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

For this case, there are 10 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.

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

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. Kirill 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight 14:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 17:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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 fora.

Support:

1. Kirill 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight 14:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 17:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

1. Kirill 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight 14:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 17:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) The disputes presented in this case, while focusing specifically on issues related to Romania, are part of a broader set of conflicts prevalent over the entire range of articles concerning Eastern Europe; see, for example, the AndriyK case, the Piotrus-Ghirla case, the Occupation of Latvia case, the Piotrus case, the Darwinek case, and the Digwuren case. Many of these conflicts are grounded in matters external to Wikipedia, including long-standing historical, ideological, national, and ethnic disputes in the region. The area of conflict in this case shall therefore be considered to be the entire set of Eastern Europe-related articles, broadly interpreted.

Support:

1. Kirill 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. James F. (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Despite the comments on the Workshop, and agreeing that this case is related primarily to one user.[reply]

Oppose:

1. Paul August ☎ 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Per comments on workshop page.[reply]
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC) This isn't working. We can't continue down the path of redefining editing rules for an ever-broadening swath of articles.[reply]
3. For general reasons. Also my Darwinek comment. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

2) Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a wide variety of inappropriate behavior, including sustained edit-warring, for which he has been blocked numerous times ([1]), and gross incivility, personal attacks, and harassment of fellow editors ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]).

Support:

1. Kirill 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) On November 27, 2007, administrator Maxim blocked Anonimu (talk · contribs) indefinitely with a block summary: Personal attacks, persistent BLP vios, edit warring, harassing other users, using the encyclopedia as a battleground ([10]). See discussion on ANI. An unblock request was subsequently posted on 09:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC) ([11]), and declined by User:Nat ([12]).

Support:

1. Paul August ☎ 17:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC) As proposed by Newyorkbrad on workshop, (with modifications).[reply]
2. FloNight (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill 19:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

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 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.

Support:

1. Kirill 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Paul August ☎ 05:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Opposed to such broad sanctions in this case, per objections on workshop page, and comments by Newyorkbrad on this page's talk page.[reply]
2. Discretionary blocks of one year? No. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Paul. Standing rulings are sufficient; this case focusses on Anonimu. James F. (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

2) Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, to the administrators' noticeboard, or to the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Support:

1. Kirill 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Paul August ☎ 05:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Opposed to such broad sanctions in this case, per objections on workshop page, and comments by Newyorkbrad on this page's talk page.[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Per principled objection to such a remedy.[reply]
3. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

3) Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year, starting from the time, if ever, when Anonimu's current community ban is lifted.

Support:

1. First choice. Kirill 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice. James F. (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

3.1) Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:

1. Second choice. Kirill 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

3.2) The Committee confirms that Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia by a community ban and concurrently bans Anonimu for a period of one year. After a period of one year, Anonimu can appeal the ban to the community or the Committee.

Support:

1. I think I like this arrangement a little better. FloNight (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. First choice. James F. (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 18:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Kirill 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. James F. (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Paul August ☎ 18:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

• The variants of the discretionary sanctions are those passed in the Macedonia case. Kirill 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Passing are:
  • Proposed principles 1, 2, and 3;
  • Proposed findings of fact 2 and 3;
  • Proposed remedy 3.2; and
  • Proposed enforcement 1 (though it is largely moot). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Close. Kirill 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Paul August ☎ 03:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Fine to close as it now stands. FloNight (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]