This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Prevention of Tag-Team edit warring[edit]

1) As it has been mentioned it the Request for Arbitration, alliances seem to have been formed amongst certain editors that aid each other in spreading their beliefs. Doing so they are able to essentially break the three revert rule without getting caught. Furthermore as the editors that participate in these alliances over number the editors that are on the other side(Macedonian) the status-quo is broken and the opposition is technically eliminated. This allows the Tag-Teams to spread POV without any regulation. A solution for this obstacle must be found in order for an end of this conflict.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A possible solution would be to restrict reverting edits to those of other users. Ireland101 (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Clarification by ArbCom on naming conflict guidelines[edit]

2) Define a clear priority on naming conflict issues, which will apply to Macedonia-related articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not a chance. ArbCom doesn't make content decisions. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I'd like to see the ArbCom make a clear decision that will bind all editors regarding the naming conflict found in every RoM/fYRoM article. It has been the root of all evils. So what has precedence? Country's official name? Name by which it is accepted in International Organizations? Common English use? Google hits? A great initiative has been the Wikipedia Manual of Style WP:MOSMAC, however in such heated subjects it might need endorsement and enforcement. Avg01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. This is a content decision best handled by the community. Other naming conflicts have come up in the past and been settled through negotiation, and I'm not convinced there is any difficulty in the present naming of articles. The purpose of clear naming is to enable readers to find the article containing the information they want to read, not to endorse a particular side in a nationalist dispute. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The inability to handle this by consensus is the reason this has escalated to the highest level. I'm hoping ArbCom's role in this issue will not be limited to policing. It's really easy to hand a couple of bans, revert paroles etc (and does it need an Arbitration Committee really?), but it's harder and a great challenge to dig deeper and face a possibly systemic issue here. Avg 00:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content issue, and it's already been decided by the community - WP:NCON defines the standard as being the self-identifying name of a country/city/entity (essentially the Gdanzig precedent). I'm well aware that some Greek editors wish to overturn this, or at least dilute it by referring to the RoM differently in different contexts rather than applying a consistent standard, but that's still essentially an issue for the community at large, not the ArbCom. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that WP:NCON is just a guideline written by yourself that happens to have a few powerful supporters; it was not decided by the community, it was imposed on it, and in any case is not official Wikipedia policy. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is widely quoted; so are the slightly different suggestions of WP:NCGN, which are the product of many editors, even if I've been stuck with maintaining it lately. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that ChrisO mentioned the Gdansk/Danzig case. Let me remind him that it was actually me who brought it up in Macedonia articles after a series of mass renames from Slavomacedonian editors in Greek articles [1]. --Avg 19:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem here is that WP:MOSMAC reveals a lack of consensus on one fundamental question (as it now says): when should the Republic of Macedonia be called the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia? Several editors, all Greek, insist that this should be done in any article on a Greek subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the Gdansk/Danzig case prescribes. However, it might be a good idea to restate why it's the Greeks who insist. The reason is that article naming in Wikipedia is heavily biased towards the FYROM view. If the diplomatic guidelines were adopted in Wikipedia (as they should be) and the country's article was named FYROM, then the name used in all articles would be FYROM and the Gdansk/Danzig decision would prescribe that the country be called ROM in articles specifically related to the internal affairs of the country. --Avg 18:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the local compromise on the Gdanzig disaster said so, it was not intended as precedent. The guidelines cited were both written after the Gdanzig mess, and are intended as lasting solutions to avoid it arising again.
I don't see that this would be the effect of Gdanzig, even if applied literally to this situation. What language are you reading to that effect?
If the solution doesn't provoke outrage from nationalists on both sides, this arbitration will probably have failed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last sentence (IMO) applies to the WP:MOSMAC final solution decided by most involved. I don't see why this page here has to be consumed by a content dispute any longer. Niko Silver 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this issue since the last round of discussions. The difficulty we have is that Wikipedia is both an encyclopedia and a social project. Our goals as pure encyclopedists are somewhat undermined by Wikipedia's anyone-can-edit rationale. Ultimately, our content is a compromise between encyclopedic necessity and social acceptability. The current MOSMAC solution represents a balance between the moderate Macedonian and moderate Greek POVs, basically allowing each POV a distinct space within which to operate. That may not be ideal from an encyclopedic perspective, but it doesn't conflict too much with policy and it's probably the best that can be achieved within Wikipedia's social structure. So, pragmatically, I think this rather untidy solution is one that we will just have to live with. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Checkuser[edit]

3) User:ForeignerFromTheEast disappeared shortly before the opening of this case, and it is likely that he is trying to wait out this case and then come back in a fresh reincarnation. Since this is one of the most persistent long-term edit warriors in this case, and since he has a known habit of switching accounts whenever his old block logs get cumbersome, I'd ask for a checkuser to determine whether he has already prepared his new reincarnations, or to save up his checkuser information in case he does so later.

Similar request for User:Jackanapes, who has also ostensibly disappeared.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Requested. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Fut.Perf., I beg you not to involve me in any future discussion. Don't treat me as a liar as well. As I have already declared on my former talk page I don't want to be part of Wikipedia. - Ex-Jackanapes (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That could just be a trick so that when he reincarnates himself no-one will suspect anything. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for collation of issues[edit]

In every article pertaining to history, politics, geography, etc of Republic of Macedonia and its people, the issue of naming dispute, the debate of the people's identity, and the conflicts over its history are delved into time and time again, with the resulting edit warring and debating that ensued from this. I propose that we should create one article to deal solely with these issues, named something like the the Macedonian issue/ debate and go into each issue, representing both (or all 3) sides of the issue, where evidence can be presented to support all side's respective views. Not only will this clear the articles of needless clutter, edit-warring and tediously lengthy paragraphs (at the expense of delving into the main focus of the article), it will also be easier for the administrators to monitor any subsequent issues, as this one article will contain all the potential contentious issues on the broader topic. Hxseek (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

That's another content issue which I guarantee the committee is not going to address. (My personal view: we have these kinds of about-the-dispute articles already, and too many of them: Macedonia naming dispute, Political views on the Macedonian language, Macedonian language naming dispute, Macedonia (terminology), etc.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Initial thoughts. Kirill 00:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Add User pages may not display religious, ethnic, national, or racial propaganda.? (Although do we want to include the Confederate flag in this ruling? How about the Irish flag/the Union Jack?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user page thing is a relatively minor aspect of this; I think it'd be neater as a connected but still separate principle. Kirill 22:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum[edit]

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Initial thoughts. Kirill 00:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editorial process[edit]

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Initial thoughts. Kirill 00:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

User pages[edit]

4) The purpose of user pages is to aid in encyclopedic collaboration. User pages may not be used for displaying religious, ethnic, national, or racial propaganda.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would think this is implicit in the first principle, no? Kirill 01:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. But sometimes I find we need to be very explicit in meaning, even to the point of redundancy, to make sure no one could possibly misunderstand. The issue of what, exactly, a principle or remedy applies to comes up at arbitration enforcement from time to time. Picaroon (t) 01:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's true. I wonder if there's some neater way of explicitly laying this out as an addendum to the main principle rather than a separate one, though. Kirill 02:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I'd support this. Overly political userpages have been a recurrent theme in the Macedonian case. There have been several prior admin discussions about these and attempts at purging the worst ones. (Give me a bit of time to collect the relevant diffs.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this, there is some discussion of previous purges here. Francis Tyers · 09:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support it too, however Strich3d's page is not nationalist (as mentioned by Picaroon below). Alex 202.10.89.28 11:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what Picaroon says, he only says it is not copyright infringement. Avg 18:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Several userpages of parties to this dispute are largely devoted to nationalist material - User:Strich3d, User:Asteraki, and User:Vlatkoto. Picaroon (t) 01:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those user pages should be purged on the grounds of sheer aesthetic awfulness... -- ChrisO 08:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of Wikipedia: user pages[edit]

4.1) The purpose of user pages is to aid in encyclopedic collaboration. In keeping with the purpose of Wikipedia, user pages may not be used for displaying religious, ethnic, national, or racial propaganda.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Explicitly tie this into the main point. Kirill 02:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sounds fine to me. Picaroon (t) 02:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. Niko Silver 23:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages debates[edit]

5) Content debates in article talk pages, although subject to policies such as WP:NPA, WP:VAN and WP:CIV, are actually constructive and not disruptive since it is the only way consensus can be forged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Avg 02:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm not sure what the point of this is, since it's a statement of the obvious. I'd suggest the alternative below, as it's more tailored towards the specific problem that occurs on Macedonia-related talk pages. -- ChrisO 08:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for calling this obvious. User:Fut.Perf. on the other hand, calls "disruptive outbreaks" [2] two discussions in the talk pages of two articles (both involving myself). I'm not engaging in revert wars, I am and will continue to engage in debates and I consider these debates to be constructive, no matter how heated they become. I do not mind at all hearing the other's opinion, no matter how absurd/unsubstantiated I find it and I will of course respond to it with my view. In fact I consider talk pages a great source for uninvolved observers to see the mindset of all involved parties.--Avg 17:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This can be read as saying that every content debate is constructive. That is patently false. Can be constructive would be true, but vacuous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages debates[edit]

5.1) The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Personal attacks, incivility and discussion that is not relevant to improving an article may be removed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as a more specific alternative to proposal 6. The wording reflects WP:TALK. The misuse of talk pages has been a perennial problem in this area - endless hit-and-run posting of nationalist rants as well as unproductive "we're right, you're wrong" posts by more established editors who should know better. See [3] for an example of the sort of thing that has to be removed on a regular basis. -- ChrisO 08:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the benefit of this principle in the case. Although 5 above has its merits, we can't risk equating non-violating comments to constructive ones. My humble opinion is that the main drive of Wikipedia expansion largely relies on the need of people to talk (and moderately "push their POV"), but putting this on record would be dangerous. Niko Silver 23:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable, non-partisan sources[edit]

6) Editors working in politically sensitive disputed fields have a heightened responsibility to make sure their contributions are based on reliable, non-partisan sources, preferably from reputable academic print sources. Editors must be aware that much seemingly relevant material that is easily accessible on the web comes from heavily biased sources such as political advocacy and propaganda websites, and is therefore unsuitable for the creation of reliable NPOV articles. Editors who work from poor quality, partisan sources pose a threat to the academic integrity of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Committee isn't suited to rule on content. The few times we've been dragged into making specific comments on the quality of particular sources, those rulings have been immediately misused to start edit wars; I'm very wary of going down that path. Kirill 03:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'm not yet quite certain how the "remedy" to accompany this principle should be worded, but I believe it goes to the heart of the matter in the present case, perhaps even more so than the usual principles regarding civility, edit-warring etc. Bad sourcing is not just a content issue, it is a behavioural issue, and it is time we begin to treat it as a bannable offense in its own right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(resp to Kirill) FPaS hasn't proposed the committee rule on the quality of sources; rather he's asked for a restatement of RS tailored to the abuse it has been seeing in relation to Macedonia. Tell us that reliable sources are important; and tell us that sneaking in lousy, fringe, or partisan sources is not acceptable.Jd2718 (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd see that as a positive principle, and agree it is a frequent problem in the case. WP:V is policy, after all (and WP:RS is definitely a very essential part of it). Open to further tailoring. Niko Silver 23:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent application of neutral point of view policy[edit]

7) The neutral point of view policy must be applied consistently across articles and other encyclopedic content. Editors are not permitted to seek or implement exemptions from the policy or apply specially modified versions of it to particular content or sets of content. This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose until there is clarity on which is the NPOV in Macedonia issues. -- Avg 16:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

If at all possible, I'd like this arbitration to address some of the principles that have come up in the course of the endless dispute between Greek and Macedonian editors over the naming issue. The wording reflects the first section of WP:NPOV. In stating this principle (which is of course already policy) I'm seeking to underline the proposition that NPOV - and the various subsidiary guidelines, such as WP:NCON - should be applied consistently and editors should not presume that they can carve out their own areas of Wikipedia where NPOV is applied differently, or not at all. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And who will decide what is the NPOV on this? This is exactly what I wanted to achieve in my request for clarification on naming conflict guidelines and the response was that this is a content issue and ArbCom will not be involved. So this applies to (both actually) your proposals. Moreover, your proposal renders invalid the whole WP:MOSMAC discussion. -- Avg 15:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said in an earlier section of this page, MOSMAC may be the best that we can get out of the collaborative process on Wikipedia, but that doesn't automatically mean that it's fully compliant with NPOV. I'm not certain that its endorsement of different names for the same country in different articles meets NPOV's requirements. If NPOV mandates a particular approach in one article, the logical conclusion is that the same approach should be taken across the board. We can debate what that approach may be, but the point of this proposal is to establish whether or not NPOV requires a uniform and even-handed approach to disputed issues. Personally I think it clearly does (one would not expect, for instance, that articles on evolution would denigrate creationism while articles on creationism would denigrate evolution - a common neutral standard would be expected on both sides of the issue). -- ChrisO 11:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an issue of facts versus fiction, this is an issue of prioritisation of facts when there is conflict, which can only be forged by consensus, since a top-down solution will not be enforced. -- Avg 11:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be more explicit about my concerns, MOSMAC mandates that the Greek version of the RoM's name be used in articles about Greek subjects (e.g. Florina), even where those articles have nothing to do with the naming dispute. I'm not at all sure this is compatible with NPOV; it strikes me as being very much like carving out a special space for the Greek POV, where a specifically Greek standard is used for Greek articles, rather than applying a consistent standard across the board. If it's Wikipedia's standard to use "Republic of Macedonia" as the default name (which it is, since the article is at that name and has been for years), it's hard to see why we should defer to the Greek POV in articles on Greek subjects. It seems too much like taking a Wikinfo-style sympathetic point of view (SPOV). I'm not asking the ArbCom to state whether RoM or FYROM should be the standard - that's a content issue - but merely to clarify whether it's acceptable to step back from a consistent NPOV-based approach in order to appease ethnic politics. -- ChrisO 07:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this case will be closed in a matter of hours, and there was never much of a chance they'd look into this to begin with. No use continuing this discussion here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, what language mandates use of "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (as opposed to merely acknowledging that our articles do in fact use it)? I will remove it; no such language can possibly be consensus. It would be really nice if ArbCom would arbitrate this point; no other process ever will. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There is no prospect of consensus on these matters within the small world of the Macedonia disputes; there is no likelihood that the overarching policies will be changed by this small number of editors - for one thing, many editors, even in this discussion, support the present policies. If ArbCom does not arbitrate what is neutrality, and whether the articles on the countries concerned here can float in a bubble of their own reality, who will? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent application of neutral point of view policy[edit]

7.1) No specific POV should be considered as the neutral point of view in any Wikipedia article, before a consensus is reached among editors or before unrefutable evidence is presented. When this consensus is finally reached, the policy must be applied consistently across articles and other encyclopedic content. Editors may seek or implement exemptions from the policy or apply specially modified versions of it to particular content or sets of content if there is either strong consensus for such action or explicit need for disambiguation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed -- Avg 11:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Inapplicability of "moral rights" arguments[edit]

8) Editors' assertions of "moral rights" in political disputes are to be respected, but such asserted rights are incompatible with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and cannot be used as the basis for developing encyclopedic content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one month in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; 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. All appeals regarding sanctions imposed under this provision shall be to the Committee directly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Trying to nickel-and-dime these conflicts hasn't worked in the past; we're going to need sweeping measures if we want to restore some semblance of order here. Kirill 00:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Uninvolved" is the normal standard for admin actions; broadly speaking, anyone who has no substantive participation in the dispute itself is considered uninvolved.
Yes, "any editor" means exactly that; hence the requirement for a warning before sanctions can be imposed. Kirill 04:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

While I very much welcome rules like this, I'd want to clarify that the committee should not just leave it at that. Now that we are here, we do need some "nickel-and-diming" on your part, regarding specific sanctions for some of the main players. Problem is, there aren't enough admins who are both uninvolved and sufficiently familiar with the situation and its backgrounds. This case was brought precisely in order to finally get some uninvolved eyes to look into the case histories. Also, if you don't take out the ringleaders now and leave everything to the admins, we'd probably just end up with The Race To WP:ANI, Or: Who Can Get Their Opponents Blocked First? (a telenovela in 6,666 gripping instalments). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Questions: 1)Who is uninvolved? and 2) this says "any editor" Your intent is that this will apply to all, not just parties listed? Jd2718 04:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, this does need some teeth; even if these are too long. the Eastern Europe case was followed within weeks by this debacle of bad manners and invective. (The worst parties seem to have improved since, so I present this as a caution, not a request for sanctions on that subject.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To FP: so propose some individual sanctions. ArbCom may refuse; but you know the players better than they do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions 2[edit]

2) Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one week in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; 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.

Such sanctions should be noted at arbitration enforcement; after five blocks of no more than a week, blocks of a year may be imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm more concerned, frankly, with ensuring sanctions against established editors than with ones against new accounts. Experience suggests that allowing other admins to reverse the decision will prevent any useful sanctions from being imposed on the more popular editors. Kirill 13:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed; less Draconian than (1). Blocks appealable only to ArbCom should really be limited to well-defined offenses; otherwise there's a chance that an honest misunderstanding will bite a newbie. The periods here are boiler-plate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be prefectly reasonable for Arbcom to rule that some of the offenders here have used up some or all of their five chances. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali . --Avg 18:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(To Kyrill): I support what you want to do; I am concerned that the way you want to accomplish it will result in the possibility of any editor who edits on Eastern Europe being blocked for a month, with only the slow processes of ArbCom as a remedy, any time an admin misunderstands his action. Perhaps the sanction below will help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think something of this sort can be workable; see below. Kirill 17:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel warring[edit]

3) ArbCom severely deprecates lightly reversing another admin's action. Reversing a discretionary sanction taken under this decision without (1) the consent of the admin who imposed it, (2) extensive discussion and clear consensus at arbitration enforcement, or (3) the permission of ArbCom, may be grounds for desysopping.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporated in (5) below. The greater number of eyes at AN probably warrants the change; although it may still be worth keeping track of actions under this decision. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions 3[edit]

4) Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the 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; restrictions on reverts; 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Allow for longer bans, but leave appeals to a separate finding. Kirill 17:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Do you want to tweak this a little? While there are certainly some editors who deserve a year's block, I am concerned that this, as opposed to the progessive blocks in Discretionary Sanctions 2, may lead to much greater sanctions than would be given for the same offense elsewhere. After all, any editor who is so offensive and disruptive that he should be gone for a year can be so blocked now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I have no particular attachment to a year versus a month; but if we're going to allow appeals to AN, we might as well allow full-length blocks as well. The admin community can be counted on to reverse any that are too draconian, I think. Kirill 17:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of discretionary sanctions[edit]

5) Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Committee. Reversing or otherwise interfering with the imposition of a discretionary sanction without (1) the consent of the administrator who imposed it, (2) extensive discussion and clear consensus at the administrators' noticeboard, or (3) the permission of the Committee will be grounds for summary desysopping.

Comment by Arbitrators:

To go with "Discretionary sanctions 3" above. Kirill 17:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Image[edit]

6) Image:ЕUUU.gif is divisive and inflammatory, and shall be deleted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm confident this can be handled at IFD. Listed now. But Vlatkoto's page raises another question of interpretation with regard to the currently proposed remedies, see my question on Proposed Decision Talk [4]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed: this is a map of the EU, but with all of northern Greece incorporated into the Republic of Macedonia. It is too small for me to see whether the Macedonian areas of Bulgaria are also included; and therefore is unsuitable for illustrating Macedonian nationalist claims. (It also flashes: "Well, I think, this is the best way.") Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would still be useful to have ArbCom to condemn this sort of thing explicitly. This (and the corresponding provocations of the other factions) are significant irritants. Wording should of course be changed to should have been deleted if appropriate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Logging[edit]

1) Any discretionary sanction imposed under this decision should be logged here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

~~May be neater to just add the normal logging requirement (as we've used for similar remedies) to the remedy itself. Kirill 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Never mind that; it looks like the logging part has been in the enforcement rather than the remedy recently. Kirill 18:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Boilerplate, but a useful record. If User:Stupid is banned from three different articles by three different admins, a more serious sanction may be in order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: