]
  • [10] removal of info continues [11]
  • [12] referenced information removed again…
  • [13] same: referenced info removed…
  • [14] again removal referenced information with edit summary “npov”, worth noting that with referenced info, which was lastly removed due to “nopv”, Piotrus moved it several times without removing it completely [15], [16] (quite strange arguments – “lead should summarize the lead” as well as “it fits there better”)

And of course such selective removal of information promotes revert wars [17][18][19] and these are only few examples. And different contributors noted and stated many times that such behavior is inappropriate [20][21][22][23] . For violating reverting policies he was blocked [24]. Administrator Piotrus also, in my view, violated WP:LIVING. He began to inserting badly attributed sources to living person article claiming that presented source is an embassy web page [25] while it was just some sort tourist-information center [26]. Seeing such poor handling of sources I found more inaccuracies and misuse of sources in related article [27], and I asked for check quotation and references [28], but was reverted and suggested that WP:Living is not applied in other articles which relates with living persons [29] , in contrary to the policy and leaving Wikipedia vulnerable. Worth noting that after few minutes he began to finding serious flaws himself [30]. (also worth noting with which intentions article was created too [31] please observe edit summary). Nevertheless misuse of sources were present and much later [32] . It should be stress that Piotrus continued to mock from person in question too [33]. Once again violating the policy. Even the neutral mediator warned that there is a problems with related articles [34][35]and even warned not to remove NOPV version [36] but in vain [37]. Only active and systematical actions from mediator made progress to these articles, but problems still present. Another problem of Piotrus that he mocked from contributors in different cases, starting from name-callings in his native language [38] , stalked users [39],[40] other examples [41],[42], [43] etc. It should be noted that problems with Piotrus behavior has many contributors – Germans, Lithuanians, Russians etc, starting from quite newly contributors [44][45][46] and ending with established ones [47]. But the most disgusting event to place then another contributor [48] started labeling 1991 events as annexation. Instead to prohibiting such actions Piotrus launched shameful comment [49] directly towards me and the state. And yes I regard this and this as tragedy of Lithuanian people in 1991. My attempts to communicate and resolve the problems usually ended with threats [50]. So I ask ArbCom to accept this case for scrutinizing such systematical Piotrus misconducts.

Statement by Piotrus[edit]

M.K.'s accusations are groundless and certainly not motivated by any "good faith" (in two words - caveat lector). It is my belief that ArbCom should discard this case and warn M.K. that such disruptive attempts to slander his opponents will not be tolerated, per Wikipedia:Harassment and related guidelines; or if the case is accepted, behaviour of both parties should be scrutinized. Below is my reasoning for such a strong-worded reply.

This is not the first time that user has attempted to portray me as 'evil incarnate' following the same modus operandi: 1) take a few controversial edits (we all make mistakes, especially in a space of ~3.5 years...) 2) ignore that most of those controversial edits were discussed by community and dismissed or supported (in a few cases I apologized for certain actions and never repeated them, which doesn't prevent M.K. from bringing them up again and again) 3) spice them up with ten times as many innocent edits with extreme bad faith interpretation to 4) create an illusion of serious pattern of wrongdoings, and 5) clamor for attention of other editors with presumed goal of misleading neutral editors into condemning me. His claims - although seen by many (RfC, etc.) have never been supported by neutral editors (all support he ever gets is from users representing his content POV and/or having a grudge against me from other content disputes). The best example is his comment at my RfC; despite his comments being posted at the very beginning of the RfC, they were supported by only two people out of 40 who commented (both of which with a grudge against me ([51], [52])). Another example is his attempt to get me for 3RR (3RR report with consensus for no action, followed by a complain at AN that was ignored by the community...).

Second, his "attempts to resolve dispute" can be hardly considered that (the only two real attempts to resolve the disputes involving me and M.K were IMHO the informal Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution which yielded no consensus and my RfC in which 5% of users supported M.K. claims; other links concern local content disputes or don't involve M.K.). Other than agreeing with the claim that I am a vandalizing troll and withdrawing from this project I can hardly resolve this in a manner acceptable to him. Consider that most of his 'attempts to resolve the dispute' by posting on my talk page are basically personal attacks, accusing me of wrongdoing and unsupported by evidence. Here he is stating that I "have been warned by different contributors and mediators [not to remove tags]" - note no diff provided (I have never been warned on that by a neutral editor, and certainly no mediator or other DR official). Here he accuses me of bad faith, using socks/canvassing, censorship and such; claims are of course not supported by neutral editors and backed with misinterpreted innocent edits. The post is not even directed at me - only at other editors, to inform them (on my talk page...) of how 'evil' I am. This MedCabal case is another example: opened by one of M.K.'s friends in a content dispute, it was closed immediately by the mediator with the comment "You need to assume good faith and participate in the discussion". ArbCom case he mentions is an even better example of twisting all facts: see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla for details, but briefly: most comments by observers supported my statements, and case was dismissed because of other party's withdrawal (note that the solution discussed was a civility parole on the other party, not me). How can anybody call this slander by a user with growing block log a 'dispute resolution attempt' is beyond me - unless, of course, it is cited here solely to draw readers attention that somebody accused me of 'falsification, trolling, vandalism' and such. The other links of the 'dispute resolution attempts' - content disputes on article's talk pages, peppered with personal attacks on my person and other users - are hardly acceptable 'dispute resolution attempts'.

His arguments about my wrongdoings can be taken apart in the same way as above. They either link to innocent edits portrayed by M.K. as wrongdoings, or edits that have been discussed by the community and consensus reached I was right (most of them are discussed at my RfC in detail). Let me draw attention to how he presents those issues with few examples: even through consensus has been reached on my RfC (as well as in a MedCabal case) that I have never misused my admin tools, he repeats this claim presenting the same evidence as was shown and discarded previously. In most cases M.K. is also interpreting my actions in bad faith. His claims that I was criticized by a 'neutral mediator' at Kazimieras Garšva and Vilnija is a gross misrepresentation of the case, in which mediator criticized the behavior of both parties (involving more than just two users), not mine specifically, and which ended in a compromise which only M.K. occasionally disputes (ask User:DGG for details). Virtually all content disputes mentioned ended in a consensus I find acceptable - but he doesn't - something that may explain reason behind this RfArb. His repeated claims that my actions were criticized by many fails when we note that this critique is carried out by the same small group of editors, whose arguments have never held up to public scrutiny (re: my RfC, MedCabs or ArbCom examples again). His claims of me promoting revert wars are amusing when we consider that articles he mentions (ex. [53]) are often FA-class articles written by me where I am merely ensuring POV remains neutral as it has been judged by the community during FAC process. His claim that I was blocked for repeated revert wars should be contrasted with the fact that the only time I was blocked was because of a controversial report by a single-purpose sock that I thought was purely vandalizing, a conclusion that was reached by many (ex. this discussion). All of his other claims can be denied in the same way; forgive me but I don't have hours to take comment on every innocent link he tries to portray as an abuse, although I will be happy to do so if an ArbCom member contacts me for clarification for any particular example.

Lastly, I will just comment on the strange selection of users M.K. have chosen to contact with information of this ArbCom: with few exceptions they are users who are often involved in various content disputes with me, and who are likely to present their individual grudges in support of M.K. claims (be on a lookout for many content disputes brought up, not policy violations...). I strongly urge neutral editors to consider what angle such editors may have in commenting here.

Concluding: M.K.'s "evidence" against me is primarily bad faith interpretation of non-controversial edits or repeated claims on issues discussed and closed by the community. His claims were most tellingly reviewed and discarded in my RfC. His behavior towards me violates several WP:CIV/WP:NPA policies, primarily Wikipedia:Harassment: nitpicking good-faith edits, repeated personal attacks (false and bad-faithed claims of my wrongdoing), user space harassment. I'd particularly ask arbcom members to look at parallels with The Recycling Troll case, and consider how M.K.'s behavior, repeating groundless claims against my person - on various discussion pages, talk pages, and in wikipedia namespace - resembles that of the TRT, who was harassing RickK in a similar manner.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Novickas[edit]

Having earlier filed an arb against Piotrus [54], I support this investigation. That case was based on ethical research issues. Just two more recent problems out of many: he removed a reference from the Žirmūnai article on the grounds that the source was POV [55] - a misstatement of WP policy; the use of the phrase "evil incarnate" in his statement above is inflammatory. The limited number of editors working in this region, and his frequent use of Polish-language references, means that his work is not as thoroughly reviewed as other English Wikipedia articles are. The LT editors must then exercise a disproportionate amount of oversight. More scrutiny from the wider WP community is needed. Novickas 12:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I disagree with the description of this case as a collection of content disputes. It's about ethical conduct.

  • His removal of referenced material that discusses Polish anti-Semitism really needs to be addressed. In this case [56] the reference he removed referred to the book Vilna, by Israel Cohen, which has been reviewed, referenced, or cited by the Holocaust History Project [57], the University of Washington [58], the journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs [59], Oxford Journals [60], the English Historical Review [61], and by other journals and publications. In this case [62], the material he removed was from the Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania, a state institution. [63].
  • Supporting a page move (name change) by citing Google hits on WP articles he has edited, or that clearly refer to other people with the same name, is dishonest.[64]

Surely these are conduct issues. Novickas 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Irpen[edit]

It would be easier for me to just state my views on the issue but I am at a real difficulty on how I can make a recommendation to an ArbCom because the issue is somewhat unique. Yes, we have a huge problem here but I don't see how it can be solved at all by any method including the ArbCom. That Piotrus is an extremely productive, committed and prolific editor is plain obvious. In fact, after Ghirla moved his activity from en- to ru-wiki (without doubt Piotrus is primarily responsible for this huge loss that will never heal), the place of the most prolific editor in the topics of my interest (Eastern and Central Europe) is undoubtedly held by Piotrus. I will not waste time praising his commitment and a huge amount of work he is giving to this project simply because those are already known, the room at ArbCom page is precious and this is not what brought us all here. Piotrus' editor's quality narrows the choices of the remedies but does not make problems non-existing. So, I will concentrate on the latter.

All these controversies take root in a huge stack of interconnected content disagreements between multiple editors with strong views, sometimes affected by nationalism or, at least, differences in narrattives in national scholarship and/or education. Piotrus, an experienced editor, knows perfectly all the tricks to get an upper hand in such disputes.

Using double standards
  • applying loaded terminology selectively: if he defends the terms, like "occupation", "invasion", "massacre", etc, it is because they are "referenced"; but when he strives to remove these exact terms in cases when the usage does not fit his POV, he calls such terms "POVed"
  • Double standards with Proper names: defending certain national terms as "more authentic" but rejecting other national terms as "non-English" or "counterhistoric"
  • Double standards with sources: attempts to impeach certain statements claiming their being referenced to "non-Western", "non-English", "not online", "non-academic" or "Cherry-picked" sources but persisting and vigorously defending sources of similar origin/standing when they happen to advance his POV
Wikipedia:Tendentious editing
  • especially the WP:TE#Undue weight clause by flooding many articles with marginally or irrelevant material that happen to give prominence to his pet issues
Next, and perhaps worst, is what I would call "ungentlemanly conduct", such as
  • Gaming the civility policy in order to prevail in content disputes (I mean invoking WP:CIV in discussions where civility concerns, while possibly existing are clearly minor).
  • Frequent baseless accusations of opponents in WP:NPA violations
  • Threats to report an opponent to the "proper" venue
  • (Especially unbecoming) resorting to such reports, including running to boards and other admins' talk pages with complaints aimed at achieving some sort of his opponent's sanctions (up to blocks) which may include even false reports to a 3RR board. His style of using WP:PAIN and WP:RFI made the boards to be deleted If it does not work in one board, Piotrus occasionally runs hectic sprees from board to board in the projectspace as well as selected admin's talk pages.
  • In such instances, Piotrus, if he can, prefers to act through proxies, inviting other editors to act and telling them exactly what to post and where to post it.
  • Another demonstration of double standards, when Piotrus is confronted about his actions he makes persistent and excessive pestering for diffs; but since he knows that the diffs are there this is aimed at nothing but forcing the opponent to waste time. OTOH, when presented with diffs, Piotrus accuses the opponent in "digging through dirty laundry".
  • Another highly unbecoming habit, especially in view of demonstrating such a heavy-handed approach towards the content opponents, is the persistent refusal to curb disruptive editors who advance the POV he favors but instead cleverly using them as battering rams or for a Good cop/Bad cop trick in the content disputes (no need to elaborate, the comparison is exact and explains it all)

I gave some of the issues that are rather narrowly specific to Piotrus and make working with him particularly difficult. It does not mean that he is clear of the more usual human wikisins, such as occasional sterile just under 3RR revert-warring, occasional incivility and personal attacks but I can tolerate those, especially since there are plenty of editors much worse in this respect.

I must confess that I am at loss as to what ArbCom can do with all this. The problem is obviously there and it is huge. Forcing Ghirla out of en-wiki alone is the profound loss that came from this host of controversies. But at the same time, I am at loss on what could possibly be done with this mess, and, frankly, I am not sure that ArbCom could help. It may but I just don't see how. Blocking Piotrus, even temporary, is out of question since he is writing content and a lot of it. Deadminning would simply not affect anything as incidents of admin abuse that I have seen are long in the past. I have not noticed any admin actions made by Piotrus in the past year or so (which means that if there were any they were not notable in a bad way) and adminship is in no way involved in this host of problems. As we all know too well (examples are abundant) WRT to all editors who commit so much time to the project, it is especially dangerous to have them humiliated, including by an insensitive ArbCom decision, a consideration that ArbCom should take very seriously.

At the same time, the lasting effects of this mess bring lots of bad blood felt by every community of editors around Poland as the Russian, Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian and German editors have all shown the huge frustration from this all. Until now, I was living with the idea that we will just have to take it as is since no solution seemed in sight. Loss of Ghirla is so far perhaps the highest damage Wikipedia suffered from this. Maybe others will follow but I remained under the impression that nothing can be done. If ArbCom can come up with some creative measures that would work, it should and we will all be better off. If it can't or won't, this frustrating state of affairs will continue indefinetely or until it gets solved by itself, which is rather unlikely.

It took me all the time I have for now to write all this and I realize that diffs would help the arbitrators. I assure you that I can provide diffs to every assertion and I will do so over the weekend. That is unless the Arbitrators decide that even with diffs this is the kind of a problem that ArbCom cannot help and we just have to live with it. --Irpen 12:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Renata3[edit]

I was about to post my opinion, but Irpen beat me to it. So I have really nothing to add, except that I urge ArbCom to take this case and (hopefully) solve this mess once and for all. Renata 13:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appendum: several people said "oh, this is harassment!" Nonsense! This mess with Eastern Europe has been going on for at least three years now. And if one user has the will, nerves and patience to initiate several requests for comment or arbitrations, it's not harassment. That's trying to find a solution for this deadlock. Renata 23:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jadger[edit]

Piotrus is constantly revert warring with editors. we should look up to Admins, not see them as hurdles to get over. I have seen someone post a reference many times and for him to then only allow the parts that he supports into the article. for instance, on Institute of National Remembrance, I supplied a number of references that describe the IPN as being a witch hunt, and he then edits it to say "if less realistically" he did that repeatedly, revert warring despite the fact that the source was very reputable ([[the Guardian).

--Jadger 02:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as you can see by his statement above, Piotrus is degrading to editors, no matter who they are. He constantly cries foul while letting lose his own cannonade.
--Jadger 02:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ghirlandajo[edit]

I don't see why my name should be dragged into this case, since my conflicts with Piotrus happened primarily in late 2005 and in the summer of 2006. I have made it clear that Piotrus and his many friends made my life in the project intolerable. JzG and Durova suggested that I edit only those topics which have nothing to do with Poland (and history). Having followed their advice, I have not written a single English-language article during these four months, and all my mainspace edits in English Wikipedia may be qualified as minor. This year I work full time for a more friendly project where my contributions are appreciated.

Having left the project (or at least its Eastern European segment), I assumed that Piotr, Halibutt, Darwinek, Appleseed, Beaumont, and other Ghirlaphobic editors have seen their dreams come true and now may edit in peace, but now I see that I was in error. This case demonstrates that ruthless POV-pushing continues to plague the Eastern European segment of English Wikipedia (see the Romania case above and Piotr's edits for today for some intimation of what's going on). As Renata says, "this mess with Eastern Europe has been going on for at least three years now". Irpen's statement illustrates how Piotrus is able to wade his way through myriads of simultaneous conflicts with numerous editors and retain the appearance of credibility. In my experience, his belligerent attitude and double standards have generated adversarial conditions in the community. In June, his protégé Molobo will be finally unblocked, so I expect the atmosphere to become even more poisonous here.

I don't expect anything to come of this case, since there are scores of pro-Piotrus meatpuppets ready to defend his every action and turn the workshop into a quagmire. For my own part, I'm not willing to edit under any restrictions (and I won't). Currently I take very little interest in Piotr's reformation, either. The only good thing is that nobody can say now that the fabled rudeness of Ghirla (or any other Russian scapegoat) is to blame for Piotr's revert-warring ways. The problem with Piotrus cannot be reduced to the parlous state of Poland-Russia relations. For what it's worth, this case is initiated by an editor known for his hostile comments on Russia. I have left the project months ago, but in my absence Piotr's aggressiveness and the problems caused by it seem to have been aggravated. Laus Deo, that's not my problem any more.

Statement by Halibutt[edit]

I would post a lengthy reply with diffs and links if only I believed this changes anything. However, I'm afraid the issue will be brought back again and again, regardless of the outcome of this arbitration request. Sure, I'm not impartial in this case. After all M.K., Renata and half of the people listed as involved parties were responsible for me leaving this project. I've been a target of a similar campaign of slander and harassment for roughly a year now. Now I returned, but limited my activities to the minimum and apparently M.K. wants the same with Piotrus. If you can't beat your opponents by presenting your own sources in a content dispute, accuse them of fancy things and make them loose their time trying to defend their good name. Slander thy neighbour is a nice tactics, isn't it.

Having said that, I agree that most of M.K.'s specific accusations do not hold the water. It's a mixture of empty accusations mislabelled as proofs of disruptive behaviour ([65], [66], [67]), links to diffs clearly showing Piotrus' devotion to verifiability, NPOV and all the rules of this project ([68], [69]), and random links from Piotrus' edit history ([70], User_talk:Dr._Dan#Hope.3F). In several cases the links prove one thing: that M.K. should apply to standard content dispute process - and use the talk pages of related articles. Instead, he is spreading false accusations. //Halibutt 13:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lysy[edit]

I'm not sure why my name was mentioned as one of the "involved parties", probably because I'm mostly editing Central-Eastern Europe related articles, and I had witnessed much of the editing behaviour of Piotrus, M.K and the others mentioned. Anyway, my statement is that: This is not an ArbCom case. Unless we want to waste some time on this. Indeed, the history of CE-Europe is a difficult issue, influenced by a number of conflicting POVs and every editor involved would be seen as a controversial person by some others. There are good reasons for this complexity but I won't go into this for the sake of the space here. Every editor has his style, and particularly Piotrus has the habit of insisting on others providing sources to support the views they present. This persistence, however, often annoys his opponents in the content disputes, as most of the people involved with the history of Eastern Europe tend to believe that their POV is "the right one" and does not need to be documented. While Piotrus is one of the most cool-headed editors involved in this domain, M.K, often being impatient, is the opposite. So, my opinion is that these are two different editors' personalities and I don't see any work for the ArbCom here. After reading M.K's statement again and again, I fail to see the merit of the RfArb. This RfArb is nothing more than an attempt to slander an inconvenient content disputes opponent. --Lysytalk 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr. Dan[edit]

I have decided to refactor my short statement from above as a result of what I think is a great error on the part of Prokonsul Piotrus' belief regarding the motivations of this request, and some others who would like to quash it. I am therefore making this amended statement for the benefit of all. P.P., no one thinks you are 'evil incarnate', and this request is not an attempt to continue some type of harrassment of you that was not successful in the past. Nor is this request only about "content disputes" regarding Eastern Europe, or Poland, etc. It is true that the issue of your conduct has not been resolved, and as stated by many, needs to be resolved once and for all. In truth this could have easily happened if after being told by various editors, what their objections were, that you took a good look at your own editing and behavior and made some changes. More than anything, this would have helped to lead to the harmony and consensus that we all want, and would make the Wikipedia project better for it. Personally I do not believe that it is too late to do so. But only if this request is accepted, will we be able to examine the whole picture and get it right, this time. As to your objection to the people called to be involved in this matter, it would have been nonsense not to include the parties that have had a problem with you. Why is this so strange? Furthermore, other than User:Evrik (who to the best of my recollection has never been involved in these disputes, but volunteered a statement here pretty much mirroring Darwinek's statement), the inclusion of Halibutt and Lysy were not added to oppose your position, but to help and support you. Finally, I believe we are at the point where this matter can be resolved, if this request is accepted and everyone can get it all out in the open. Dr. Dan 01:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/1)[edit]

  • I would ask M. K. to reduce his statement by 50%, and Piotrus to reduce his reply to 500 words. The process of deciding whether Piotrus has a case to answer does not need such detail. Charles Matthews 13:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to consider conduct of all parties. Kirill Lokshin 15:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. FloNight 13:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept with trepidation. There are clearly major conduct problems here; however, they are deep-seated, long-lasting, and do not involve only one single editor. I am not sure whether an arbcom case is going to do a whole lot of good here for anyone involved, and I would strongly suggest that the parties attempt to heal their differences in another way. On the other hand, they've had 3+ years to do so and have not. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Fred Bauder 02:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

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

Principles[edit]

Neutral point of view[edit]

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.

Passed 8-0 at 18:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of sources[edit]

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

Passed 8-0 at 18:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus[edit]

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.

Passed 8-0 at 18:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy[edit]

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.

Passed 8-0 at 18:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Context[edit]

1) The areas of Wikipedia that relate to eastern Europe (in particular, but not limited to, the nexus of historical interaction among Russia, Poland, Lithuania, 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.

Passed 8-0 at 18:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

Amnesty[edit]

1.1) There is a general amnesty for most editors 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.

Passed 7-0 at 18:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Parties reminded[edit]

4) All parties are reminded of the need to edit courteously and cooperatively in the future. Failure to do so will be looked upon harshly by the Committee, and may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions against those editors who continue to act inappropriately.

Passed 8-0 at 18:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus&oldid=1138654247"