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 and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Checkuser request Molobo and Koretek

1) I'm urging you to perform a CU under this rationale on Molobo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) in connection with Koretek (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). For more data to check against: [1] [2] [3]. Sciurinæ (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Checkuser shows nothing interesting, useful, or helpful. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Koterek has not been doing any puppetry, right? Has Molobo been asked to discuss his connection to Koterek? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new account only to help you with an ad hominem attack against Deacon in the light of his RfAr and, furthermore, defaming Deacon while being under remedy against personal attacks with the main account,[4] is a textbook example of abusive puppetry. Although I didn't need to, I did inform Molobo the moment I gave evidence some days ago and he did not reply while going on editing. You'd officially deny anything other than CU as evidence against him anyway.[5] That's all I have to say to this. If you want him to make a confession, talk to him yourself. Sciurinæ (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it is obvious Koterek is somebody's sock, it has not done anything disruptive. Providing evidence is not a personal attack.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking Deacon's argument as "an old grudge attack by polonophobic" rather than the content of his message is a personal attack. WP:PA: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Sciurinæ (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A noble sentiment - one, however, that is already dead by the time people get to ArbCom, I am afraid.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Motion to recognize more parties and rename this case

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. First, it is obvious that I and Deacon are not the only parties. I believe that all editors who have presented extensive evidence sections or started their own workshop proposals (other than arbcom members) should be recognized as parties. Second, the focus of this case is not only my person, but quite a few other editors (this was also the case with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus. However, framing it as "Piotrus arbcom" is misleading, as it gives uninvolved bystanders an impression that it's "all about Piotrus and nobody else". This ArbCom started as "Piotrus-Deacon" but have obviously outgrown that, and should be renamed to something more general and less fingering individuals, such as "Eastern Europe". Let me stress: this is not a technicality, naming is important (see framing (social sciences).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I opened the case to deal with Piotrus and his behaviour, not to mediate a dispute or deal more generally with e-e topics. The case has, how shall I put, been "broadened", and unfortunately distracts from this and despite its size, has been contributed to very little by anyone except Piotrus and his usual friends and enemies. Name should stay, but whoever becomes a de facto party (is mentioned in FFs, etc), should clearly be named as a party if the arbs are going to accept all this distraction as the reality. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Regrettably support. As I have become a target of one of Piotrus' antagonists with whom I had no dealings with prior to this sordid affair and have been labeled a member of Piotrus' personal cabal. —PētersV (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I thought the last case was misnamed. No difference here. It's inherently prejudicial in such a multisided dispute to name it after a single Wikipedian. Propose renaming to Eastern European disputes. Durova^Charge! 18:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a significant escalation of Digwuren case, just looking at the number of participants and the amount of evidence. This case is about the tag teams and people being evicted from WP by the tag teams. Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars was created to consider such problems. We should use recommendations by this working group. The case should be renamed as "Eastern Europe" or something like that. As about other official parties, I do not know how this can be determined.Biophys (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, for the reasons stated above. Of all parties to this proceeding, recognized and unrecognized, the last that might, by any stretch of a deluded imagination, deserve this kind of treatment is Piotrus. The title of this proceeding should not be inculpatory of one individual—the individual least culpable of anything. "Central and Eastern Europe" would be an apt title. Nihil novi (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don′t care. How case is named is of little importance to me. The list of parties is even more meaningless since ArbCom routinely applies sanctions to editors who were not parties of the case. Some forms of conduct practiced by Piotrus should stop including seeking sanctions as a method of content dispute resolutions, off-line coordinated revert wars and off-line lobbying for such sanctions. I happen to see evidence that Pitorus have done it. If others disagree, this is what the evidence page for, to judge how strong it is. The remedies should make doing such things impossible to anyone regardless of who engaged in them in the past. Thus, whatever remedies I am going to propose that would address this activity, I pledge to abide by them anyway (since I always did so anyway.) If ArbCom wants to formulate the remedies in a way that they apply to all, regardless of whether others engaged in such conduct, I am fine with it either way. --Irpen 16:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd appreciate if you'd stop pointing fingers towards "Eastern Europe" here. In the context it looks like a comment leaning towards suggesting collective quilt and almost comes across as a racist statement or an ethnic slur. There would be some basis to it perhaps if all the parties in those edit wars were from the Eastern Europe. As far as I can tell at least one out of the 2 guys banned after the Digivurens case last time was a "Western European" coming from an "established Western European country". Please stick to accusing individual editors for their actions or call the case according to what would describe it the best perhaps- the Information warfare and the New Cold War in Wikipedia. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Something else sticked out that made me to run a search on this page. Go and see who talks about "friends" and "enemies" at this page. As far as I'm aware of it, people who see friends and enemies around them usually are mentally in a fight instead of in a cooperative project like WP was suppose to be.--Termer (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions to the Committee

3) Irpen was on Wiki-break when he claims he received an unsolicited invitation to join Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars via an email from an Arbcom member. I have the following questions:

Whose idea was it to extend this unsolicited invitation to him?
Why was he invited, rather than say for example, Piotrus?
Does this indicate Irpen enjoys a degree of support by some members of ArbCom and his views are given more weight?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Some questions. As it happened, Irpen apparently walked out of the workgroup after another participant removed one of Irpen's critical comments to a proposal, all of which unfortunately validates my original concerns in regard to the workshop's membership guideline: "A record of conduct or activity that suggests an ability to work well and constructively with others as part of such a group." Martintg (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever invited him, Irpen was finally very disappointed. He said: "Arbcom completely discrediting itself by arbitrators' glaring lack of personal and judicial ethics" [6]. What did he mean? I have no idea, just like you.Biophys (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A common characteristic of true believers is that if a person/group/community does not agree with them, they tend to describe them as, in, well, rather negative terms.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

Martin, I cannot answer the questions for the ArbCom but I don't mind these questions answered by those to who they are addressed. I never play games under the carpet. In fact, I am trying to promote at this very page a measure aimed at a greater transparency of interactions between the ArbCom and the case' parties. Strangely, it was met without enthusiasm by Piotrus and his supporters
Biophys, I was never a fan of this ArbCom and you can see my many comments to that degree for a very long time. The particular comment you quote (how nice to feel being followed so closely!) was about a case that not just me, but the whole community, saw as completely outrageous. It was a matter not in any way related to the workgroup or even EE.
Piotrus, you better tone down this "true believers" stuff. You are viewed a true believer by a lot of people. And, besides, your remark is totally off. My comment was about the ArbCom, particularly, about a particular secret trial that outraged the community so much. ArbCom took no part in the workgroup's development. Not a single ArbCom member was a part of it. And only one made some comments in the observer's status. Those were very few and only in the earliers stage of the workgroup (the first month or so.) The reason why I "walked away" is explained very clearly in my post found by Biophys. Where do you find an ArbCom in this issue? --Irpen 11:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bare facts

Irpen blames ArbCom of "glaring lack of personal and judicial ethics" [7].
Irpen and Alex Bakharev requested "Ethical conduct" from ArbCom - see above, which prevents effective communication of ArbCom and WP community during this case
Irpen and Alex Bakharev insist that collection of evidence is "malicious" (see below)
Irpen announced that he received an unsolicitated email to work in "Ethnic conflicts" commission and then denounced conclusions of that commission.
Irpen did his best to promote Giano to ArbCom [8]

All of that in fact serves only one purpose: to prevent productive work of ArbCom, even if Irpen does not mean it. And Irpen in fact successfully prevented the productive work of Piotrus and others, as I tried to explain in Evidence.Biophys (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was the reason for Irpen to single out my evidence for removal [9]? And what was the reason for his team to attack me during this case [10] [11]? Because I know what he and others are doing, and he knows that I know.Biophys (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: this comment above is just another demonstration of the outright crankery that is going on and something needs to be done to prevent the case' pages from becoming unusable. Some of the stuff is too obvious for even those who don't know full context. As for the rest:

I invite anyone interested to read my thoughts on the matters that prompted that outrage over an ArbCom action by clicking on these links: [12] [13] [14], as well as some earlier diffs for the context: earlier: [15] and [16].
Accusations like: "Irpen did his best to promote Giano to ArbCom [referenced to a diff of me offering Jimbo a bottle of Brandy]" should send some to do some real head-scratching.

Is this stuff going to be tolerated at the arbitration pages. --Irpen 17:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are all aware of you outrage against ArbCom, but why cite it as a reason for walking out of the ethnic conflict workgroup? Martintg (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My walking out of the workgroup did not have anything to do with the ArbCom or my attitude towards it. You should really read the diffs, Martin. --Irpen 20:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two interesting trivia about wisdom of selection of people to the group (which otherwise dead a decent job, if not significantly better than open community work done by Folantin and simply led to the creation of short lived oligrachy): 1) one invited member of the workgroup (not Irpen) formerly involved in a RfC with me which was resolved to my satisfaction (that person apologized to me) told me that they would veto my application, and I would join the group after their dead body. 2) Near the end of the workforce discussion, a member told me that "the work would be going much more smoothly if Irpen, predictably, wouldn't be objecting to any enforceable remedy" (please note I am not attesting to the truth of that statement, just quoting it; that said it does otherwise fall within my experience of Irpen desire to torpedo any avenue that would allow dealing with incivility and harassment (WP:PAIN and so on)). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, you said enough that I can tell who your source is. Let me also share with you a piece of "interesting trivia about wisdom", as you call it. Be wary of placing your trust with anyone who breaches the confidentiality trust towards others. That said, I will add that I have nothing to hide, Piotrus. You see, I never ever say things in private that would embarrass me if they become known publicly. Never! You may find it acceptable to laud yourself on-wiki as a pillar of civility, while gossiping about people behind their backs, just as you did at #admins about Lokyz, M.K., Boodlesthecat, etc. I do not do such thing. In fact, I called for the group's openness from the earliest stages [17] and about the same time I posted to the group's wiki a complete waiver of any expectation of privacy freeing anyone to repeat publicly anything said by me within the group. However, I did not impose my preferences on other members. Precisely because the group was supposed to function confidentially and other members were entitled to the expectation of privacy, I never posted anything to Wikipedia throughout the entire period of group's operation, despite I thought that this secrecy is counterproductive. Again, please read this comment from one of the group's members. As for the specific issue, Piotrus, I let this comment, also not by me, speak for itself. Now, your source may pass to you anything I said in the group. I don't mind. If someone wants to continue this discussion, please do so outside of the workshop's page which is too cluttered as is. Even the workshop's talk is fine with me. --Irpen 05:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed temporary injunctions

Ethical conduct

1) To preserve the integrity and fair-handedness all parties cease and desist from contacting arbitrators or non-recused clerks privately or semi-privately (that is outside of the case pages) in relation to this case. Leaving a note at the arbitrator's talk page pointing to a new case development is acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This would contradict Wikipedia:Arbitration guide, which specifically notes that while public evidence and discussion is preferred, private is acceptable and in minority of cases, even preferable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed by Irpen from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop#Ethical conduct. I think contacting arbitrators off the case pages is unethical as it gives one side of the story an undue weight since all sides of the case are unlikely to watchlist pages of all arbitrators to present their side of the story to counter the arguments presented by the initial contact. This applies even more to the off-wiki communication. The Arbitration pages exist specifically to present the evidence and make statements. Unless there is some info that is private by its nature (like checkuser results) I think very strongly that it has to be presented in the conspicuous place accessible to everyone. In RL parties of the case are not allowed to go in and out the judge's chambers and juror's deliberation rooms to kibitz about the case in private. Of course it is permissible to post a note like "Please see [workshop_page here] for the new development of the stalled case." Giving evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature would be obviously exempted but this case does not include any sensitive issues that I can see. --Irpen 15:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is no such policy and never was. I belive in integrity and fairness of all ArbCom members. To the contrary, free exchange of information and opinions would be very helpful. This proposal by Irpen is consistent with his way of thinking that presenting and discussing the evidence can be somehow harmful for the project. He indeed accuses Piotrus of ... preparing a "malicious" evidence for ArbCom [18]. There are also some other questionable activities, perhaps to suppress free expression of views about this casee [19][20] Biophys (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Should be a routine ethical constraint anyway. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a juctice system, but one can use some analogies. There are no such requirements even for courts in real life. That kind of constraints would normally apply to jurors, but ArbCom members are more like judges. The judges are free to contact with the both sides during due process to ensure the justice.Biophys (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, a question to this. What issues in this case require privacy so that necessitate private evidence? Let's simplify it. During this and last case I refrained from any off-line discussion of the ongoing cases with arbitrators while you were indeed emailing rabidly. Could you just not do it this time? --Irpen 03:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of certain emails requires privacy, for example, if the parties that send them did not make them public. In any case, rest peacefully - I have not been discussing you with any arbitrators recently.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As in real life, private diplomacy is often more effective than public diplomacy--where editors may well feel they are "locked" into a (public) position. There should be no impediment to communication, public or private, regardless of originator. Nor should we codify communications in a way that some are viewed as "good" while some are viewed as "bad." —PētersV (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. All diplomatic channels must remain open especially for a case as complex as this. There are also occasional instances of smear campaigns waged by individual users that do not need to be addressed publicly and on equal footing. --Poeticbent talk 19:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, many arbitration cases suffers from the lack of appropriate feedback between the ArbCom and community. Someone provided an evidence of something. Is this a good or an insufficient evidence? Maybe some additional diffs are needed? A provider of an evidence (like me) often has no idea. It is entirely appropriate for anyone including members of ArbCom to ask for an additional evidence if needed.Biophys (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point. In all my dealings with arbcom, including this one, I was very disappointed by the near complete lack of interaction of the committee members with the parties. We don't know if our evidence is sufficient or clear, we don't know what needs to be clarified (if anything), we often need moderation... and we get none of that. Over time, I've asked the committee members for such clarifications or moderation several times, every time I got either an inconclusive, general reply or no reply at all. I'd certainly agree that the problem is not too much of communication between the committee and the parties, but not enough of it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As far as I can tell, we're relieving ourselves in the windward direction, and not much more. I expect we'll have another "unbridgeable gap" dispute ruling with admonitions to all to assume good faith. At this point, assume good faith "despite 'evidence' to the contrary" would be a marked improvement. Let's start off with assume good faith WITH NO MODIFIERS FOR WHEN IT DOES NOT APPLY. Otherwise it's just an open invitation to contentious editors to be judge and jury. Oh, wait, isn't that what we have here? I highlight Irpen's because of his emphasis on evidence to the contrary. I submit that this whole proceeding is yet another attempt to fabricate a narrative to construe Piotrus as being the "evidence to the contrary" WP:POSTERBOY. —PētersV (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't help but notice an irony here. It is me who is proposing to codify what constitutes the proper and improper communication between the case participants and the ArbCom members. I propose a set of common sense rules that would eliminate any uncertainly about attempts of the case participants to improperly influence the arbitrators. For the record, despite Piotrus and his friends refuse to abide by such rules of conduct, I still follow it meticulously and there were no even single attempt by me to talk to the ArbCom members about the case privately. So, is not it ironic that the same users who object to codifying such a common sense ethics rule in this thread (and have to abide by it) allege on my having some secret influence with an arbcom in another thread at this very page? I hope other observers notice this paradox too. --Irpen 21:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Sam Blacketer

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Standard wording. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Aye, of course. Be great if it were enforced! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per above and below.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support - absolutely Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Alex Bakharev. Durova^Charge! 06:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's a commentary on these proceedings that it's felt this statement needs to be made. —PētersV (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Naturally. --Poeticbent talk 19:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. But as evidence of this and many other cases shows, there is in fact an enormous "ideological struggle" in wikipedia.Biophys (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Another standard finding. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Don't you mean principle, not finding? In any case, this is a very important principle, key to this ArbCom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support - seems reasonable Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Alex and Piotrus. Durova^Charge! 06:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A noble thought. --Poeticbent talk 19:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. And we should add the trailer, "... nor should editors leap to such accusations." 99.9% of the time accusations are driven by perceptions fueled of past conflicts. —PētersV (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary – and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Another standard finding from which the latter point going into more detail on revert-warring has been dropped as not especially relevant. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Key points: consensus is build in a polite discussion, not when one party refuses to compromise and/or accuses the other of various violations (from antisemitism to academic dishonesty and so on). One certain editors prove that no constructive discussion with them is possible, two things are likely to occur in their area of editing (which become the proverbial wiki-battlegrounds): flaming on talk and edit warring in article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I certainly agree. But in fact, this rule is most frequently violated by thousands of WP users. As a practical matter, when dealing with such issues, WP administrators usually punish only most disruptive users: those with a long history of blocks. To objectively use such sanctions, one need to use some formal criteria. For example, any users with more than N 3RR blocks could be automatically placed on 1RR restriction. Punishing a user only for making a long series of reverts (as in example I provided in evidence) would be unfair. This is not to justify edit warring of course.Biophys (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem I've noticed recently with how 3RR and edit warring is dealt with. It is interesting enough I've decided to write an essay on it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - obvious standard for users in good standing Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per above. Durova^Charge! 06:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Comment:] I see several problems with this as stated:

First, tagging is not explicitly included as another type of content edit. Therefore, articles may be tagged without citing anything other than personal opinion. Yet a reputable revert of a tag in response is edit warring.
Second, it does not differentiate between reverts based on reputable sources as supported by the vast majority of editors participating in working on an article versus reverts based on personal interpretations/conclusions not supported by citing reputable sources at the time of revert.
Third, it does nothing to discourage WP:IDONTLIKEIT reverts done under the guise of calling a reputably sourced edit "vandalism."
Fourth, and finally, it does not recognize who it is that started the edit war. We've already proven in these affairs that adopting language that essentially calls for punishing both sides provides a window for abuse. —PētersV (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with one additional expectation. Under no circumstances should the 3RR rule be ever allowed to be broken with impunity especially amidst a political propaganda war. --Poeticbent talk 19:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support of course. --Irpen 22:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The editing process includes impolite action when necessary. Consensus and negotiation can only take place in a fully alive social context, and this includes by language that is not pleasing. Otherwise, we are left with no options but "talk nice and call a cop": this is a recipe for more AN/I, more AE. Edit warring is not tolerated, of course. If we know what edit warring is in a universal sense, we can even say "edit warring will get you a block." However, "politeness" is always a goal, never a requirement. Geogre (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes

4) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This will not be the last word on the disagreements highlighted in the case, but is needed to set the limits on the case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Should a "sub-sovereign" institution like the Arbitration Committee really be defining its own role or powers? Or is this merely a repetition of pre-defined policy? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

A couple of policy questions. It seems that content disputes are sometimes artificially inflated only to make a targeted user angry by removing his edits. How one can distingush such "bad faith" content edits and "good faith" edits? I know, we should always assume good faith. Do we assume that "bad faith" content edits simply do not exist? And if they exist, how can we identify them? Of course, lying about sources is an example of bad-faith content edits. But would an outright deletion of numbers from scholarly books (e.g. book by Robert Conquest) qualify as a bad faith edit? Biophys (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words: Is it the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle bad-faith content disputes among editors? How to identify bad faith content? The problem here is that ArbCom lacks the manpower/skills to deal with most content edits. It's easy to deal with revert warring, feasible to deal with incivility, but answering your question regarding Conquest would require them to read the book, read the reviews, and spend days familiarizing themselves with just one tiny aspect of one of one million content conflicts out there (since, obviously, we will get editors claiming that Conquest is controversial/etc.). How many of the arbcom members are familiar with the discussion of biases of modern Russian historiography, for example? Just today, I have one discussion (here and section below) were my opponent is accusing two scholars of being fringe/controversial/unreliable/biased/nationalistic/unblanced and so on. It is possible that one of us is attacking/defending them because of bad faith; but to answer this, ArbCom would need to read through their work, compare it to others, read reviews, and so on... and what about a content dispute about global warming, or abortion, or issues somewhat more familiar to arbcom members but also, issues were they are much more likely to have their own biases? Asking them to judge content opens a gigantic can of worms. For that, truly, we would need panels of academic experts. PS. I do think that ArbCom can answer whether editors have biases, and whether their editing pattern is constructive (NPOV) or aims towards a particular POV and/or creating a battleground. But that's not easy. The ArbCom may be able to speak of good- or bad-faith among editors, but not among their sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words: WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability policies can not be enforced. A lot of WP articles are ridiculously biased and collectively owned by teams of nationalistic POV-pushers. If I see those articles, I should not go there to avoid being in your position or much worse.Biophys (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. They can be enforced, by the open source bazaar paradigm. We are assuming that most editors are neutral, respect our policies, can be civil and so on. And in most cases, this is correct (hence Wikipedia works). The problem arises in controversial topics, were you get above average number of uncivil extremists, who are pushing their POV and creating battlegrounds when they are challenged. They chase away other contributors (who wants to play in a mud arena?), and the job of the ArbCom is not to decide which side speaks the truth, but to plonk the uncivil one, since once you get the trolls down, the civil editors from various sides (POVs) should reach a neutral, verifiable version of the article. To give an example: it doesn't matter if a troll is pro-Soviet, or anti-Soviet; as long as he is a troll, we kick him out.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Once you get the trolls down, the civil editors from various sides (POVs) should reach a neutral, verifiable version of the article". Right. That is exactly what you tried to accomplish, and here you are, a subject of several ArbComm proceedings and countless ANI discussions (my apology if this sounds uncivil). To be honest, I do not see that the "open source bazaar" and the "catching trolls" strategies are really working to improve any strongly biased or poor articles I am familiar with, such as Holodomor, 2008 South Ossetian war, Russia, Putin and many others. The articles grow bigger, but they do not improve. Even worse, they promote misinformation. Sorry for "trolling" you. I am not going to argue here any more.Biophys (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, you never "trolled" me. You are one of many good editors who try to write encyclopedic content in a civil manner, and you know you have my respect. It is always a pleasure to discuss things with you, whether we are discussing content or Wikipedia policies.

You are completely right that Wikipedia is inefficient when it comes to dealing with incivil battleground creators. This is a big problem: it makes valuable editors leave (why should they contribute to project and get flamed in return?) and thus weakens the quality of the articles (which become POVed, when battleground creators win) or are simply not here (the loss potential of articles written by chased away editors). This is the explanation why the Polish community on Wikipedia has not grown in 4 years I've been observing it: we get new recruits, but old ones burn out under flame torrents and leave. So far Wikipedia has more or less worked (the number of editors grows, particularly in non-controversial areas), but if the civility erosion is not stopped, I deeply fear it may go the way Usenet went: from a useful site for quality discussions to a flaming hell. I hope this ArbCom will be the one to put an end to that process, and restrict/ban some prominent battleground creators. I have invested too much to simply give up and leave, even in face of constant harassing I am facing from battleground fans, but IF the ArbCom fails here, I have deep worries about the future of this project. Technically, Wikipedia can scale infinitely. Socially - well, I mentioned Usenet: it was technically infinitely scalable, too... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for misunderstanding. It is true that situation in Russian and EE history "sections" is rapidly changing from bad to worse (in contrast to Biology/Chemistry "section" were people are very friendly). It is also true that ArbComm can not deal with all issues. And yes, singling out and punishing most serious and obvious violators at ANI (like in this case) would help to defuse the situation.Biophys (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Comment: It is indeed not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. However, "bad-faith" disagreements (if we manage to define them) is the issue of conduct and arbcom can deal with them. The line between good and bad faith is difficult to draw but it is often possible. For example, if opposing parties base their claim on different sources and both sources are reasonable, it may well be a good faith disagreement. If, however, one party in the conflict falsifies sources or references some claims to sources that are difficult to verify but upon verification the claim turn out to be unsupported in these very sources, it is bad faith. Similarly, if one side of the conflict turns to off-site communication to recruit help in revert wars or surveys, this is bad faith. Once (and if) such activity is established with sufficient certainty, it may be used as a basis for ruling. --Irpen 15:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as blatant nationalistic, chauvinist or fundamentalist POV-pushing is not considered "good faith", which trap ArbCom has fallen into in the past. --Relata refero (disp.) 04:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. But unfortunately, we do not have any objective criteria to determine if a specific edit can be idenfined as "blatant nationalistic, chauvinist or fundamentalist POV-pushing", as explained by Piotrus above. If we had, that would be great.Biophys (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It is difficult to define the line between the good faith and the bad faith but good faith content disagreements are settled through wide discussed and compromises while bad faith is settled through the user conduct bodies including arbcom Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Endorse. Durova^Charge! 06:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. And... don't stuff beans up your nose. --Poeticbent talk 19:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppetry

5) The term 'meatpuppetry' is defined on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry as "a Wikipedia term of art meaning one who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor". Recruiting other editors to come to Wikipedia for the purpose of supporting one side in a dispute is harmful to dispute resolution procedures and therefore damaging to the encyclopaedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Adapted from the meatpuppetry section of WP:SOCK. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Piotrus: That is, of course, where it becomes difficult unless we find a 'smoking gun', and I haven't made my mind up on this case. But since the issue has been raised in the course of the case it might potentially need a principle to lay behind any finding. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the problem as I see it is determining whether an edit was done "because somebody was asked to" or "because they decided to do it." And one can ask others to do a lot of innocent things, to (asking for copyedit, asking for a reference and so on). Heck, I've asked academics to come and comment on some articles; in some cases I expected them to support some of my arguments (like here - search for "zuroff"), in others I didn't (here's an example) - was I recruiting them as meatpuppets (or in case of Leiman, who was likely to argue against me, "antipuppets"? :D)? What about RfC? If one request RfC, it is likely that one suspects the newcomers will support his side... I've requested dozens of content RfCs over my career :) I think the above may need a clarification that what's harmful is when one is recruiting "edit warriors" only. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the term "meatpuppetry" unhelpful except in blatant cases of canvassing, and have recently introduced the gentler and clearer formulation "excessively coordinated editing" ... although I may be deluding myself when I think that adds anything beyond some additional syllables. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes it sound more civilized... which has some good, but also some bad sides to it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed, but what about editors who came to Wikipedia for other reasons and thus were not recruited for the site? I don't think editors are commonly "recruited for edit wars" (albeit I may be wrong). Not that I think meatpuppetry is important here in any case (since I don't think anybody involved here is a meatpuppet, even Alden - unless he was recruited to add Polish POV to Harry Potter articles :D).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. This is good definition. But I do not think meat-puppetry is relevant in this case. Such terms as meat-puppets or tag-teams are poorly defined, difficult to prove, and unnecessary. There are simply teams. Teams can be good if they improve WP content, or teams can be bad if they disrupt productive editing or conduct harassment. Do users "A" and "B" form a team or collaborate? This is as simple as WP:DUCK. Good team or bad team? That should be decided by ArbCom.Biophys (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does remind me a little of old discussions that equated WikiProject Poland/Poland-related noticeboard to Polish cabal. After all, editors of that wikiproject/board collaborate, nobody's denying that. Alas, WikiProject, regional noticeboards and similar wiki organizations are "teams" - but ones working for the betterment of the project. To argue otherwise simply shows bad faith (I don't recall Polish editors ever criticizing the institution of German/Russian/Lithuanian wikiproject or board, for example). On the contrary, I myself have been to a certain extent involved with the two latter, and I wish them all luck and more members.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Everyone collaborates with everyone. Talking about teams means introducing the collective responsibility. Everyone is accountable only for his own actions - individually, not collectively. So may be we should stop talking about "malicious teams", "tag-teams" and "meat-puppets"?Biophys (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I do agree with findings of the ethnic/national conflict workgroup, outlined in WP:TAGTEAM. Sometimes, disruptive editors will band together and create a "bad team". This is a problem that needs to be dealt with. However, it appears that some can confuse a disruptive team with those trying to stop it (again - following the logical fallacy that "it takes two to tango", or simply - equating vandal preventer with a vandal). If a group of military history-interested editors, involved with WikiProject Military History, is policing milhist content, they are not an "evil tag team" - but they may be trying to prevent disruption by one or more of such tag teams. Now, replace the milhist by Polish in the above example, and you'll see the problem. Please also refer to my disclaimer ("most editors are not part of evil tag teams") here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Now I am beginning to understand what is that all about. ArbCom should make a ruling that confirms the existence of malicious tag-teams and explains what to do with them, in line with findings of the ethnic/national conflict workgroup. Sam refers to meat-puppetry here simply because this is a well known policy. But we do not have any previous rulings about tag-teams.Biophys (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you're right; it indeed would be good if the word tag team was mentioned more prominently than meatpuppetry, to avoid confusion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the comments about the Poland/Poland-related noticeboard I'd like to highlight a wise observation: "If you post a Poland-German related issue to Polish noticeboard, post it at the German noticeboard too. Those boards are not meant for canvassing support from only one group of editors; consensus can only be reached if all sides are aware of an issue."[21] Good advice. Maybe it should be compulsory.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 00:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above. There is a very simple rule of thumb that separates meatpuppetry from legitimate incidents when editors share their positions on something. Meatpuppetting edits are almost always called in by off-site communication, such as email, IRC or Gadu Gadu. The term "excessively coordinated editing" coined by Newyorkbrad aptly reflects this difference. Off-line coordination in edit wars and surveys is always excessive. --Irpen 22:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a common practice for all noticeboards and similar forums, nobody would disagree with that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might be something alongside the canvassing rather then meat puppetry should go here? Most of the problems here are rather violation of WP:CANVASS, WP:BATTLE and WP:AGF than WP:SOCK Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified endorse. Too often, the term meatpuppet is misapplied and I have concerns that the current wording is prone to overly broad interpretation. If editors A and B were unknown to each other before they joined Wikipedia, encountered each other for the first time after 4000 edits, and at 12,000 edits consult with each other--there may be subsequent questions about whether those consultations amount to improper collusion but they are definitely not meatpuppets. Those who are inclined to suppose the worst sometimes try to apply meatpuppet to that scenario. It would be best to tighten the syntax and minimize the chance of this proposal being construed that way. Durova^Charge! 06:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Meat-puppetry" is far too open to abuse as an accusation when like-minded editors of good faith and with reputable sources have a content dispute with another editor and the latter (single) editor makes the disagreement into an accusation of bad faith by playing the meat-puppet card against their opposition. —PētersV (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Please mind the following quote from WP:GANG: "It is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between inappropriate meatpuppetry and consensus-based editing which is faced with a lone POV pusher claiming that there is a tag team in operation." The actual word meatpuppet is used almost exclusively by flame warriors trying to get back at opposition in propaganda wars. There's usually nothing sinister about the fact that people share information especially when faced with a nutcase. --Poeticbent talk 20:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good principle. I wonder how any disagrees that "Recruiting other editors to come to Wikipedia for the purpose of supporting one side in a dispute is harmful to dispute resolution procedures and therefore damaging to the encyclopaedia." The difficulty may be in proving that as editors may legitimately and independently agree on certain issues. However, there is no doubt that off-line coordinated revert wars constitute the disruption whether you call it "meatpuppetry" or "excessively coordinated editing". However, in such wars we only have the series of on-wiki edits to judge. If same editors who are known to chat off-line show up in different articles which they never edited in the past only to revert to a partner's version, if this becomes a repeated pattern, if these editors also do not do any other actions on the articles later, it is up to the community (and the arbitrators) to judge how likely this is to be a mere coincidence. --Irpen 16:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered the advice from WP:CABAL that states that a cabal (meatpuppetry) is a self-fulfilling prophecy? Because of your (and others...) constant "crying wolf" and decrying Polish editors as part of the cabal, I've noticed that editors who were once never interested in certain articles or issues are becoming more interested in them, they follow one's another edits, and collaborate to defend against slander and to deal with disruption of articles they were previously not aware of. Radicalization of course is part of this, but it is caused by bad faithed actions on the part of the other party - not the other way around. Finally, a big part is the "assumed bad faith": without proof, some assume that editors are recruited "to support one side" instead of the perfectly acceptable recruiting to "join a discussion without prejudice and support a side of recruited person's choice, not that of a recruiter". For example, I've stated several times that on many occasions I've tried to recruit academics via offwiki communication media (emails) to join our project; I've never however told them which side to support (and I've contacted academics who may reasonably support POV of mine but also those who may reasonably support POV of the other party, too).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, "assuming bad faith", "accusations without proof", etc., is all bad stuff I agree. There is nothing wrong with recruiting academics off-wiki. There is nothing wrong with recruiting non-academics off-wiki. What's wrong is "Hey, could you revert here for me?" I hope the difference is clear. --Irpen 18:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Determination of meatpuppetry

6) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors with very similar behavior are sock-puppets, meat-puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A standard principle used in cases in which sockpuppetry is suspected; it may be relevant here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I am not familiar with the last part: "Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor". How does that work in practice? I would be rather offended, for example, if somebody would treat me and Alden as a single editor, and punished me for his incivility, for example. I'd also oppose treating User:Vlad fedorov (mentored and advised by Irpen) as having anything to do with him (Irpen tried to moderate him, Vlad couldn't be moderated and got banned). While they shared similar POV and there was much communication between them (including edit warring on the same articles), it would be unfair to assume Irpen encouraged him (when publicly, he didn't) or punish him for Vlad's misbehaviors (hence I never thought of brining Vlad into our discussions and evidence, even through he was quite active around Piotrus 1 arbitration...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the arbs will understand that supporting such a ruling would be extremely consequential, though not by any means do I suggest it would be bad. It will however empower administrators to close votes and other such things with a version of "consensus" significantly different from the current, one based on this principle. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

We need some criteria here. For example, the Giovanni33 was indeed an obvious case of sock- and meat-puppetry. The puppets of Giovanni33 satisfied the following criteria: (1) they did almost nothing in WP except supporting edits by their "master" in the periods of time when their "master" was inactive; (2) they were obvious SPAs focusing on a small set of subjects representing a subset of topics edited by their "master". No, I do not think that any participants of this Piotrus-2 case, including Alden Jones fit these criteria. Formation of teams by established WP users may not be always appropriate, but teaming up is not the meat-puppetry. Sure, Vlad was not a puppet of Irpen. Only User:Jo0doe might be identified as a potential meat puppet of Irpen based on the criteria above. This is not to accuse him of anything. I only think if there is a scientific method to identify potential meat puppets. Maybe yes, but this requires at least as serious investigation/evidence as in Giovanni33 case. I did not see such analysis/proofs here. Once again, meat-puppetry is a poorly defined term (see my objections above). We simply do not need it in this case.Biophys (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should firmly draw the distinction between the alleged leader and the followers (judged by whether the editor in question is a SPA and whether he started the disruptive pattern or joined it later). Only the followers may be subject to this rule, because otherwise it would enable single purpose accounts to frame the alleged leader in 3RR violations and similar things and to get him blocked. Colchicum (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Looking for masterminds and conspiracies is amusing, but pointless (particularly when one considers arguments that even national intelligence services are engaged in editing Wikipedia...). Groundless accusations of being on somebody's payroll (ex. [22]) are only good for a warning or block for bad faith. At one point an IP rambled on my page about cabal-proving telephone transcripts ([23], [24])... I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the lenght some people will go in cabal investigations :D --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. We do not need claims like that.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to comment just yet - would like to see some Fofs first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- A difficult principle to endorse. Makes sense up to a point, as in cases of obvious sockpuppetry, yet a formulation that works around distinguishing factors would be better. For instance, when Mantanmoreland and SamiHarris were accused of being socks I asked Mantanmoreland for examples of occasions where the two accounts had disagreed with each other or approached a discussion from different perspectives. Mantanmoreland wasn't even able to describe one, much less provide diffs for it: the only distinction between them was that they wrote in different social registers. Two conscientious editors who think independently will accumulate patterns of ways in which they act differently that tie into the editors' respective beliefs and approaches. Raw frequency of agreement is not a sufficient metric: what matters more are the situations where they participated in the same discussion and disagreed. Do they never disagree? Occasional one-offs might be generated to deflect suspicion, but patterns of disagreement--even minor or subtle ones--that sustain themselves over months and carry a consistent rationale are good evidence that two people are similarly minded rather than colluding. Established non-single-issue accounts deserve the chance to explain themselves if they can. Durova^Charge! 06:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose By this logic, a block of editors contending the moon is made of cheese has an "agenda" and an (opposing) block of editors contending the moon is made of rock also has an "agenda." By extension, any group of like-minded editors are meat-puppets. Personally, I already know 99.9% of the time who is going to be on what side of some contentious issue I am involved in. Does that make them meat-puppets? Only if my agenda is to accuse them of bad faith. The use of this term should simply be dropped. —PētersV (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should mention I've also been accused of "leading" groups when I've only been one editor of many taking a certain position. —PētersV (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, simply because the principle in not enforceable. Uninvolved administrators can never be fully capable of determining what constitutes a disruptive edit versus a rational one in the case of political propaganda campaigns so often plaguing Eastern European history. --Poeticbent talk 21:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys need to re-read the original principle because you adding possibilities that are already accounted for. Piotrus: If Alden made an uncivil edit, the only way you two would be concidered the same editor by this finding is if you also made a similar disruptive (uncivil) edit. That's not even the point of the finding. The point is that if editor A and B have a similar agenda, and A reverts editor C without discussion twice, and B reverts the same thing without discussion twice (both disruptive edits of a similar manner) then A and B should be concidered the same user and would have broken 3RR. It is not the point of the finding to lump people of a similar mind into one easily punishable ball.

Editors with the same agenda and make the same disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.

Not - Editors with the same agenda may be treated as a single editor.

Not - Editors with the same agenda making similar nondisruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.198.161.173.180 (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Positive principle but needs a little more specifics. If an editing pattern on several articles takes place as a result of the off-line coordination, this is a good rule of thumb to tell the right from the wrong. Determining such off-line coordination is really a crux of the matter because the coordination, if their is any, is taken off-line specifically to avoid its detection. It takes to study the evidence and conclude what it shows. But "off-line factor" is a good clue to determine what is going on. --Irpen 17:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Irpen

Updates

I am currently having an outside-of-the-arbcom discussion with Piotrus at my talk and I think there is a chance that we can achieve an agreement that might address most of my concerns. As long as I still see a reasonable chance of Piotrus and myself coming to an agreement in that discussion, I am refraining from drafting my own ArbCom proposal. --Irpen 22:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since Piotrus stopped contributing to the discussion we were having at my talk as an attempt to resolve our differences in a friendly dialog, I am to finish my evidence section and start posting to the workshop. A couple of more days patience would be appreciated. If Piotrus changes his mind, my talk page is open. --Irpen 16:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Since your attitude in the talk discussion is that I admit that I am guilty of all that my opponents accuse me of, and you (and they) are innocent victim of me and/or other Polish editors, I am afraid there is little point in continuing this discussion. Almost the entirety of your "argument" is nothing but a loaded question ("Piotrus, admit you are evil, and promise to improve!"). The committee can see from reading Irpen's talk that I tried again to patch things up with him - and again failed. Who is to blame for it - well, it's the committee job to decide.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, you plainly miscust our discussion. My attitude is not about guilt but about seeking harmonious editing climate which I view impossible until certain conduct continues to take place. The facts on what was taking place are not even disputed.

You do not deny (which would be impossible) that you have been collecting "incriminating diffs" for years (and followed your targets around while searching for material) to use at the opportune time in an attempt to expunge or sanction your opponents.
You did not even deny that on many occasions you resorted to direct off-wiki soliciting of reverts from your IM network friends.
And you can't deny that you used off-line fora to shop for sanctions of your "enemies", fora where they had no chance to counter your accusations, and that, while preaching the civility vigilance on-wiki, you found it fit to call people with various bad names behind their backs where they cannot see it.

With the facts being beyond dispute, the disagreement is only on whether they amount to a bad practice and on whether we can agree that this should not be done anymore. You refuse to admit your black book is a form of an attack and cast it as defense; you see nothing wrong with your off-line conduct, including insulting people behind their backs, while I see this inappropriate. I offered a forgive and forget approach and simply asked to make a simply pledge to abide by some plain and simple code of conduct. I also offered that once the code of conduct is agreed upon I cosign such pledge (to which I abode anyway) and would encourage all editors active in such conflicts to join. Throughout this discussion you refused to do so in various ways.

This brings us back to the need to get the outside judgment on such conduct and, if possible, a binding rule that would define coordinated revert warring, black booking and block shopping as permissible or harmful. I am mostly done with my evidence and, hopefully, my next workshop proposal would help find the solutions to the problems. --Irpen 20:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General remarks

This is my first ever workshop proposal. So, forgive my lack of experience. Please anyone copyedit any statement as you see fit. Also, if you want to modify it (without significantly altering the meaning) please feel free to do so without asking rather than post an alternative below it as this would be more practical. Instead of repeating parts of others' proposals, I will just refer and #link them (example) to consolidate the discussions. --Irpen 06:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning. The malicious and ill fated removal of my earlier comment by User:Irpen will not be accepted. Such blatant misconduct performed before the entire community only proves his malevolent objectives and his gross inability to follow basic rules of conduct. User:Irpen’s editorial record in mainspace can easily confirm similar antisocial attitude stretching over prolonged periods of time. Please stop tampering with comments made by your opponents, such as the one made by myself on October 7, 2008, which you deleted. Poeticbent talk 15:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Reinstated below:[reply]

Disagree. Presenting diffs going back to early 2007 is clearly not acceptable in these proceedings. --Poeticbent talk 15:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticbent, the workshop format encourages comments on each other's proposals but this above is out of place as I did not propose anything above. Could the clerk deal with this instead? --Irpen 17:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your concern was really genuine, you could’ve moved my comment, I wouldn’t mind, or better yet, have “the clerk deal with this instead” as you say, but to delete my vote of non-confidence against your procedural improprieties was something else. Are you willing to acknowledge that, instead of regressing into lecturing others? --Poeticbent talk 18:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to engage into threaded discussions at random places. My edit summary was self-explanatory. It is outright silly to suggest that my action was somehow covert. Nothing that leaves a trace in a form of a diff can possibly be covert. If you want to discuss this, as a proposal of anything, please start a discussion as a Finding of Fact or take it to talk and don't disrupt the workshop's format. It is messy as it is. Now, could the clerk please deal with this intrusion? --Irpen 18:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

A. From Sam's proposal

Purpose of Wikipedia
Editorial process
"excessively coordinated editing"

Please discuss there. --Irpen 06:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. From Alex' proposal

Representing all views
Forgive and forget
No black books (with addition that even keeping such books off-line, thus recording incidents for future use instead of trying to solve them counters the spirit of DR)
Administrators should have trust of the community with addition of the standard "role model" clause along the Higher standards of administrators by M.K. or #Administrators should lead by example in their project areas by Novickas

C. Also

Wikipedia is not a battleground from Piotrus' proposal
Discussing editors' backgrounds from Novickas' proposal
Acknowledging error by Novickas too

Transparency

1) As the openness is one of the core principles of Wikipedia, transparency is always preferable in Wikipedia actions. With harmless chatter being irrelevant for any Wikipedia proceedings (and thus completely outside of this principle), the mode for deliberations and considerations of the controversial issues should be open by default. This includes both editorial decisions on content and DR proceedings. The Wikipedia procedures should be opaque only when there is a clear need for such which may include checkuser, minor editors and other privacy issues, reigning in the real life harassment of Wikipedians, ArbCom internal deliberations, etc. updated 08:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Openness is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. Privacy of certain Wikipedia mechanism are warranted for certain specific issues, harmless for many other issues and harmful when used to conceal unethical conduct. Former version. Replaced by the one above. --Irpen 08:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. I am all for openness, both as it encourages good conduct and since it makes Wikipedia more valuable to researchers. However: 1) openness is no guarantee of good conduct (for example, 99.9% of harassment and incivility I and others face has come from public wikipedia posts, not some secret discussions - which might have occurred, but of whom we are blisfully unaware of) and 2) wikis are great tools but are not perfect, and lack features for instant communication; hence usage of tools like IM or IRC is acceptable. Finally 3) sometimes, privacy is important (for example, for evidence collection, as I totally agree with Irpen evidence being compiled against editor A should not be public and google'able as it can be too easily twisted into a defamatory attack page).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. May need reformulation but the idea is like this. Certain issues like Arbcom level discussion, privacy, minors, investigation of real life threats etc. require privacy. There are plenty of issues where off-site discussions between Wikipedians are completely harmless and justified by speed by off-site communication. However, sometimes the private methods are specifically chosen to disguise bad conduct. Seems obvious enough. --Irpen 06:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I completely understand the statement. Can it be somehow copyedited for clarity. In general I agree there are things that require privacy all other onwiki things should be done above the table. Secrecy breeds suspicions and bad faith and there are to much of those on wiki qualities already (at least in the Eastern European corner of Wiki) Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses. To Piotrus: 1) While "openness is no guarantee of good conduct" it is an important safe guard. Bad conduct behind the curtain is much more difficult to deal with and is considered much more unethical. You (like everyone else) are unlikely to "face incivility" in off-line discussions (Boody's inexcusable email to yourself is an exception, he already apologized for it profusely and IMO he should have been punished for it as if he posted that stuff to your talk which he was) but people with ethical lapses are much more likely to engage into (not face) bad conduct when they rely on the secrecy of the communication to have this conduct not exposed. 2) No one is saying that use of tools like IM or IRC are unacceptable per se. It is only about using those tools for illicit purposes I am talking about, such as coordination in revert wars, block shopping and badmouthing people behind their backs. Asking a question from a template expert, English expert, history expert or just innocent chat with a friend are perfectly fine. 3) Privacy is important when dealing with issues that are sensitive such as user-identifiable data, minors, RL threat and harassment of female editors or Poetlister-like abuse.

To Alex: please feel free to copyedit my statement. The idea is simple. Taking the Wikipedia business off-line is warranted (and required) under certain circumstances. When such circumstances are not meat, still taking advantage of off-line communication may be harmless and innocent. However, certain things must be done only in public view and some use of private communication is illicit. Examples are revert war coordination, snowballing surveys, block-shopping (when investigation of wrongdoing does not require checkuser tools or other sensitive information, etc.) Could you rewrite my proposal better? --Irpen 20:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated at 08:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC). Response: My idea is to have a principle about transparency but not vulnerable to justifiable claims that some off-line chatter is harmless. Some chatter's being harmless is not actually a question at hand. Also, for example harassment and RL threats to female editors must be treated with discretion. Harmless chatter may be taken off-line for the convenience' sake and it's not a problem when one asks technical questions, questions about English, discusses general stuff, cars, family or health issues with other wikipedians. But going off-line to coordinate revert wars, block shop or lay out coordinated attacks on other users would be against this principle. --Irpen 09:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Novickas (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming Good Faith

2) Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith is one of the Wikipedia's core principles. It requires treating actions of other editors based on an assumption that (1) the primary goal of all their actions is to advance the interest of the project (2) unless there is an evidence to the contrary. The first part is crucial but the second part is important too.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

How is it different from my proposal? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Please feel free to rephrase retaining the general meaning. --Irpen 06:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is not the reason we are all here expending our effort (yet again) because of the ease with which one can purport to possess "evidence to the contrary?". To use an old banking metaphor about auditors: "Shoot first, ask questions later." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vecrumba (talk • contribs) see [25]

Response: Re Piotrus and Vecrumba. I just wanted to show that AGF, being a two-part principle, is a balancing act. Gaming it assigning too much weight to part 1 is calling for blank-check. Gaming it the other way, overemphasizing part 2 would sanction abuse and effective revocation of the principle. So, this guideline requires applying common sense and reasonable interpretation of the evidence on whether it is "to the contrary" or just innocent stuff. The latter issue is a judgment matter and depends on many things such as sporadic vs repeated occurrence, alternative explanation being plausible or far-fetched, etc. --Irpen 21:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: My dear Irpen, your response here embodies everything that I find distasteful about this proceeding and disappointing about your participation. "Gaming it... Gaming it the other way...". Your combativeness has so infused every cell of your editorial being that you can't help describing everything from a framework of bad faith, even when you are providing a calm and reasoned response. The next time you come back from a Wiki-break, consider not jumping into one of these. If WP really needs to be defended from someone, you're not the only editor available for mustering in its defense. (Just relaying my perception.)—PētersV (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is my experience that holding a view contrary to that held by a "true believer" is sufficient "evidence to the contrary" for them. Martintg (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: We only "assume" if there is a lack of information. If an editor comes along coincident in time, effect, and point of view as another, then there is information about the edit, and there is no "assuming" to be done. Furthermore, "AGF" is advice we give to ourselves. It's a reminder to ourselves to be nice to strangers. It's important in that respect, but it is not a "policy" that carries with it punishments or methods, as no one will know what the content of my heart is when I view an edit. I can assume that an edit is done in good faith and still be most impolite about it. AGF cannot be used as a trenchcoat behind which the city park flasher hides. It is not armor. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: re: "Furthermore, "AGF" is advice we give to ourselves. It's a reminder to ourselves to be nice to strangers," I would posit it is, rather more importantly, advice to ourselves to be nice to our (editorial) adversaries. —PētersV (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. A big problem with those entire preceedings is formed by giant amounts of bad faith - which is a staple of "true believers" (who have no good faith for anybody who disagrees with their POV).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would support if it was phrased in terms of action guidelines rather than thought guidelines. Novickas (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is that the AGF is a thought guideline rather than an action guideline. The more there are actions , the less is left to assumptions. Actions should be judged based on their merit, and while such explanations should still be based on plausible and reasonable assumptions, if the same 3-4 editors repeatedly appear at the articles they never edited conveniently when one editor exhausts his 3RR-quota, the more often this happens, the lest is left to "assume". If these were isolated incidents, we could still assume that nothing illicit is going on. But when the pattern is repeated, the second clause of AGF kicks in. --Irpen 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK

3) Certain forms of bad conduct (such as off-line canvassing or coordinated revert warring) by their design do not produce direct evidence. In such cases the best reasonable judgment has to be drawn from circumstantial evidence. While presumption of innocence and assuming good faith should remain in place, reasonable conclusions may be drawn based on convincing circumstantial evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. Per Peters - the problem is that some editors look at the same duck and one sees a cow and another, a dragon... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When reasonable people disagree on who the creature is, certainly WP:DUCK does not apply. --Irpen 17:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Again, I hope the idea is clear. If there is a pattern of otherwise mysterious events that points to a specific cause, we may conclude the existence of such cause if an alternative explanation is highly implausible, especially if there is a pattern that is reproduced repeatedly. Sockpuppets with computer skills sufficient to render checkuser useless are banned precisely based on such principle while GRAWP or WoW's reincarnations are identified and banned without waiting for checkuser results. Please rephrase if you see how to say it better. --Irpen 07:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases we have to draw conclusions based on the incomplete information (sockpuppeting and COI are obvious examples) Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This proceeding demonstrates that we have wildly disparate interpretations of incontrovertible events. I see no reason to extend discord and interpretation into the realm of the "maybe it happened, maybe it didn't." —PētersV (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither: WP:DUCK is simply the application of Occam's razor. Given a set of circumstances, one theorizes about cause, and one takes the simplest satisfactory explanation. One needs no fancy law to affirm what is a habit of mind and center point of science. Of course we already use circumstantial evidence in dealing with suspected sockpuppets, vandal accounts, etc., and so, even if we were in the mood to argue, we uphold the principle by desuetude (which is important in any online community). If a circumstantial noose tightens, it's always incumbent upon people to ask for the innocent explanation, but every additional element makes us favor the simplest complete explanation over the most complex series of coincidences. Geogre (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude to problem resolution

4) As a general rule, conflicts should be either let go or addressed within a reasonable period after their occurrence, rather than being "saved up" for future use, with the narrow exception (Poetlister or RL harassment redux). Maintaining lists of diffs over an extended period indicates that the person is planning a disruptive action. While, based on the "two wrongs make it right" logic, such log may serve as certain "self defense", such activity in general can only contribute to escalation of the conflicts and would rather impede than help in the dispute resolution process, unless the collector is actively participating in dispute resolution with respect to the specific matters and/or editors in question and records the attempts of resolution along with the incidents.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"Maintaining lists of diffs over an extended period indicates that the person is planning a disruptive action." Sounds like "assume bad faith" to me. As for the context (since it's obviously about my evidence collection): Q: Have I ever used evidence I collected in "a disruptive action?" A: NO. Q: Is assuming I'd use it in "a disruptive action" good faithed? A: Golly, no? Let me stress again: this entire "Piotrus evidence list is evil" attitude is based on an assumption I was to use it with some nefarious purpose... Case rested.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How you used it will be a finding of fact. This is a proposed principle for now. --Irpen 03:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One can hardly make a finding of fact out of something that has not happened yet... ArbCom is not a crystal ball :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a crystal ball when facts are in the clear view. You uploaded parts of your black book into Wikipedia verbatim on several occasions. Here are just some of them: Example 1 [26] [27], example 2 [28] [29], example 3 [30] [31]. --Irpen 17:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As part of normal dispute resolution procedures, including this very arbcom, yes. Nowhere was it done, as you suggest, "as a disruptive action", or to win a content dispute I would be otherwise losing.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is on the table. With facts not being in dispute, it is up to arbitrators to decide whether your black book, how it was maintained and used was a proper DR or an improper method of winning content disputes. --Irpen 19:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think some of the discussion at this page about Piotrus' diffs dump address the issue from the wrong end. The problem is not whether it is accessible or not. The problem is with the mindset of people (in this incident Piotrus) that leads to the approach of addressing conflict via maintaining the logs on each and every action of your opponents. The problem is not even that doing so is a blatant ABF with respect to any unfortunate editor who is honored with inclusion in this dump. The problem is that this list indicates the goals of its keeper being to "resolve" the ordinary disputes via expulsion of opponents and looking for every chance to do so.

This diff-dump was a breaking point for me, a borderline between our once cordial relations and feeling that I, as well as others, are being watched for expulsion. And I believe getting over with this, or showing that such attitude is permissible is one of the key points of this arbcom. The latter may be achieved even by simply skipping it an leaving it out of the final ruling. It is obvious that the supports and opposes would be here unfortunately divided along the usual party lines of the workshop participants. I suggest we discuss this proposal in detail, perhaps at talk? I started a dedicated section at the talk page. Would be helpful if uninvolved users and arbitrators voiced their opinions in this discussion. --Irpen 03:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed as initially stated. Maintaining lists of diffs over an extended period indicates that the person is planning a disruptive action. While, based on the "two wrongs make it right" logic et al. posited based on a framework of a bad-faith view of the world. I agree that "Attitude toward problem resolution" is an important topic. Perhaps you or someone else can restate this in a manner devoid of bad-faith-itis. —PētersV (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faith, good or bad, can only be a basis of the judgment, when there are no facts. When there are facts in plain sight, we should not ignore them and continue to apply faith, unless we are in the church. If an editor claims that there is a problem, his actions are indicative of whether his goals are problem resolution or opponents' ejection. --Irpen 18:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of all involved here, surely you have argued more than most that facts can be cherry picked and be open to interpretation. There is no spoon. There are no facts. Our editorial faith always guides and is mirrored in our editorial actions. —PētersV (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there are facts. Cherry-picking facts to show non-existing patterns is cheating. This may be a problem. This is exactly why no case should be judged based on the single side of the story without giving the accused a chance to respond. This is why secret evidence (or any kind of private communication with arbitrators or admins) should be only allowed under very specific rare circumstances that involve user's privacy and other similar stuff. But, as I said earlier, "assume good faith" does not mean ignore the obvious signs of bad attitude. For example, when I see that Piotrus follows all my edits and logs anything he can find even in areas unrelated to him I cannot possible come up with a nice reasoning of him doing so. Finally, Vecrumba, you preaching that users should continue to assume good faith no matter what would look more sincere if you practiced it yourself. I am not saying you should. I am saying that you should not preach to the contrary of your own actions. --Irpen 20:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations and plagiarism

5) It is prohibited to add to Wikipedia any content in a form that infringes the copyright of others as this could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project. While the facts and ideas presented in the outside sources are not copyrighted, they should be formulated in author's own words before being submitted to Wikipedia. Following specific outside sources too closely, with and especially without acknowledging them, may be unethical and constitute plagiarism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Based on Wikipedia:Copyrights. --Irpen 07:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No questions about this, but is this relevant for the case? Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Alex, any reason? I do, for example, believe that HOW sources represent an event should be preserved in addition to WHAT the event was. But there is no impediment to that being done in a fashion which avoids plagiarism. —PētersV (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence#Dishonest editing. --Irpen 17:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living people

6) Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Wikipedia. As the English Wikipedia has become one of the most prominent and visited websites in the entire world, a Wikipedia article about an individual will often be among the highest-ranking pages to turn up in an Internet search for that individual. The contents of these articles may profoundly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and professional careers. Therefore, while all Wikipedia articles should be factually accurate, be based upon reliable sources, and be written from a neutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living persons must adhere to these standards. All biographical articles must be kept free of unsourced or poorly sourced negative or controversial content and any such content should be presented in the proportion with its overall significance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sure, but beware of gaming. Context 1, Context 2.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Goes without saying. --Irpen 07:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. I suggest to expand and incorporate following points (based and on several previuos Arb cases):

The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.
Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles and talk pages must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly.
In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm."
Editors dealing and reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons have immunity over WP:3RR. M.K. (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both Irpen and M.K. Wikipedia is not the place for the hatchet jobs against living people (although it is sometimes very tempting) Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Have biographies of living people fallen under dispute here? Just curious. —PētersV (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence#Delving into BLP territory in a quest to miscast sources for an answer. --Irpen 17:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to quote from a BLP reviewer: "Academic criticism of an academic is not in violation of BLP.".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "BLP reviewer" mean? I am not going to continue this discussion here. Let's just invite everyone to read Talk:Mikhail Meltyukhov for what different editors, including those invited by you, said on the matter. There were several critical comments on that from at least 3 people in addition to myself. --Irpen 19:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability and accuracy of sourcing

7) Maintaining the reliability and accuracy of article content is extremely important. Statements in articles should be verifiable to reliable sources. Appropriate sourcing is particularly important where the contents of an article are controversial or their accuracy is disputed. The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly and special care should be taken when the content is cited to a source that is reasonably difficult to verify. By adding a source, quoting it or citing from it an editor represents that the source exists, that it was consulted by an editor, that quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. Sure, but content issues are not the problem here - incivility and harassment pursued by editors who lose content discussions and who attempt to chase their opponents of wiki via such tactis are.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section at the evidence page describes several instances of misuse or outright manipulation of sources. --Irpen 18:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed based on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. In this proposal I deliberately stuck only to completely undisputable issues that cannot be seriously questioned or interpreted differently. This proposal does not affect any issues of editorial judgment whatsoever and even blatant violations of NPOV, such as WP:UNDUE, are outside of this plainly uncontroversial proposal. I don't want this case marred and derailed by specific content disputes. Even "Star Wars is the greatest movie of all times.<ref to a single review by one critic>" won't violate this principle unless a review does not exist or it says the opposite or it makes such a remark sarcastically or mocks the movie fans thus clearly implying that it is certainly not the greatest movie of all times. The principle may be split into two if desired like was done in original case. --Irpen 21:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the principle but disagree with its practical implementation by Irpen. This is actually Irpen who constantly uses writings by non-notable Russian propagandists like Mikhail Meltyukhov (see his "BLP" accusations). This is actually Irpen who removes reliable sources by famous Western historians like Robert Conquest: [32], [33], [34], [35]. And this is actually Irpen who argued in favor of self-published sources from the internet to discredit academic books [36] ("Is an email being used to override peer-reviewed literature? Good God!", said uninvolved User:Sarvagnya in this diff). Biophys (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, let's just agree on principles first, OK? If my conduct violates the principles I propose, that would be a factual rather matter rather than a matter of principles. I addressed your accusations on Holodomor and Meltyukhov elsewhere. If you are unsatisfied, please raise them in those discussions or start a new one in the proper place, not in the discussion of the principle you and I seem to both agree on. I am glad you find this proposal agreeable. It is important to agree on principles before discussing facts. --Irpen 21:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I would add something along the lines that this is a particularly sensitive issue when non-EN sources are used, since that hinders a wider evaluation by the community. Also, that when clarification is requested, it should receive a courteous and timely response. Novickas (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NONENG covers that partially, I support adjusting it to reflect your comment which I wholeheartedly support (I've often asked for translations of Lithuanian refs and reviews of them and was often ignored or flamed in return). But again I don't see this as very relevant to this case (remember - the focus of this case is not to fix all that's wrong or inefficient with this project).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The crux of this case, Piotrus, in the opinion of several editors, is not incivility per se but dishonest POV-pushing by methods that violate the spirit and the letter of our policies. Gaming WP:CIV to use it as a weapon in content disputes is one such method (and this is how WP:CIV enters the picture of this arbcom.) But misuse and manipulation of sources (a policy violation in itself) is responsible for much of this mess. --Irpen 18:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions are consensus building

8) The Wikipedia naming conventions are guidelines which are developed and updated by community consensus. Article titles should be compliant with these guidelines. Though interpretations of these guidelines may vary, the choice of optimal titles of the articles should be achieved through consensus building rather than move warring or taking advantage of subtle features of MediaWiki. Editors who dot not agree with consensus names or are unsure of what names meet the consensus should discuss them within the community not disrupt titles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment As on the above proposal: sure, but this (another content issue) is mostly irrelevant to those proceedings.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is related since freezing page moves through salting the redirects is a conduct issue, not a content one. ArbCom addressed this explicitly in AndriyK's case. --Irpen 19:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Loosely based on AndriyK's case. Seems obvious and straightforward. --Irpen 04:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Useful, since names are a frequent source of conflict in this part of WP. Novickas (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unfortunately this is open to gaming by some combative editors who attempt to claim no consensus exists via meat puppetry to back their misleading claims to ANI. This gaming is particularly obvious when the meat puppetry happens after the move is made and the puppets unwittingly vote on a redundant name proposal, being unaware that the proposed name had evolved to something else, due to their lack of involvement in this discussion before the move. Martintg (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are expected to lead by example

9) Administrators are expected to lead by example, and act as role models for users in the community. To a greater extent than other editors, administrators are expected to behave ethically and be respectful in their interactions with others. Sustained conduct in violation of this principle is incompatible with the status of administrator. Even if no misuse of administrative tools took place, administrators whose actions are inappropriate may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. Support the principle (is it part of an official policy). The problem is that ideals are in the eye of a beholder. Too often, "good admin" means "uncontroversial admin", one who edits no controversial content and takes no stance regarding disruptive user who have even a little wiki-political clout. See also my essay on the adminship. It is my strong belief that indeed, admins should lead by example - and that means that they should take a stand against disruptive users, as well as that they should enforce NPOV even in face of disapproval of organized POV-pushing tag teams.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you support the principle. As for the "beholder" part, it belongs to FoF section and we'll discuss it there. I am not suggesting a simplified approach in defining what constitutes such trust. --Irpen 18:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Obvious principle stated in many other cases. --Irpen 04:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagrant accusations of exceptionally egregious abuse

10) Harassment of Wikipedia editors (even when it does not involve any real life matters and is limited to the Wikipedia) is widely viewed as exceptionally gruesome misconduct. Accusations of such conduct should not be made passingly or taken lightly and raising them repeatedly and ignoring the requests to back them up or withdraw amounts to serious character assassination. Similarly, veiled or open repeated allegations of the Wikipedia editors' being connected with murderous and/or insidious state or non-state organizations is a serious breach of conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Puzzled support. I completly agree with the spirit, but I don't understand why Irpen is proposing a principle against himself: after all a gist of the case is formed by the complains that he has been slandering my name with various "flagrant accusations of exceptionally egregious abuse" for years, all around Wikipedia. I however understand he is offended by the evidence and some workshop proposals here... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, first off the "I however understand he is offended by the evidence" serves a good example of the type of incivility you practice. As for accusations, you are facing, at least from me all of them are about dishonest editing and block-shopping. This isn't nice stuff, to be sure, but I never accused you of "harassment" or being a member of a criminal gang or of Agencja Bezpieczeństwa Wewnetrznego. Having witnessed your taunting, baiting and gaming the policies to achieve victories in content disputes, I avoided terms like "harassment" because there are different words for different situations. SlimVirgin, Alison, Durova were indeed at times harassed. You were not but used this word reserved for exceptionally grave activity in order to vilify your opponents. There is a reason why you never backed these accusations up after having thrown them around so liberally. --Irpen 05:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Irpen, you complained vocally, up to writing evidence and workshop proposals on the subject, about how you were offended by my evidence gathering (black books). Isn't this right? That said, you are right: what you are doing is not real-life harassment, but wiki-harassment (not real life, but on wiki). I would be happy to clarify that, feel free to tell me if I need to refactor any of my posts for that purpose.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Hopefully the principle is obvious to anyone. --Irpen 02:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This makes me think of my favorite comment in a wikipedia deletion discussion. [37] I suppose that is not the same for some reason though... Ostap 03:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as it correctly pointed out by Ostap and Piotrus, the proposed principle goes beyond the behavior of Biophys and is generally useful in many controversial topics in Wikipedia. It is quite common among the true believers to accuse editors removing claims of 9/11 truthers in CIA connections, Captain Smirk type nonsense in being Australian Government payroll, people making sympathetic entrees over different Baltic SS-formations in Nazi simpathies, etc. I think outlawing this is a good thing Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Alex. Sorry, but I must answer. Unlike you, I always provide evidence. Let's see a few examples of the accusations you are talking about:

Here User:Alaexis (not me) tells that User:Alaexis "is a paid member of the KGB" [38]
Here User:Miyokan (not me) tells that User:Miyokan is "a paid member of the KGB Internet troll squad" [39]
Here User:Russavia (not me) inserts a userbox telling that User:Russavia is "a paid member of the FSB Web brigades" and "as such" supports Vladimir Putin [40].
Here User:ellol (not me) suggests that "you [me] have to admit" that User:ellol "is also an "FSB agent" [41]
Here CPTGbr (not me) accuses you, Alex of "corruption" [42].
Here, on September 22, I asked you to provide any evidence of your claim that I accused anyone "to be a member of FSB brigade" (as you said)[43], and you so far provided nothing dated earlier than September 22
Here User:Irpen (not me) also blames me of something I did not tell as of September 15 (the time of the diff) [44]; see more detail in my evidence. But you still continue accusing me, even though it was you (not me) telling about the "slap to the face". Biophys (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, your CIA comparison misses an important point and this comparison is, perhaps, the reason why Biophys manages to get away with his "you're KGB"-type accusations for so long. Americans don't think of CIA accusations as anything other than silliness, so perhaps they don't have the right perspective to see the grave nature of such allegations. --Irpen 05:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one thinks that CIA accusations are silliness - this has been published by major newspapers (see CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits by Reuters, Wal-Mart, CIA, ExxonMobil Changed Wikipedia Entries, by Rhys Blakely, The Times, August 16, 2007, Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits' By Jonathan Fildes, BBC News, See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign, by Wired, CIA and Labour Party 'edit' Wikipedia entries). But please, do not tell that I accuse anyone of CIA connections.Biophys (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you did not accuse anyone of CIA connections. You leveled the accusations of KGB-connections "only". But because most readers are aware that CIA connections are usually crankpottery, your KGB accusations did not (yet) result in any sanctions. --Irpen 06:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell that CIA article was not created by CIA people because it collects all real and imaginary misdeeds by the CIA. However, the original version of article SVR was edited by people from the Russian Foreign Intelligence who operated under different IP addresses. I mean this version. Why I think so? Because this version is basically a translation from their corporate web site (a classic WP:COI case). Look at this: "SVR officers currently receive competitive salaries with the Russian and CIS private economic sectors and special tax advantages. Retirement benefits are correlated to the Russian military's defined benefit plan (regular, non-contributory annuity) and are higher than those provided to other civil servants, and the social insurance plan (which provides regular payments for women at age 60 and men at age 65, survivors payments and disability payments)". It means: "Welcome!". Of course I re-edited this. No, I do not make unsubstantiated accusations. Irpen, I do not know who you are, and I never said that you work for the KGB. I only said that you promote Soviet propaganda and provided some evidence. Even as we speak, you are doing just that: [45], [46].Biophys (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Some useful findings are already posted by others. I will try to avoid duplication. --Irpen 11:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alden Jones

1) Alden Jones (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account whose entire contributions to the articles on topics related to Eastern Europe consists on reverts of various editors to Piotrus' versions of articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sure, like supporting my edits in Windows 95, Windows Vista Embedded , 627 in Ireland, Independence Estate (Bydgoszcz), FIFA 08 and Starr (6teen), just to name a few articles I've never edited :D Seriously, it was only in in June and July that Alden's pattern of edits converged with mine, and it appears he finally got my message that his "help" is not needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, did you notice "on topics related to Eastern Europe" in the FoF? --Irpen 18:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is easy to verify. Whether it is Piotrus' fault or not, this needs to be said to address AJ in a remedy. --Irpen 11:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange revert warring pattern

2) There is a consistent pattern of several users, who are known to chat with Piotrus on Gadu Gadu, an IM network, to appear at articles during revert wars run by Piotrus at the time when Piotrus' "3RR quota" is used up only to revert to the Piotrus' version (often more than once.) These users never edited these articles (or their talk pages) before joining Piotrus' revert wars. They expressed no interest in these articles after briefly joining the revert wars either.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Instead of suspecting cabalism, consider coincidence, as I've explained there. I could ask how come Alex helped Irpen here with reverting (his first and last edit to that article), but I suspect it's just another innocent coincidence, and I am not going to waste time looking for such coincidences (or speculate about unprovable Russian IMs or such).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I just stated an undeniable fact that there is such repeated pattern. Whether the mere coincidence looks a reasonable explanation is a matter of interpretation of facts. It is up to anyone's judgment to conclude how sensible an "mere coincidence" explanation is to the following: 1) we are always talking about same 3-4 editors; 2) They are known to be your Gadu Gadu; 3) They always appear when you "3RR quota" is up; 4) they revert different editors to your versions at all those articles; 5) they never edited the articles in question before that; 6) they never edited these articles after that (showing they are not that much interested in the articles. --Irpen 19:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you with bad faith imply that there is some "coordinated edit warring" and such in this, where good faith would suggest coincidence, uncoordinated following of one another's edits to find interesting "hot" discussions/topics, and good faithed (no "please revert to me" canvassing) discussion on content issues (off and on Wikipedia) increasing the chance of the above.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, Piotrus, facts are on the table. It is up to arbitrators to decide how sensible an alternative explanation of this being a set of mere coincidences is. --Irpen 19:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Piotrus uses meatpuppetry for edit-wars and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence#Piotrus and coordinated edit warring as well as other sections. Facts are not disputed. What to make out of them is a matter of individual judgment everyone can make for themselves from the evidence page. --Irpen 11:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper use of off-wiki channels

3) Piotrus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) repeatedly used his access to the privileged IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-admins) to campaign for the blocks of his content opponents. None of the incidents involved any sensitive matters that would have warranted their handling off-wiki

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

All such incidents involved cases when I wanted a quick reply. AN(I) can be fickle not only w/ regards to a result (just as IRC anyway) but also w/ regards to time (and if it takes too long, threads are ignored as stale). I did not use those channels to hide something (that IRC channel is logged and editors, like Irpen, can get their hand on their logs, has been common knowledge for years) but to get a quick reply and attract more neural eyes to an issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To get "neutral eyes" one calls for them using neutral language, Piotrus. It is clear that you thought you can get away with calling Lokyz and M.K. "POV trolls" and "sock pupeteers", shopping for Lokyz' block in March, accused Boodlsethecat in being a vandal in September or how you pushed for his block in October, all done at IRC. You clearly used your access to a channel to fish for an admin willing to close your complaints your way when you were unsure that these would go your way onwiki. Also, you were clearly uncivil not only by using rude words that you normally don't use on-wiki. Even more uncivil is gossiping about people behind their backs where they can't see or respond to what you say. This is a rule of basic human decency that you failed to uphold. --Irpen 19:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Improper use of off-wiki channels. No one who have seen the logs or even whatever has spilled to Wikipedia can deny that. --Irpen 11:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom lacks direct control over #wikipedia-en-admins and its policies

4) The status of the Wikipedia-related Freenode IRC channels, including #wikipedia-en-admins, is kept deliberately ambiguous and neither the Wikipedia community, nor any of its structures, including the ArbCom, have any direct control over the IRC channels. The channels are controlled by the internal hierarchy of sysops with the ultimate control being held personally by James Forrester and Sean Whitton who exercise such control privately (as individuals) rather than officially representing the Wikipedia community, or any Wikipedia or WMF structures. The channel is governed solely by its internal code adopted by its hierarchy in their capacity of the channel members and operators. According to a recent change in the channel policy implemented in August 2008 [47] the access to the channel is contingent with the admin status and cannot be retained if the user gets involuntarily desysopped or resigned under controversial circumstances.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. May not in any way be directly related to Piotrus but needs to be stated to define what ArbCom can and can't do to address using access to #admins as a weapon in content disputes. --Irpen 03:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all ambiguous, Arbcom, the foundation and wikipedia are nothing whatsoever to do with #wikipedia-en-admins just another chatroom like MSN or any other where kids hang out. Giano (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a good argument, Giano, to finally get rid of this ambiguity and make the IRC de facto disconnected from the Wikipedia, just like the Wikipedia Review. Note a difference, though. Wikipedia space does not host the Wikipedia Review policies and guidelines. It is purely their own matter ultimately decided by whoever owns that site. Same applies to IRC. The community and the ArbCom have no control over it but its hierarchy resists to the disconnection between IRC and Wikipedia being codified. My main point is that this deliberate ambiguity is hypercritical and untenable and should be ended. I don't see any chance that the channel owners would submit the channel to be ruled by the policies upon which the Wikipedia community would have any say. Thus, IRC should simply be fully disconnected from the Wikipedia with all links to it removed from the Wikipedia space, just like it was ruled in the Badsites arbcom case. --Irpen 22:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects salting

5) Following his page moves from non-Polish to the Polish titles, Piotrus repeatedly edited the resulting redirects thus effectively freezing the moves. He never edited in a similar way any redirects from the Polish titles to the non-Polish ones.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I categorize redirects in various cases. In the most problematic cases, articles were moved from previously stable names to new ones, and subject to move warring. In almost no cases the warring party took my suggestion of WP:RM, knowing well that they would fail to push their version through a neutral community (in most of those cases there was even no discussion on talk, just unexplainable move warring I put an end to). In three cases RM took place and confirmed the old name (example1, example2, example3). The single exception in Irpen's diffs is Battle of Annaberg, where User:Olessi, a very helpful editor, intervened in the middle of Matthead move edit warring, mediated the discussion, and convinced me that the original name of the article was indeed not the best. I also have no problems with non-Polish names (ex.). See also Marting comment on that issue.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you tried to chain the articles at the locations they ended up in the page moves initiated by you or to put an end to "move warring", salting redirects is not a proper way to get it your way as affirmed by AndriyK's precedent. And, yes, I admit that you sometimes (very rarely) agreed with moving to non-Polish names. Point is that those redirects you never salted only the other way around. --Irpen 19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence#Page moves. Facts here are not disputed. --Irpen 11:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to articles on biographies of living people

6) Piotrus' edited articles on the scholars whose work are in some aspects critical of Poland with the primary goal to discredit their works as sources for Wikipedia articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is important to create articles on notable entities (people or organizations) that may help with implementing WP:RS. I've created or exanded articles on dozens of scholars (most of them non-controversial), including on Polish controversial authors/extremists (Dariusz Ratajczak, Edward Prus, Stanisław Grabski, Jerzy Robert Nowak, Wiktor Poliszczuk) as well as on non-Polish. When such articles critical of Polish extremist sources are started by others, I have no problem with it (do note I don't censor information on Polish unreliable sources, I help to bring it to light). Irpen, on the other hand, has for long time tried to censor information on unreliable Soviet/Russian sources - the debate around Mikhail_Meltyukhov is a good example, see also Soviet historiography and his edits there/criticism on talk. My interest in unreliable outlets begun only after I've witnessed some editors (ex. Irpen, or Lithuanian tag team reliance on Vilnija) use certain sources again and again to argue for a fringe POVs (examples of where MM was used to push fringe POV: Talk:Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz#Cruelty (where MM was used to defame the person in question) and Talk:Kiev Offensive (1920)#Recent Irpen's edit/Talk:Kiev Offensive (1920)#Polish Vandalism/Talk:Kiev Offensive (1920)#On shortening the article (where MM was used to supply refs for dubious "acts of vandalism of the Polish army")). See also past arbcom discussions related to this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop#Biographies_of_living_persons_violations, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop#Removal_of_references, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop#Suppression_of_Russian_nationalist_source, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Influence_of_propaganda_on_reliability... Bottom line: I edit articles about unreliable outlets, regardless of their POV (which can be pro- or anti-Polish), with the aim of ensuring that well-referenced information about their unreliability will be available to editors (and readers). Irpen's portrayal of my actions as some pro-Polish slander is yet another example of his bad faith towards my person. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome anyone's attention to the content disputes Piotrus linked to above. If arbitrators choose to help resolve them, beautiful! But this finding is not about sources but about editing bio articles with the goal to strike sources not to one's liking from Wikipedia, be it Jan T. Gross, a Princeton professor, or Mikhail Meltyukhov, a Russian historian. This section at the evidence page shows all the details. --Irpen 19:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is something that Piotrus says himself: "The current section is too long, I agree, but was necessary to ensure that MM would not be cited as a neutral, mainstream source for P-R relations". Also "it also helps ensure that people will be less likely to use [his] extremist works as a source. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Delving into BLP territory in a quest to miscast sources for complete details. --Irpen 11:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of sources

7) In numerous edits to a series of articles concerning the Eastern European topics Piotrus has cited sources for propositions that the cited works do not fairly support. Some examples of sources misuse include:

isolating on a particular statement or quotation within a work and taken it out of context without fairly presenting the viewpoint of the source taken as a whole;
using poor sources without attribution thus concealing their quality;
citing sources that do not exist to support his edits;
referencing his edits to sources that do not support the content cited to them;
using poor quality sources to counter the information presented in the first rate academic sources;
using poor quality sources to support questionable content that is not covered in scholarly sources.

Some examples of this have been presented by the parties here, here and here. Although some of these incidents may have been honest gaffes, their overall effect is problematic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed based on the FMA case. Such practices are covered here, here and here at the evidence and initial statement pages of this case as well as many talk page discussions. --Irpen 22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strenuously object. I'm sorry, Irpen, but based on my experience with you on Holodomor presented in evidence regarding Stalin taking a personal interest in famine victims and your contention that my edit which barely paraphrased the source was false, you are the least qualified to pass judgement on "misrepresentation" of sources. "Misrepresentation" is Irpenese for any representation of a source you do not personally agree with—even the authors' own summary of a situation. Your complaints about representation of sources have lost all credibility. —PētersV (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more helpful, Vecrumba, if the comments were made on the substance of the evidence rather than your personal opinions about the editors who presented it. --Irpen 21:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User conduct at this ArbCom

8) The contributions of Biophys (talk · contribs) and, to a lesser degree, Martintg (talk · contribs) to this arbitration case has been highly disruptive. Such disruption has included baseless allegations (both veiled and open) that some of the participants in this case are in some way connected to the KGB or its successor state security agencies in the Russian Federation (Biophys) [48], that the participants in this case exert some sort of behind the scenes influence over the ArbCom (Biophys and Martintg) [49] [50] [51] [52] as well as additional nonconstructive, inflammatory posts to various arbitration pages. Although they may have been sincere in some of their posts, their overall effect has been highly negative.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In other words: they dared to present evidence against Irpen. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, please be serious. This is not about daring to present evidence. Many people presented evidence, including against myself. You know full well that Martin and Biophys stepped well over the line with their rants in this case' pages. I am sad that their being your supporters is enough for you to refuse to acknowledge something that obvious. --Irpen 03:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

??? So asking questions is stepping "well over the line"? Martintg (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally no, but sometimes yes. Depends on the questions. For example Are you still beating your wife? is also "just a question". --Irpen 18:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed: Don't mean to suggest that their so called "evidence" should be stricken (is rather is self-explanatory anyway), but a remedy is needed to address their disruptive contribution to the dispute resolution in general as such conduct tends to derail any chance of a productive outcome from any disagreement. At least Biophys needs to be placed under mentorship. --Irpen 09:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now apparently asking questions of Arbcom (which Irpen states he doesn't mind), requesting search URLs, or providing evidence and observations based entirely on my own experience (the notion that I scrutinize Irpen's past edits is false), is to be seen as "disruption". We are here to build an encyclopedia, but unfortunately some people have taken their eye off the ball and have begun focusing on the alleged wrong doings of people and their personal or judicial ethics in the last year or two, rather than the content problems in articles. A lot of damage has been done, hundreds of articles are languishing as stubs because many good competent people have been driven off this project. Unlike some, I have faith in Arbcom and trust committee members will have the wisdom and insight to sift through the evidence and arguments to determine what must be done for the sake of Wikipedia, without fear or favor. Martintg (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Indeed, several users conducted harassment during this case, and two of them (Russavia and Miyokan) were blocked for that. If I wanted to collect evidence specifically about Irpen, that would be a lot more. But ArbCom ruled already about his poor behavior in the previous Digwuren case. As about influence behind the scenes, we have a lot of that here. Everyone knows. Mentorship is a good thing.Biophys (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This harassment accusations are repeated without specifics by a whole bunch of people. Please either make a FoF supported by diffs that I harassed you (or Piotrus for that matter) or drop this at last. Unsubstantiated accusations, especially in the grievous things like "harassment", are extremely inflammatory and unproductive. --Irpen 22:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Another lesson in Irpenese. When Irpen points out editor conduct, it's evidence of even vicious assaults over merely pointing out how a situation might appear [diffs available]. When others point out editor conduct, it's harassment. Martintg is one of the most upstanding and honest editors on Wikipedia. And the same for Biophys, whose only offense is to have become clearly fed up with WP's KGB as humor indulgences. People of my nationality have been described as the majority being eager for Nazi guns to kill Jews. Result? NOT A WHIMPER FROM ANY ADMIN. On the other hand, Khokhoi jumped in to severely admonish me for my complaining about Irpen's conduct tagging articles with not a whit of evidence. (And when I said I would escalate, Irpen chimed in that I might not like the results. If that is not a threat, I don't know what is.) And editors can feel free to post userboxes stating "I am a paid KGB internet troll" on their user page. Irpen presents this double standard in microcosm quite eloquently in his/her own contentions.

As it now stands regarding representation of the Soviet legacy in Eastern Europe and elsehwere, WP has become a haven for editorial thuggery and intimidation of the worst sort. This situation must be remedied. —PētersV (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated grave accusations and refusal to back them up

9) Piotrus (talk · contribs) [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] and Biophys (talk · contribs) [66] [67] [68] repeatedly claimed at the pages of this case and elsewhere on Wikipedia that they are being "harassed" by Irpen (talk · contribs). They repeatedly ignored many requests to back up the accusations of harassment with diffs [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] only to repeat the very same accusations anew which they also declined to back up.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See evidence in, well, evidence section of this arbcom for, well, evidence backing the claims of (wiki)harassment. PS. This is a good example of victim blaming: 1) Irpen wiki-harasses others by publicly accusing them of various misdoings, 2) harassed editors complain about being harassed and... 3) Irpen complains that they dare to complain about him (i.e. he ignores 1) and portrays 2) as the first step of such incidents). This is, for the record, a pattern I've seen used by other users guilty of similar attitude (Boodlesthecat, or M.K, for example). PSS. That said, the title of this section is correct: I and many other users have suffered for years from grave accusations not backed up by evidence. The outcome of Piotrus 1 case, for example, when I was accused of much wrongdoing, arbcom did not issue a single finding/ruling criticizing me, yet the accusations happily continued afterwards, is a perfect illustration of such a case; however Irpen always stands not on the "harassed" side but on the "harassing" one (wiki-harassment, to be clear). PSSS. Please note that for years, and in all arbcoms, I have mainly asked one and only one thing of Irpen: that he stops discussing my person/slandering my name. Nothing more (content disputes can and are resolved by our normal procedures). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. See also #Flagrant accusations of exceptionally egregious abuse above. All the diffs given here are only to this very page (workshop). Ctrl-F + "haras" at the evidence page would show many more. "Harassment" is the word that applies to truly exceptional circumstances (SlimVirgin, for example, was harassed but Piotrus was certainly not) and their misusing it despite (and after) being repeatedly asked to back it up or withdraw is clearly an attempt of emotional character assassination. I never ever harassed anyone in my life and these endless accusations that are both loaded and devoid of specifics at the same time deserve a separate finding. --Irpen 05:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Personal harassment largely depends on individual perception – what you may not consider harrassment may indeed be considered harrassment by the recipient. It can be defined as any unsolicited or unwelcome hostile or offensive act, expression or derogatory statement, including inciting others to commit such behaviour, which causes distress to a person. The intention is less important than the effect it has on the individual. Therefore if Piotrus or Biophys felt distressed by these actions, regardless of the professed intent, then we must accept that they have been harrassed. Martintg (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Object. Should I repeat my evidence here? You, Irpen "has been involved in personal attacks" according to this ArbCom statement. You argued at the ANI to support a user who disclosed my identity; then you came uninvited to my talk page, warned me not to talk about Putin, and suggested that I should "abandon my account and open new one" without even telling anything to WP administrators (see my evidence). I am also sure that you follow edits by Piotrus and comment about him for years, which is definitely a harassment.Biophys (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Assault editors, and when they refused to be cowed, denounce editors in impressive sounding purple prose (e.g., "Flagrant accusations of exceptionally egregious abuse"). These mouthfuls of words are Irpenese for You opposed my WP:IDONTLIKEIT so now I'm going to whack you.. Whatever this RfA started as, it has become Irpen's personal WP:WHACKPIOTRUS soapbox. Irpen complains that it's out of hand and needs to be put to an end when not liking the evidence (I recall comments that he/she would be contacting Admin to put an end to this) but it's fine for Irpen to keep pouring gasoline on the fire.

Yes, victim blaming as a WP:ARTFORM. —PētersV (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real life allegations

10) Biophys (talk · contribs) repeatedly made grave allegations (both openly and veiledly) about the real life background of other editors such as their connection with the KGB successor agencies in Russia [77] and the organized crime [78] [79] [80]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. See also #Flagrant accusations of exceptionally egregious abuse and my comment here in the "Comments by others" section. --Irpen 06:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Please see the the "Accusations" section above. I never made any open accusations of that kind. Such accusations were repeatedly made by other users - I provided the links. Just for the record, I do not accuse Irpen that he works for the KGB. I only think he promotes Soviet/Russian propaganda in WP, and I supported this by evidence. I commented only about a hypothetical scenario, and only because I was asked by User:Dc76 (here). Most of Irpen's diffs are about User:Kuban_kazak who used Russian criminal slang Fenya to harass User:Folantin. This is a translation by an independent native speaker [81]. This means indeed to "beat someone up" to "subdue" as described in the Dictionary of Russian criminal slang, exactly as Colchicum said. To be more precise, this expression came to common Russian language from Fenya in 1972 with a popular movie Gentlemen of Fortune in a particular combination: I'll hit your horns off, tear your mouth, skew out your blinkers! (this is translation from article Gentlemen of Fortune; a director of the film was a former prisoner). Kuban_kazak said to Folantin that we [broke you and others down] in WP, and he used the criminal slang. Hence my words about the "gang".Biophys (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Past cases and their outcomes

11) Numerous past cases (including Anonimu, Digwuren, Piotrus 1, Occupation of Latvia, and AndriyK) have dealt with conflicts arising from various disputes related to Eastern Europe and the editors working on the affected articles—notably including several of the editors participating in the present case. The success of the past ArbCom's decisions' effect on improving the editing climate has been mixed.

The effect of editor-specific findings and remedies (a short term block of AndriyK and ArbCom sanctioned reversal of moves that included redirects scorching and long term blocks of Anonimu, Digwuren, and Petri Krohn) has been on balance generally positive;
General warnings and amnesties made no impact;
The effect of so called general and discretionary sanctions have been overall highly negative as they were largely gamed to further detriment of the project. (See also [82] and [83].)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. I agree that general warnings and amnesties were useless. I am not sure whether the Estonian blocks from Digwuren's case, which have decimated the tiny Estonian community on Wikipedia, had indeed a positive impact, several other blocks might have been better but I have not interacted with those editors (out of all editors banned in such proceedings, I've personally seen only one - User:Vlad fedorov - been highly disruptive; that is not to say that others weren't disruptive in articles I've not edited). General and discretionary restrictions not been very efficient, as they have indeed been prone to gaming - disruptive users and tag teams have successfully blocked several attempts to apply those sanctions to them.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, as an alternative to #Endemic_conflict, #Discretionary sanctions and #Amnesty in the proposal by Kirill Lokshin. There seems to be an agreement of that [84] and [85]. So, needs to be said to avoid repeating past mistakes. --Irpen 23:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Anonimu wasn't deemed to be a part of the EE area of conflict, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anonimu/Proposed_decision#Area_of_conflict. That the Piotrus amnesties were breached by complainants bringing pre-amnesty evidence to this case should be subject to a finding of fact. Martintg (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More: This is not to say that the specific measures above were the best ones possible. For example it might have been better if, instead of a ban, Digwuren was placed on a severe edit warring restriction and assigned a strict mentor who would remove his egregious rants from Wikipedia space and occasionally warned (or blocked him for short periods) to make sure Digwuren learns how to behave. So, I am not saying that the block was the best solution but it was clearly better than simply doing nothing and not having his conduct addressed at all. So, on the net balance, the editor specific remedies had some positive effect while the "general sanctions" approach has proven to backfire, breeding the block-shopping culture, serving a honey-pot for the admins with wrong attitudes resulting in good editors leaving or getting grudgy and new editors' being afraid to get involved into contentions topics. The idea of this proposal is simply to acknowledge the the general sanctions approach made the situation worse while the narrow editor-specific remedies may work and if they are well considered they will work well. --Irpen 00:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the bolded summary in the preceding comment.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The proposals by Kirill were better, in my opinion. Yes, Digwuren and Krohni had to be placed on 1RR restriction, not banned. But the discretionary sanctions did not work only in the beginning. They actually helped a lot recently.Biophys (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

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.

Alden Jones banned

1) Alden Jones (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely. This includes all his known sockpuppets identified here and here and all future reincarnations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. He is mostly inactive. I'd support a 1RR restriction and mentorship, but a ban for fifteen reverts... isn't this a bit too much for somebody who has done almost nothing, compared to most others? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you click on the links above to socking stuff? --Irpen 15:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DPing ... sorry. We don't need editors like this. Wikipedia isn't a child-minding service, so as there is no serious prospect of such a user ever providing seriously good content (more likely to distract better users) or contributing to the pedia in any way beyond some BATTLE line solidarity, there's no need to waste resources on him. Just ban the guy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Long overdue. No useful contributions anyway. Just disruption and abusive socking. --Irpen 08:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Yes, he possibly wanted to help Piotrus, but he is not a clear-cut meatpuppet. He must be warned. If any future problems appear, he can be sanctioned later.Biophys (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you notice these links: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive469#Massive sock farm through multiple wiki-projects and Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Alden_Jones. --Irpen 19:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block shopping restricted

2) Piotrus is prohibited to bring in any regular complaints and ask for sanctions based on the events that are older than 10 days with the exception if immediately following the occurrence of alleged misconduct he attempted to address it when it took place and that attempt failed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment Framing and straw man... I have always respected the Piotrus 1 amnesty, and I have never presented random stale diffs. I always present new ones, and I use older (post-amnesty) ones to show a pattern. What this is about is about Irpen aiming to muzzle people from being able to complain about harassment and disruption from him and friendly tag teams. Also, please note who here spends most time wikipoliticing and in wikidramu dispute resolutions, and who doesn't....--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, this is about stopping you to continue resorting to block-shopping as a primary venue of dispute resolution. If you pledge to stop maintaining black books, this would be redundant. And your continued baseless acusations that I do "harassment" is a grievous personal attack. Please choose terms properly. All this remedy does is requiring that if you see yourself harassed, or anything, you complain at once rather than wait for a time that would seem to you more opportune. --Irpen 15:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. It's just common sense and, actually, should apply to everyone, not just Piotrus. I won't mind if this is codified in a policy or the remedy rephrased to address a global restriction. The reason I think mentioning Piotrus explicitly makes sense is that it was he who was maintaining a black book for almost two years using the material he collected at the opportune times to shop for blocks. The only way to address blackbooking is to address its use, not its maintenance, as the latter, when done off-site, cannot be enforced. Of course the adoption of this remedy is contingent on the acceptance of the #Attitude to problem resolution or similar principle. We cannot enforce a ban on blackbooking carried of off-site and Piotrus is unrepentant and vows to continue "collecting evidence". So, unable to prohibit something over which the community or the ArbCom has no control, the remedy should instead address something that is actually on-wiki. Even if a black book is off-site, its use on-wiki to block shop can still be addressed. Also, note the world "regular" in the proposed remedy. Of course some exceptional investigations of abuse, like the Poetlister affair would be exempted. --Irpen 08:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. Collection and presentation of evidence by any users about violators of WP policies must be encouraged, not discouraged.Biophys (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that helps improve the Wikipedia climate should be encouraged. Anything that contributes to its further deterioration should be discouraged. Alleged violations followed by attempts to address them may be useful to record and present as this may help find why the climate is so bad. Alleged violations alone, stacked for months to be presented at the opportune time to seek blocks is a vindictive strategy to get rid of content opponents. --Irpen 22:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinated revert warring restricted

3) Tymek (talk · contribs), Molobo (talk · contribs), Darwinek (talk · contribs) and all reincarnations of Alden Jones (talk · contribs) are prohibited from reverting any articles to Piotrus' version more than once per week per article per person for a period of one year (vandalism reverts exempted).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment: From Irpen's evidence as of posting of this "remedy", the latest example of Darwinek reverts are three from March (with a single one from September), same for Tymek (replace March with July). The average seems to be less than one per month... Conveniently, evidence against Molobo (at least from 2008) seems to be missing, and even the infamous Alden racked up no more than 15 reverts in two months he was stalking my edits total :) Wow, what a dedicated band of Piotrus-stalking cabalists... or should we say - inconvenient editors who dared to disagree with Irpen and revert him at some point? Sigh. PS. For the record, Darwinek doesn't use GG. I wonder how does this influence the vision of the "evil GG cabal"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Per evidence of their off-line coordination due to their propensity to revert to Piotrus' version in articles where they have never edited before or after. See evidence sections: Coordinated edit warring, particularly, Piotrus and coordinated edit warring, and Piotrus uses meatpuppetry for edit-wars. Placing Piotrus himself on any revert restriction is useless if he retains an ability to coordinate edit wars via IM. Note that this is the only way to counter the IM coordinated revert warring that technically falls under 3RR (conducted this way precisely to circumvent 3RR) as no ruling can actually affect anyone's ability to build such networks. Also, despite Molobo is on an independent 1RR per week parole imposed by Moreschi, there is perfect sense for these two paroles to run concurrently. --Irpen 08:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Why restrict only them? Why not every user in Category:Polish Wikipedians? This is a bad idea, since no evidence for offline coordination has been any good. Ostap 21:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree after a slight modification: Irpen (talk · contribs) is prohibited from reverting any articles edited by Piotrus more than once per week per article for a period of one year. That would really help.Biophys (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off-line block-shopping restricted

4) Piotrus is not permitted to request administrative action from any administrator using any off-wiki means, except where such request is made to protect the privacy of a Wikipedia editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Per improper use of off-wiki channels evidence section. Again, this is plain common sense that should appy to anyone, not just Piotrus. However, facts that Piotrus used #admins to blockshop are not even disputed. I see the weakness of this remedy in enforcement since, if Piotrus continue to see nothing wrong with off-line blockshopping, he will continue doing so. As an alternative, see below. --Irpen 15:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not disputed? Right, ignore all of those who disagree with you as my fellow cabalists or such, and right, than all of your statements are not disputed... :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, would you object to publishing IRC logs from from your conversation of nights March 12-13 (depending of the time-zone), September 11-12, and October 5-6, all 2008, in connection to the conversations related to this? --Irpen 15:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, would you mind telling us how did you got those logs? For the record, I have lobbied several times for the logs to be made official and public. I find the current situation when only some users have access to them highly unfair (and for the record, I don't have access to them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, let's credit admins with some intelligence, I'm sure they are experienced enough to figure out the difference between block shopping and genuine reports of disruption. No evidence has been presented that demonstrates admins are having difficulty with "block shoppers". Martintg (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: It isn't opposed, indeed. A standing principle is to disallow block shopping, especially when it is in secret. No, we cannot "give some credit" to two thousand administrators, as we have seen time and again, because people can be fooled precisely because they're handing a single line in a diff on IRC or some other chat medium. Simply put, any off-wiki endeavor to achieve a block is illicit. This includes IRC or any other medium. The only rationale is a Wikipedia rationale, and that means on Wikipedia. See the admins losing the bit for falling for a block shop? Ask them if it's disputed. Geogre (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think two thousand admins cram onto some off-wiki channel. At most would be a couple of dozen of regulars who would be familiar with any particular individual's attempt to "block shop", and no such evidence has been provided to that effect. Martintg (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If this idea is accepted, ArbCom should explicitly rule that "any off-wiki communications with WP administrators, which might result in blocks, are forbidden". This covers pretty much any off-wiki discussions of other users behavior. However, this decision would not apply to any past actions by Piotrus or others. I personally believe that the entire concept of block shopping is wrong. Discussing any alleged violations of policies with WP administrators must be encouraged, not discouraged through any channels. The final action by an administrator must be right. Only this matters.Biophys (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I happen to think that discussing people behind their backs is unethical and is usually done specifically to make sure only one side of the story is presented. It is even worse when publicly self-proclaimed civility vigilants engage into such backroom gossip and engage in blatant badmouthing to make their arguments seem stronger. Perhaps different people have different concept of ethics then. --Irpen 22:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strenuously object. As formulated, if adopted, convicts Piotrus of bad faith off-Wiki contact. By extension, all off-Wiki contact is bad faith. This is a bad-faith black hole. Irpenese for "If anyone discusses me in private not on Wikipedia where I can see it, I have the right to attack them for plotting against me, which is what they MUST be doing." That there's "no objection" to restrict others as well is nothing but deflection. Also, note the Irpenese of "block shopping"--something Irpen has accused me of even when I explicitly stated in presenting a case that I was not doing so. Apparently, the Wikipedia world revolves around all Eastern European editors attempting to get Irpen blocked or banned. It doesn't, but even if it did, that would be more victim blaming. Adopting these sorts of proposals would only encourage more of these affairs.
Irpen wishes dialog, yet Irpen deletes any complaints about their conduct on their talk page (I believe I've also covered this in evidence) with edit summaries including multiple question marks, or removing vandalism, or stating if the person sucks up to Irpen in presenting their complaint, Irpen will respond. If people don't discuss Irpen's conduct in the open and/or with Irpen, it's Irpen's own fault for aggressively eradicating anything that calls anything Irpen does into question.
And I love the Irpenese touch of "plain common sense." Another deflection of "reasonableness" to clothe the proposal's true purpose. —PētersV (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off-line block-shopping restricted (alt)

4.1) Administrators are prohibited to act upon Piotrus' complaints submitted to their attention by off-site means (email, IM, IRC.) Acting on the complaints whose privacy is warranted by their sensitive nature is exempted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Beautiful. Let's rephrase it to make it more clear: Everybody is prohibited from voicing any complain about Irpen or any disrputive/harassing editor/tag team that could be seen as his ally. Further, everybody is prohibited from acting on such a complain. Anybody violating either of the above is banned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not twist my words. Why do you need an ability to complain about anyone privately so that they can't see your accusations? --Irpen 15:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, unlike other administrators, has shown beyond doubt that he lacks personal integrity and cannot be trusted in these matters. Pure and simple. Which neutral admin here would really trust Piotrus to represent affairs he is involved in fairly to unknowing third parties with the power to act administratively? Seriously! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Alternative to the above. See explanation to 4. --Irpen 08:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, ditto per my comment above. Martintg (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This should be a general policy. Either it is allowed to contact administrators, or it is not. Rules must be the same for everyone.Biophys (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course our policies are not ideal and cannot be written in a way that would make any abuse impossible. What we have here is, however, a specific situation about a specific user. Piotrus shopped for blocks of his opponents behind their backs using the off-line channel. So, this specific fact needs to be addressed. If others did that too, I have no objection to restrict them as well. --Irpen 22:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joint advisory panel on the usage of sources for the Wikipedia content is created

5) A joint multinational advisory panel of editors is created to resolve the disputes on the sources' reliability and the propriety of their use.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. May need to be reformulated. A more specific proposal than a somewhat similar proposal by Alex. I made a proposal along the very same lines over a year ago, see my Proposing a novel solution that may actually work post. Most content disputes come down to the disputes about sources and propriety of their use. For example, there is often a confusion on how the sourced opinion is different from the sourced fact and what are the difference in how they can be used in articles. Also, both the newspaper article and the academic work are acceptable sources but for different situations. Ad hoc topic-specific permanently working panel here would be best suited for catching the cheaters as evaluation of sources, as well as the propriety of their use, would be such group's main task. The group should function in public view but the members should be carefully selected and non-members should comment on a talk page rather than bloating the discussions of the panel making it unreadable, just like this workshop has become. The composition should be designated by ArbCom. Ideally it should consist of editors respected by all parties, which pretty much excludes most, even though not all, of this case' participants. This is not really content arbitration. All the panel would say is whether, for example, a newspaper article is an acceptable source of a specific piece of content or whether the individual opinion is attempted to be presented as a fact. This would be a much more productive way to resolve many issues than recruiting friends to do a revert for you or seeking ejection of opponents through endless gaming of WP:CIV or calling them names behind their backs at IRC. --Irpen 17:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will not work, it will just be a microcosm of mainspace, wracked with internal dissension, disputes and wikidrama, as you yourself dramatically demonstrated by walking out of Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. Besides, it will change the very core of Wikipedia as we know it, since all those who legitimately want to contribute but are excluded from this board will be disenfranchised. I believe the purpose of ArbCom is to settle inter-personal disputes, not change the fundamental character of Wikipedia to accommodate the handful of loose cannon on deck. Martintg (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Martin, I think I am starting to understand from your post above why your contribution to this ArbCom is so unconstrcutive. You consider the ArbCom's job is to settle interpersonal disputes and you view what we have here an interpersonal dispute. This understanding is findamentally flawed. ArbComs are not about interpersonal disputes. No one should bring interpersonal disputes to ArbCom. I certainly don't. ArbCom is about the policy violations. It's job is to establish whether the policy violations took place (or are taking place) and if so, how to remedy the situation. I have no personal problem with Piotrus (or yourself or even Biophys who, judging from his posts, has a personal problem with me. I hope he corrects me if I am wrong.) This ArbCom is about violations of the policies, gaming the policies and bad editing conduct that results in bad content. --Irpen 22:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to WP:Arbitration policy, to quote: "The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes". Have I read this incorrectly? Martintg (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have misread it. An interpersonal dispute is a dispute between individuals, but it is not a dispute between personalities. I.e. ArbCom's job is to resolve disputes between parties, not policies. This is a statement merely to prevent ArbCom from being there to resolve problems with the deletion policy, or the image policies, or the copyright violation policies, or the revert policies, but that's a far cry from "resolve the personal disputes" of people. "Interpersonal" does not mean "personal" or "personality-derived." --Irpen 03:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between "a dispute between individuals" and "a dispute between personalities" is what? "Interpersonal" does not mean "personal"? Is this wikilawyering? Martintg (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that you don't seem to understand the difference. I think my explanation is very clear. --Irpen 05:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Started as a comment. Institutionalizes and validates denunciation of sources based on nationality and puts those doing so in a position of negotiating power. Irpen logically and masterfully paints this as a dispute largely over sources and admissibility thereof. In some way it may be, in every dispute of neo-Soviet versions of history versus mainly nationalist (paucity of "Western" sources being slowly remedied--but, alas, they could be "Cold War" influenced) sources, nationalist sources are derided based on the surnames of authors and their "inherent" anti-Soviet, anti-Russian ad nauseum "bias." The Irpen et al mechanism is:

labeling factual sources as intellectually/politically/nationalistically biased
labeling that bias as indicating sources are POVs--that is, inherently interpretations of facts
elevating Soviet "versions" of history and Russian-nationalist statements based on no reputable facts to equal stature, i.e., just another POV of equal value

or, we have:

we must not use bad "judgmental" terms about the Soviets et al. ("occupation")
"Holodomor" is more complex than the authors' own summary of many requests for aid going unheeded
denounce any editorial summation counter to Irpen and company as false

There have been all sorts of allegations of leadership of various factions by various individuals. Let's put that aside. One cannot help note that as soon as Irpen participated, the swirling black vortex ensued, and despite Irpen's protestations for reason, he also continues to stir the pot against Piotrus. Irpen can choose to create content or conflict. The sheer volume of the proceedings here is a testament to the history of Irpen's involvement in these disputes over time--and the permanent ill will he has created.

To paint this as Irpen and Piotrus as equal combatants is grossly unfair to Piotrus, who while vigorously defending his position, will do so based on sources--and while creating volumes of valuable content. And will on his own initiative seek outside help to mediate disputes. I have not experienced such humility on the part of Irpen.

In the end, such a task force will institutionalize conflict and reward the instigators with a permanent voice. Apologies to all for my bluntness. We cannot continue as we have been, but (after consideration) this is not the answer.—PētersV (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Alex Bakharev (talk)

Proposed principles

Representing all views

1) All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. That is why it is important to allow harmonic work of people with different backgrounds and points of view. Wikipedia is not a battleground there one group of editors is suppose to win over another.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WP:NPOV and WP:BATTLE. Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Endorse Per Alex and Piotrus. Durova^Charge! 06:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per WP:BATTLE. Quote: "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation." --Poeticbent talk 22:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse with the admonition that editorial views must be supported by reputable sources. I'll beat the dead horse once more, despite the Russian Duma's proclamation Latvia joined the Soviet Union legally according to international law, not one shred of evidence has surfaced. And so we represent supported and unsupported (with no personal commentary on motivations=the NPOV part) "views" appropriately. This works positively taken together with building articles out of consensus and based on reputable sources. We must be mindful not to represent views equally regardless of basis in fact, which has been an issue in the past. —PētersV (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. --Irpen 22:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive and forget

2) Active wikipedians who have different points of view are bound to regularly have content disputes and different form of conflicts. If we allow all those conflicts to accumulate then after some time all productive work became impossible. Therefore, it is important to ForgiveAndForget. Forgive a person for their transgressions once the dispute is resolved, and forget that they made the transgressions. Or at least forget who made the transgression.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Discuss content, not editors. And don't repeat old accusations for years and years. Try not to become cynical and loose good faith. A sentiment I support.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Loosely based on meatball:ForgiveAndForget Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Endorse Easier said than done, but still worth trying. Durova^Charge! 06:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Reach for the stars. --Poeticbent talk 22:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. This is why my proposed moratorium on Requests for Arbitration includes an enforced amnesty across the Baltic/Central/Eastern/"Soviet" Europe article sphere. Let's put a real stake in the ground and work to move forward constructively. —PētersV (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. If the problem is too important to just let it go, try to address it on the spot. If unable to resolve it when it happened, looking at it again at a later time may be useful. But it is clearly vindictive to simply record and alleged misconduct for some future use when the time is ripe. --Irpen 22:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No black books

3) Black books and lists of grievances are counter productive, they advertise and fossilize old stale conflicts. The cache of fossilized conflicts used as a weapon in the new conflicts prevents any meaningful conflict resolution, poisons working atmosphere. In the case of the black book put in the public space and eventually made known to the subjects of dossier it acts as a personal attack, undermining and eroding any positive, productive working environment. Wikipedia community cannot control the content of

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As I have explained elsewhere: black book = attack pages are wrong. Simple evidence collection for use in dispute resolution is not only right, but is required by dispute resolution procedures like arbcom. Framing evidence collection as black booking/laundry lists of grievances/etc. is the only real bad faith here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Extension of the previous. Based on WP:CIV Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Disagree. Of course, making an offensive comment about others on the English wikipedia is an WP:CIV violation. However merely collecting any diffs is not prohibited. I think the describing collection of diffs as a "malicious activity" is an attempt to interfere with wikipedia justice authority (ArbCom).Biophys (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest support. This should be obvious that we should not tolerate devious and dishonorable behavior. As I explained in my evidence section and the discussion I am now having with Piotrus, what adversely interferes with the WP's dispute resolution system is not the ban of black book but the black books themselves. Of course there are ways to keep black books in a way that makes this provision unenforcible. This is why we should ideally have a provision that would neutralize them by restricting attempts to use such logs to gain an upper hand in content disputes. This may be tricky but we should try. --Irpen 18:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a joke: book keeping interferes with dispute resolution? I do agree that ArbCom should make a ruling on this matter. "Of course there are ways to keep black books in a way that makes this provision unenforcible". Yes absolutely, unless we are going to do home searches, or to hack the home computer of Piotrus.Biophys (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does interfere and adversely. It breeds the suspicion and hostility, the complaints Piotrus filed using DR channels that included uploading his black book diffs had an overall detrimental effect on the editing environment and a very mixed success too [86]. Most importantly, and as I explained here the use of black book by Piotrus is neither DR nor a defense but an attack. As for "home searches", there is nothing about it in the proposal. --Irpen 19:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All black books are evil they prevent as they rejuvenate conflicts that otherwise would die by natural death. WP:CIV is intended to keep the work harmonious without antagonizing parties. Enforcing harmonious atmosphere by poisoning it with black books is akin improving sexual potency with the help of castration. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Die by natural death"? The conflicts don't die not because there are evidence lists, but because certain editors keep repeating certain bad faithed allegations (ignored in past arbcoms) all over project, and when the victims of the harassment try to compile proof of that pattern for use in dispute resolutions, this becomes yet another reason for the harassers to complain ("he dares to complain that I am harassing him and he collects diffs with my harassing edits - I am being harassed, see!"). Sigh.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. This is propaganda technique known as Victim blaming.Biophys (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time and again, Piotrus. Where and how exactly did I harass you? I do point out at certain bad conduct that stands in a way of the harmonious editing climate. Who of us is right and wrong at that, is a valid question. But you repeated invocation of the H-term with respect to me is grossly inappropriate. Please propose a FoF supported by diffs about me harassing you or drop the use of this word. Your repeated using of such word without any grounds make other claims you make look less credible. --Irpen 22:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. I have read this so-called black book and honestly, I do not see anything wrong with it. We have scores of users here who continuously push their POV, who attack others, who represent outright dislike of some nationalities. In most cases, their actions go unnoticed and lost. A document like this is very helpful, as it summarizes these actions, and I am sure that other editors/admins, perhaps those here too, keep a thing like this. Tymek (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment an important distinction needs to be made here between effect and intent. I have seen other long term disputes in which Editor A starts a page in user space, intending it as evidence preparation for dispute resolution that seems likely to occur in the future. Sometimes those are simple attack pages, sometimes those are genuine groundwork for dispute resolution, and other times they're somewhere in between. Such pages are usually compiled in a mood of disappointment and frustration. Regardless of whether the intention and execution is the best or the worst, when Editor B (from the other side of the dispute) finds the page an unpleasant episode follows because good faith has already worn thin. And if Editor A places the page in an out-of-the-way spot to be unobtrusive, Editor B interprets that as deviousness. Durova^Charge! 07:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The practice was addressed last year: "Tobias Conradi is prohibited from maintaining laundry lists of grievances. Passed 6 to 0 at 08:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)" [87]. Add: On any of the foundation's servers; change to: laundry list of grievances. Novickas (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Citing instances of misbehavior is one of the basic requirements of conflict resolution in Wikipedia, please see WP:AN/I, WP:DE, WP:RFC, WP:WQA, etc. There’s a question of whether collecting such evidence ahead of time is politically correct regardless of how time-saving it might be. Personally, I would suggest to do it in private; for example, by emailing the offending diffs to yourself. However, those editors whose conduct remains questionable should always be made aware, ahead of time, of the possible consequences of their highly problematic long-term actions. --Poeticbent talk 18:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, if somebody have an ongoing conflict use WP:AN/I, WP:RFC or any other forms of the dispute resolution straight away. Then you have chances to actually solve the conflict. Putting on the table tens of stale conflicts, taken out of context months-old diffs never solved anything. It just make productive contributors banned from both sides Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ummm, are you criticizing "your side" evidence now? Because I have never used outdated evidence (I might have gathered some when it was current and kept it out of laziness, but I have never used it...). Unlike some editors, presenting diffs critical of me as far back as 2005 in this arbcom, as can be easily seen from the evidence section.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose an alternative. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Arbitration proceedings and requests for comments about users are a part of this collaborative project. Therefore, all users are free to gather any evidence in their user space and ask any other users to evaluate their evidence. Seriously, I do not see any reason why the collection of evidence should be exempt from the normal collaboration/discussion process. If my evidence is poor, I want to know this. One should not even bother ArbCom with poor evidence.Biophys (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Edit summaries are not searchable and talk page searches only partly so. These constraints put those who rely on memory or very recent incidents at a disadvantage. Support Biophys' suggestion that these be public - then the community can decide whether they are appropriate. Privately-kept records of behavior are not the issue here - it's the use of the foundation's servers, even if hidden. Novickas (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...it's the use of the foundation's server". Although I do believe that as long as its non-public, it's non-problematic, as I've stated before, I have no problem with removing my evidence collection from Wikimedia servers and not using them in the future for such a purpose. It's a simple solution to an issue that has become the proverbial "mountain out of moleholes" (perhaps on purpose, as some editors try to discredit the evidence against them by discrediting the technicalities of how it was gathered...). PS. I just ask that the ArbCom confirms that the evidence collection that occurred was within the acceptable limits of our existing guidelines and policies, otherwise the defamatory statements like "Piotrus had a black book" will keep flying for years to come. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Piotrus that the judgment of whether such evidence collection is acceptable on non-Poetlister-like cases would help. One view is that problems should be either addressed or let go. If they are attempted to be addressed but still not resolved, recording the problem with an attempt of the resolution may help solve future problems while merely recording an incident for the future use at the opportune time shows a vindictive attitude. Another opinion is that this is commendable or at least acceptable. The answer is badly needed. --Irpen 17:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Oppose. Gathering information is not a priori a demonstration of bad faith. It is bad faith only if any information gathered is used maliciously. I believe my proposal of amnesty as part of the judgment in this proceeding addresses any evidence gathered in the past or gathered in the future about the past. When Irpen states he has never followed Piotrus (accusing me of vicious conduct when I suggested it appeared that way regarding an AfD nomination) and challenges me to find any instance where there wasn't a notice placed about an article before he responded to it, I would much rather take the good faith move of amnesty and leave the door closed on me or anyone else sifting through past edit history trying to find some shred of evidence with which we can shout "AHA!". That's nothing but WP:BADKARMA. —PētersV (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Facts matter, Vecrumba. You can be sure that if there was a single instance of me getting to Pitorus' articles before they are announced, someone would have pointed that out. So, assuming good things is nice but in the face of repeated problems, we cannot just do nothing and continue to "assume" that things would resolve by itself. As for "gathering information", depends on what and how is gathered and how it is used. --Irpen 22:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators should have trust of the community

4) Administrators have access to potentially harmful tools as well as to the privileged information. Thus, administrators should have trust of the community, if they have lost the trust or confidence of the community they should have their access removed. Administrators are people and may occasionally make errors but acting in bad faith is unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Loosely based on Wikipedia:Administrators Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Admins should be held to high standards, respect policies (edit in good faith, etc.) and be trusted by the community. But as we say in Poland: devil lies in the details. Being controversial should not make one unsuitable for adminship. Active editors will step on many toes just because they are active. I know at least one Polish editor who told me he is going to hide his nationality and edit only uncontroversial articles up to the point he becomes an admin, because otherwise he would become controversial like me, associated with the Polish cabal and surely lose his RfA. I couldn't tell him he was wrong - but I can surely tell that the system, which forces such thinking, is wrong. Many today's admins would fail reelection simply because they made content enemies and their content POV became visible, not because they abused or misused their powers. Community votes like RfA are easily stacked by such content enemies, whose mass also makes neutral editors, lacking time and will to investigate the issue properly, vary of supporting. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, can you be a little more specific? Which part of this proposal you dispute? Because your response strays too far away. --Irpen 06:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object due the unclear operationalization of "trust". What happens to often is that an admin has the trust of the community, but a vocal performance of a tag team creates an appearance to the contrary ("look, several of us are crticizing him so he has lost the trust of the community"). For example, it is obvious that you and Alex claim here I've lost this trust, even through majority of outside comments in this (and past arbcoms) contradict you.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, please do not make any claims about the community trust. That your content friends support you in anything you are doing rather confirms the sad us vs them mentality that got developed in this situation. --Irpen 03:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make any claims, but you can. Right. I am not even going to comment further on that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying, Pitorus, is that claims about the community trust in you can be only made by the community itself, not by yourself. --Irpen 22:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment prone to gaming. Think of what Poetlister did to SlimVirgin: should Slim have lost the tools for having blown the whistle on a troublemaker of the highest order? I agree the community usually gets it right; ideally ArbCom should function as a check and balance upon community opinion. Sitebanned editors and disruptive editors routinely seek to undermine the reputations of administrators who take on the hard cases--who say "no" and make it stick. Some variation on the current proposal might be excellent; as it stands I fear it would make the site more political. We don't want to foster an environment that breeds Poetlisters. Durova^Charge! 07:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, altho this already seems to be a policy. Durova has cited a case, not linked/diffed to findings. (Would appreciate if she would do that). None of the participants in this case are sitebanned or otherwise officially designated disruptive, so I dispute the above analogy. I think the comments on his behavior made by 11 other admins in good standing at Evidence speak to the issue. Novickas (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, due to political nature of the initial statement. The so called community (an all-encompassing magic answer) is too broadly defined to be taken seriously in this instance. Could the community of editors mentioned, be a special-interest group in disguise? --Poeticbent talk 15:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A very good point. This is what tag teams do: try to create an illusion they speak for all (when in fact they represent a minority POV). I've elaborated further on this issue in my mini-essay on adminship.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I could say that at present I do not trust Piotrus to explain on the admin IRC a conflict related to the Eastern Europe fairly and objectively trying not to make an advantage for his side of the conflict Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough, as I also don't trust you or Irpen to be objective in this regard. This is why we are presenting our case in front of an ArbCom... also, I never discussed an EE conflict on ANIRC, only cases of edit warring/civility violations and such, irrespective to their content.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I wonder how the principle based on "Administrators should have trust of the community" should call any opposition. This is not a FoF about whether Piotrus has such trust. This is not a remedy that his status should be "adjusted". This is not even a statement on how such trust should be judged (certainly not based on mere numbers). But the requirement of the admin trust seems to me totally uncontroversial. --Irpen 17:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody disagrees with the principle, but gaming of it is the root of the problem, as meatpuppetry and/or tag teams can create the illusion of lack of support/trust.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am glad you don't disagree with the principle. As for "nobody", unfortunately some disagree with it, see above. As for gaming, the correct FoFs and remedies is the place to make sure that the principles are applied correctly rather than gamed. --Irpen 18:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Piotrus contributes a lot of encyclopaedic content

1) Piotrus is one of the most prolific Wikipedia authors contributing a lot of quality content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Don't endorse. Piotrus' stats on amount of content already speaks for itself, the quality issue is clearly not clear cut however. That said, if the arbs wish to place their names in witness to the truth of the above assertion, that's their own risk (see Angus' comment below). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think we should state it Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with prolific. Less sure about the quality aspect of the content as outlined here but I acknowledge that many Wikipedians praise Piotrus' content and this can be acknowledged. --Irpen 18:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus's contributions have their own shortcomings, still he is much better content creator than e.g. me by any measure I can think of. I am a long time proponent of a policy that protects such content creators as Piotrus (as well as e.g. Ghirlandajo, Halibutt, Giano) from block shopping and unfair treatment Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am split on that (besides the fact that I appreciate my work being praised). Yes, I agree we should always keep in mind we are here to build an encyclopedia, and editors who do this are the most valuable - particularly compared to editors who spend most of their time flaming on talk (for the most obvious comparison). That said, I also strongly believe that no matter how prolific one is, one should not have a carte blanche for attacking others: a great content contributor who drives away many small ones may by his confrontational behavior lose more potential content for Wikipedia than he generates himself (this was very much, I believe, the case with Ghirla in the past). Having seen many great content creators and respected editors (academics in real life, among others) driven from this project, I do agree that the current system is unbalanced against prolific editors - but I strongly caution against making them immune to normal civility rules. They should be welcomed and respected, but not idolized. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, please stop beating this dead horse. This claim you bring in repeatedly and still you did not name a single contributor driven off by Ghirla. While I can name editors driven off by your battling attitude. --Irpen 05:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Driven by me? Who? Banned trolls like User:Vlad fedorov, perhaps? As for Ghirla, Halibutt comes to mind (diff provided in evidence), and I've named others driven away by you.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon. But if this user named Piotrus called me a TROLL? Please read above he agreed to "pardonandforget". Very telling example of Piotrus and Biophys behaviour. Other users are usually banned for insulting other users, but Piotrus and Biophys have special status - above law, above Wikipedia policies. And, look, they are not trolls. Look, you may dispute here over anything you like, but the fact is that Biophys called my name here about 10 times, now we have admin Piotrus insulting others, and no Wikipedia policy would be applied. The same goes over his "contributions" to Wikipedia which are edited translations from Polish Wikipedia to English. You may call it contribution due to the lack of Polish, of course. Why you wonder that normal teachers call Wikipedia garbage? Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs) one year block has expired. His only contribution since then is the above post. Since we are here to build an encyclopedia, not flame, I wonder if extending the block is not advisable. It doesn't appear like Vlad has learned any lesson in the past year+ he was given to rethink his attitude.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that admin Piotrus is going to excuse for his uncivil behaviour. Correct me if I am wrong. This is why people want to desysop you.Vlad fedorov (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad, I am curious: how did you find out about those proceedings? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, you are curious why so lot of people think you are uncivil? You are wondering why so many people find you inccorect? Common, the whole history of Belarus (Grand Duchy of Lithuania) in this English Wikipedia is written only from Polish point of view by your efforts, and you are wondering what's going on? So, if you would ask pardon for your uncivility? --Vlad fedorov (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing surprising. Vlad was active for a while as this IP [88] in article Web brigades, which he extensively re-edited together with Mikkalai, ellol, User:Setraspdopaduegedfa (a sockpuppet of User:Kulikovsky), User:Russavia, and an enigmatic Offliner (I thought I knew who he was, but checkuser did not help).Biophys (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing surprising. The article contained FALSE and BAREFACED lie that web brigades were discovered by Anna Politkovskaya. And Biophys, the author of this article, who has been rewording the article of Anna Polyanskaya was reverting article back to this FALSE information numerous times. Particulary these diffs are very revealing : [fisrt], [second].

By the way, Biophys, may I ask why you had got sudden interest in Polish affairs [diff]? Can you read Polish? Or have you been in Poland? And why are you so assertive in your comments in reverting the article "(No reason to dispute factual accuracy was provided at talk page. Everything is well sourced.)"? And, of course, there is no tag team with your participation? Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is sufficient to look at the statements Ghirla made reference to this case as well as to the last one. Also, my extended Wikibreaks were caused by my discovering of your back book. I edit Wikipedia much less because it's no more fun as it used to be. True, you are not the only reason why the fun is mostly gone. But you are one of such reasons. So, in a way, you drove me off too, at least in to a large degree. Oh, and don't try to drag the Balcer issue here again. This has been discussed and commented upon by enough people. --Irpen 21:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla was about to be banned or severely restricted by ArbCom, and he wouldn't agree to proposed compromise (civility parole), so being driven away by me is hardly an excuse. THe community decided that his incivility and aggressive behavior cannot be tolerated, and he simply left. My repeated attempts to reach a compromise with Girla, as Durova - the mediator - can attest, are actually a very good proof of how I try to prevent battling - thank you for reminding us of that. And I am afraid, Irpen, the case with you is too similar, indeed: past ArbCom's have found you, not me, incivil, and I have full confidence that the situation will not suddenly reverse itself. Admitting that at least part of the problem lies on your side would be a major step in patching up our issues. Trying to portray my evidence collection as attacking you is really the proverbial grasping at straws. Instead of concentrating on my alleged errors (the "all evil on Wikipedia is because of Piotrus" line is really getting old), you'd do much better to - as I suggested on your talk - help us draft some better conduct/civility standards (or simply create content, instead of fighting wikipolitics battles). Btw, what other editors - beside you and Ghirla - have I allegedly driven away? Do tell. PS. Balcer case is quite relevant here: while there is ample evidence of how he was harassed and driven (primarily by your "battling" attitude), there is no evidence of me doing this to anybody (there is a glaring difference between accusing editors of various wrongdoings all across the project as you've had a habit of doing and gathering evidence for dispute resolution as I've been doing, so please don't equate our behavior). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Ghirla was about to...", "the community decided", etc., lack diffs for a reason. You are running around with "ArbCom found me uncivil" and Balcer stuff for long long enough. I said all I have to say about it more than once. And indeed my trying to restrict the behavior that creates this hostile climate while you are staking diffs to prepare for your next blow are different approaches to dispute resolution. This ArbCom is finally centered at this issue and I hope it won't be derailed again by irrelevant stuff being piled up. Alternatively, you can still accept my proposal of peace through agreeing to stop doing what you were doing. My offer is still on the table while you continue to evade giving a straight answer. --Irpen 22:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links are provided to cases, and interested editors can look at them and make up their own mind. Yes, you claimed that the past arbcom was wrong to have found you uncivil. It's as good an argument as the one about me not having the right to collect evidence for DR: if anybody disagrees with you, they are wrong. Yes, this ArbCom is finally centered at this issue and I hope we will solve this, once and for all.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also hope this issues can finally be resolved. --Irpen 03:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom decision in that case contained this (quote) If and when Ghirlandajo returns, it would be best for him to resume productive mainspace editing, which it is hoped can take place without a recurrence of the disputes that led to this case. (endquote). It did NOT contain any reprimand of Piotrus. Isn't this self-speaking? Dc76\^talk 10:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Endorse per Piotrus's formidable track record of FAs, GAs, and DYKs. 'Trophy' pieces aren't the whole picture, but they're peer reviewed after a fashion and easily measurable. Durova^Charge! 07:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The committee has in the past found, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Vested Contributors, that "strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy". As it happens, I don't see any "repeated violations of basic policy"; the words I'd use are "occasional lapses of judgement". What is the purpose of including this when the committee has previously found that it isn't especially relevant? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Piotrus is one of the best editors of the whole project and I think everybody, except for some hardcore opponents of him, will agree. Tymek (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, for the record. Nothing new here about rare content prolificacy. --Poeticbent talk 18:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ArbCom have usually not supported qualitative assessments such as this in the past. I am uncomfortable with the words "the most" as it suggests this contributor is more worthy than other hard-working contributors, many of whom would be in areas unrelated to those in which this contributor edits and hence it would be difficult to compare (and indeed one may question the point of doing so). Orderinchaos 04:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus work in the area of many potential conflicts

2) The area of interests of Piotrus are Polish related topics, many of those topics are naturally connected with German, Russian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Belarusian or Jewish history and culture. Since the national historiographical narrative, sources and appraisals are often differ regular disagreements and conflicts are almost inevitable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have said so myself in my statement... PS. And it is important: very active editors in controversial topics will step on toes and attract above-average hostility (due to being more active than average editors) from local above-average numbers of disruptive editors and tag teams (which will be more numerous in controversial areas than elsewhere). This explains why certain names pop up in arbcom again and again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he does, as do most of the other editors here as well as a great many editors without a fraction of the issues Piotrus or many other users here have. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think we should state it Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Endorse per Alex and Piotrus. Durova^Charge! 07:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Piotrus is one of the most active editors of the whole project, and he is engaged in so many different articles, it is totally obvious that he works in the areas of many potential conflicts. An editor who limits himself to writing about female soccer in Pakistan, will probably be free from conflicts. But EE subjects are a mine. Tymek (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Please note, that the subject of history of European conflict is closely connected with the history of political warfare often publicly sponsored. Therefore, the sheer scope of prejudice can be staggering at times in historical literature. Thus correcting the misconceptions can take a heartrending effort. --Poeticbent talk 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. No other territory associated with Western civilization has changed hands in more ways than central Eastern Europe. Aside from the Soviet concoction of history of these territories (from ancient Russian friendship through joyfully joining into the Soviet family, minimally, into the relatives, i.e., Warsaw Pact), there are numerous other conflicts going back through history regarding who did what to whom--conflicts which still simmer centuries later. Even vigorous applications of "assume good faith" cannot avoid major conflict as editors work to fashion narrative which respectfully represents reputable fact-based sources. —PētersV (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus is often unnecessary combative

3) Piotrus sometimes acts himself and canvassing his followers to transform those editorial disagreements into a battleground there one point of view should win over the all others. His opponents often act in similar fashion. The result is a long complicated history of convoluted conflicts between groups of editors loosely defined by the national allegiance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

First, the title of this proposal singles me out, while the body is about many more editors in general. Second, while I believe there is ample evidence to prove some editors are guilty of creating battlegrounds, I resent the implication that I am one of them: on the contrary, I believe that I do my best to prevent battlegrounds from arising and I try to calm down existing ones. Of course, which of those is the case - that's one of the most interesting questions that this ArbCom will answer (and I do hope it will answer, and not ignore this issue as it did in the last proceedings).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant as it may be, I brought this arbcom hearing precisely to single you out, Piotrus. Really, as far as I'm concerned, there was no point in the committee accepting the case if they weren't going to consider things on this basis. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I stated in previous arbcoms, and here, I hope the committee will provide rulings about individuals, including myself, vindicating them or otherwise. It didn't do so the last two times, and both times I predicted this was an error and we will be back here. However, as somebody once told me: "if you get to shoot at them, it's only fair they get to shoot back at you." I create content, and I don't start lengthy DRs often (I've never started an arbcom myself). But I am used to others trying to win content disputes via wikilawyering, and I am prepared to discuss them, if they want to try that strategy. If you join the arbcom and are ready to discuss somebody, you should not be surprised if you get discussed yourself. I know some like Irpen find it shocking, alas, as Kirill stated when accepting this arbitration: "Accept to examine the behavior of everyone involved here". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I did not study the conduct of all of his opponents but I admit it is quite possible that they may also coordinate revert wars by off-line exchanges. I think that off-line coordination roughly defines the line between legitimate situation when the common opinion of several users brings their similar edits and the illicit meatpuppetry. Off-line coordination usually does not produce direct evidence (and this precisely the reason why it is taken off-line) but if it is very extensive, it can be proven based on circumstantial evidence as well as by accidental incidents of beans being spilled due to the participants' "mistakes". Because it is so difficult to combat, I proposed Piotrus a voluntarily solution that would promote honorable conduct in content disputes by a way of editors' pledging to refrain from certain behavior during the content disagreement. Hopefully, we can achieve an agreement on that. --Irpen 18:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia unfortunately is one large battleground, in which the whole idea often is lost/missed. Piotrus is one of the few who reaches out to those he disagrees with, he is also one of the few free from prejudices. On the other hand, the user who has singled Piotrus out, is a perfect example of what discourages some people from the project. Tymek (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are honest in saying so, Tymek. However, since you did not have any conflicts with Piotrus, you may not be aware of how he acts towards those who disagree with him and your "reaching out" observation may be simply uninformed. From what I have seen, Piotrus' primary method of resolving issues with those who disagree with him is to revert their contributions to the articles of his concern engaging into discussions only when simple reverting did not work. Next step, is trying to recruit help in reverts. And the ultimate method in dealing with those who disagree with him, is seeking various ways to have them sanctioned by collecting long dossiers on their alleged wrongdoing and, when the time is ripe, filing these complaints and going to off-line channels to request a friendly closure. This methods of dispute resolution is my main problem with Piotrus' conduct. --Irpen 23:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment diffuse. The title suggests that Piotrus is an edit warrior or perhaps uncivil, yet the content heads in other directions. By the end it appears to be saying that Eastern European topics are a battleground with Piotrus the principal instigator. The part I find most interesting is His opponents often act in similar fashion. Although it is difficult to infer another Wikipedian's actions based upon circumstantial evidence, each individual knows his own part with certainty. If Irpen classifies himself among the opponents then he is well situated to elaborate upon this statement with examples and evidence. In the interests of clearing the air and moving forward productively, I encourage him to do so. Durova^Charge! 07:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did elaborate upon in my statement. --Irpen 23:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Piotrus' edit warring - as stated by multiple parties - is documented in evidence. As is his use of inflammatory language, see evidence. Novickas (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- PERFECT example of twisting evidence. Novickas forgets to add that I refactored my FAC comment as soon as the matter was properly addressed; that M.K.'s repeated ([89], [90]) complete removals of information about Holocaust in Lithuania and Collaboration in Lithuania (which he claimed as excessive or irrelevant) fits his long term IDONTLIKE it editing pattern (thus I believe the word censorship was justified, as information about Holocaust in Lithuania was censored out); that unlike M.K. has done often in many articles (see loooong mediation on Talk:Armia Krajowa, for example), I don't revert to the disputed wording (I don't insist on the word infamous); and that M.K's comment on FAC after I refactored my comment (striking my objection out) is a good example of battleground creation (instead of civil addressing of objections, which is what should happen on FAC). But, of course, if we look only few selective edits presented in a selective way... the story is not the same. I am really sad that an otherwise reasonable editor like Novickas, who often shows good editorial judgment (he proposed a good compromise on the discussed FAC article sentence) will nonetheless support the tag teams in their harassment of me with comments as seen above. That's a very good example of an outcome of the "radicalization of editors", a process I describe in one of my mini-essays. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you refactored your comment. But I still think that admistrators should be taking the initiative in defusing conflicts, and that your use of these loaded words did not serve this cause. Novickas (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proper way to defuse the conflict is what you have done - intervened and rewritten the sentence. MK, as years of experience (and his evidence section in arbcoms and RfCs) have shown, will not accept a solution proposed by the "Polish cabal": he may accept a solution coming from you, his fellow Lithuanian editor. His behavior is articles (revert warring, censorship, POV pushing) is highly disruptive, his attitude in discussions - confrontational. As an administrator, it is my duty to point it out and to try to moderate him (and as an editor of many FAs, it is also my duty to point out a major problem in the article when it occurs). And per WP:DUCK, censorship is the right term here, as I've explained above: removing a random piece of info is random removal, removing certain type of information for years is an attempt at censorship. Complaining that I dare to take a stance and do my job is a common theme throughout this proceedings, and not helping. Instead, you could try to moderate MK yourself, and explain to him why he should assume good faith, not revert my edits on spot, and not challenge all my comments as bad faithed. PS. I highly recommend you read my essay on radicalization, and than think about your attitude to different editors when you first came on wiki, and now, and how and why it has changed. I still hope we can go back to being good faithed colleagues. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is good that Kaunas Fortress a FAC and GA/A-class article (which I, among other editors, was one of the principal contributors) is brought here, now Arbiters will have a unique possibility to see, that Piotrus behavior likely wouldn't change. The newest incident has almost all that I already described here - edit warring, tendentious edits, failure to seek compromise, etc. His inclusion of Special Squad [91] into the article is irrelevant as Ypatingasis būrys (YB) have no connection with Kaunas Fortress, therefore it is irrelevant.

Even more seeking a consensus I initially used article's talk page and explained the situation, even though it was Piotrus duty to do his best to seek compromise per WP:BURDEN (The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.) as well. Piotrus did not used article talk page and did not properly explained his edits till now, instead he chose to travel on FAC page and produce shameful rationale, linking my edit with word "censorship" [92], while in fact everybody can look to the article and see the encyclopedic detail of killings in WWII covered in article (relevant to the topic). Yet to Piotrus, his FAC "comment" was not enough, therefore he travels to article and reverts again, of cource no talk page was used for explanation again - no single hint of seeking consensus.

Now Piotrus is trying to get upper hand here, but not I used the shameful practice to suggest, that somebody is censoring article, and it was me, not Piotrus, who used article's talk page to properly explain the situation.

Summary - we saw how administrator failed to show the higher standards of conduct, again. M.K. (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Now Piotrus is trying to get upper hand here". It was not me who brought this matter here... regarding the talk page 1) I don't have the page watchlisted, I frankly missed your comment there (your edit summmary did not indicate you are explaining anything on talk) and the article is at FAC so the discussion should be centralized there (if I commented on talk page, I wonder if I'd have gotten criticized for not commenting at FAC??) and 2) If YB were irrelevant, fine, I am not restoring the link to them (I found Novickas edit summary explanation satisfactory), but rest of the information - like a link to the Holocaust in Lithuania is quite relevant (since the Jews were killed as part of that wider event), and you were removing the only link to that article (as well as to the Lithuanian collaboration, which is also helpful in understanding the reason for existence of the "Lithuanian auxiliaries"). Linking to those articles was neither "excessive" nor "irrelevant", despite your claims to the contrary in your edit summaries. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation, that other party didn't wrote in edit summary about his initiated discussion on article's talk page, is simply irrelevant; as by default contributors are obliged to use article's talk page, then dealing with opposite views. Even more, per WP:BURDEN, it is you who should show sound evidences and convinced parties, that deleted material relevant, you failed to do so. Instead, you choose revert warring and nonconstructive and shameful FAC comment on my edits, which is far from the proper "centralized" discussion of FAC. In short - such approach is straight forward battlefield creation, effecting FAC/A class article, and illustrative item of Alex's proposed finding of fact. M.K. (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Alex claims that Piotrus transforms "editorial disagreements into a battleground". However, that was never the case in several articles when I observed his disputes with Irpen and others. To the contrary, Piotrus demonstrated enormous patience, civility, and willingness to debate, unlike some of his opponents.Biophys (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to misrepresentation of opinions of arbitrators on hearing this matter. It has been stated in preliminary decisions by each and every one of the seven arbitrators who accepted the case that the behavior of everyone involved is going to be examined (quote) to "investigate if users are winning content disputes through organized strategies" (FloNight). "Many issues need to be addressed here" (FayssalF), nevertheless User:Piotrus has been singled out for preferred sanctions in the above initial statement contrary to directives. --Poeticbent talk 22:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Biophys. Piotrus shows patience (and reaches out for assistance on intractable good-faith editorial disputes) while the opposition immediately launches into accusations of bad faith. —PētersV (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. --Irpen 23:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus created a black book, then deceived community about its deletion

3) Piotrus secretly created a black book on Polish Wikipedia against his opponents in the content disputes. Then the book was discovered by the previous arbcom case he announced its deletion and within minutes restored it with a different name working as an IP user. The manner of editing the book clearly indicates an attempt to deceive community

Comment by Arbitrators:

Is this something that took place on the Polish Wikipedia exclusively, or was there activity on the English Wikipedia directly related to it? Kirill ^(prof) 23:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the diffs were from English Wikipedia. Their stacked collection was hidden on Polish wikipedia. See here. --Irpen 00:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note my responses to this allegation, which frames normal and expected evidence gathering as some evil "black book".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

- Disagree. An opportunity to collect any evidence is required for successful and fair work of ArbCom (see my comment above).Biophys (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for many other dispute resolutions... my point exactly: collecting evidence is not creating a black book. The very term is nothing but a bad faith framing of perfectly normal evidence collection.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, let's stick to facts. The timing of purported deletion by Piotrus followed by an immediate surreptitious resumption of the black book when logged out clearly show an attempt to deceive. Piotrus' claim to have stopped was dishonest. --Irpen 18:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Disagree. It is purely an assumption of bad faith to claim such a list is malicious. Piotrus has been subjected to so many cases in the past, maintaining a list is probably a necessary defensive measure. Spending time collecting evidence after an Arbcom case has been sprung is very time consuming and stressful. As Alex noted above, editing in EE is difficult given the competing narratives, and when a conflict does arrive, it is invariably is a case of pots calling the kettle black. The question to ask on whether the list is malicious is to ask whether Piotrus has ever initiated an Arbcom case against his opponents. Martintg (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creating lists of grievances might be an act of good faith. Officially announcing to community deletion of a text than resurrecting it within minutes working as an IP is an act of bad faith no questions about it. If the IP involved were not Piotrus I of course bring my apologies. I guess arbcom members can verify the matter via checkuser tools. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All those links which should prove my alleged misbehavior are directly taken from Piotrus Black Book [93] [94]. M.K. (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment per my observations above, it may be quite possible that both sides are speaking candidly here. On-wiki collections of this sort--no matter how well-intended and carefully maintained--tend to enhance disputes rather than resolve them. Suggest both sides shake hands over this episode and agree not to repeat it. Durova^Charge! 07:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable, good faithed compromise would be for the other side to assume that my evidence collection was within the frame of policies, but due to possible misinterpretation, it would be highly recommended for future cases not to have such evidence collections within Wikimedia project space. Most editors collect them elsewhere, anyway, and the instances when they were collected on site seem to be too problematic too often. I wouldn't have much trouble not doing it on Wikimedia projects, thus solving this issue (I do, however, think it is important to state that I have done nothing wrong with my collection so far as current policies are concerned).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment We are missing the diff showing that he promised to delete it. Novickas (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. For someone who’s been dragged through mud as many times as User:Piotrus, the only defining factor for arbitrators in this particular instance should be that Piotrus is used to collecting evidence of edit warring in order to prepare himself against inevitable future attacks. A single glance at the Evidence page proves that many of those who oppose him collect evidence at least as effectively, and for a lot more menacing reasons. --Poeticbent talk 03:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. I myself have chided myself more than once for not keeping records of incidents of poor editorial conduct even extending to tag-team like favoritism by certain admins threatening major punitive actions over minor issues. Keeping such information is unfortunately vital to one's personal self-defense in the current atmosphere--one which is not of Piotrus' making. —PētersV (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put the terminology aside. Replace "Black book" with a "file on his content opponents" or with a "log" if you like. The facts themselves are not disputed. Piotrus created such file on Polish Wikipedia in March, 2007, [95] while no arbcom or RfC was under way. He purportedly shut it down [96] with "not needed" edit summary when it came to light in the previous arbcom [97], while in fact he restarted what he claimed is "not needed" at a different page [98] and maintained throughout these months [99]). --Irpen 18:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Framing is very important. And the very arbcoms that occurred are proof enough that evidence gathering was quite needed (unless you are going to tell me that those arbcoms would've not happened if I my evidence collection page did not exist?). PS. Same goes for the deceived community about its deletion. I never said I was deleting it, but an evidence page that is known to editors who were for various reasons unhappy about them was indeed not needed - hence it was moved. Assuming that I intended to deceive the community is just more bad faith. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can only tell you that for me this was a breaking point. Not even that the page was online but this being your approach. I cannot tell for others. You may remember that I did not launch your first ArbCom or Hali's RfC and (as they both happened before my discovery of your "evidence collection" technique) my initial posts were rather conciliatory. I spoke strongly in defense of Halibutt and against the acceptance of your arbcom. --Irpen 18:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - For me the "breaking point" came earlier when I was forced to start compiling evidence of the ongoing harassment of myself and other editors by your and your colleagues. Years have passed, and yet you've not expressed any remorse or regret over your actions, and the victim blaming continues ("how dare you gather evidence of my wrongdoing?").--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Piotrus, I see your black book and there are about dozen people there. What strikes me is not that they were harassing you (are you saying that they all were?) but they all happen to have been your content opponents at some point of time. You did not gather "evidence". You gathered "stuff" to use to hit your targets. How are the Betacommand's issues, or [http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyskusja_wikipedysty:Piotrus/Drogowskaz&diff=prev&oldid=10130592 Dorftrottel's musings at ANI, or my absence is the evidence of anything at all? Your whole black book is full of such stuff when you spin the conduct of the users in any possible way to allow you to call for their blocks (and then you go to IRC to call for such blocks once you post your evidence.) This AE thread is a good demo of that. --Irpen 21:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "but they all happen to have been your content opponents at some point of time". A very prudent and important observation - alas, the conclusion you draw from it is wrong. I have no critics to speak of among neutral, uninvolved editors. All that became more familiar with the issue are supportive of me - as indicated by the correlation of content involvement and support/critique of my person in this arbcom in outside comments and elsewhere. Most vocal of my critics are editors who failed to push their POV in articles because of my objection to NPOV violation; having found they cannot win content disputes (as our dispute resolution invites neutral editors who side with me as a rule of thumb (of course one can find exceptions for everything, and I've been wrong sometimes, too), they turned to ruining my reputation and harassing of me (and others who support me). And the Lokyz thread is a good demo of how uncivil, disruptive editors who harass others are protected by those who find their harassment useful, as if allowed to continue it is likely to lead to their content opponents being chased away.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, your post left me almost speechless. So, I would just say that there is a reason why we have an evidence page. --Irpen 22:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

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 content creation should be praised

1) Arbcom commends Piotrus for all the content he has created.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Unusual, but IMHO needed. I would like to add that whatever we do his ability to work on the content should not be hindered Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither necessary nor desirable for the reasons I gave at #Piotrus contributes a lot of encyclopaedic content. I applaud Piotrus's work, but there's no reason for the committee to be doing so officially. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither necessary nor desirable per Angus. Orderinchaos 04:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus desysopped

2) Piotrus is desysopped. He can restore his administrative status via usual RFA procedure.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I seriously doubt, based on the evidence, that Piotrus can at this point in time be considered to have the trust of the community. Given his proven lack of personal and even administrative integrity, it would be good for wikipedia and community morale if he were at least to volunteer for a reconfirmation vote. I personally would be willing to consider that his actions are ameliorated by the stressful environment in which he works, esp. as I know myself full-well the lack of moral and wiki-legal support content-editors get in the nitty-gritty wiki world (leaving one perhaps with little practical choice but to do some of those thing), but this covers only some of the issues and Piotrus as yet continues to deny the bad faith and conduct of many of his actions and thus deprives me of my ability to see it in a better light. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Piotrus is not using his administrative tools often and his administrative work is trivial and sometimes questionable (unblocking Molobo, etc.). Thus, his desysopping should not significantly hinder his productive work. On the other hand, I believe that deceiving the community is incompatible with the administrative status. It would also reduce the ability to canvass using administrative IRC channel as well as give a signal that transformation wiki into a battleground is not OK. I think, if the community trust in Piotrus will restore then RFA should not be a problem

- Disagree. No convincing evidence, specificaly on the abuse of administrative tools by Piotrus, has been provided.Biophys (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that administrators should have trust of the community, if they have lost the trust or confidence of the community they should have their access removed, I think the right approach here would be making the admin term in general limited to several years (with the possibility of reelection) rather than desysopping Piotrus in particular. The ArbCom doesn't seem to be entitled to do such things, but if such a proposal is raised elsewhere, I'll support it. As of now, I fail to see what policy requires desysopping of Piotrus. Moreover, I am sure that such a move would be considered as encouragement by some of his opponents. Colchicum (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain for now while I am holding this discussion with Piotrus outside of the AtrbCom. If we manage to arrive to a harmonious solution, this may not be necessary. For the same reason, I interrupted writing up my evidence section in the hope that it may not be necessary. --Irpen 18:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Administrators, like all users, are not perfect beings. However, in general, they are role models within the community, and must have a good general standard of civility, fairness, and general conduct both to users and in content matters."Wikipedia:ADMIN#Administrator_conduct, and more importantly it links to:

"4) In general, Wikipedia's administrators are held to a higher standard of behavior than other users, particularly with regard to principles such as assume good faith and no personal attacks. Administrators are expected to keep their cool and should not use administrator-specific capabilities casually or without thought. They should lead by example and serve as a model of the proper editing behavior to which other users should aspire."[100] In view of his personal attacks, but also other problematic behavior highlighted in this arbitration, I do not see that he is qualified to have the role of admin given the expected conduct of an admin. The best solution would be if he stepped down voluntarily (it would not stop him from seeking re-election if he so wishes).--Stor stark7 ^Speak 19:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Disagree, the evidence is not convincing, nor are the alleged wrong doings is as extensive or chronic as other admins who have been desyopped by Arbcom. Besides, Piotrus is open to recall, let the community decide if they have lost trust in him. I certainly haven't. Martintg (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom has the full right to desysop me, as I believe has the community. For the record, my desysopment was proposed and opposed my RfC last year, see here; and never any motion for my recall has been initiated. I believe I still have the trust of majority of the community. I also believe that if I should ever so visibly loose the trust of the community, I should retire from this project, as it would indicate my input and contributions are no longer welcome here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Disagree. I am yet to see solid, convincing evidence of Piotrus abusing his admin powers. I am afraid this will be difficult, if not impossible, to find. Tymek (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I regard that shopping his own unlock via admin IRC, and accusing established editors of being "pov trolls" (details) is abuse of syspop rights; shopping to block content opponents via IRC admin (details) I see as an abuse of admin rights; threats to block editor, who is following WP:BLP, I see as an abuse of sysop rights; unblocking disputed article [101] I see as an abuse of sysop rights. But the most important is this - Wikipedia's administrators are held to a higher standard of behavior than other users.. Does Piotrus shows higher standard? Judging from my experience - he does not. M.K. (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Disagree per User:Martintg, User:Biophys and User:Tymek. Evidence is indeed very weak, besides, the proposed remedy stems from personally vested interest of a Wikipedian involved in political disagreements on Eastern European history. --Poeticbent talk 14:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support There has been community disquiet over the lack of ease by which the admin bit can be removed from those whose behaviour or judgement is in question, irrespective of this particular case. We also have three recent ArbCom precedents (FeloniousMonk, Physchim62 and Tango) where admin status was removed for questionable behaviour or judgement. Orderinchaos 04:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to oppose. I strongly suggest any fellow neutral admins review the actual hard logs rather than AN/I to get a picture of this user's use of admin tools. Except in very extreme circumstances (eg Foundation stuff or consistent blockable behaviour), I would not support deadminning a user on editing actions alone. Orderinchaos 01:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't all of those admins - unlike me - abused their admin powers? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not enough to feel uneasy over Piotrus. You actually have to prove he has done something wrong, and specifically that he has misused admin tools/authority/status. Moreschi (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This remedy is plainly not supported by your findings of fact. You have identified four issues with Piotrus' behavior, but desysopping will not solve or prevent any of them. It would only be punitive. — CharlotteWebb 21:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. To Orderinchaos, there's been "disquiet" over inability to desysop, and you name sysops I have never heard of as a precedent? There is already a remedy of recall in place. You have concrete incontrovertible proof any of those cases apply? Guilt by disassociation? I'm sorry, but you have convicted Piotrus before these proceedings have been completed. Whatever remedy is decided, if and only when required, should be up to admins clearly outside the community of contention here.

Furthermore, as far as I'm concerned, in not deferring to that community and personally supporting this remedy, Deacon has stepped over the line from plaintiff to judge and jury in the ultimate show of bad faith in advocating for this remedy. Can these proceedings possibly sink into any deeper quagmire?

A couple of weeks ago I would not have been so strident. Now that I've had a couple of weeks to walk in the hell-hole of vicious and baseless recriminations thrown about with reckless abandon that Piotrus lives with on a daily basis, myself being assaulted by editors I have never dealt with before who have demonstrated they are interested only in their WP:TRUTH, I can only admire his continued composure and commitment to and achievements in creating reputable content. —PētersV (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the level of attacks we have been witnessing for the past month or two is not what I see on a daily basis. On average... I'd say every two or three days, and usually in weekly or monthly batches punctuated by longer periods of relative peace - it all depends on how many uncivl "true believers" are active and grinding their axes. But yes, the last month - as every ArbCom - has been one of those "months in hell". And somehow I doubt it will be the last this project will see - although I am increasingly considering whether it should be the last for me. 5 years of this crap is getting tiresome indeed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response, there isn't *that* many closed ArbCom cases that you could not find and read the entire cases in the archive. The "remedy of recall" is not an official or enforceable remedy, as has been established and proven many times over in other cases. I certainly did not suggest Piotrus was "associated" with any of the above parties. (section withdrawn) Orderinchaos 00:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and what were you suggesting re "up to admins clearly outside the community of contention here"? I am most certainly uninvolved in this situation, I'm an Australian editor and administrator who handles mostly geographical and political topics within my own country. However, for about two years I've taken some interest in process-related stuff and am a moderately regular participant on AN/I and sometimes contribute to RFARs. Orderinchaos 00:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I appreciate involvement of neutral, new editors in this discussion (that said, please read if you haven't so far this mini-essay of mine and this recent update of my evidence, both addressing how such newcomers may be mislead). Second: could you explain what "questionable admin decisions" made you consider my admin position problematic? I have always felt that my use of admin tools was pretty uncontroversial. Third: "placing of extreme nationalist links" - could you again elaborate? I have added thousands of elinks to Wikipedia, a few of them were indeed "extreme nationalist" - a fact I had learned after I've added them, not before, and after I've learned about unreliability of a cited website I usually supported their purging. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to have to eat humble pie and apologise to you and retract a few things. Firstly, if you were unaware of the nature of the Antyk links until the debate, then I'm quite happy to strike that. Secondly, it would appear I have been guilty of link clicking and reading too much into past AN/Is, which I read about five of in the last 48 hours. The particular incident I had in mind, which I once saw by clicking a link in one of the AN/Is, only to find just now that it happened *three years ago*. I've just looked at 8 months of your block and delete logs and am seeing nothing troublesome there. I'm presently of a mind to withdraw my original statement. Orderinchaos 00:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest. As a great deal of this has reverted to the Irpen-Piotrus conflict after a breakdown of their direct talks, I have an alternate, at least partial, remedy. That is that for a trial period, say six months:

Piotrus and Irpen abstain from initiating administrative procedures/Requests for Anything involving the other;
Piotrus and Irpen abstain from participating in any way in administrative procedures/Requests for Anything involving the other; and, finally,
Piotrus and Irpen agree that their past interactions shall not be used by any other editor in any way in any administrative procedures/Requests for Anything against one or the other, that is, should such remedy be adopted, there is a clean slate between the two as of the adoption of said remedy, and all other editors must honor that clean slate.

Now, that would surely be a true demonstration of good faith. For the partisans here, this is the first mention of this suggestion that I have made, no prior communication with any other party. —PētersV (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you frame it as an official workshop proposal, it may get lost here. One one level I agree: for years I asked for nothing more than for Irpen to stop discussing me. See also this as well as my later proposal to Irpen. Please note that to the best of my knowledge I have never initiated administrative procedures re Irpen, nor commented in the ones involving him. Content procedures are different: your current proposal may be interpreted as forbidding me to asking for input like I did two days ago at Wikipedia:BLPN#Mikhail_Meltyukhov (and why should it)? Note, finally. that your proposal above does not address problematic relations between Irpen and others (Biophys, Lysy, Balcer, Halibutt).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. If this would be 511 years ago, I would be now in serious war with Piotrus, most likely we would kill each other. Yet, that would be only a content dispute. Dc76\^talk 02:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I support Peters' proposal. Dc76\^talk 02:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see no evidence that Piotrus has abused his admin tools in any of these disputes. --Folantin (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Abuse of admin tools is a minor part here. --Irpen 23:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joint board on Polish-German-Russian-Lithuanian-Ukrainian-Belarusian-Jewish disputes is created

3) The ethnic disputes related to Poland often have complicated German, Lithuanian, Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian or Jewish components. Attempts to solve them individually using Consensus mechanism are often only lead to Canvassing and Meatpuppeting as there are number of editors who strongly feel attachments to some of those national causes. We need a committee of reasonable users acting as representatives of those national communities as well as neutral editors interesting in the topics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The proposal seems incomplete; it's a justification for the existence of a board, but doesn't actually say what role the board would play. Kirill ^(prof) 23:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to address this concern by adding more specifics here. --Irpen 18:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment: Wikipedia:Eastern European Wikipedians' notice board was tried and forgotten. How is the Wikipedia:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard working? If well, it should be enough for our problems.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Workshop#Specific_editors_restricted. We need to replace the medieval court system with a sub-arbitration committee competent, responsible and good-faithed, consisting of 3 to 5 members. Users like Renata, Novickas (both Lithuania), Alex Bakharev (Russia), Elonka (Poland), just off the top-of-my-head, are highly educated users competent enough to understand the intricacies of content-disputes in these areas and trustworthy enough to solve them without being suspected by any "side" of being partisan. The arbs know what kind of users they'd look for this role I'm sure. It must be remembered that we only have (ignoring the particular issues with Piotrus) such significant problems in this area because there is in practice in this area more editorial power behind causing disputes than solving them. Given the large number of ideologues who edit wikipedia in these areas mostly to promote some kind of partisan agenda, however inexplicit or non-obvious it is even to themselves, and given the level of entrenchment that has already taken place, the opinions of most of these editors as to who should be on this committee can't really be taken too seriously, at least as opposed to considerations regarding who can be trusted to enforce wikipedia's content and discipline policies. Anyways, however they'd select and set this up, it seems to be fairly obvious that such a body would improve this area considerably. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. We need something like this Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. There is no way to describe the Irpen-Piotrus confict (for example) as Russian-Polish ethnic conflict, as I tried to explain in evidence. I appreciate good contributions by Piotrus specifically on the Russian history subjects. Unfortunately, he could not do enough in this area. No wonder why.Biophys (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We need a committee to do what? How is it going to be decided if a repesentative actually represents a community? And if the committee happen to represent the communities (which is hardly possible), what advantage over direct democracy does it give to Wikipedia? Furthermore, how do we know if a Wikipedian is a member of the community to be represented? We cannot require people to formally declare their allegiance on Wikipedia. Would this board have jurisdiction over Wikipedians who are not represented by it? Wikipedia needs less bureaucracy rather than more, and seeking a middle ground between prejudices is a wrong approach, the right one is to enforce the existing content wikipolicies. Colchicum (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support the idea while we need to develop it. IMO, we need a committee of mutually respected EE editors who would resolve the disagreements about sources and the propriety of their use. Misuse of sources, attacks on sources (sometimes valid sometimes bad faith) is the main feeder of the edit wars. My experience tells me that if we manage to resolve the sources' problem, we will make a huge progress. Exisiting general wikipedia-wide sources noticeboard is inadequate as we have to few uninformed opinions there from bystanders with no idea of what they are talking about. We need a more specialized board composed of editors respected by all sides who would resolve the disagreement about sources. --Irpen 18:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps separate regional or topical subdivisions of Wikipedia-wide noticeboards would be useful, but with free participation of all interested Wikipedians and based on the same Wikipedia policies. Anyway, it is probably not up to the ArbCom to set up such noticeboards. Colchicum (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that groups of good faith users with contradictory points of views exist. What we want to discourage is canvassing and recruitment of meatpuppets, pet trolls, attack dogs, etc. Unless the major players voluntarily reject canvassing, block shopping and would do anything against their own trolls and disruptive users such board would be just another scene of the battles not an instrument of conflict resolutions. And yes, there many more conflicts there than just Russo-Polish ethnic. There are many ethnic as well as non-ethnic conflicts intersects there. Smaller players like e.g. the Lithuanians are often completely suppressed there. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully support the concept. IMO, what is desperately needed with respect to article concering Polish Jewry is a committee of sorts of non-involved editors who can competently weigh the validity of sources for WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS etc. This is the only way to address s serious problem inn those article--the bullying through of fringe, anti-semitic canards (largely the view that Jews brought anti-semitism upon themselves because of various "sins"--cooperating with the Soviets, creating communism, etc) that keep being inserted into a number of articles. I would eagerly welcome such a committee for those articles as an alternative to the tedium of having to battle team edit warriors who use Canvassing and Meatpuppeting to incessantly despoil articles with views that are an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Given Boodlesthecat's total unwilingness to accept opinion that differs from his, as well as his unwilingness to cooperate in certain inflammatory articles, such as History of Jews in Poland, a committee would be perfect. Tymek (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, would never work and is irrelevant to the current case. Given both their contributions to their respective areas, exclusion of either Irpen or Piotrus from this committee is unthinkable, while their inclusion would not resolve Irpen's paranoia towards Piotrus. Martintg (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Marting. Furthermore, all this does is create yet another venue for soaking up the energies of editors doing something other than creating content. Look at all the time already, frankly, wasted in this proceeding (which has not changed anything and in which no one has changed their positions/allegiances from similar prior proceedings). —PētersV (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A good subsection of the editors who are most informed and would participate on such a board are already participating (here).
- As for editors not currently participating here, their position on issues is known to the editorial community involved.
- If a board is meant to bring in "fresh blood", that is just a new invitation for rhetoric and lobbying of editors who are clueless to the intricacies of Baltic/CentralEastern European history for "NPOV" resolution based on (from my view) facts competing with fiction (from the other side, the soon to be unbanned Petri Krohn would say myth versus reality).
- We all know who we are and what our positions are. We can deal with each other in good faith, that is, assume good faith in spite of what we deem evidence to the contrary, or we can continue along the current road with (not to single him out, others have made far worse allegations) Irpen's charges of viciousness [his emphasis]. PētersV (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Think of it as an Ombudsman's office, rather than as an additional layer of bureaucracy. The successful versions of these institutions start with the assumption that conflicts will arise, and then do their best to assure that the office-holders are neutral, enjoy widespread community respect, and are consistently civil. Yes, the proposal needs fleshing out. Novickas (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The editors here aren't newcomers who need their hands held. This year has seen far too many arbitrations end with milquetoast solutions. It's arbitration's function to be the final step in dispute resolution, not to pass the buck by stalling for weeks or months and then asking everyone to play nicely together. Or worse, cobbled-by-committee 'general sanctions' that hand draconian power to any of 1500 administrators who wander to a thread at AE. We've seen enough of those backfire; let's not encourage more. The buck stops here. Durova^Charge! 07:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. How is this new panel of self-appointed quasi-arbitrators supposed to work? The amount of bullying is already beyond belief in some areas so what voluntary mechanisms would prevent that? --Poeticbent talk 15:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Durova above has captured the spirit and context of my objection to this proposal. Orderinchaos 04:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black books and lists of grievances are forbidden

4) Onwiki black books and lists of grievances can be speedily deleted by any administrator on sight (using G10 speedy deletion criterion). Offwiki black books are treated the same way as other off wiki personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment (refactored from oppose with explaination). I agree with the principle, I oppose the idea that my evidence collection was a "black book". I have addressed this in detail in my evidence reply, but: editors have the right to collect evidence. Black books = attack pages not only should be but are forbidden (Wikipedia:Attack page); my pages were not attack pages but evidence pages. Editors are required to collect evidence for dispute resolution.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Deleting diffs with comments ("black books") on sight and treating them as personal attacks - this sounds desperate to me. I have seen some personal essays in WP that sound very much like "griverances". That would be difficult to distingush.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Such stuff only breeds hostile and divisive climate. I would go as far as prohibit RfC drafts from being kept in userspace for more than one week (to allow reasonable time to write them up). In Cla-SV case this was discussed in greater detail. I make no comment on their dispute itself, but Cla's RfC-draft resting and developing in his userspace for months could only breed hostility. --Irpen 18:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some "lists of grievances" are normal part of arbitration, requests for comments, or preparations for them. Anyway, I don't see what it has to do with creating content and how this proposal can help here. Colchicum (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You "can't see" because you were lucky to not have seen such activity directed against yourself. You can read up about the experience of finding out about being so deviously monitored here as well as here (fourth paragraph from the bottom) and here. --Irpen 19:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not convinced that meticulously collecting an evidence in this case represents harassment, as you imply, especially since it was you rather than Piotrus who brought this "black book" here.Biophys (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solving an isolated conflict (e.g. over Boleslaw expedition is easy), solving hundreds of fossilized conflicts spanning periods of years in a meaningful ways impossible unless the arbcom is prepared to deliberate for years. Keeping out of context diffs in a public place without the target having a chance to respond is a harassment. Collective meticulous preparation for months of evidence then dumping it on an unsuspecting user who suppose to answer in days (and might have some other things to do) is at least grossly unfair. There is no need to collect and nurture all your grievances you expect to seek solutions at the time the problem is arrived Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, your facts are wrong. The book was not google'able to avoid being seen as an attack page, but it was possible to find so that parties interested enough in stalking my edits could see what I am concerned with and raise it on talk (this is why I left it there; do you think I am stupid and I recreated it in almost the same place where the last one was because I thought it was somehow unfinde'able now?). If you post anything online, you are making it public, I just made this one accessible only to the much more dedicated editors - I was curious who would invest time in following my edits this time... surprise, my good friend Irpen was the one to do so. There is no harassment if the harassed has spent considerable time to stalk the "harasser" to figure out what he is doing... it's like sticking an arm deep into a garbage disposal unit and crying harm afterwards :) One could argue with more logic that bad faith and harassment was shown by user(s) looking for my evidence collection in the first place. And, of course, collecting evidence is no bad faith, it's following dispute resolution procedures, so there was no bad faith or harassment on my part. "Collective meticulous preparation for months of evidence" may be grossly unfair - just as writing a Featured Article is grossly unfair to editors who have no time/will to do so... be serious, Alex. Making a better argument is not being unfair.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I swear I found you black book by googling something. I really don't remember the string I was googling for but in one of our many disputes you challenged me to find diffs for something I assert and I googled in search of the page where the discussion I was referring to took place. Your black book showed up and made me disgusted beyond belief, especially how it was restarted after its claimed closure. I addressed the rest of your claims elsewhere. --Irpen 05:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you found it a year ago by googling, and I agreed that it may be offensive (as one does not enjoy googling for one name and finding criticism), which is why I ensured that current version is, to my knowledge, non-google'able (and has been for about a year). So what's the problem? PS. I also ask you to provide a diff to google search that shows that my current evidence page is googe'able.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem? Two problems, actually. The lesser one was that your knowledge was incorrect as I found it by google. The bigger one is the fact that you followed me and others in search of material to be used at the opportune time and you did try that. I explained it multiple times, both at my evidence section and my talk. --Irpen 21:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please prove that the current page is google'able and I'll be happy to remedy that (I fully agree that it is unpleasant to google one's name/nick and come up with such stuff). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I am not even an amateur in Google hacking. I have no idea what makes pages googleable. All I am saying is that several months ago it showed up in a response to a google string when I was looking for some of our previous discussions I needed to refer to in the discussion we had at the moment. But this is really a minor issue. My main concern is not whether the page is hidden or open. My concern is with your logging of material for months to use it at an opportune time to strike and get rid of opponents which demonstrate a vicious attitude towards Wikipedia editing as a long term "battle". I explained it all here. I requested from you a firm promise that this would stop. So far, you refused to do so. I am sure that if you, me and most other editors would agree to follow a simple code of ethics, we would have a good shot to address other problems. --Irpen 20:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, finally, a time clarification: several months ago. Yes, early this year - around the time of Digwuren arbitration - the page was google'able. Then you objected to that, saying it is stressful to google one's name in such context, and I fixed it. And yes, it would be great if all editors agreed to work peacefully and never need dispute resolution (which requires evidence collection). I am afraid such an ideal world is not very likely, however, and this is why evidence collection is explicitly permitted and requested by policies of DR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, not that many months ago. I am talking well after you changed the page of your log from Piaskownica to Drogowskaz as when I found "Drogowskaz" it had a very significant edit history already. It was certainly less than a year ago (which was the time of Digwuren's case.) Your claim that the type of your activity (not "evidence collection" per se but specifically what you were doing) is permissible is where we disagree. You claim it is a legitimate "evidence collection" while in my opinion this is evidence of the grand scale viciousness in the battleship for the favorable content of Wikipedia as explained here. Should I consider my request for you to promise to stop denied? Because so far you were avoiding the direct answer. If you are going to refuse, just say so at my talk and to my deep regret the rest of this disagreement would have to be resolved at the ArbCom pages. --Irpen 20:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Disagree. I don't see how semi-privately recording evidence of someone's incivility to me (for example) constitutes "harassment" to that person committing the incivility. Perhaps if we all maintained such lists, it could be a deterrent to the incivility being committed in the first place. Martintg (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intention of all those politeness is to keep harmonic work without hostilities between the editors. Collecting dossiers of out of context difs from stale conflicts serves exactly the opposite Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and endorsement. Examples of such "books", "lists" are extreme form of bad faith assumption, therefore such "items" should be prohibited. M.K. (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as prohibition goes, the only thing that is prohibited is your use of old (2007, 2006, 2005...) diffs in evidence, which violates Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus#Amnesty... but of course I can understand that like Irpen, you are unhappy that I collect evidence to defend myself against dispute resolutions you are launching against me (for the uninitiated, M.K. has been the major force between RfC Piotrus and RfArb Piotrus 1). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Disagree. I myself have been in need of such a list and have wasted hours at times looking through article histories for past incidents. As long as such a list is accessible in one's user space--after all, it would be nearly as easy to maintain such a list off-WP--then I see no reason for an editor, especially one who has been repeatedly attacked, not to be able to maintain such a list. I would additionally note that editors appearing in such a list should not comment on the page with the list, but instead view such a notation of incidents as an opportunity to foster user talk page dialog to positively address any misunderstandings. Again, we have the Piotrus opposition making the blanket assumption/charge of bad faith. —PētersV (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree as per PētersV. I have no time going round collecting evidence of bad faith and gross misbehaviour which is rampant in my areas of interest. That’s why I’m always deeply distressed by being subjected to occasional smear campaigns. I suggest you keep things in perspective. The Arbcom attacks seem to be on the rise and not in decline. --Poeticbent talk 17:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative community, not a grudge match. Unless such a page has official bearing (eg our Long Term Abuse or Request for Checkuser cases), or it's only meant to be up for a few days or for the duration of a particular dispute resolution phase, otherwise there is no place for it here. People can use Notepad or Microsoft Word or something on their own computer if they wish to store information. Orderinchaos 04:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why? First, why should gathering evidence be limited to "a few days"? This very arbcom has been on hold for weeks as some editors gather their evidence. Second, as long as the page is not google'able, why should one be forced to use non-wiki medium, when one can write on a wiki, where it's easy to work on wikification of the content? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Two things: my second caveat ("or for the duration of...") anticipated longer periods such as this one, the "few days" was intended for normal circumstances. I personally object not to the collecting of evidence but the storing of it in a public place for periods of non-fixed duration. On one's own computer, it serves the intended purpose of keeping the information on hand. In a public place it only serves to create drama and keep wars going longer than they should. i.e. hinders collaboration, which is the raison d'etre for the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 00:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - In that case, I don't think we are in much disagreement. I tried to ensure my evidence collection - which by itself I hope we can agree is acceptable - would be reasonably private (not googleable) but easy to wikify, easy to discuss with others if I chose to do so (including editors in the evidence). Apparently this has caused much wikidramu, and I wouldn't mind moving it off Wikimedia projects entirely. The big thing is not about where it is (as long as it is somewhere reasonably private), but that some editors claim I have no right to collect evidence or that the very act of collecting evidence violates our policies.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In whose eyes, then, I'd also be in violation, as I have quite a few offline files to that general effect. We've had some really tough cases on the Australian project usually ending in indefinite blocks and most of the work I have done sits on Notepad files or Excel spreadsheets on my home computer in case future checkusers or other admins working on the case need it. Orderinchaos 00:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Indeed. See also how I frame this issue with my proposals at #Gathering evidence is a normal dispute resolution procedure and #Framing of Piotrus' evidence gathering as "black book" shows bad faith. Do note I've refactored my comment in the party's comments in this thread, as I do not oppose the principle but rather, framing of my evidence collection as a "black book" or "list of grievances".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the reasons given in #Gathering evidence is a normal dispute resolution procedure, I don't see this as a principle. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Please define black book in 100% unequivocal terms. Is this from dictionary? My answer is: impossible, resp. no. So, oppose, b/c this is highly interpretable. Remedies must be specific, not general and creating other problems.Dc76\^talk 02:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Record-keeping is a normal part of arbitration and RfCs.Biophys (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Martintg and others. Such a solution would mean that it's ok to call people names, but it's not ok to collect such evidence prior to some conflict resolution. 212.76.55.240 (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Piotrus

Proposed principles

Gathering evidence is a normal dispute resolution procedure

1) Sound evidence is the rational basis for sound judgements. Gathering evidence is required by many dispute resolution procedures, such as Request for Comment and Request for Arbitration. There are different ways to gather evidence, and editors may take different lenghts of time to gather it; editors are free to determine how and when they gather evidence as long as their evidence is not used as an attack page to defame others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. A response to "No black books" proposal by Alex. Simply, a finding that my evidence collection was wrong would crash our current dispute resolution system, as it would indicate that evidence collection is wrong. A statement to the contrary is needed before future arbcoms and other dispute resolutions become paralyzed with sides accusing each other that the other side had no right to gather evidence... PS. Search for instances of the word "evidence" at Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Arbitration guide and one'll find repeated instances indicating that participants are required to gather evidence.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

- Fully and repeatedly answered here and here. --Irpen 05:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This is standard.Biophys (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Necessary to one's defense in these sorts of proceedings built on the premise that an editor is apparently the nexus of all WP bad faith. —PētersV (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Standard requirement of all conflict resolution procedures in WP:AN/I, WP:DE, WP:RFC and WP:WQA. --Poeticbent talk 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Is a party to litigation to be required to appear without evidence in his own defense? Nihil novi (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Litigation should not disrupt editorial process and violate normal ethical principles of civilized society. It is counter-productive but not forbidden to keep black books on your private hard drive. It is quite common to keep grivances onwiki in the place known for accused. It has the name WP:RFC. Collective collecting evidence behind somebody's back is absolutely unethical. It is similar to ridiculing a co-worker or a party guest when he or she temporarily left the room. It is simply not that civilized people do. Discovering of such black books by the subject is very disruptive. The books prevent any meaningful conflict resolution. Editing the black books Piotrus way: after announcing the deletion and by IP editing destroys all the trust between the editors: if Piotrus used sockpuppets (to avoid scrutiny) and deliberately told an untruth then what other edits he may have done using socks and what other statement of him were deliberate untruths? I hope none but how can we trust that our hopes are true? Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Than change the way WP:DR works, because as I've illustrated in quite a few places, evidence collection is currently required by our policies. And searching for my non-public evidence is stalking; if I've moved it to a doc on my computer, would some try to hack into it to look for it? How and where I collect my evidence is up to me, as long as it is in a reasonable private, ungoogle'able location that cannot be mistaken for some defamatory attack page.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a generally applicable principle this has flaws. How can one assume good faith while continuing to maintain a collection of so-called evidence? Where's the forgiveness? It is right and proper to collect evidence for purposes of dispute resolution, but only when dispute resolution is underway or at least under consideration. Principles should be broadly applicable and broadly true, but there are many cases where collecting evidence would not be reasonable. Try to see it from the other perspective: "Harassment is an ongoing pattern of participation with no legitimate editorial purpose that intimidates another user or seeks to drive another user away from the project" (from here). Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Angus, there are several flows in your argument. One: as was discussed elsewhere here, assuming good faith does not precude one from participating in DR proceedings and gathering evidence for them. Two: I gathered my evidence in various periods when I thought a DR may be likely to occur. Was I supposed to delete it afterwards? With oversight, perhaps? Remove it from my memory? Online medias are by their nature near perfect archives... Third: Since I didn't actually got to use the diffs I collected against Irpen (who is the editor primarily criticizing them), consider that for him to get harassed by them he had first to dig long and hard to find them, and than assume bad faith that I intended to somehow subverse wiki DR policies and use them to ban him... it's kind of like looking hard for a place to hurt yourself, on purpose, and then crying foul, I am afraid.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I said, I have no problem with evidence collection, but there have been cases in the past where the committee has found that collecting diffs could be harassing. This makes the principle difficult to frame so as to endorse legitimate collection for DR but not for the purposes of harassment. Collecting diffs on pl.wiki would be a very ineffective way of harassing users on en.wiki, and I think any reasonable outsider would have no problem with this. At worst it's incompatible with forgive and forget. I don't think the committee should endorse your view or Irpen's view on this because neither is broad enough. You can't one principle for bad-diff-collecting and another for good-diff-collecting. This would be reasonable if rewritten as a finding of fact. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Angus, my view is best summarized in the #Attitude_to_problem_resolution principle. I am not opposed to the diffs collection per se. Recording a problem along with an attempt to resolve it is permissible. Recording a problem and presenting it to an ongoing DR process is permissible. Recording an incident for the future use (save special cases like Poetlister affair) isn't. Should I modify my proposal to make this difference more clear? --Irpen 22:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We'd have to agree that keeping lists of evidence for purposes of harassment is bad, the arbcom already said this. But Piotrus is right that collecting evidence for dispute resolution is fine in principle. So, again, I don't see that there's a useful principle can be drawn. Sometimes it's ok, sometimes it's not. I don't see anything objectionable in #Attitude to problem resolution, but what's "a reasonable period after their occurrence"? I think this too would be stuff for a finding of fact because it has to be case specific. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree, Angus, that what's "reasonable" is a matter for a Finding of Fact. "Collecting evidence for dispute resolution is fine in principle", true. Note the stress on "dispute resolution". Recording an incident along with a failed attempt to resolve it may help create peace. Recording an incident on which one makes no attempt to resolve with the purpose to use it "when the time is right" is "for dispute resolution" only if one sees seeking the opponents' blocks a primary method of winning one's disputes with them. --Irpen 18:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith

2) Per Wikipedia:Assume good faith, editors should act on the principle that other editors are trying to be neutral and are amenable in reaching a consensus. Assuming other editors are acting with bad faith is disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. A very important basic principle, particularly as much of this arbcom centers around bad faithed accusations about my person: anything I do, it seems, can and is twisted and misrepresented in bad faith, up to and including a claim that I create content with the sole intent of creating battlegrounds... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support the principle. However it apparently does not apply to arbitration proceedings, where everyone seem to assume bad faith. Right? Support comment. Content never creates battlegrounds, however controversial it might be. Only people create battlegrounds.Biophys (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF requires assuming good faith in the absence of the evidence to the contrary. The first part is most often cited and sometimes mis-cited. However, the second part is important too. --Irpen 03:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both a very important points. Assuming good faith does not mean, for example, assuming that all will work out peacefully, or that nobody makes errors, nor does it mean being blind to dispute resolution when needed - or its requirements, such as collecting evidence required for dispute resolution... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Assuming good faith in the absence of the evidence to the contrary" I believe is a specious argument. Irpen has accused me of "vicious" attacks, of "block-shopping" where there was no such intent, bad faith, or malice on my part. Diffs are not material. "Evidence to the contrary" in this case = "being able to construe as bad faith." There IS NO ASSUMPTION OF GOOD FAITH if it is not done in the very face of evidence (perception) to the contrary. Assumption of good faith when there is no "evidence" of bad faith is a meaningless syllogism. —PētersV (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support the basic princilple as defined by WP:AGF behavioral guideline. Please note, the policy acknowledges also that: "there will be disagreements on Wikipedia for which no policy or guideline has an easy answer." --Poeticbent talk 03:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Assumption of good faith is a sine qua non for civil discussion. Nihil novi (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." Absolutely. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Currently, "specific evidence of malice" is far too open to personal interpretation. For the purposes of the community here, we should consider (at least as general guidelines) what acts do, and do not, constitute malice. —PētersV (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not necessary, someone beat us to it with Hanlon's razor. Wikipedia policies and guidelines charitably allow that there are alternative explanations which do not involve stupidity, but the general idea is the same. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - assumption of bad faith is very disruptive Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for input is not canvassing or forum shopping

3) Advertising a discussion on forums relevant to current issues, such as regional notice boards, topic noticeboards (ex. WP:RSN), or RfCs is not canvassing, provided that the message is neutral and nonpartisan. Preferably a message with similar content should be copied to all relevant noticeboards, to ensure no party is excluded from notifications (like here, here and here). Asking for input regarding other editors actions (like this) is not forum shopping; editors have the right and even obligation (in case of admins, whose duty is to ensure battlefields are contained!) to ask on a neutral forum for others to review, comment and possibly act on edits that they deem troublesome (just as posting to WP:ANI/3RR is not "block shopping"). Finally, using off-wiki communications is acceptable, as long as it is not used to hide activities that would be violating wikipedia policies if revealed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, as Alex raised a good point above that this is not only about meatpuppetry, but canvassing (WP:CANVASS). I will also point out that Irpen himself recently agreed "There is nothing wrong with off-wiki communication per se" (see workshop talk for full context). Assuming one communicates with others, without any proof, that editors stack votes or conspire on reverts, is bad faith - editors vote the same way and support certain content all around Wikipedia. Per WP:CABAL: "consider that if many people disagree with you, it may be just because you are wrong [and not because they are conspiring against you]". PS. I would also like to openly declare what I have declared previously in my statement and evidence: I have asked several editors (primarlily ones who have left this project, or those involved as official and unofficial mediators in dispute resolutions relevant to this case) to join this arbitration. This is an example of what I believe is a perfectly proper reason and way to ask other editors to join a certain discussion for the benefit of all community. If ArbCom wishes, I can provide a list of whom I've asked and a rationale behind it. I don't request that the other party provides similar declaration or a least, but I fully expect they have done the same (just as they have collected their evidence - and just as I am not criticizing that).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backing assertions like this would be creating a meaningless legal nonsense that would most likely only ever be used by partisan editors canvassing or forum shopping. Most experienced editors can tell by phraseology, by the targetted forum (where the latter is for whatever reason expected to be more sympathetic), and by their experience of the user in question whether or not the "asking for input" in question is canvassing/forum shopping or a real good-faithed attempt to get wider participation for its own sake. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

- Supported. I was accused of "canvassing" before I even knew the term simply alerting a Baltic board regarding a proceeding borne of a content dispute. (I was also accused of being a "meat puppet" before I knew what that was.) And quite frankly, such notices are the only way to draw in previously uninvolved editors. I rather suspect that at this point, Irpen and I could trade and ghost-write each other's positions and no one else would be the wiser. —PētersV (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Just as a reminder. "The following table illustrates under which circumstances notifications are considered acceptable."[102] --Poeticbent talk 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	Scale		Message		Audience		Transparency
Friendly notice	Limited posting	AND	Neutral	AND	Nonpartisan	AND	Open
	↕		↕		↕		↕
Inappropriate canvassing	Mass posting	OR	Biased	OR	Partisan	OR	Secret

- - Strong support of this table. Dc76\^talk 02:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. And as a practical matter in the present context, I must state that whenever Piotrus has notified me of a matter that might be of interest to me, he has done so in a perfectly neutral manner. Nihil novi (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support I'm not sure why making other editors aware of articles they may be interested in working on is considered 'bad'. Additionally this has become an ad hominen accusation repeatedly made by some users towards both the editor who makes the post and anyone who wonders over to take a look at the article in question. This accusation is being used in an uncivil manner (usually combined with completely unfounded accusations of edit-warring as in "you were canvassed, obviously you're an edit warrior") and in fact personifies bad faith. Accusing others of "canvassing" without some strong evidence of inappropriate behavior is basically akin to spuriously throwing the label "troll" on anyone who disagrees with you.radek (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support the table above. Asking for input may be perfectly appropriate. The problem is, for example, in asking for a quick revert over IM. --Irpen 18:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, "asking for a quick revert over IM", an accusation which I have always strongly denied, is unprovable and only leads to bad faith. It is as unprovable and damaging as suggestions that certain users support the web brigades, for example (please note I've never made such an allegation - despite that there is as much evidence for it as for Polish Gadu-Gadu cabal - and I strongly discourage idle, bad faith speculation and conspiracy theories about any cabals).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I happen to disagree that this is unprovable. Same 3-4 editors, known to be your Gadu Gady partners always showing up, exactly when you used up a "3RR quota", on the multiples articles they never ever edited before, quickly reverting to yourself (once or twice) and never contributing anything to the articles and their discussions besides reverting to your versions may be a proof or not depending on who looks at that. To me, the evidence seems convincing. I am glad that, at least, you publicly seem to state that this practice isn't good. Hopefully, this would be codified by an ArbCom ruling. --Irpen 21:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disagree all you want, but so far you've failed to prove it. Particularly with me being as active as I am, I am sure you can find enough cherry-picked exceptions to the rule and coincidences to show examples of anything. But exceptions to the rule don't make the rule (or the case), I am afraid.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly! And the point of the evidence of page and FoFs section is to establish what constitutes rules and what constitute exceptions. --Irpen 22:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground

4) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Use of the site for political or ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, based on identical and relevant passed principle from Digwuren arbcom. PS. This is quite important in light that some users (for example, Novickas (talk · contribs) and Irpen (talk · contribs)) are primarily active in dispute resolution (this arbcom), criticizing other users. Novickas is a case to point, with all but one edits since September 2 till the moment I am writing this words edits to this case. I believe there is something wrong with user's priorities if they spend more time criticizing others in DR than in creating encyclopedic content. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not fight wars... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 07:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. PētersV (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Poeticbent talk 04:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the principle. I don't endorse Piotrus's ~~essay~~commentary which accompanies it. Perhaps someone who speaks Polish can tell me if belka and źdźbło are the right words? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The heading of the principal is not true phrased as a fact. How about WP disagreements shall be conducted according to established rules of conduct. Novickas (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Irpen 18:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Piotrus evidence collection was within norms of the community

1) Piotrus evidence collection was within norms of the community. Dispute resolution requires editors to collect evidence and Piotrus evidence was most implicitly a simple application of those requirements, and not an attack page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. A reply to "Piotrus_created_a_black_book.2C_then_deceived_community_about_its_deletion" proposal by Alex. I elaborated in replies above and my arbcom statement on this. I'll also repeat that the evidence page was hidden to avoid accusations that's it's a googlable attack page; I a not stupid and I knew well that any reasonable search through my contributions (anybody can look at editor's global contribs from English Wikipedia contribs!) will find it. I kept it semi-public because I had (and have) nothing to hide. Finally, I resent bad faith framing (where the very name implies wrongness) of my evidence page as the "black book". For the background of this term first arose, see old 2005 case, the Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/User:Witkacy/Black Book and compare the differences.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. This is so called "black book". It includes simply diffs and brief comments by Piotrus. Diffs themselves are not "malicious" by any means. The comments can not be interpreted as a personal attack - as clear after reading them. They were made outside the English WP. Importantly, these diffs were never actually used by Piotrus to "attack" anyone. At least I did not see any evidence of that. To the contrary, they were used by Irpen to attack Piotrus during this case. I would like to see any written WP rules that consider keeping diffs with notes at the user subpages as a serious violation punishable by ArbCom. I kept some diffs with comments too. Should I copy such diffs instead to my home computer?Biophys (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious are not "diffs" but their collection to use as a weapon at an opportine time. And again, Biophys, your claim is simply factually wrong. Piotrus used his diffs many times. Just in my evidence there are examples (example 1 [103] [104]; example 2 [105] [106], example 3 [107] [108]). And there were many more attempts. --Irpen 06:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using diffs during RfCs, ArbCom proceedings, and in many other cases (like those you indicated in examples) is not a "malicious activity" or a "personal attack". For example, you provided many diffs during this case. I am not sure one could call your diffs and arguments "malicious".Biophys (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious is seeking blocks and sanctions of opponents are the primary method of resolving content disputes in one's favor. The core issue is the following: Does Piotrus activity falls within the community norms of dispute resolution through ridding the Wikipedia of bad apples or does he seek the elimination of opponents at any cost as means to gain upper hand in content disputes? And if the answer is the latter, and I believe it is, his diffs collection and their unloading (along with the spin he gives to them) to various pages when he thinks the time is ripe falls within the pattern of his trend of using various unseemly strategies to win content disputes. Calling in reverts via Gadu Gadu is another such strategy. This is a judgment issue whether this conclusion can reasonably be inferred from Piotrus' activity. I think it can. --Irpen 18:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking here only about his evidence collection, not about Gadu Gadu or anything else. Of course if someone tells: "go away of my article, or I will unleash my evidence against you!", that would be a violation of the policy, but not the evidence collection per se.Biophys (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think malice is evident because, even without Piotrus' issuing such a direct threat, we can reasonably conclude from what we see that Piotrus used elimination of opponents through following them around to collect diffs and then unleash his collections to various boards at opportune times (also badly spun) as a strategy to help him win content disputes. I believe Flo precisely meant such unseemly strategies in her acceptance comment. You may persist (along with Piotrus) that what he did does not amount to any wrongdoing. Facts are on the table and not disputed. What to make of them is to be decided in this case. --Irpen 20:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You tell "elimination of opponents through following them around to collect diffs". But this can be said about collection of any evidence if only someone was banned in the end. Collection of diffs about the "opponents" - it is exactly what you and others are doing during this case. You probably mean: it is inappropriate to collect evidence in advance. But this is a highly controversial opinion at best.Biophys (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - hivemind style collecting dirt is unacceptable. Anyway if it was done in good faith then why Piotrus did use anonymous accounts? Why did he announced its deletion? Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"hivemind style collecting dirt" - perfect example of bad faith framing (social sciences). Calling a normal activity evil is not going to make it so, I am afraid. Why anonymous? As I wrote above, I wanted to keep it private (since last time when it was public Irpen complained it was google'able and linked his name with misdoings...). Where did I announce it's deletion? I said from the start that I did nothing wrong, and I still say so, I haven't deleted this useful page - I simply moved it so that stalkers would need to spend a little more time and effort finding a new one. I did note above that I was curious who would dedicate time to stalking me and finding it out (if I wanted it to be safe, I would have taken it off wiki, obviously - and kept my diffs in a doc like everybody else here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, but you forget one important thing. An enormously absurd accusation will be trusted if repeated a thousand times. I could provide a link to a WP article about this phenomenon, but that might be interpreted as a personal offense (calling someone "Nazi" etc.). WP becomes a dangerous place where people can not freely discuss anything.Biophys (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, mud sticks. Very true. It doesn't matter that 90% of criticism of editor A comes from editors B, C, D, and E - if they keep criticizing him for years, on public and highly read forums, a lot of wiki bystanders are just going to remember that editor A has been commonly criticized... mud sticks. Like the fact that the previous two or three arbcoms that I've been involved in didn't find anything wrong with my behavior doesn't stop certain editors from saying that "Piotrus is a disruptive behavior as proven by the number of arbcoms he was involved in". Framing is important, too: obviously, "Piotrus 2" arbcom as the title implies is about nothing and nobody else but Piotrus being disruptive, again, right? If we have a policy or essay about it, please link it here or on my talk page - I plan on expand my essay on that very subject.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If there was a need for it at the Polish Wikipedia, why is the entire thing relating to the English Wikipedia and why is it entirely in English? This to me suggests some level of effort to "poison the well". Orderinchaos 04:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What well? As I've explained before, it was on pl wikipedia so that editors would not find it easily (both to protect the privacy of my evidence collection and the feelings of certain editors).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If such things were key considerations why did it need to be online and public at all? Orderinchaos 00:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you are missing a key point here: it was not public. It was not googleable, nor easily traceable via my contribs.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I usually abandon articles crippled by political agendas because I get traumatised by edit warring. That’s why evidence collection is of less interest to me than the actual content of collected evidence. And what do I see? Constant misinformation about historical facts, totalitarian pipedreams, racially motivated hate mongering, statistical manipulation, revisionism, newspeak, grown up men behaving like children. Am I happier by pulling out? Not. --Poeticbent talk 05:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Anyone who carefully reads Piotrus' above account will see that he is being forthright and is within his rights. Nihil novi (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Nihil novi. —PētersV (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dc76\^talk 02:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We absolutely need a ruling on this issue, either way. I am on the record with my opinion on that. But leaving this not addressed by this ArbCom would be untenable. --Irpen 18:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it nice when we can agree on something? Even if it's that we disagree on something :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Framing of Piotrus' evidence gathering as "black book" shows bad faith

2) Since Piotrus' evidence gathering is a normal procedure for dispute resolution, attempts to frame it negatively as "black book"/attack page are a violation of "assume good faith" policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, as a logical extension of the proposed finding above. Arbcom may also want to consider whether actively looking for such an evidence page is not a violation of WP:STALK.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose - collective collection of dirt is absolutely unacceptable Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Framing of Piotrus' evidence gathering as "collecting dirt" also shows bad faith :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Someone was looking for the diffs, someone found them in the Polish wikipedia, someone brought them as "evidence" against Piotrus, even though the evidence was more than a year old. Sure, that was done with a purpose. What purpose? To discredit Piotrus using perfectly legitimate evidence he collected. How can anyone call this "good faith"?Biophys (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Using derogatory expressions such as "black book" and "collecting dirt" is an example of creating a big lie to discredit one's opponent (Piotrus). Nihil novi (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The gross overuse of politically charged misnomers is haunting these proceedings from the get-go. --Poeticbent talk 02:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is nothing normal in lying to community, there is nothing normal in commenting on users in the public place behind their backs Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Take something that is absolutely necessary in the current atmosphere and give it a "bad" label. Collections are not of information or of diffs, but "dirt" in a "black book". Defamatory labels are thrown around with little regard for their consequences. Or perhaps that IS the idea. Sling mud until someone thinks, gee, they wouldn't keep slinging mud unless it was deserved. Hasn't the concept of victim responsibility come up somewhere else? —PētersV (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A recommendation can be made to place a tag on such pages, smth like "The content of this userspace page is an attempt to gather evidence for dispute resolution. Taken out of its context it can be misrepresentative. Unless you are a person gathering this particular evidence, do not assume anything written below. If you want to involve, please do so in the dispute resolution pages." Dc76\^talk 02:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alex but irrelevant how you call this secret file. It's implications are by far more important than its name. --Irpen 19:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name had a history in Wikipedia. It was the ancient collection page of the Poland-related noticeboard for slandering people as anti-Polish: [109] [110]. Sciurinæ (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus is a civil editor

3) Piotrus respects WP:CIVILITY, WP:GOODFAITH, WP:CONSENSUS and related policies. He tries to prevent "wikibattlegrounds" from arising, and tries to moderate conflicts and reach peaceful compromises when possible. He is not perfect, but nobody is, and on average his behavior falls within acceptable community norms on civility and related policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I am not seeking praise, but I feel this is needed as a direct reply to "Piotrus_is_often_unnecessary_combative" proposal by Alex. It's either one or another, and I believe it is very important: have I been damaging this project with my attitude and should I leave? Or am I being harassed instead? PS. Further, this is needed to dispel defamation, slander and libel that have been damaging my reputation for years.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

- Absolutely. In my experience with him, I have never seen Piotr act in an uncivil manner. Ostap 04:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fully agree with Ostap. Piotr is a great asset to Wikipedia. Närking (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Piotrus has incredible patience. Sometimes looking at his debates with Irpen, I thought: "How can he survive?". I would run away and leave the article to POV-pushers. Let them do whatever they want. Health is more important. And that is exactly what I did in Holodomor article.Biophys (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Totally agree. I have never known Piotrus to be uncivil or combative in the way Irpen is. Martintg (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I can say quite unequivocally that, in about two years of observing Piotrus at fairly close range, I have never seen him being uncivil. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's nice to see that there are parts of community who still have trust in me :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Support I never had any issue with Piotrus. Szopen (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse to the limited extent that my observations permit. He was fully cooperative throughout my attempts to mediate between him and Ghirla. Durova^Charge! 07:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Given the level of hysterical harassment and number of editors who are interested in him being banned, not in sharing their knowledge, I am amazed that he still manages to keep his temper. Tymek (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Tymek. PētersV (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Piotrus has consistently shown himself a model of civility. Nihil novi (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. He's not seeking praise here. --Poeticbent talk 02:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Presented material indeed shows sophisticated way of taunting opponents. If I have time, I will expand my evidence section covering and this issue. M.K. (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per my observations of this user. However it should not be assumed as stating "Piotrus will be god" or "whatever edit Piotrus will made in an article should be assumed as 100% truth". One should only assume: "So far Piotrus has behaved civilly and quite professionally. If you find yourself in conflict with Piotrus on a range of topics mentioned above, chances are it is a content dispute. Consider getting outside help to resolve the content dispute. Behavior of Piotrus and rightousness in a content dispute are two different issues." Dc76\^talk 02:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I too have worked with Piotrus in the past and found him to be extremely civil and easy to work with. --*Kat* (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment but how to proceed, then you are encounter editors, whose most of the time spending on unproductive baiting of others, like user:Alden Jones [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122]; user:Xx236 [123], [124], [125], [126], [127] or user:greg park avenue [128], [129], [130], [131] ? M.K. (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Would agree if it said that Piotrus does not use vulgar words or something to that degree if such finding needs to be stated. I find civility a more elaborated concept than that. --Irpen 19:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagreeing with you and having a different POV is not being uncivil. Seriously, how my comment "I beg to disagree :)" is uncivil??? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Full context for the novices. Context: "Russians do not have much of this rancorous, vindictive habit to accuse everyone of long past misdeeds against Russians." Response: "I beg to disagree :)". --Irpen 21:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, than perhaps you should complain about Mikka who made this uncivil comment? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your post casts the entire Russian nation in negative light. But could you elaborate on what is uncivil in Mikka's post? --Irpen 18:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Civil? Hardly Here is just one bit of evidence that should puncture that balloon. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Polish cabal or tag team

4) There is no group (WP:CABAL, WP:TAGTEAM) of Polish editor acting together violating policies and damaging this project. Piotrus is not a leader of such a (nonexistent) group. Piotrus is however one of the leaders of Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Polish Regional Noticeboard community; this community is a perfectly normal and policy-abiding WikiProject community that will - not surprisingly, and without any malice - be relatively active on Polish-related subjects.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The ArbCom should also rule on whether certain other cabals/tag teams exists or not, and take appropriate action against either editors involved in them (if they exists) or accusing others of being involved in it (if it doesn't).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Can you provide any evidence for this. How many Polish editors opposed Piotrus in any ethnic wikiconflicts? Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful. Guilty until proven innocent, aren't I? Just look at various discussions and you'll find Polish editors with different viewpoints, often not supporting each other (example - Halibutt opposing my proposal). PS. Alex, can you prove there is no Russian cabal and that you are not a member of it? Also, can you prove that CIA, KGB and Microsoft are not running Wikipedia? And while you are at it, disprove the black helicopters conspiracy? Thanks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this argument by Alex places everything "upside down". To the contrary, the lack of criticism by Polish editors indicates they respect Piotrus. On the other hand, the relations among Russian users are terrible, as I presented in evidence. Hence, there are dissenters like me who criticize "leaders" like Irpen. Not too many Russian users criticize Irpen? Sure, they do not want to be harassed like me.Biophys (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how many support him? Or how many reliable, respected Lithuanian or German editors support their tag teams buddies? Nadda. It's not "community vs community" or "community vs editor(s)", it's "tag team(s) trying to create an illusion they are community vs editor(s)".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Most people work peacefully here, regardless to their country of origin. There are few who create battlegrounds. The question is who they are, and how to minimize the damage. I must admit however that quite a few Russian users would support Irpen and share his political views.Biophys (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between agreeing with one's POV and agreeing with one's editing methods. You don't share my Polish POV, but that doesn't mean we are enemies. I understand that we have a proper place even for Putin-nationalist or Soviet POVs and I have nothing personal against the editors who represent them. The problem is that sometimes, some editors will have confrontational attitude (the "true believers" I wrote in my essay), and they will create battlegrounds. But most Russian editors, while many would share Irpen's POV, don't go around and harass their content opponents. You mentioned Przyszowice massacre: why was it only Irpen who made it his crusade to disrupt that article? Why wasn't he supported by the Russian community? Also - a battleground doesn't mean that both sides are guilty - one can attack others, and the defenders are victims, not co-battlers (just as in WWII the Allies were not as guilty as the Axis).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I would defy you to prove Piotrus is not a witch. It's very hard to prove a negative. Remember Senator McCarthy and the Red Scare. Fraud ^{talk to me} 00:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I must admit that in Jewish-related articles, there is a certain group of editors who always act in unison, and these gentlemen are not Polish. Am I going to claim that there is pro-Jewish, anti-Polish cabal? No, I will not say that. I will just say that they vote/contribute according to their opinions. Same applies to Lithuanian-, Russian-, German- or Ukrainian-related articles and this is obvious. We have all been raised in a certain way in our respective countries, therefore our experiences and education influence our contributions. BTW, anti-Polish hysteria of some editors is beyond imagination. User Ostap, who is Ukrainian, has once been called a Polish nationalist. Tymek (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see absolutely no evidence of a Polish cabal of tag team. I am tired of users simply claiming that this exsists on talkpages despite no evidence, and attempting to use these unproven allegations to sway opinion. This really does undermine and erode any positive, productive working environment. The "Polish cabal" allegations need to stop, unless it can be proven that there is a cabal or tag team. And so far I have seen no convincing evidence that there is a group of Polish editor acting together violating policies and damaging this project. I encourage the arbitrators to carefully examine the evidence that is given. Ostap
- Support I see no evidence of such a cabal. I rather recall being called the leader of one or somesuch similar at some point. "Cabal" is, at best, a bad-faith accusation code-word meaning "collection of active meat-puppets," and we've already dealt with the bad faith attack usefulness only of that term (meat-puppet). —PētersV (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Unsupported potentially-libelous accusations should not be brooked. Nihil novi (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per User:Ostap R. Evidence please. --Poeticbent talk 02:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well presented evidences here, here shades a different light. I especially would encourage to look to these fellow wikipedians' remarks. Those people are with different background and different interests, but yet produce similar conclusions on certain Polish editors and their actions. M.K. (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This well-reasoned argument leaves no doubt: there is a cabal. Beware! :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly, most of Polish editors are not meatpuppets or a tag team members. Still violations of WP:CANVASS seems to be common. Behavior of Greg Avenue seems to be quite close to meatpuppeting/tag teaming Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you list some canvass violations? As for greg, do tell how is he a meatpuppet (for the record, I don't know any IMs he uses).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strange proposal at it frames the issue in a bizarre way. According to Piotrus there is something very Polish-specific in EE corner of Wikipedia. There is a Lithuanian tag team, German tag team, Russian tag team, "Jewish" tag team, etc. but the Polish editors are somehow unique in not forming such team. I find terming the editors in "tag teams" an offensive generalization. --Irpen 19:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Lithuania =/= Lithuanian tag team. WikiProject Russia =/= Russian tag team. And so on. If you can demonstrate that there is a group of Polish editors who 1) are "true believers" and 2) harass those who disagree with them, then we can talk about a Polish tag team. While Polish editors obviously have a Polish POV, no evidence has been presented to show that they try to censor out other POVs, ensure undue representation of a Polish POV or wage long campaign of harassments aiming at chasing editors who disagree with Polish POV off this project. That is the difference. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes indeed. WP:LT =/= LT tag team. WP:RU =/= RU and so on. No one is saying that WP:PL = PL tag team. Certainly not. But what you are saying is that there are Lithuanian, German, Russian, etc tag teams but there is no Polish one. I call it a very strange way to frame the issue. And don't try to reframe it as "WP:PL is PL tag team". It isn't. --Irpen 21:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My evidence shows the existence of groups of editors who collaborate together with the intent of harassing others and chasing them off wiki. Your evidence shows nothing but the fact that members of WP:PL edit articles related to Poland, and sometimes discuss those edits. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Piotrus, my evidence does not assert the existence of "Polish tag team". I find such term offensive and totally inappropriate. I am talking about editors, not their ethnicity. Not all (put any nation here) editors are disruptive and not all disruptive editors are of (put any nation here) nation. As for whose evidence showed what, I think it is not up to you and me to decide. My sole comment was not meant to say that contrary to the assertion of this proposal, there is such tag team. I merely said that framing the issue this way (by asserting that some nations have tag teams and naming them while the Polish nation does not) is strange. Not only it is strange. It is also offensive and divisive. --Irpen 22:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil content creators are harassed and chased off by tag teams

5) Civil content creators were (ex. User:Halibutt, User:Lysy, User:Balcer, User:Beaumont and others) or are (myself, User:Tymek) harassed with bad faithed, personal attacks and chased off this project or at the very least quit certain area contents (ex. User:Biophys and Holodomor article). Whether this is intentional or a byproduct of incivility and confrontational attitude of certain individuals (sometimes working as tag teams), this one sided harassment culminating in editors quitting or vastly limiting their activity represents a trend that is very harmful to this project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See my statement and evidence (linking to several other statements on this arbcom made by editors who shared their experience of being harassed) for proof that many users were harassed and resigned due to that (or are still being harassed), and that their harassers are still at large and completely unpunished, continuing their activity (targeting, among others, myself). If anybody thinks that being a target of harassment, culminating in mud olympics of arbcom, doesn't waste my time (I could be writing articles instead of arguing here) and doesn't raise my stress levels (why should I contribute to this project where my rewards are nearly yearly arbcoms against me?), they are dead wrong. PS. It is important to note that this is one sided harassment: Balcer, Lysy, Halibutt, myself, Tymek, Biophys and so on are not harassing the harassers. It is not a mutual mud slinging festival: it is an event when one side (who usually can't win content disputes due to violations of NPOV/V/RS/etc.) keeps slinging the mud, seeing if they can chase their opponents off or bait them into becoming like them, and over time, worsening their reputation (even if there is little truth in what they same, mud sticks, and focusing on few errors others made and repeating them for years gives an illusion of credibility to those unfamiliar with the isssue). See also my essay "On radicalization of users" where I address a related phenomenon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update (Oct'10): User:Radeksz chased off an article after a torrent of accusations: [132] --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is not always harassment, but people are certainly chased off. I have learned the following lesson. Almost all important wikipedia articles are collectively owned by groups of users. Prior to editing any political article, look at POV-pushers who own it. If there are no "owners", one can go ahead. If you think the "owners" from the strongest team will allow you edit - you can go ahead. If you see a battle (like in Holodomor, Terrorism or Ossetin war) - run away.Biophys (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good observation, again. But here's an interesting question: I, for example, watchlist ~3000 articles, and try to ensure their NPOV, V, MOS and so on. Now, one could argue (and some here do) that I am "owning" or "tag teaming" on those articles. I disagree, but how do you tell if an editor or a group are doing a good job or a bad job, protecting or destabilizing an article, ensuring NPOV or POV pushing on it? I'd think that if an editor has a record of GAs/FAs that would indicate he knows what NPOV means, but would I be right, Biophys? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partly agree. The GAs/FAs contributions are certainly a factor for ArbCom when it wants to minimize the damage for the project. For example, it may want to keep a highly productive contributor but penalize others, simply because this is best for the project. This is not a justice system after all. However, the "POV-pushing" and "NPOV-violations" are mostly visible when someone deletes an information published in reliable secondary sources, such as books written by an expert in his field. This can be done even by an established wikipedian with regards to edits made by a new user, like in this example. Here, User:William M. Connolley deletes an information he does not like as a "fringe view", even though this specific information was never disputed, and the claim was made by a notable espionage expert, precisely in the area of his expertise, and published in a book by Pete Earley. That is what I call a clear-cut NPOV violation. To be honest, I also looked at some of your recent disputes to check if you are doing something like that. However, everything was pretty much in a framework of a normal content dispute, although I checked only a few examples. That is one of the reasons I support you here, although I would not support William M. Connolley. All of that however is not harassment. Biophys (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support the observation. "Tag teams," aka "traveling circuses," are regrettably a reality. They can be extremely disruptive and demoralizing. They are the Wikipedia equivalents of street gangs. Nihil novi (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are there any evidences, that, for instance User:Halibutt, User:Tymek etc, considered as civil creators? My experience and incidents, which I noticed, speak otherwise, starting from bad faith baiting, [133], official NPA warnings, ending with official restrictions. I remember, that somewhere was launch and official investigation of User:Tymek behavior involving PA against fellow editors, however can't locate the proper venue and diffs now (will look for it later). M.K. (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Are there any evidences, that, for instance User:Halibutt, User:Tymek etc, considered as civil creators?" WP:AGF and innocent until proven guilty, perhaps? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AGF: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. My presented data allows to ask questions, M.K. (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content creators like Hallibutt, Balcer, Ghirlandajo, Renata are certainly driven away by the battleground actions including tag teaming, assumptions of bad faith, blockshopping, unwillingness to present balanced point of views. I am not sure about the word Civil. All of the mentioned editors occasionally have being incivil and/or disruptive (we are all humans) still their contributions were significantly more prominent than the occasional disruption Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with any harassment of Ghirlandajo and Renata. Could you expand on that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are not caring about Ghirla's leaving, but could you elaborate on whether you truly consider the editors you named above "civil editors"? Because my personal experience with them was different while, as I emphasized many times, could have lived with their levels of civility but not because they were exceptionally civil. --Irpen 18:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Alex wrote, we are all humans. Anyway, my edits speak for themselves, dear MK. Feel free to check all my 3691 plus 1 deleted. Thank you.Tymek (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we are all humans and we make mistakes, therefore I asked Piotrus to correct his, M.K. (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The big picture: what this all is about

6) The turmoil in Eastern European conflicts, culminating in this ArbCom, can be explained by the following model (which I discuss in more details in my essay):

1. In every content area, a small percentage of editors display the signs of being "true believers" (uncompromising POV pushers).

2. Wikipedia model in general and content related dispute resolutions procedures in particular do work; thus the neutral/mainstream community ensures their POV is given only due weight. This also means that ArbCom almost never has to concern itself with claims ("my POV is erased by an evil cabal" - such claims usually come from "true believers" whose POV is not accepted by community as "the entire truth".

3. The process works worse in highly specialized content areas, where fewer neutral editors will notice disputes. There, radicalization (process where a normal editor turns closer and closer to a "true believer" - at the very least, they assume good faith for "their side" and bad faith "for the others") occurs quicker, leading to rise of tag teams or at the very least formation of content-based sides. Thus battlegrounds are more likely to arise in such content areas. Eastern Europe is one of such less frequented and thus more problematic content areas.

4. Because "true believers" are likely to lose content disputes, they turn to harassment, personal attacks, and similar acts. The end result is a high count bad faith accusations and battlegrounds in articles where they clash with others. This is were ArbCom can help, by identifying and restricting/banning most disruptive "true believers". Radicalized users can also be identified, and helped with some advice/mentoring.

5. Editors who find battlegrounds uncivil leave the project. Only the harassers and the victims with "thickest skin" remain. This unfortunate result is what the ArbCom has to prevent, and victimized, civil editors are the ones that need help the most.

Technical note: If both parties ("true believers" and "victims") claim they are right, how to easily identify who is who? There are two ways: 1) Look at who's supported by neutral editors (moderators, etc.). Two caveats: users involved in content may be biased due to radicalization, users "just passing by" may be confused by "sticking mud". 2) Look at the content creation: users who can write peer-reviewed and recognized content (FA/Reviewed A/GA) probably know more about NPOV than those who don't.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Please direct theoretical discussion of the model (i.e. discussion not related to the arbcom) to my essay's talk page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Endorse. This is the core of the majority of EE disputes. Martintg (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen: case study in radicalization

7) Per #Purpose of Wikipedia we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to flame others or settle scores. As shown by the statistical analysis of Irpen's chronological editing pattern presented in evidence, Irpen's edit pattern over the years has shifted dramatically from creating and/or discussing content, to discussing editors. In the first years of his Wikipedia career (2004-2005) he created more content than in the last three; on the other hand his participation in dispute resolutions and wikipolitics shows an opposite, increasing trend. This showcases extreme radicalization.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. How to remedy that? That's for arbcom members to answer, but I believe there is little doubt editors who are here to flame and harass others should not be allowed to continue to do freely.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harass? --Irpen 19:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like what happened with Balcer.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The repetition of this accusation by ad naseum does not make it any more valid, Piotrus. I addressed it many times [134] [135] and even more people commented on that later [136] [137] [138] [139] [140]. If Balcer chooses to return, which I said several times [141] I would welcome, I'll be very happy to discuss with him anything he wishes. But your repeated invocation of Balcer and trying to use him as a truncheon in your own fights is not something that I think he would approve if he knew it. --Irpen 02:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The evidence, such as it is, doesn't seem to support such extreme conclusions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In isolation, no. But when combined with the other evidence? This is a question for Arbcom to answer. Martintg (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

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.

Specific editors restricted

1) Specific editors X, Y, and Z are restricted on case by case basis, with blocks/civility parole/1RR restrictions/topic bans, where appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am leaving identities of X, Y, and Z to the wisdom of the committee (I really dislike pointing fingers, and enough of them have been pointed alraedy in any case). If the committee decides my activities and contributions are damaging to this project, so be it. But I am begging the committee: no more general amnesties, no more hard-to-enforce general restrictions. While this problem is affecting an entire content area, it is not because majority of editors there are to blame: only a tiny faction has been radicalized by "true believers". That tiny faction (and the "true believers" in particular) need to be restricted/blocked so this vicious cycle of radicalization can be broken. Almost all of the problem editors have been identified in this arbcom. The proverbial ball has been served. Let's make this match the last one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If something like this is to be put for Piotrus or another user, it would be helpful to have a special committee who'd enforce it. A committee with the power to do so and in the latter possessing a monopoly, rather than the current usual farcical AN/I thread where anyone with enough friends can have the most sensible decision overturned based on a ridiculously misapplied use of WP:CONSENSUS. Atm wikipedia often resembles an early medieval court, where you are tried or convicted based on the number and status of the armed friends who turn up at the hearing. We've kinda moved on from that era, so don't see any reason wiki should be stuck there. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Not to mention that when one goes to AN/I or AE and tries to present a case, too often it ends up highjacked by tag teams and the editor who started the thread is accused of whining/canvassing/block shopping/etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've decided to draft one instance of a proposed restriction remedy, which I feel could be applied to quite a few editors. Please note that the goal of this restriction is to prevent harassment, while allowing content creation. See two proposals down.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. Something should be done, simply for the sake of the project. To achieve this goal, one should provide good working conditions for the most productive WP contributors, even if that means some restrictions for others. I think that Deacon and Piotrus do not have a significant subject overlap and can easily resolve their differences without any sanctions. However, a few other people, who were much less productive with content editing than Piotrus, might be issued some editing restrictions, like topic ban on EE subjects.Biophys (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. And I have personally seen such a single-editor topic ban open up a series of articles to a new crop of involved reputable editors who never bothered earlier because of a disruptive editor's self-enforced "ownership" of those articles. —PētersV (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This really is necessary. Especially since much of the disruption to Wiki work is due not merely to differences in point of view, but to frank personality disorders and, in a few cases that I have observed, actual psychosis. In several extreme cases, the individual concerned has been banned—to the great benefit of Wikipedia operations. Nihil novi (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to comment without knowing who are X,Y,Z and what type of restrictions were are talking of. It might be a blessing or a disaster. At any rate there are many productive contributors involved (including Piotrus) whose full ban would be a disaster for the project Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that past ArbComs involving our little circus (Piotrus 1, Digwuren are the ones I am familiar with) produced mostly general, non-individual specific restrictions which have proven to be not enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support the idea of specificity being at least a significant part of this ArbCom's outcome. Piotrus and myself have expressed in the past our deep frustration that past arbcom decisions on related EE cases were more general than specific and paid less attention to the wrongdoings of specific editors. Instead of acknowledging such wrongdoing and impose specific sanctions, just like the ArbCom does in most cases (and this is what we all expect), all past arbcom decisions on EE cases, attempted "general sanctions". I spoke multiple times of the dangers of this approach that would give the block-happy admins a free reign in dealing with the superior editors in any way they see fit. The fallout from the past discretionary sanctions ArbCom cases has been tremendous. Good editors left and newly joined editors found themselves fearful of getting involved in contentious topics. While the Wikipedia admin corps is a diverse body, there is a disproportionately visible part of it that just love to "run the Wikipedia" and put the content editors in "their place". These discretionary sanctions tend to be a honey pot for exactly such admins. Another fallback from the "general sanctions" approach: they developped a sophisticated culture of block-shopping (often off-line) as means to win content disputes. I understand that when calling for specific an targeted sanctions on the editors whose conduct is detrimental for the project, I open the possibility that my own conduct would be scrutinized under such prism. Honestly, this is what I actually want. And, besides, this is what Piotrus wants (or at least claims so) when he calls for ArbCom to acknowledge whether his practice of "collecting evidence" for months to use at the opportune time, urging fellow-editors to "discuss content" off-line which, and this is my assertion, leads to the same 3-4 individuals coming in handy to revert when Piotrus is at "3RR quota" limit, or "discussing disruptive users" (as he calls them) who all happen to be his content opponents with other admins at IRC or email (evidence posted.) We need a global change of conduct in EE topics via excluding of off-line coordinated revert wars, aiming at blocks and sanctions to win content disputes, and off-line canvassing for such sanctions and blocks. --Irpen 19:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully endorse the first part of Irpen's post, up to about the sentence "And, besides, this...". I'd replace the last bold part with my own as follows: We need a global change of conduct in EE topics with paroles/topic restrictions/outright bans in order to stop battleground creation that occurs via incivility, personal attacks, expression of bad faith and long-term harassment, resulting in radicalization, formation of tag teams and editors being chased off this project.. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific editors vindicated

2) Accusations of cabalism/antisemitism/harassment/vandalism/[add or remove where appopriate] directed at editor A are found to be untrue and are officially discarded.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Related to this finding, this and similar, and to various statements and evidence boiling down to the fact that many editors have had their good names and reputation dragged through mud for long enough, and those good names/reputations should be cleared. The failure of past ArbComs (Piotrus 1, Digwuren) to address past accusations and clear the name of some targeted editors have led to those accusations being repeated over and over again, each time damaging good name/reputation of certain editors. Many editors left this project because of damage done to their good name/reputation. Repairing damage done by years of slander/libel/defamation should be prioritized, and is fairly easy - it does not punish any editor in any way, and it may actually bring back some valued content creators that were chased away (Halibutt, Balcer, Lysy, Beaumont, and so on). With findings/remedies among those lines, this ArbCom may actually do something that has been rarely seen - not only stop a a problem, but reverse it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support the idea of explicitly ruling on the accusations. Is Piotrus' black book indicative of bad faith? Who is guilty of "harassment"? Are accusations of KGB-connection permissible? Etc. Lack of specificity in past decisions is the reason why we all end up here so often. Time to learn from past mistakes. --Irpen 18:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. KL's acceptance statement was that all involved editors' conduct will be examined. Didn't explicitly say ruled on, so please clarify. Novickas (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen is restricted and put under a mentorship

3) Based on "purpose of Wikipedia" principles, findings (#Irpen: case study in radicalization and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Irpen) and analysis of evidence, Irpen is reminded that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to discuss other editors of create wikipolitics. He is therefore restricted from actions other than creating content/wikignoming. Irpen is not restricting from discussing and editing wikipedia policies, but is highly advised to prioritize content creation instead. In particular: 1) he is put on 1RR to ensure his mainspace contributions are new content creations, not edit warring 2) he is restricted from discussing editors other than to request interventions against vandalism (he is allowed to make one appeal to ArbCom per month where he can discuss editors on a case by case basis (i.e. he can post a collection of grievances from that month), with the understanding that if he is found to be aiming to harass others by bad faithed dispute resolution again, this may result in a block) 3) he is put under a mentorship aiming to steer him away from wikidramu (particularly, discussing others) and towards content creation. After a year, ArbCom with mentor's input will review Irpen's progress to see if lifting of this remedy would be warranted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Point 2) is based on Irpen's request about me (#Block shopping restricted). I believe it would to to everybody's great benefit if Irpen would go back to being a content creator, and help with Ukraine-related content, as he was doing before 2006. His participation in wikidramu since than was not as helpful. As a mentor, I'd suggest User:Durova, Irpen can suggest alternatives, and ArbCom will be the final judge of course. PS. I'd also suggest very similar remedies for some other members of tag teams identified in my evidence: I'd like to stress that what we need to do is do combat radicalization, and promote content creation. Many disruptive editors create valuable content (even Irpen did so, up till about a year ago), mentoring them (back?) towards being a productive member of the community is a preferable outcome.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

A very interesting proposal. And unexpected too of course. --Irpen 16:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's for your own good - and that of a project. Building an encyclopedia is good. Harassing other editors - not so good. This is all it boils down to.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, for the last time, either present an evidence and a FoF that justify your accusation of myself in harassment, or stop using this word now. I never accused you of beating your wife. --Irpen 16:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You left the kitchen sink out of it, too. Gee, thanks. Alas, you managed to accuse me of almost every wiki-calamity but simple trolling and vandalism, and you have done so to others, some of whom were so put off by your harassment they left this project (Balcer, Lysy, Halibutt...). You not only don't create content, you chase away those that create content you don't like. You think I am wrong? Perhaps. This is why you are asking for ArbCom sanctions against me, and I am asking for sanctions against you. ArbCom will determine who, if anybody, is right here - it is hardly surprising we both disagree with claims of one other. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, as I said earlier, this arbitration, at least for me, is not about personal issues between us and who of us is right. Arbitration cases are not about personal differences but about policy violations, or at least they should be. All I am saying is that you repeatedly accused me in a very grievous offense ("harassment") several times on this very page alone and fail to present evidence and diffs to support the use of such a strong term. All I am asking that you either stop using this word or write up an evidence section with diffs showing me "harassing" you. Harassment is a very grievous term not to be used lightly. Either show it or use the terms that fits the substance of whatever is that you allege I do. --Irpen 16:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a mild and reasonable remedy to harassing behavior that has been creating a hostile workplace and driving away productive users. Content disagreements need to be settled by resort to reliable sources, not by Joseph McCarthy tactics of reckless accusations or by attempted show trials. Nihil novi (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he could be sanctioned simply by an individual uninvolved administrator. Bad behavior of Irpen has been recognized already by ArbCom in Digwuren case [142]. He obviously falls under new discretionary sanctions by ArbCom approved for this case. His behavior before and during this case was obviously disruptive, as follows from the evidence. I am really surprised, why Irpen is treated differently than other editors listed in Digwuren case. There is no any reason for that. If there is any reason, here it is: Irpen has a tag team everyone is afraid of.Biophys (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support restrictions put on any editor who has chased away other editors from the project. This is a voluntary project, not some fancy political forum, and productive volunteers shouldn't be discouraged this way from editing. Knew about user Lysy who left Wikipedia after being harassed by user Boodlesthecat during the latest Cabal Mediation proceedings, but about Balcer and Halibutt I hear for the first time. If there is an evidence to support such an activity, the ArbCom should take an immediate action to prevent it. greg park avenue (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:greg park avenue

Proposed principles

No personal attacks

1) Based on WP:NPA

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Strong support. From the language used to attack individual editors (anti-Semite et al.) to entire nationalities (Baltic ethno-fascists, majority of Latvians eager for German rifles to kill Jews, et al.), WP is the first and only venue I have experienced on the Internet where such behaviors are for the most part encouraged through lack of sanctions, thereby actively tolerating the vilest (usually high-horse self-sanctifying) denigrations of others--whereas in any civil society the individuals making such heinous accusations would be immediately and permanently ostracized. PētersV (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per greg park avenue and PētersV. Nihil novi (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

User:Boodlesthecat has been uncivil and disruptive

1) He has repeatedly accused me of antisemitism ([143], [144], [145]), been uncivil to other editors ([146], [147], [148]), and engaged in the revert war ([149], [150]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

To say the least. Never in my 4 year history here, and having dealt with quite a few offensive flamers, I have seen so many violations from a single user, with the "you are a dick" email being the proverbial cherry on top. And accusing anybody who disagrees with him of antisemitism is just one of the worst slander tactics I've ever seen, too.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Let's compare 13 articles created by an eight year veteran, user Slrubenstein - a suspected runner of Boodles, who got zero contributions - with 1901 created by user Piotrus alone. Even user Irpen with 105 looks better, at least he got more than SLR, Shabazz, M0RD00R, Jeeny and Boodles combined. greg park avenue (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated before, I have never interacted with Slrubenstein, or SLR, or Jeeny. Greg, I really think you should concentrate on incivility (both as in defending yourself from it and not being incivil yourself), and drop the "runner of... sock/meatpuppet" angle. There is little proof those users are doing anything wrong together (now, granted, some of them like Boody do a lot of wrong by themselves). You can win an argument against Boody: he is much more incivil, and did much less creative contributions than you. But if you go against all of those others editors, your position looks much, much worse (and I believe would be wrong - most of those other editors look like good, constructive ones). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not into this little office pushover of yours, user Piotrus. SLR, Shabazz and Boodles call me an anti-semite and even racist, just because I disagree with them/him. You (see your speculation below) and others as Ryan (see his talk page) are assuming they're Jewish, but he/they never stated they are Jewish. I am not assuming they are Jewish until they say so (clear and present), even then if I was disagreeing with him/them and he/they were Jewish, was I necessarily an anti-semite? It's an obvious malfeasance, even fraud. An insolence - If I was Jewish, anyone who disagrees with me would I call an antisemite? Three accounts which look like the same person say essentially the same thing: I am an antisemite, just to make an impression more than one person is of the same opinion. Looks like a crowd, huh? Why no one else, say, user Irpen or user Lokyz, or user M.K. or user JayG or user Gamaliel claim that, huh? Give me a break. greg park avenue (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Piotrus, I only accuse antisemites like Greg of antisemitism. As to you receiving unkind emails, you might consider just how some of your overt abuse of admin authority in defence of an anti-semite contributes to an editor getting frustrated with your tactics. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to suggest to Arbiters, that they investigated Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz article (and its talk) very carefully, as many involved contributors, including Piotrus, failed to follow good editing practices.M.K. (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an active participant in recent editing of that article, I would fully welcome such an audit of that article and it's talk page, particularly with respect to Piotrus' role in tag team edit warring. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated earlier in several places that I welcome and suggest analysis of this talk page, which shows Boody's bad faithed, "true-believer-like" refusal to compromise and his baiting of greg (and greg falling for it), including IIRC his first accusation that greg is an antisemite (may be in edit summary on talk and was probably cited in evidence).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, Piotrus, however, once again reality contradicts you. The first talk page interaction I had with Greg was a semi-coherent abusive post by him accusing me of “disruption.” I responded explaining the edits, to which Greg replied with one of his classic BLP violating anti-semitic rants. And just what “provoked” Greg to attack me and spew anti-semitic garbage on the talk page? Nothing more than my having the audacity to edit some flagrant unencyclopedic nonsense from the Piotrus and Gang version of the article. Judge for yourselves, folks, if these edits warranted abuse and were “disruptive” enough to send an editor into flights of anti-semitic garbage spewing?: See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here etc ad nauseum.

Frankly, Piotrus, I have grown weary and disgusted with your incessant and obsessive vilifying of me and bullying misuse of your admin authority for simply making edits like the above which I challenge you or anyone to show were anything but improvements to this encyclopedia. Instead, I have been subjected to months of abuse by you and anti-semitic wacko ranting by your ally greg. Seriously, Piotrus, knock it off. You are making a spectacle of yourself, and you have reached a level of incivility which will result in my calling for appropriate action if you continue. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the same article: Example of gang edit warring by Piotrus’ team: In this series, they serially remove a reliably sourced quote from the book that is the subject of the article because….they don’t like the quote:

Boodlesthecat added the quote on 20:40, 19 May 2008
Poeticbent removed the quote as of 21:04, 19 May 2008 with edit summary of "please keep anti-Polish propaganda shots out this article, WP:BALANCE, thank you"
Boodlesthecat reverted back on 21:09, 19 May 2008
Alden Jones removed the quote as of 21:14, 19 May 2008
Boodlesthecat reverted back on 21:22, 19 May 2008
Alden Jones removed the quote as of 21:36, 19 May 2008
Boodlesthecat reverted back on 00:20, 21 May 2008
Poeticbent removed the quote as of 07:23, 21 May 2008 with a "poetic" edit summary of "(encyclopedit style; emotive eloquence and outbursts of anti-Polonism)"
Boodlesthecat reverted back on 12:12, 21 May 2008
Piotrus removed the quote as of 12:56, 21 May 2008
Boodlesthecat reverted back on 14:23, 21 May 2008 3RR
Poeticbent removed the quote as of 15:14, 21 May 2008
Boodlesthecat reverted back on 15:58, 21 May 2008 4RR
Poeticbent removed the quote as of 16:10, 21 May 2008
Boodlesthecat reverted back on 16:13, 21 May 2008

The quote remained in, after support from outside admins put an end to this POV gang edit warring. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That greg was uncivil is as obvious as that you were uncivil. The only difference is that you accused him of antisemitism in addition to the standard barrage of bad faith both of you employed on each other (and on other editors, too - your accusations of "Piotrus gang warring" is as bad faithed as greg's accusation of certain editors being your puppets. I do hope that this arbcom will moderate both of you, as this is getting ridiculous. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to urge the Arbiters to look not at the Fear (book) edit history per above, but at the malicious nature of what was being fought for in this instance by Boodlesthecat via a prolonged edit war conducted in bad faith. Please read my extended comments in Talk, here and here about the purely political nature of the quote in question, which was an uninformative attack on Polish national character based entirely on sweeping generalizations. Boodlesthecat won his edit war by dogged insistance with the help of a tag-team. --Poeticbent talk 15:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Self-evident from this page and the long list of his blocks.Biophys (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence that Piotrus did indeed gang edit war, and in conjunction with an anti-semite like Greg (whom Piotrus only attempted to "moderate" after he became an embarrassment) is indeed right at this page. Piotrus was happy to threaten to block me for bringing Greg's anti-semitism to light, and indeed would have, if outside admins hadn;t intervened. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Boodlesthecat has once again shown that whenever there is sourced information which he dislikes, he will go out of his way to remove it or at least discredit it. His comment find a source indicating how this relates to Zydokomuna or this Jew baiting nonsense will be removed tells all about his incivility and disruptive editing. See here [151] Like it or not, this is history and you will not change it. Tymek (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, folks, please take a look at that article. Here is the "history" Tymek (with the support of Piotrus) thinks belongs in an encyclopdia article about a longstanding antisemitic myth (known as Zydokomuna that has been used for decades to justify the murder of Jews:

Among high-ranking functionaries of the Stalinist organs of oppression (such as the Ministry of State Security, which played a role analogous to the Gestapo in Hitler's Germany), there were such names as Jozef Swiatlo (born Licht Fleischarb), Anatol Fejgin, Juliusz Hibner (born Dawid Schwartz), Roman Romkowski (born Natan Grunspau-Kikiel), and Jozef Rozanski (born Goldberg). Polish communist Wiktor Klosiewicz stated in an interview with Teresa Toranska: All the department directors of the Ministry of State Security were Jews.^[1]. Romkowski and Rozanski were in 1957 sentenced for 15 years, Fejgin received 12 years, all for brutally torturing incarcerated members of Polish patriotic resistance and for abusing their power^[2].

This is Jew baiting claptrap. Pure and simple. tymek and Piotrus think the article is simply a repository for them to insert arbitrary claims about evil Jews. Sorry, nope. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, most of your edits are Polish baiting, since you talk that way. We are creating Wikipedia for the public users, not for ourselves. Readers have the right to be informed about this part of Polish-Jewish history, this gives a more complete picture. Again - you will not change it, these individuals were among highest ranking members of communist repression apparatus, responsible for torturing a score of Polish patriots. Jews were opressed, but some of them would oppress, too, if they had a chance and there is no point in hiding it. Your edits speak for yourself. And share your knowledge, not your biases. Tymek (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

Boodles, you continue to insist in your witch hunt that the world is black and white. It is not. Individuals of numerous ethnic groups participated in the Soviet terror. (In my case, I must observe, Latvians as well.) And there were cultural and intellectual reasons that communism had appealed to some groups more than others. That does not mean "all Jews... " or "all Latvians..." or that those individuals in any way represented their cultural heritage or values.

That someone later took facts and twisted them to "justify" murder does not change initial facts. Nor does noting initial facts imply that someone supports said twisting to support murder. Nor does noting initial facts in and of that act alone constitute an assault.

You ascribe motivations where they do not exist regarding acts of anti-Semitism which have not occurred. —PētersV (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since talking to Boodlesthecat is like talking to a brick wall, I am leaving this [152] unchanged. I will only note that user Boodlesthecat, a contributor to the project, calls words of Stefan Korbonski, member of the International PEN Club and recipient of Yad Vashem's Righteous Among the Nations medal Jew-baiting original research. Let the committee decide, I will not waste my time. Tymek (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Boodlesthecat has gone to another level, using such friendly, cooperative terms as anti-Jewish crap, idiotic claims and bully crowd. I am hoping this will be taken into consideration, as seriously, creating an encyclopedia in such atmosphere is discouraging. Here is the diff: [153]. Tymek (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's obvious to anyone who has been watching what has been going on. Nihil novi (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. User:Boodlesthecat is the runner of arguably the most disruptive political tag-team in the history of Eastern European coverage in Wikipedia. His tag-team members include User:Jayjg routinely abusing his admin powers for example, by reverting content opponents using Twinkle; and of course, User:M0RD00R, account created exclusively for the purpose of political smear campaigns. None of these users create content to any substantial degree. The ~~express~~ widely documented ~~purpose~~ objective of their tag-team is to mock Polish nation and deface Polish history via racially motivated hate mongering (my further comments). --Poeticbent talk 14:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment on Poeticbent's defamatory rant Poeticbent writes, regarding a supposed tag team that I "run," that "The expressed purpose of their tag-team is to mock Polish nation and deface Polish history via racially motivated hate mongering." My dictionary defines "express" as: To set forth in words; state. Can you please indicated where I, or any of the other editors you named as constituting this supposed team, set forth in words/stated a purpose as being "to mock Polish nation and deface Polish history via racially motivated hate mongering."? If you cannot provide documentation supporting your allegation, I must ask you to remove such a defamatory and maliciously false claim, which exceeds by far the dozens of other defamatory rants already in this arb. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of your highly disruptive behaviour has already been provided on numerous occasions. This is just the confirmation of fact. --Poeticbent talk 15:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you apparently cannot supply any evidence demonstrating where where I, or any of the other editors you named as constituting this supposed team, set forth in words/stated a purpose as being "to mock Polish nation and deface Polish history via racially motivated hate mongering." Nor will you find such a thing. You leave your malicious and defamatory statement in at a risk to your own already sagging credibility, and further risk to Piotrus credibility, based on the tendency of most of his small coterie of supporters to do little more than post the same unsubstantiated malicious rants over and over. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?! I do not recall seeing a single edit in your long edit history made in support of Poland as complex but mostly reasonable nation; on the contrary, to the distress of all Polish content creators, you devoted all your entire energy to cherry-picking the most hateful and despicable claims about alleged Polish misdeeds throughout history. Let me quote just one sentence from an Eastern European scholar familiar with that sort of attitude in socio-political literature of our times. "To single out and humiliate Poland for its real or manufactured anti-Semitism is grossly unfair" (Tadeusz Piotrowski in Poland's Holocaust). And yet, that’s exactly what you’ve been doing since day one. --Poeticbent talk 16:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've pretty much sunk your credibility by showing you are unable to substantiate your malicious charge (against 3 editors) above. With your claims that I've failed to make edits "in support of Poland as complex but mostly reasonable nation" (I'm sorry, I missed the email instructing me that my job on Wikipedia is to be a propagandist for a particular country) and that I make "the most hateful and despicable claims about alleged Polish misdeeds throughout history" (pick one edit I've made to that effect, and any edit regarding "misdeeds" that wasnt reliably sourced), well, I'm afraid you are moving from loss of credibility to downright foolishness. Hey, your choice. Rant on. Your "team" seems to have decided on anointing me as the scapegoat for your truly questionable activities (many of which predate my involvement in Wikipedia). Enjoy it while it lasts; it won;t last much longer. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is a member of the "team" you are talking about? Ostap 01:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Boodlesthecat conducted an extended campaign to with-hunt and bait me into the most reprehensible antisemitic contentions by constantly misrepresenting my statements and position on Holocaust scholarship. And they still insist their blatantly false rephrasings summarize my position. There is no arguing with true believers. I have never been assaulted in such a manner by any WP editor. —PētersV (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Boodlesthecat has clearly and unequivocally stated that Poland's anti-semitism is "distinct" per their interpretation of sources when it is not in any way unique. The Žydokomuna article, as transformed by Boodlesthecat and supporters, has been turned into a litany of anti-semitic stereotypes all blamed on the Poles and all without any other historical context other than an implied hatred of Jews. Unfortunately, while reliable sources state what anti-semtic stereotypes existed in Poland, reliable sources NOT REFLECTED in the article state what the historical origins were of such stereotypes (not to be indicated, per Boodlesthecat and supporters), and RELIABLE SOURCES also discuss what anti-semitic stereotypes are multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, or, with respect to Poland, multi-Slavic, that is, having their origins in the wider area of Eastern Europe, also not reflected in any way in the article. From Jewish conspiracies to run society to white slave traders, there is no anti-semitic stereotype blamed on the Poles that is in any way unique to the Poles. Boodlesthecat and company have turned the Żydokomuna article into an anti-Polish coatrack, driven by their POV which I can only interpret as being that all Poles (and their WP supporter "edit warriors" such as myself per Boodlesthecat) are anti-Semites. —PētersV (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ummm, OK, so in an article about a Polish form of anti-semitism called Zydokomuna, it is anti-Polish to characterize it, as I did on the talk page as "a distinct phenomena called Zydokomuna, which is specific to the history of antisemitism in Poland."?? Ummmm, OK! But, since you are intent on (mis)using an Arb as an extension of a content dispute, PētersV, I defy you or anyone to point to any edit I have made to that artcile that wasn;t well sourced and fully in compliance with WP:RS, WP:V, and any of the WP's you like. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonding XX century stereotype of Jewish-Communism with medieval well poisoning is a OR at its best. We can surely find sources that claim that the Swedes are antimuslim, or Arabs are antirussian, because with a little cherrypicking, we can basically confirm our worst stereotypes about other nationalities.But is this the purpose of a neutral encyclopedia? Both Boodlesthecat and Mordoor are here for a specific reason. It is enough to check their contributions. Tymek (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg is not an antisemite

2) I am very offended by antisemitism accusations, which are extremely slanderous. I believe I have a right to a clear statement by the neutral Wikipedia justice system that would clear my name in this regard.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Oppose Greg doth protest too much. He has a rich history of making antisemitic remarks. Here's a sampling from just two pages, Talk:Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence:

No one can look into Greg's heart and know his feelings toward Jews, but in light of his comments, I don't see how any reasonable person could conclude that Greg is not expressing antisemitic sentiment here. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Greg's fault is that he dared to use the word Jew. If you'd replace this word in his remarks with Polish, I'd not consider him anti-Polish. Discussing whether an article has a pro-Jewish bias is not anti-semitism, not anymore than discussing whether an article has a pro-Polish bias is anti-Polish. And discussing whether an editor has a Jewish bias does not make one an anti-semite, just as discussing whether an editor has a Polish bias does not make him a Polonophobe. Just as well editors who are discussing anti-semitism or Holocaust are not necessarily pro-Jewish.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin who threatened to block Boodles when he removed Greg's antisemitic and libelous comments concerning Thane Rosenbaum, despite Boodles referring to WP:BLP, I hardly think you're objective here. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as you, being an editor who gave Boody a barnstar for "going to the mat against a cabal of POV-pushing Polish chauvinists" in the aftermath of his 3RR block and sending me a "dick email", may be a tiny wee bit biased too. I have cautioned greg to be more civil, you've only encouraged Boody in his disruptive behavior. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, saying Greg's fault is that he "dared" use the word Jew is patronizing and doesn't help your case or his. The problem is not that he used the word "Jew," it is how he has used the word "Jew." You yourself wrote on my talk page that he used the word "Jew" in an offensive way ("Hmmm, I don't think that saying "you are playing a Jew" is antisemitic (it is however a bad faithed, offensive remark)."). Well, that is the whole point. If a person writes "you are a dick" they are just being offensive. But if a person makes an offensive comment predicated on race, it is a racist comment. If they make an offensive comment predicated on somenone's being Jewish, it is an anti-Semitic remark. Greg's pattern of comments suggests that he does not view his fellow editors as fellow editors; some are Polish editors, some are Lithuanian editors, some are Jewish editors ... and that any edit a Jew makes is a "Jewish" edit. Shakespeare understood that this gets at the heart of anti-Semitism, I think others here will see it too.

In any event, I do not see how this so-called "finding of fact" has anything to do with the Arb Com case against Piotrus. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slr, I'd prefer to keep this discussion in one place (our talk pages). I wrote that Greg was seen as some as having used the word Jew in a offensive way, when in fact he hasn't (all he did was to claim Boody has a Jewish POV, a claim which doesn't appear to me offensive in any way, just as a claim that I have a Polish POV is perfectly fine). And yes, editors differ, the problem arises only when one assumes that for example that "Jewish editors are damaging this project", which greg most certainly did not. He simply stated that Boody's edits show a Jewish POV, which is a reasonable comment (although I agree, it's best not to discuss editors in any way - Boody however claimed he has no POV, and is neutral, which was making any progress in discussion with him hard, particularly when others self-identified themselves as having a Polish POV, and he was still towing the line of being the no-POV neutral editor). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly was this "Jewish POV?" Specifically? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-02 History of the Jews in Poland were this is discussed in detail. In particular, see the section "Problem statement", where Boody, after having been repeatedly asked to declare his POV, stated that "My POV, if I need to describe it, would be to get this article closer to mainstream scholarship" (doesn't that sound pretty? :). The few months I've known him it became clear to me that he shows above-average interest in Jewish-related topics and his argument echo those of Jewish historiography. There is nothing wrong with that - other than the fact that he refuses to admit this, and sees his POV as NPOV. His refusals to admit that he has a certain POV (when he repeatedly accuses others of having other POVs - like Polish POV - which nobody denies in any case) is at the cornerstone of his disruptive edits and attitude, as I've explained in this essay. When Greg stated - in some instances, in a somewhat uncivil fashion (annoyed and even baited, as I believe, by Boody's constant refusal to portray himself as anything else but a perfectly neutral editor and defender of NPOV) - that Boody has a "Jewish POV", he got accused of antisemitism. That's the entire story in a nutshell.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Directing me to a mediation case is hardly providing me with something specific. I searched through the page you indicate and do not see anyone using the term "Jewish POV." I did however look at some of the edit-conflicts between you and Boodles, for example, this. Now, why should it matter what the race or religion of the editor is who put in the material you deleted? I think that all that matters is our policies: is this a notable point of view? Is it verifiable? Is it from a reliable source? Is the source clearly identified? I see several sources, including Robert Sanders, who one can say is expressing a Jewish POV, and also Timothy Snyder, whi is expressing the POV of an academic historian. But what does the identity of the Wikipedia editor have to do with any of this, and why is it at all a reason for deleting the edit? If an edit complies with NPOV and V and NOR by adding content from notable and reliable sources, shouldn't any Wikipedia editor support it, whether Jewish or Gentile, Protestant or Catholic or Russian Orthodox, Communist or Liberal, blond haired or brown haired, tall person or short person? Boodles made an edit and you are claiming his edit expresses a Jewish POV. Why isn't it possible that a non-Jew could have made the same edit, added the same material? What makes this a "Jewish" edit and why is Boodles race relevant to your having deleted his edit?

By the way, just to be clear: I saw on the talk page that you know of several sources that say General Pilsudski was not an anti-Semite. I would not label any of those sources as expressing a "Polish" POV. Several of them appear to be academic historians too. Here is what you should have done: you should have created a section on the controversy over whether the General was anti-Semitic (for people to explicitly argue that someone is not an anti-Semite sugests that some people think the person is an anti-Semite i.e. there is some controversy) and provide the range of views. Then you, Boodles, and others can negotiate over the right way to characterize different views. But there is a longstanding principle at Wikipedia, which is to add verifiable content to create NPOV, and not to delete verifiable content. At least, this is my view, however you want to characterize it... Slrubenstein | Talk 21:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The piece of the puzzle which I think you are missing is WP:UNDUE: editor's POV determines what he things is relevant and what is not. Also, from WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sometimes, reliably sourced and verifiable information has no place in a given article. Sometimes, editors with a certain POV will not see it that way: an editor with a Polish POV, for example, will assign greater weight to German crimes against Poland than editors from other countries, and an editor with German POV will assign the smallest weight. If those editors can see their POV, they can reach a neutral version. If one of them thinks his POV is neutral, he will refuse to compromise. In case of Pilsudski, there is little controversy: only a tiny majority of sources claim against the consensus he was an anti-semite; to discuss this in detail in the article would create an undue bias, favoring editors who have an anti-Pilsudski bias (or others, which include this one). To give you another example: at one point an important American politician was criticized in Poland for "You forgot Poland" remark. An editor with a Polish POV may want to stress this in various places, when in fact it is a minor issue that does not need more coverage in general articles - it is of UNDUE weight. Most Polish-POV editors will, when this is explained to them, agree with that view and drop the issue. But a "true believer" will stop at nothing to advertise this issue across Wikipedia articles.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Criticizing Rosenbaum and other statements by Greg are not antisemitism. Even criticizing Jewish traditions, religion, and national character is not necessarily anti-semitism. Many Jews criticize or even satirize all of that themselves, like Igor Guberman. ~~Only an extreme Jewish nationalist might consider the statements by Greg "antisemitic".~~Biophys (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Biophys, are you saying that the 4 or 5 editors who think greg's remarks were anti-semitic, including the ARB clerk who insisted that greg refactor his comments because they were "clearly antisemitic" are all extreme Jewish nationalists? Is that your position? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know which 4 to 5 editors you are talking about. I also do not know why Ryan (whom I respect) decided the statement by Greg to be antisemitic. But as someone from a partly Jewish family, I believe his statements were not antisemitic. Most important, the endless discussions who is "antisemitic" and who is not are damaging for WP. So, this should stop.Biophys (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion about greg's antisemitism. However, it does not negate the fact that a number of other editors, and the clerk, think he has made antisemitic statements. And there are those who believe that it is that sort of anti-semitism that greg has littered these pages with is what is "damaging for WP." So while you are entitled to your view, it will not "stop" until greg's abuses is addressed, as it will be. And your own inflammatory accusations that editors who object to blatant anti-semitism are extreme Jewish nationalists does little to improve the health of this encyclopedia, BTW. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I take back my words about "nationalists". Sorry. That was wrong. This only proves how easily one can fell in the trap by even starting to discuss such contentious issues. But you are telling "it will not stop until greg's abuses is addressed". Well, I am very happy you are not going to address my abuses, but only abuses by Greg and Piotrus.Biophys (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find anything you've said to be at all anti-semitic or an "abuse", although I do think that in your zest to defend others, you are missing some basic realities (for instance, the depth of Greg's bigotry) that others seem to be noticing (and certainly not just me, despite the self serving mantra that Piotrus likes to propagate that I am somehow responsible for all ill will here). But Greg's anti-semitism most definitely needs to be addressed; as for Piotrus' role in empowering and supporting Greg, and abusing his admin authority towards that end, I'll leave it to reviewers of this case to decide. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As stated elsewhere, I reviewed the whole thread in detail where I first came across Booodlesthecat calling Greg park avenue and anti-Semite, and there was no basis for such a contention. Boodles continued to bait Greg until he could get some more emotional comment out of him (which was still not anti-Semitic), which Boodles then latched on to like a rabid terrier. The Rosenbaum comment was in a similar situation. My own experience with Boodles confirms his attack mode. —PētersV (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems, that you missed quite a lot in your review, from this analysis it is evident, that baiting came from Piotrus group towards another editor and later, towards another fellow admin, not contrary. I am also disturbed to see an attempt to downgrade significance of WP:BLP violations. M.K. (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Malik's entry above for some examples of Greg's despicable antisemitism littering the pages of Wikipedia. Some of you just don't get it, do you? Oh well. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg singling out Thane Rosenbaum for the type of fiction he writes profiting from and based on the Holocaust (the vast bulk of Malik's accusation), including fictional characters Rosenbaum rather models on himself, is not grounds for labeling someone a hater of the entire Jewish nation. Let's get real. —PētersV (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes let's get real. Greg's hateful comment about Rosenbaum was removed by an admin becuase it was an antisemitic BLP violation. greg's comments on this Arb had to be refactored becuase the clerk said they were antisemitic. Keep your head in the sand all you want; he is, according to a number of editors, admins and clerks, someone who has spread antisemitism here. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite clear Greg doesn't care for Rosenbaum in particular. I have read Greg's "antisemitic" comments per you in another rather lengthy thread and what I see is your provocations and Greg's increasingly exasperated responses, culminating in what you declared is anti-Semitic but in fact was not. I really don't care that somehow you manage to play Greg's violin. But you know very well that is exactly what you are doing, and have tried to do with me, repeatedly asking if I were making "in other words" anti-Semitic contentions, culminating in a blatant hateful lie about what I have stated. Ah, so easy for you then to use the "hateful" word on others, as that's what you do yourself. —PētersV (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, except that the accusation against Greg is not "slander"—it is libel. Nihil novi (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Greg is critical about a lot of things. At times, his commentaries might be revealing; other times, overtly emotional, but I never saw him speak against the Jewish nation per se, not for once. --Poeticbent talk 04:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

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.

Boodles is restricted

1) Boodles, who has shown a clear tendency to revert war a lot and harass others with extreme incivility, is put on a permanent 1 year 1RR and civility parole. Because he has turned the previously peacefully articles on Polish-Jewish topics into battlegrounds, he is banned from that content area.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Having Featured History of the Polish Jews and having worked peacefully with many others editors in that content area, I believe this would be a reasonable solution, restoring peace, quiet and good will to the Polish-Jewish subject area.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User:Radeksz chased off an article after a string of accusations by Boody and tag team allies: [154]. With that in light, I believe at the very least a topic ban from Polish Jewish topics - to stop him from flaming other users and chasing them off - is necessary, as even 1RR restriction will not stop him from flaming others on talk.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without any broader comments, Boodles does not seem to have any greater tendency to revert war than Piotrus does. I think that's plainly obvious. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your statistical analysis to prove it is... where, exactly? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose Greg is misremembering when he says that the articles on Polish-Jewish topics were peaceful before Boodles became involved with them. For example, look at Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#"who were conscripts like other citizens of the country," and Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Jews in Poland/archive1. If 1RR is deemed appropriate, it should apply equally to all editors who edit articles on Polish-Jewish history, most of whom have engaged in edit-warring at one time or another. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Many articles have occasional incidents. Since Boody appeard, all Polish-Jewish history is an ongoing incident, with Boody revert warring everywhere and accusing his opponents of anti-semitism.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I accuse them of anti-semitism when they are being anti-semitic, as in the case of Greg, whose anti-semitism a number of editors have pointed out. You, Piotrus, seem not only to be tolerant of such anti-semitism and defending of it, you have gone as far as threatening to block me for challenging it. This might be excusable if you had learned from your errors from months ago; your persistence in empowering anti-semites who have allied themseelves with you, however, is quite disturbing. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guilt by association? I am not surprised. I rest my case, it's not like I need to prove anything more, evidence of bad faith and spurious personal attacks is quite rich. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. Guilt by association? Does this overt abuse of admin authority in defence of an anti-semite look like "guilt by association?" Are your repeated pleadings on behalf of the Jew baiter Greg "guilt by association"? Not in any reading of the term. Guilt by (your own) actions, Piotus. Nothing more, nothing less. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What's a "permanent one year" restriction? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I think it means that I am restricted for a full 365¼ days no matter how fast I edit? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A review of B's last few hundred mainspace contributions shows the addition of very well-sourced material and refs. That is valuable. The assertion that the articles were peaceful before he began editing there was discredited; History of Jews in Poland in particular was heavily edited by the now-banned user Jacurek [155], and those edits were not disputed by Piotrus. That article reflects current real-world disputes; it's unrealistic to expect it to stay in the same place forever. Novickas (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. We are talking about a person who is unable to talk to other users in a civilized way, a person who with his biased editing has destroyed once a good article, and who himself does not create any new articles. Tymek (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

99% are reverts. The rest, as you call it very well sourced material and refs are blurbs from tendentious newspapers or excerpts from pseudo-science publications as by Jan T. Gross who uses his Princeton connection to get even, pseudo-science because not corroborated by the rest of scientific community. Also speculations like about the number of Nazi collaborators during WWII in Poland, estimated by some ignorant and less known new historian from Germany at up to 1 million, who evidently assumed that all of Polish citizens of German descent (about the same number) were Nazi collaborators, while the real and well established number is less than 10 thousand. Novickas, just imagine - if someone told you that the number of Nazi collaborators in Germany was 80 million just because there were that many Germans living there at that time, would you believe in such science? I don't think the other Wikipedians would handle this, but give it a shot. Maybe some genius wrote it that already? greg park avenue (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support editing restrictions for everyone who constantly uses inflammatory "ethnicity"-based arguments in content disputes. The accusation of antisemitism is one of them; Boodlesthecat fires such claims everywhere; and he does not even understand that he is wrong.Biophys (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about editing restrictions for everyone who adds content to articles that blames Polish Jews for antisemitism? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 18:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No editing restrictions for adding any sourced content about antisemitism. Support editing restrictions for anyone who blames other wikipedians of antisemitism, anti-Russian propaganda, and other things like that.Biophys (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, since you claim that I "fire such claims everywhere", can you give me an example of who else I've accused of anti-semitism, other than the anti-semite Greg park avenue? I recall one other editor I accused, and I even got blocked in the process; however, as in the case of greg, eventually members of this community agreed about the anti-semitism of that editor, who won't be editing Wikipedia anytime soon. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "the antisemite Greg park avenue". But he is not. There are no proofs of his "antisemitism" whatsoever; he received no blocks for promoting anisemitism; nothing. His original statement to ArbCom was not antisemitic, contrary to your claim. As someone with a lot of Jewish relatives, I can assure you of that. I wonder what you would tell after visiting a performance by Jewish poet Igor Guberman who presents some very sharp satire on the real and perceived shortcomings of Jews. The statement by Greg was not offensive, but your claims of his antisemitism are indeed offensive. Therefore, I support the restriction.Biophys (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my, my , my, Biophys, I didn't realize some of your best friends are Jewish!. I humbly defer to your interpretation over the other editors who indeed feel Greg is an antisemite. Mind you though, the antisemite [EliasAlucard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EliasAlucard] also had never been blocked for promoting antisemitism, that is until he got permanently banned for it! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about my friends, but about my family. What "other editors"? Do you mean User:Malik Shabazz? I looked at the links he provided above. These links only prove that your and his accusations are unjustified.Biophys (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should read further, Biophys--among others, the clerk insisted that greg refactor his comments because they were "clearly anti-semitic." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who else? Within the last 24h, among others, Vecrumba, who complained on talk of this arbcom that "You demonstrated NO interest in discussing anything, rather, you were intent ONLY on putting words into my mouth that would indicate I'm an anti-Semite".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where I called him an anti-semite. I queried him about the actual words he wrote; if Vecrumba is worried that quoting his own actual words makes him look like an anti-semite, then perhaps that could be a valuable lesson to be a bit more discerning in his choice of words. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't try this tack with me. You put explicitly anti-Semitic phrases into my mouth that if I had agreed with in any way--as you apparently expected me to, catching me in my presumed bias--you would have been all over me like a bad smell with charges of anti-Semitism. No, you didn't say "Vecrumba is an anti-Semite". You DID say: "Vecrumba, in other words, you are saying [fill in clearly anti-Semitic phrase]" Either way, that is a charge of anti-Semitism. Don't play word games. PētersV (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boodles, for your edification, I did finally break down and properly paraphrase myself, as opposed to your attempts to put hate speech in my mouth. You and anyone who wishes can find it on the evidence page (diff). —PētersV (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Boodles is currently one of the most uncivil and disruptive persons in this neck of the woods. Nihil novi (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I’d like the Arbitrators to explain why the verbal abuse in these proceedings is not being removed per policy guidelines? It is not difficult to see what constitutes verbal abuse, unless we want to retain direct proofs of it without having to leave this page? --Poeticbent talk 19:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Boodlesthecat

Proposed findings of fact

User:greg park avenue has engaged in incessant posting of bigoted, belligerent and antisemitic attacks

1) User:greg park avenue has engaged in anti-semitic attacks, transparently false charges of sockpuppetry, repeated acts of incivility, while contributing no little actual content to Wikipedia, instead devoting the bulk of his contributions to uncivil attacks on other editors, peppered with anti-semitic vulgarities. sadly, Greg is consistently empowered and supported in his bigotry by User:Piotrus, who consistently defends Greg's bigotry (in a most disturbing manner--by claiming that Greg is "provoked" by other editors, echoing the twisted logic used by whitewashers of anti-semitism throughout history that Jews "provoke" anti-semitism by their actions). Piotrus has, again quite disturbingly, gone as far as threatening to (ab)use his admin authority in defense of Greg's flagrant, vicious Jew baiting (note that removal of this anti-semitic BLP violation by Greg was ultimately upheld despite Piotrus bullying threats of a blo0ck. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"while contributing no actual content to Wikipedia": User:Greg park avenue has a list on his linked userpage of articles that he created/expanded; the first part can be easily confirmed by this tool. And his 8 articles compared to Boody's 0 tell a very interesting story about two editors with quite different editing strategies.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg has a grand total of 235 mainspace edits, representing 3/16 of his total edits. Boodles, on the other hand, has 1,707 mainspace edits, representing more than 1/2. Who is the more productive editor? "A very interesting story" indeed, although it's clear that the numbers don't tell the whole tale, but the obvious conclusion is that Greg isn't the productive editor you paint him to be. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 19:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support (1) Regarding Greg's antisemitic comments, see my remarks at #Greg is not an antisemite above. (2) Greg's persistence in looking for evidence that Boodles and I are sockpuppets is to be commended. It's a shame he doesn't understand the fact that two editors may have common interests without being socks. A look at my contributions and those of Boodles would show that we edit primarily in different areas of Wikipedia, although there are a few small areas of overlap. (3) Greg needs too understand the importance of civility. In one instance, he threatened to kick the sorry ass of an admin. 'Nuff said. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your point (2) I agree with you (as I've stated elsewhere many times). Greg's accusations of sock/meatpuppetry against you are as sensible as the ones coming from editors arguing for a Polish cabal (i.e. baseless and bad faithed). I also agree with (3) - that greg needs to be more civil. Unfortunately, I fail to understand why you are completely ignoring much more serious incivility ("dick emails" and so on) coming from Boody. I cautioned greg to be more civil, officially on his talk pages and I've supported you here; you reward Boody with barnstars in the aftermath of him sending me offensive emails :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Again and again. It is the easiest and nastiest way to call somebody you disagree with an antisemite. Greg is not the best example of a civil editor, just like Boodlesthecat. But antisemitism? This is way over the top. Tymek (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical note and comment. If contributors fell, that Greg should be placed here, I suggest to reword proposed finding of fact, to something like - <heading>User:greg park avenue has engaged in disruptive edits <heading ends>; <body>User:greg park avenue has engaged in disruptive edits - used extreme forms of personal attacks [diff][diff][diff] etc., violated WP:BLP [diff][diff] etc, continuously and falsely accused established editors of sock'ing [diff][diif] etc etc.<body ends>. Remember, findings should be clear and to-the-point short. Obviously, Greg's comments are irrelevant with good editing practice, however, I am nonplussed to see that certain individuals are trying to play them down. M.K. (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I believe that none of the statements by Gregg provided by his accusers was really antisemitic. The criticism of Jewish politicians, Jewish state, and many other things does not constitute the antisemitism, just as criticism of W. Bush (for example) does not constitute anti-Americanism.Biophys (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per Tymek's and Biophys' very cogent arguments. Nihil novi (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per Nihil novi. PētersV (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus' insistence that ethnicity if a fundamental quality of editors contributes to making Wikipedia an ethnic battleground

2) Piotrus' whole argument here (as stated above and elsewhere) all rests on a presumed agreement with his questionable thesis--that all editors on Wikipedia share his own admitted quality of having an ethnic based "POV." By his own admission, Piotrus insists that this is true for all editors. Like his ally Greg, he seems not to be able to grok the notion that an editor--regardless of ethnicity--can aim for fairness and balance to articles. Although Piotrus does not share his anti-semitic colleague Greg_park_avenue's pathological obsession with Jews, Piotrus is indeed, by his own admissions above, absolutely insistent that all editors share his admitted personal commitment to ethnicity being the primary motiavtion for all editors. This of course, is simply a not very sophisticated ploy in which Piotrus can paint those who disagree with him as "true believers" having an ethnic POV (e.g., his insistence that a "Jewish POV" is operative behind any edits that seek to remiove anti-Jewish biases). This rather unsophisticated argument of Piotrus' only works if one accepts it's premise--that all editors are motivated by an ethnic "POV." While I have noticed that some others share his view, I am confident that this is not a principle of this encyclopedia project. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

That's a pure straw man. See my essay for what I really say (which boils down to "all editors have some POV"). In Central/Eastern Europe conflicts, obviously national ones will be dominant. If we were discussing abortion, religious one would be dominant. See also my discussion with User:Slrubenstein, at #Greg is not an antisemite and at his talk page, of why this is a problem (which boils down to the fact that Boody refuses to admit he has a POV other than being a perfect NPOV editor, and thus refuses to compromise, seeing all of those who disagree with him as disruptive in some shape or form - I analyze this approach to editing in my essay; Boody is not the only editor in this case representing it).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I suggest you be a bit more circumspect in applying "logical category" rebuttals ("Thats a pure straw man")--you seem to consistently misuse those categories. What you consistently insist is not that "everyone has a POV" (obviously that's true) but rather, that anyone disagreeing with you (for example, removing anti-semitic no0nsense from Wikipedia) somehow is operating from a "Jewish POV", or, that a supposedly Jewish editor must be operating from a Jewish POV. You consistently inject ethnicity into disagreements--by characterizing removal of anti-semitic content, or criticisms of anti-semites like Greg as "a Jewish POV" you attempt to relativize and minimize anti-semitism. No "straw man" here. It's quite real. As clearly demonstrated here, the issue is not "all editors have a POV", the issue is that you, Piotrus, insist that editors confess to having the POV you ascribe to them. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now I "insist that anybody disagreeing with [me] has a Jewish POV"? Dear committee, this is just one of many examples of why discussion with "true believers" is difficult. They are right, their opponents are wrong, and probably anti-semitic/Polish/Russian/Nazi/Jewish/Christian/Muslim/insert insult applicable to "true believer" POV here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spare the committee the drama Piotrus--here's some of your own words from the sabotaged medcab , in which you and others filibustered a medcab with bullying demands that I fess up to your interpretation of my POV and insist that the mediation would not move forward until I made such a confession:

"You claim that your POV is "to get the article closer to mainstream scholarship." That's not a POV. I and Lysy explained what POV means, and that you refuse to admit you have one is a big part of the problem."
"I don't think we have much to discuss, as long as Boody refuses to admit his POV. As I wrote above - it's hard to negotiate with "perfect" editors."
"It is expected that a Polish editor will have a Polish bias."
Malik replied in the medcab to Piotrus as follows: "I don't agree with Piotrus that Polish editors should be expected to edit with a pro-Polish bias, nor that Jewish editors edit with a pro-Jewish bias, etc. Personally, I'm not interested in putting down Christian Poles or promoting Polish Jews; I'd like the article to reflect what reliable sources say." I support Malik 100% here. And I think Piotrus' tactic--which is to insist that "everybody has some ethnic POV", so that he can then dismiss opposition to anti-semitic nonsense in Wikipedia as simply being some "Jewish POV" should be transparent to anyone who examines his rather crude tactic. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I am really sorry, Boodlesthecat, but it is you who brings inflammatory ethnicity-based arguments everywhere. This should stop.Biophys (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examples? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if you do not see this yourself, I can not help.Biophys (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, "sorry" back atcha--if you can't supply examples and evidence for your inflammatory and malicious claim that I "bring inflammatory ethnicity-based arguments everywhere" as well as arrogantly add "this must stop," then no one is going to take you seriously, and your accusation will just appear to be what it likely is--bogus. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Discussing edits, not editors, is a core policy, along with the concept that valuable contributions are made on WP without revealing personal data. The above mediation page contains these statements by Piotrus: "Those same editors hide under a cloak of perfect anonymity" and "I also doubt very much that those anonymous editors will reveal anything about themselves". Such knowledge does help in battles - Know your enemy is derived from The Art of War - but the project is trying to get past that. Novickas (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To long and to many assumptions. Should be reformulated or removed. Generally the problem is not only of Piotrus or "Polish editors". Overplaying ethnicity of editors or sources (e.g. this source is in Polish/Russian/German - thus it is biased, the author of the source is a Jew/Pole/Russian/Georgian - thus it is biased, the editors is X so his edit should be reverted immediately, etc) is evil Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there is a kernel of something worthwhile in this, could you reformulate it? Novickas (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

User:greg park avenue receive appropriate sanctions for his incessant incivility, personal attacks, and bigoted statements

1) User:greg park avenue receive appropriate sanctions for his incessant incivility, personal attacks, and bigoted statements

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While I cannot support Boody's finding which includes allegations of antisemitism, as I've noted elsewhere, greg has certainly been incivil (although I believe to a lesser extent than Boody). Both of them seem to be hard to moderate (not that anybody tried to moderate Boody other than me...), extend bad faith to other editors, and should be subject to a combination of civility parole, 1RR restriction and topic bans.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, please spare me your condescension and incessant rewrites of history--you have never tried to "moderate" me, you have, from the beginning been an admin-authority abusing bully--starting with your threats against me for daring to challenge Greg's vicious anti-semitism. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Piotrus, where and when greg has been uncicvil? That's what Ryan had explicitly advised you against from doing: Don't get into dispute with trolls. I follow that advise and ignore the troll(s), all of them, Boodles/Shabazz/SLR, because there simply is no middle ground between an extremist editor as them and a moderate editor as you or me or Lokyz. Same as with the terrorists in real life. We don't give them nothing, even if they're dying for attention. Nada! You have been trying to be nice and reason with them and see what happened: To reach a middle ground you have acknowledged Boodles is a little uncivil and I am a little uncivil, just to prove one point or other. Doesn't matter. Besides, Shabazz just commited a fraud voting double under Boodles' sick remedy about me being an antisemite, and he is the same person. And who else called me an antisemite, even racist? Also the same person, just signed as Slrubenstein, and no one else. What better proof do you want they're the same person? Who else would make such a fool of oneself to claim such a bullshit based on nothing? But as I said before, I am not here to get anybody; if someone is going to request a checkuser, suit yourselves and get rid of them, but they will be back under another name, such as Snoopythedog or something. Better concentrate on how to get rid of those endless reverts done by the above mentioned troll squad. Maybe 1RR limit for everyone, three strikes and you're out? greg park avenue (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have different civility standards than most editors here, and - for example - I'd consider calling others trolls - like you did right now - uncivil. And yes, you are very right that I tried to reach the middle ground and I might have went to far: my apologies - it was certainly not my intention to equate you with Boody. That said, I still believe that there is little evidence of those editors sockpuppeting, and that we should uphold the highest stanards of WP:AGF/WP:CIV and so on. Yes, I know that "the others" don't do it - but we don't want to be the same as them, do we? Higher moral ground and so on (for all that it's worth on Wikipedia...).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, if a troll is a troll as in here, then I condemn it, especially, if someone unprovoked would call you a racist or antisemite. Hardly a reason to be a subject to violation of WP:CIVIL guidelines. When Bush condemned Bin Laden was he uncivil? Some people would agree, some even called him Hitler. But let us clarify who a troll is? According to [156]: The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality. If a troll gets no response to their spurious edits, then they can hardly be considered a troll at all. The basic policy regarding trolling is simple: please refrain. Just don't tell me the above diff was not a trolling - it's a classical example in my opinion. He even acknowledged that in his next post to Boodles what he was up to: give them enough rope he says in it, just see this. The issue of sockpuppetry I leave to decide by others, but it's hard to believe three trolls got along as a tag team to plot a conspiracy against a minor editor for his taking stand at Fear - also a minor book based on fabricated by communist propaganda diaries. greg park avenue (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposals by M.K

Proposed principles

There are no 'get out of jail free' cards on Wikipedia.

1) There are no 'get out of jail free' cards on Wikipedia. Being an established user with plenty of edits or an admin does not exempt you from obedience to Wikipedia policies or investigation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, per my statements above. Exemptions are bad. What is needed is perspective, as I've explained here (and in this essay).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Based on WP:JAIL. I was stunned to see that administrator Piotrus trying to justify bad deeds by stressing one's prolificness [157]. Good insight about such behavior can be found is recent comment. M.K. (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this "perspective", WP:JAIL's bullets sums everything quite well, actuality.M.K. (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in principle. Still assigning best remedies we should take into account user's positive contributions as well. Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Alex said. --Irpen 18:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Higher standards of administrators

2) Wikipedia's administrators are held to a higher standard of behavior than other users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support with a caveat. Standard proposal, but "higher standard" should not mean impossible. It's human to err occasionally, and admins are still humans. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Important issue - sysops are entrusted with delicate tools by community, with additional rights; additional rights leads to additional responsibility and higher conduct standard. M.K. (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Novickas (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree both with the proposal and Piotrus' comment above. --Irpen 23:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Novickas

Proposed principles

Limit the scope of user conduct cases

Concerns regarding the actions of editors should be brought up in the appropriate dispute resolution forums. These forums should limit their scope to the actions of the parties originally named in the dispute, contributing to timely resolution of the disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. One one level, it's a good suggestion (the more parties, the more complex and the longer the case). But 1) framing of the case is important (despite the misleading name "Piotrus" it's also about Deacon, and other editors he named) and 2) if other editors present evidence, it's only fair that they become parties (particularly since the accused has the right to defend himself by presenting his evidence). In other words, one could interpret your argument on its extreme as "only Piotrus should be judged" (or "free Piotrus season starting NOW" :D). As I wrote above: if you complain about somebody, they should have the right to complain about you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed to prevent user conduct examinations from growing huge and difficult to follow. Novickas (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Add the consideration of (relatively) speedy resolution. Novickas (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support we should somehow limit the case or it is quickly becomes unmanageable. Other disputes can be considered on other forums Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, having just reread the whole page, did I imagine all those sections focussing on Greg, Boodles and Irpen? Evidently not. Novickas has a point here. No disinterested party reading this clusterfuck of a page and the similar nonsense of an evidence page would leave with a positive impression of every editor who has contributed to them. Piotrus's response above is depressing. What would be good would be if, rather than replying in kind, editors turned the other cheek. The view from the moral high ground is much prettier, and the air is cleaner too. Not that I'm speaking from personal experience here you understand, but this is what I've heard. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators should lead by example in their project areas

Administrators have a duty to publicly intervene with troublesome editors working in their project areas. If other users have posted their concerns in articles or fora that an administrator can reasonably be expected to have seen, the administrator should demonstrate leadership by discussing the concerns.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Kind of pushing the envelope, but what the hey. Novickas (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree in principle but not sure about practical implications. I have approximately 16K articles on my watchlist. I am not sure I can properly intervene if any violation occur on one particular article. I think the same is true about Piotrus Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 16K? I am impressed, Alex. I barely manage my 3k... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing editors' motivations and ethnic/national backgrounds is unproductive

Proposed. Moves away from discussing edits, not editors. Novickas (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. Yes and no. Yes with regards to WP:NPA: discuss content, not editors, when possible. Certainly avoid discuss editors in a negative fashion without a very good excuse (when editors violate policy and are complained about, that's an allowable exception - otherwise we would be blind to all wrongdoing, up to the most serious trolling). Sometimes, however, an editor's behavior is a source of a problem (from pure and clear vandalism to a serious POV pushing), and in order for a compromise to be reached, parties should try to understand one another and their POVs (probably my most important experience on Wikipedia, back in 2005, during Featuring of the Polish-Soviet War, was when a Russian immigrant and academic, User:172, whom I highly respect, taught me that I have a Polish POV, and that Russian POV is as valuable). Hence, civil and peaceful discussion of one another POVs can sometimes be useful. Sometimes, those POVs are tied to ethnic/national backgrounds. Sometimes, to religious or philosophical or others. Their backgrounds and beliefs should always be respected; they may refuse to divulge them (everybody has the right to privacy), speculations should be limited and always mindful of AGF, but they should not be taboo. See also my essays on "true believers" (highly disruptive user who refuse to discuss their POV and claim they represent the "truth"/NPOV) and my thoughts on anonymity. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Stated as a negative. We have far too much on what SHOULDN'T be done and a dearth of what SHOULD be done (aside from apple pie and motherhood). Consider refactoring as "Respecting editors' reputably sourced editorial POV and ethnic/national backgrounds is productive." I tire of "nationalist" being akin to leprosy and sources being denigrated on the basis of authors' names. My ethnic/national background is a motivator to construct informative narrative regarding history and geopolitics in Baltic/Central/Eastern Europe based on reputable sources. No more. No less. —PētersV (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support the idea despite it is unlikely to make into a final decision. --Irpen 23:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits that remove sourced material

Edits that remove sourced material are unproductive, as are the reversions supporting such edits. Removal of such material on the basis of undue weight, fringe, unreliability of the source, or misinterpretation should only be performed after consensus is reached, using a dispute resolution process if necessary.

Proposed. Could help with edit wars. Novickas (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. Sound proposal in theory, but in practice 1) many disputes center around what is a reliable source and 2) "true believers" will never back down an inch and agree to a consensus. I have seen to many disputes were the other party (tag teams...) give you either an option of "agree with us 100%" or "get lost".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Well it is topical proposal, for instance I have recent example on Dariusz Ratajczak article, the Polish editor removed reliable source and its information, that League of Polish Families is/was the main extreme right party [158]. Solving such editing practice would reduce possible conflicts in Wikipedia. M.K. (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need specific policies for that; and for the record I endorse your revert of Xx236 there (unlike some, I am ok with criticizing "my Polish supporters" when they are wrong).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have WP:BRD guideline. If an edit is an obvious violation of wikipolicies it should be reverted. If the action needs to be repeated it might be better to discuss Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vigorously Oppose. I was accused of "reverting" on Żydokomuna when in fact I NPOV'ed the narrative around a disputed source leaving the source intact (!). The issue is NOT the "removal" of "sourced material." The issue is finding A piece of material then quoting a SINGLE author by name (takes care of attribution) and then constructing a narrative around that material that purports to be the ENTIRE TRUTH. When narrative purporting to be the "TRUTH" is changed/deleted and the source removed with it, that is then declared by the TRUTH-HOLDERS to be "vandalism" deleting "sourced material." As worded, nothing more than institutionalizing the ability of TRUTH-HOLDERS to construe any opposing edit as vandalism. This is not an assumption of bad faith on my part, this is simply the empirical voice of experience. —PētersV (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging error

Acknowledging errors, however briefly, contributes to a civil and constructive editing environment.

Proposed. Novickas (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong support. I have acknowledged my errors and agreed to other side's proposals often (ex. just yesterdays [159]); After all, cooperation is often about meeting the other party halfway. Unfortunately, I have yet to see "true believers" acknowledge any errors and agree to any compromise... usually, after strong criticism by a neutral/other side, they just disappear, only to repeat their claims in the other article, the same one in the future... or proceedings like those. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Strong support Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support PētersV (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. --Irpen 23:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Dc76\^talk 01:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loaded language does not serve the purposes of this encyclopedia

There are words, terms, and analogies that inflame discourse. These should be avoided on talk pages and edit summaries as well as in article space.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Propose. Novickas (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and especially this should apply to the liberally thrown accusations of the most repugnant views and activities possible and failure to back them up. Followed by the request to withdraw them or back them up (or at least stop them) being ignored. And followed by a new round of the very same accusations, again devoid of any diffs, links or substance (or with diffs that just do not check out.) For example, Piotrus and Biophys accused me of no less than harassment of themselves countless times on the pages of this case alone. Now, I don't take the word harassment lightly. I am most opposed to harassment of anyone anywhere anytime. So much that I tried my best to defend no one else but Biophys himself, despite his repeated rants about myself, when I saw him being harassed. And still, he and Piotrus go around accusing me of harassment as they were. So, accusations of truly repugnant stuff such as hate views, harassment, being connected with KGB (or its successor agencies) should be either backed up immediately or have severe consequences for those who raise them. I am surprised that others don't see Biophys' accusations as a big deal but Americans don't think of CIA accusations as anything other than silliness, so perhaps they don't have the right perspective. --Irpen 21:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Piotrus's description of MK and Lokyz as "pov trolls" at #wikipedia-en-admins was an inappropriate use of that channel

His use of these terms recorded at [160]. I don't know when civility on the admins channel became policy. But it is now, and an admin should not have needed a direct policy directive before being civil there.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Absolutely; however, this would have to be in effect an orbiter dictum (per previous cases), and I'm not sure how useful this would be. James F. (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Yes ... the title description at least. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment only The reforms to IRC occurred in late 2007, I believe, so March 2008 would have been well after this time. Civility always was policy but it was at times poorly enforced and often breached - it has most definitely improved since, and I have seen people silenced (i.e. a +b put on their name but they are not kicked, allowing them to "cool down") or kicked for behaving inappropriately or making bad faith accusations against non-present users. Orderinchaos 04:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My own experiences and comments by several admins I talked to show that civility is increasingly not enforced. I have long ago given up on reporting individual instances of incivility, as they are ignored, and even when I show many diffs (based on my evidence page) the reception is often similar. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The formulator of this point and myself both had civility on IRC en-admins in mind. Orderinchaos 00:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd find it ironic that when I am called a troll/vandal/etc. and complain about it in that channel, I am ignored/accused of whining, but when I once or twice called one of the users who accuses me of those things with the same terms he uses on me, big fuss arises. I do agree that as an admin I should not behave like they, but it's ridiculous that they can keep doing so without any punishment. Higher standards should not mean - as they seem to do currently - that "non-admins can be uncivil, but admins cannot". The reality is that I said "the troll called me a troll" and the fuss is that *I* dared to call somebody a troll... see the slight problem with the logic here? Also, be mindful of scale: one slip of tongue every few months (so I called somebody a troll once this year, in a private channel...) is hardly "below our standards" and hardly a great arbcom finding :) PS. According to Wikipedia:IRC#.23wikipedia-en-admins, the reforms became official in March 2008. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Problem is, Pitorus, that to badmouth people behind their backs at the secret fora where they cannot see or respond, and especially doing so to gain some support against them, is not just rude (as badmouthing someone in their face is) but unethical and unbecoming. Are you pretending that you don't see a difference? Is there any evidence that Lokyz, M.K. or Boodlethecat chopped for the sanctions against yourself secretly and called you bad names behind your back? --Irpen 21:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Official, yes, in that we didn't have a policy for the channel beyond a vague purposes and statements document. But as early as November 2007, long-term regulars were getting warned and in at least one case kicked for talking in an unfortunate manner about non-present parties, and there would have had to have been some authority to support that at that time. Nevertheless, I shall emphasise I put "comment only" as I have no opinion on whether you did or not as I wasn't there and didn't see the log - my only reason for commenting was that it annoys me when people malign IRC or try to suggest it's a particular kind of problem when they aren't there and don't see what goes on. Hence my patient explanations of what *does* go on. Orderinchaos 00:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support if a part of a conflict has an access to a forum but the other party has not then a care should be taken to present the case objectively or recluse all together. Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus's acceptance of his unblock before having engaged the blocking admin or contacting the administrators' noticeboard was a violation of policy

His edit warring block took place at 23:05 March 12th 2008. [161] The existing version of blocking/unblocking policy, as of its March 6th 2008 edit, read: "Administrators should not unblock users blocked in good faith by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them... If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." [162] These steps were not followed according to FT2's statement on March 20th: "While it is noted that Piotrus did contact Tigershark (i.e the blocker) on IRC, it appears that it was after the block was lifted." [163] Novickas (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC) More exact wording per comments. D'oh. Novickas (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

How was I to contact the administrator's noticeboard when blocked? I've emailed TS, and since I didn't know if he was online of not, and I didn't have time to waste (I was in the middle of writing a DYK that got featured few days later) went to a forum where I knew reply would be quick (admin IRC). I presented my case and got unblocked. End of story. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Partly support The venue is actually irrelevant, but I agree that Piotrus's misrepresentation of the circumstances surrounding his block to another admin with the purpose of getting blocked, and with no discussion taking place with the blocking admin or on AN/I, was not acceptable. However, this incident is now 7 months old, FT2 in reviewing it in March said it was stale *then*, and I'm struggling to see why it should be part of the brief of this particular RFAR. Orderinchaos 04:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:UNBLOCK#Other_possible_appeal_steps, while IRC is not listed as a possible unblock appeal location, it always has been used to ask for unblocks and continue to be. It is almost like asking another user to unblock you. IRC also has a faster time. I don't see anything that says IRC cannot be used for unblocks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There's a process to be followed, but as long as the correct steps are taken, the venue is quite irrelevant. One could ask on MSN or email or Facebook or any other number of places. If there was a question of collusion between the unblocker and the unblockee (definitely not the case in this instance) then one might be more hesitant due to any perception of a conflict of interest. But that would apply even if it was done here under the full public glare of Wiki. Orderinchaos 09:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the problem here is just me not talking to the block admin, but that happens a lot. Frankly, when I blocked people, people don't tell me about unblocks or any reductions, so I guess it is a vicious cycle that is going to continue. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While incident indeed happened some time ago. BUT the problem surrounding it and outcome are still topical. Not only, that Piotrus friend's, User:Zscout370, unblocking summary is misleading (and the unblock was done in vio of policy), not only that Piotrus claims that his 3RR block was "hastily overturned by several admins", but that is more discouraging - that his friends trying to imply on this case, that Piotrus was blocked only once. Per WP:TE - Here are some hints to help you recognise if you or someone else has become a problem editor:....You have been blocked more than once for violating the three revert rule, and misleading unblock lets indeed to overlook this aspect, while in fact tendentious edits of Piotrus are real problem. M.K. (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose whether to contact the blocking admin, discuss the issue on AN/I or limit the discussion to IRC was ZScout's not Piotrus. I believe Zscout was not correct here but it was not Piotrus's fault Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there is no such a thing as "acceptance of the unblock". Acceptance of the unblock does not amount to any action. Piotrus' fault in this case was the way he shopped for unblocked by going to a secret forum and uncivilly accusing his opponents of various bad things behind their backs. This goes against some very basic rules of ethics. --Irpen 21:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Piotrus is asked to voluntarily stand for re-confirmation of his adminship

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Rationale missing. Past version of this proposal, before being refactored, was based on few cherry-picked comments critical of my various actions by few admins. Admins criticize one another all the time, just like everybody else. The important question is: how many of those criticized me as an administrator and suggested recall? And the answer is: not a single one of them suggested my recall (despite me being one of the few admins open to such a procedure), and the last time my recall was discussed, at RfC Piotrus, vast majority of editors discarded this as a pointless (if not bad faithed) idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this would be very good for both Piotrus and wikipedia (per previous comments I've made). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Based on negative comments by 13 administrators at this Arbcom's statement and evidence, in addition to other editors' concerns. Novickas (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If he is "asked" by the ArbCom, he doesn't do so voluntarily. If he does so voluntarily, the ArbCom has nothing to do with this. Colchicum (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every institution like this needs to give legal fictions a chance if they happen to provide a good solution. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the committee finds that he has, in fact, exercised poor judgment on multiple occasions - either as an editor or as an admin - and re-affirms that admins are held to a higher standard - this looks called-for to me. Novickas (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Useless. It is clear that Piotrus would never voluntarily resign or even risk his adminship. --Irpen 21:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Vecrumba

Proposed actions and remedies

Demonstrate good faith

There are many areas of contention in the arena of Baltic, Central, and Eastern European history and geopolitics. Conflicting reputable sources will inevitably produce conflicting "truths." Where those "truths" are shown to be based on demonstrated, reputably verified, facts or events, those "truths"--which often also represent collective memory--shall be discussed with regard to creating article content in a collegial and congenial atmosphere. To demonstrate good faith, accusations that editors are exhibiting bad faith based on ethnic bias, religious bias, racial bias, nationalistic bias or are engaging in unethical conduct (for example, by suggesting they are dishonestly representing people or sources), et al. shall not be entered into by any editor nor shall they be tolerated. If an editor cannot discuss content devoid of accusing other editors of bad faith or dishonesty, they shall be given a warning and the opportunity to voluntarily excuse themselves from such article until they are prepared to be WP:CIVIL. If they continue to accuse editors, they shall be topic blocked or blocked more widely at the discretion of the admin(s) involved.
[text struck during refactoring deleted, updated text in red]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment: this doesn't go far enough. A lot of the worst personal attacks flying in those context are not limited to ethnicity. As one of the very few editors in this mess editing under a real name, I don't care that much about ethnic based accusations (my Jewish best friend always gets a good laugh when I tell him why I was called an anti-semite), but accusations of "academic dishonesty" - like the ones which chased Balcer away, and like the ones I face as well - are much more serious and constitute a much more damaging libel. If the above proposal is not refactored to deal with such libel, it will not be effective in solving the situation. PS. See also my mini-essay on the importance of anonymity or lack of thereof. PSS. Further, I sincerely hope that this ArbCom will issue a series of bans (topic or otherwise), and not make random AE/AN(I) admins pick up the pieces afterwards (the inefficiency of the Digwuren's restriction proves that delegating authority is not very efficient). See another mini-essay of mine for the reasons behind this failure.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support now.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. The mere fact of this repeat performance involving both a predictable as well as a demonstrably widening community of editors in conflict proves that "assuming" good faith, that reaffirming WP principles unanimously, etc., have no effect on such conflicts. Indeed, as these proceedings have become ever more vituperative, the affirmation of principles has become impotent because affirming principles does not require one iota of demonstrating adherence to any principle.

When Petri Krohn's ban expires, he and I should be able to discuss history without his calling me an ethno-fascist or my calling him a neo-Salinist. Irpen should be able to discuss the Holodomor without being called a Russian nationalist (aside from the fact he's Ukrainian). When any number of editors interact with Boodlesthecat on the article on Polish Jewish-communism (Żydokomuna), they should be able to discuss sources and content without "Jew-baiting" and "anti-semite" defamations and comments in edit reverts. Polish and Lithuanian editors should be able to discuss inter-war (WWI-WWII) Polish-Lithuanian relations without recreating the conflict on WP. This is not a topic ban. It is not a ban from discourse on any topic or content. It IS a ban designed to stem the escalating assumptions of a priori bad faith as demonstrated in these proceedings. The only means to accomplish that at this point is to require editors to demonstrate good faith at every turn even when editors personally perceive "evidence to the contrary."

(Truly) uninvolved admins should be able to readily determine whether accusatory or defamatory comments are in scope and act accordingly.

If we cannot come out of these proceedings without agreeing to practice good faith by not leaping to accusations at every turn, then all this will have been for naught. Anyone who feels they cannot agree to this action and remedy is paying lip service to "assume good faith." —PētersV (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I would think we all would welcome a break from name-calling. I would have no objection, say, to a trial run to be reviewed at a 3 or 6-month interval. No remedy should be made permanent unless it can be shown to have produced a material benefit. —PētersV (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Refactored. Note that my own evidence in these proceedings regarding Irpen's representation of Davies and Wheatcroft (his summary versus the authors') would have resulted, going back in time, instead in our opening a RfC and both presenting our positions for further input and resolution, as opposed to our mutual accusations. —PētersV (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost there. What about replacing or are engaging in dishonest representations of sources with or suggesting their conduct is unethical (for example by suggesting they are engaging in dishonest representations of people or sources) ? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, additional edit done (not quite same wording but should be equivalent). —PētersV (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An encyclopedia should not be a mud-slinging contest. Nihil novi (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As a suggestion, how about adding also:

A typical example when this should apply is when X presents a content dispute with Y with comments "This user [Y] expresses nationalism/anti-Semitism" or "This user [Y] is anti-Romanian/Polish/Russian/Ukrainian/Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian/Finish/Hungarian." or "This user supports a POV that is also supported by Hitler/Stalin." rather than X addressing the specific edits to articles.

Dc76\^talk 11:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I would like to take this notion one step further and propose that WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV and many other Wikipedia principles and behavioral guidelines—devised at the initial stages of the Project for less experienced audience—have become a laughing stock among long term users involved in content disputes, safely hidden from real-life accountability behind monikers, and only lashing out from under the cover of darkness against their opponents. --Poeticbent talk 21:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence gathering is not a priori bad faith

Who gathered what and when is a red herring unless that data or information gathered is subsequently used in a clearly malicious manner against an editor. If someone carries a gun for self-protection, one cannot make the accusation they therefore are planning to shoot someone, why else would they bother having a gun?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Ditto....--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nihil novi (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with the condition that the "gun comaprision" is removed. The comparison IMHO is off. A better comparision would be jurnalistic investigation. If politician X finds a file gathered by journalist Y, that should not cary the same weight as if Y has already published something. Y might have simply gathered incomplete initial info, Y might realize in the future that some of that info does not constitute a case, and a lot of other mights. Y's ability to do investigative journalism should not be hindered by X. Dc76\^talk 11:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I believe this is clear enough to not require further explanation. Ruminating on possible intentions of bad faith in these proceedings is divisive at best. —PētersV (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiatus on editor-originated administrative actions in Baltic, Central, Eastern, and "Soviet" Europe

aka Stop the Madness

We will never have a chance to LEARN to react with GOOD FAITH if we have Arbcom ever at the ready. I propose a six-month moratorium on all Arbom actions such as these. Admins would, in an observer role regarding Baltic, Central, Eastern, and "Soviet" Europe, still have the option to propose and agree/disagree on admin actions in the event of any observed egregious behaviors not in keeping with the policy or spirit of WP.

This proposal specifically:

places a moratorium on Requests for Arbitration;
requests that (bot-automated) 3RR monitoring be implemented for all Baltic, Central, Eastern, "Soviet" Europe articles; 3RR violations to result in an automatic one-week block (also to be bot-automated and as immediate as possible);
bans accusations of meat-puppetry during the moratorium period;
allows checkuser requests; these to be reviewed by uninvolved admins;
bans personal attacks regardless of venue (note, this is implicitly covered by the admin observer role, but repeated here for clarity).

Editors to be barred for this period of time from lobbying admins--although it is recognized there is no way to enforce this if an editor and admin agree to communicate offline. Admins found to have participated in such offline lobbying shall be subject to being de-sysop'ed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. It is true that past arbcoms have done little to address the core of this issue and that they represent a giant waste of time as editors involved have to play wikipolitics game instead of creating content. I do hope that this arbcom will be an exception, if not... I am split between agreeing with Peters and hoping that if not this one, maybe the next one will fix the problem. Or the next one... or the next one... sigh. I also find a second para unclear: are we forbidden to ask for enforcement of 3RR, for example? Or massive sockpuppeting? Perhaps this proposal should be rewritten, as a finding that some editors use those preceedings to harass opponents, chase them off or ban (as they cannot win content disputes otherwise), and the remedy is that those specific editors should have their rights restricted (as they seem to have abused them)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: can we extend bans accusations of meat-puppetry to bans personal attacks of any kind? I'd also suggest clarification of what they are, and how they should be dealt with (escalating blocks)?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot enforced 3RR is frankly a very bad proposal. Bots cannot distinguish between reversion of simple vandalism, reversion of BLP violations, tortuous search for a compromise by partial reverts and sterile edit warring. The latest should lead to block, the others should not. Humans are capable of separating one from the other (unless they decide to act as robots), bots are not. We might decide to look the other way but it is a fact that tag teaming exists. If we do not want to transfer every disagreement into flexing tag teaming muscles and recruiting more and more new members we, experienced users, should honestly follow policies rather than transfer everything into meatpuppet-infested votes. Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Let's discover how amazingly productive we can be as a community if we spend our time on content. —PētersV (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added some more language in each of the specific areas Piotrus mentions. Let me know what I've missed. I'm hesitant to create a finding, as there will be as many abusers who contend RfA is a necessary tool as there are those who complain RfA is abused. The point is the RfA shouldn't happen in the first place and we should try "life without RfAs" for a period of time. —PētersV (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1. 2. 4. and 5. Do not know what to say about 3. as it is unclear to me how would that be used. So, for now, I enter "no oppinion" on 3.Dc76\^talk 11:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen and Piotus shake and we get on with editing

Irpen and Piotrus shake hands like Begin and Sadat, declare their conflict a huge misunderstanding based on a history of bad faith and editorial contentiousness in the Baltic, Central, Eastern, and "Soviet" European sphere, agree on withdrawing the RfA, and work together in a real task force to come up with community solutions and improvements, with an amnesty (no past diffs) declared for the B/C/E/"S" community and six-month moratorium on RfAs while positive supportive measures can be put into place.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Call me a utopian. —PētersV (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support a truthful handshake any time. See just the most recent thread where I discuss it with Piotrus. I support working together on a task force. I support a limited amnesty. Guaranteeing a moratorium is meaningless judging by how sour the things are (and it is certainly not just Irpen vs Piotrus) but I can say that I am eager to work in good faith to avoid any RfAs. Most importantly, I wanted all the participating editors to pledge on three things: 1) to never call in reverts off-line; 2) to never seek sanctions or blocks as a valid method of resolving content disputes, particularly off-line (like at IRC); and 3) to not log stuff for the purpose of having a weapon to use at an opportune time. I am certainly willing to abide by such restrictions that I followed all along anyway. The remedies I am going to propose are largely along the same lines. It was never my intention to have Piotrus blocked or restricted in any other way. I have no problem with those remedies being aimed at myself as well as refraining from the above mentioned practices is what I will always do. If we ban such conduct, however, we must acknowledge that it is harmful. So far, we were unable to do this, including at this very workshop. --Irpen 00:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems indeed a progress, as you are not asking me to admit I did things I didn't do. I can certainly pledge to the above with the understanding that it is simply confirming my normal editing policies. PS. I again would like to ask Irpen to pledge to refrain from discussing me and other editors like I asked him not to do before. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am sincerely heartened by the above from Irpen and Piotrus. Discussing why editors did what they did, whether it was justified or not, and so on is only going to boil down to recriminations over the siege mentality that has developed on both sides. To improving circumstances, we must let go and start fresh. —PētersV (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, you don't have to "admit" to anything. What you did and what you did not do can be seen by anyone who reads evidence. The content of your black book and its fragments' being posted by you verbatim to AE and other boards at the opportune times (like this set [164] [165], this set [166] [167] or this set [168] [169]) as well as several #admins logs from this year [170] show whether or not you indeed sought sanctions of your content opponents by improper means and logged their activities to have a weapon ready to strike when the time is "ripe". If you (as well as everyone else) won't do it from now on we may see a great climate improvement in this sector of Wikipedia.

Vecrumba, the fault in your suggestion is that it paints this case merely a personal conflict and there are no bad behaviors to be considered by ArbCom. This ArbCom is not about a personal conflict and no ArbComs should be about personal conflicts. I support shaking hands and getting on with editing but this all was never about me. The problem here is not whether Piotrus, myself and you can shake hands because it was never about how we all like each other but it was all about conduct. No one should bring arbitration based on personal complaints. They should be about policy violations. I will be happy to be amiable with Piotrus. But there must be no policy violations and whether there were and if so, what can be done to prevent them from recurring, is what we are here to determine. If a handshake was all that is needed to stop revert wars coordinated by IM and sanctions of opponents being sought as means to win content disputes, I doubt we would have been where we are. Everyone agrees that such things aren't good. We can shake hands and pretend that nothing wrong was going on. But if we don't solve a problem we will be back arguing and complaining, perhaps at yet another arbcom, in no time as blockshopping and rabid revert warring will continue, quality of content will suffer and good editors will be getting burned out, leaving or getting radicalized. We are here to determine what needs to be done. Doing nothing did not help. Past arbcom decisions (general sanctions and loaded guns being handed to ANI courts) did not help but made situations worse. We need to find something that will work. --Irpen 09:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(quote [from Irpen]) "good editors will be getting burned out, leaving or getting radicalized." (endquote) Respectfully disagree with this quote. Good editors achieve their "radicalized state" approx. after 1-2 months on WP. From then on it's constant. So, seeing if a person gets more readicalized is IMHO a Litmus test for good editor. An especially dangerous form of radicalization is concentrating it on a number of "enemy" editors. Something that will work is to ban using WP politics to target others for "behavior". It should be ok to bring to ArbCom only cases based on content disputes on a larger topic, disputes that re-appear here and there over a period of time. ArbCom should itself discover "bad behavior". (By checking articles history or in talk pages, veryfying diffs.) ArbCom should not be told "Here I am going to present a case, but in fact you know it has a long pre-history of bad behavior, so I'm not going to bring you specific recent diffs - you of course are welcome to read this 200 pages independently until tomorrow morning -, but I will give you a general overview of this bad behavior with 2-years old diffs, which BTW we were told by a previos composition of the Arbcom, when you were not yet on it, that we should forget, but I won't tell you that so as not to undermine my case." Dc76\^talk 12:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen recuses himself from articles dealing with the history of the Soviet Union as it relates to its former sphere of influence

Given the logical conclusion that a task force will only institutionalize conflict, this editor-specific remedy will serve to relieve the atmosphere of bad faith which currently envelopes the Baltic, Central, and Eastern European sphere of articles with regard to history and the role of the Soviet Union. This can be voluntary or mandatory, this can be temporary or permanent. A voluntary six-month cooling off period would demonstrate personal commitment to good faith. A more vigorous remedy may be enforced at the discretion of Arbcom.

Very strange proposal Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Take a break, edit something not having to do with the Soviet legacy in its occupied territories and satellites. Avoid conflict. Create content." —PētersV (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Martintg

Proposed principles

Misleading evidence (1)

Misrepresentation, manipulation and skewing of evidence presented to AN/I and other forums, including and not confined to:

Tendentious presentation of out-of-context evidence about an editor in order to give the impression that he or she maliciously committed disruptive acts, in order to malign them
Manipulation of a particular incident in order to lend credence to the first point, for example, by wrecking achieved consensus after the fact with meat puppetry so as to claim said consensus did not exist and thus advancing the notion the editor acted in bad faith, or by massively restructuring and deleting sourced content, with the assistance of tag teamers, from articles that have recently achieved A-class status in order to give the impression that the targeted editor is an unreasonable edit warrior.

is considered to be a form of particularly malicious incivility, which along with assumptions of bad faith, is especially damaging to the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Intentionally or not, those issues contribute to the problem I outlined in this section of my evidence.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Probably could be expressed in a better way, but I think the gist of it is an important principle. Martintg (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supported. PētersV (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem is that this proceeding follows a path driven by the rules. Let's use something else as an example, namely Holodomor. We can agree that it is a poster child for an article where two individuals can read the same exact source and come away with editorial conclusions that are 180 degrees from each other heading off to infinity in opposite directions. And so it is with "evidence" and the entire manner in which these proceedings are structured. Assume something is not "cut and dried" (some single act which so grossly violates WP policy that it cannot be subject to interpretation). Let's follow along:

Based on diffs, diffs encouraged and required.
Diffs are quotes out of context. Let's not pretend they are anything else. Poster children for the phrase "cherry picked."
Context to ~~diffs~~ quotes out of context is provided by complainant
This is a two part narrative:
1. The assemblage and chronology of events
2. The interpretation of said assemblage and chronology of events
Complainant's context is interpretive
An interpretation is a version or view of facts, it is not factual, it is not in any way demonstrated to be true, Q.E.D., beyond all doubt.

So, what does that make a Request for Arbitration? We all present evidence as if it's

Q.E.D. (that would be black and white)

when we're really after a:

conviction based on circumstantial evidence. (that would be shades of gray)

where we view our own role through rose coloured glasses.

So, what is the answer? I would suggest the following:

Require pointers to conversation threads, not to diffs out of context.
Complainant summarizes their complaint and conclusion succinctly, not peppered with a dozen diffs.
Interpretation is left to admins who read through the conversation threads and come to their own conclusions as regards the complainant's interpretation.

Yes, this fundamentally changes the way we conduct these proceedings, but we've already proven the current way doesn't work. This is not necessarily the answer across all of Wikipedia, but it might work better than the current "arrangement" where there is a known community of editors in contention. —PētersV (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This analysis really gets to the nub of a major problem: much of the mud that is slung comprises diffs taken out of context. Nihil novi (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support both Martin's proposal and Peters' three-point "answer to the problem". Dc76\^talk 12:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Ostap

Proposed findings of fact

Piotrus has done nothing to warrant disciplinary action

1) There is no solid evidence that Piotrus has done what he is accused of [171]. He is not combative, no evidence that he uses meatpuppets, he is not uncivil, no evidence that he is in command of a personal cabal, no evidence that he abuses his admin status and his evidence gathering was within norms of the community. Because he has done nothing wrong, he does not deserve any disciplinary action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Thank you.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support without qualification or reservation. Nihil novi (talk) 04:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Nihil Novi. Tymek (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dc76\^talk 12:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A classic case of accusations of bad faith born of bad faith. Per all above. —PētersV (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

No action taken against Piotrus

1) Nothing should be done to Piotrus (except perhaps praise of his content creation as Alex Bakharev suggested above). He should not be banned, desysopped, forced to have his adminship re-confirmed, or whatever else.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Thank you.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support unreservedly. This is the most concise and appropriate conclusion possible concerning this sorry proceeding. Nihil novi (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support again. Piotrus is a person to whom Wikipedia owes a lot. Tymek (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dc76\^talk 12:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suppoer per all above. —PētersV (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Kirill Lokshin

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard, as per Sam above. Kirill ^(prof) 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strong support. Extremely important. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to flame those with different POV. PS: Sam proposed an identical policy above, I believe. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support it is the root of the conflict Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Self-evident, but I have no problem with principles which state the obvious. They have to be considered traditional by now. Perhaps the committee could have them turned into boilerplate text on a template and included on the decision page when the case is opened. It would save time and allow editors unfamiliar with the arbitration process to see what a principle actually looks like. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support we should never forget why we are here Dc76\^talk 03:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Angus said. --Irpen 21:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard, as per Sam above. Kirill ^(prof) 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment: seems reasonable in general but lumps too much stuff together. For example "incivility", while bad, is a loosely defined term, is in the eyes of beholder and can be gamed. Harassment and personal attacks should not be tolerated under any circumstances. Suggest splitting. Condemning gaming the system is very useful but it is best not to lump together the violations that clearly belong to different leagues. --Irpen 21:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh, here we go. "Civility" was useless, so now we go for an even more of a doily concept, "decorum?" In fact, "decorum" is harder to define than "civility," but, more to the point, it exists solely in the eye of the observer. This I can say as a scholar, not as an observer: at various times in history, "decorum" has been held up as a standard in art, and those are the times when we find both fig leaves painted over works by the masters, chiseled onto sculptures, and we find critics praising and damning the very same works for "lack of decorum." If culturally homogeneous persons of the same ethnicity and nationality could not agree with each other about "decorum" when they shared a religion and education, holding it up for an international project is an act of mind boggling foolishness or divisiveness.

(Continued) Furthermore, as an ArbCom finding, this is filled with non sequiturs. Not only does it propose "decorum" ("language which is consistent with its rhetorical surroundings"), but it adds in "bring the project into disrepute." These are at odds with one another. Language which might bring the project into disrepute might be the polite concurrence of neo-Nazi apologists, the harmonious editing of the pedophiles, the pleasant discussion of nationalists distorting the historical record to the point that outside reviewers note that we tell lies. To this intellectual chimera, Kirill adds "prohibited" and sanctions which have never, ever been part of any of the language policing. Instead of relying on conversation to correct conversation, this finding would add power and coercion. History has never had a single example of people being coerced into decorous behavior, and I doubt it will have one now. Geogre (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary – and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard, as per Sam above. Kirill ^(prof) 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree in principle. There are cases there a consensus was reached on the talked pages: e.g. Dantzig Convention or Vilno/Wilno/Vilnius or Kiev/Kyiv or Holodomor being Genocide, or avoiding the word Liberate in describing Soviet retaking of Eastern Europe, etc. We are bound to have SPAs periodically break the consensuses still reverting them is not edit warring. The difference should be somehow mentioned otherwise we shoot ourselves in the foot Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree that edit war against consensus as in this case indeed falls under such definition (one can see from the diffs that the same user I. repeatedly reverts changes by many different editors). Otherwise, this is very subjective. We know that individual reverts are allowed. What is indeed explicitly forbidden are 3RR violations. One could rule that any user who made more than N 3RR violations will be automatically placed on 1RR restriction. That would be objective and fair.Biophys (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard principle that applies pretty much everywhere. 3RR is not an entitlement to revert war. Even 1 revert per day can be considered an edit war in some cases. If the ideal cycle is followed strictly by users in a dispute, then there shouldn't be an issue - that cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is what to do when BRD breaks down. Particularly when dealing with "true believers", who refuse any discussion other than the one everybody completly agrees with them. What happens is that we file for an RfC, get neutral editors who usually disagree with the "true believers", but who often will not edit the article - they consider their role "done" after a comment or two. And the "true believers" are always happy to skirt the 3RR. Only when enough editors disagree with them on talk and keep reverting them in mainspace, they go away - usually by moving to another article (hence the "traveling circus" term coined in Folantin's discussions some time ago). As I've described in another of my mini-essays - this one on edit warring - often the choice neutral editor face is to give up and let the edit warring "true believers" win, ask admins for intervention (which often will not be given until 3RR has been broken or at least approached consistently for some time), or keep reverting the "true believers", risking to be branded edit warriors themselves. What's more, with the traveling circus approach this goes on and on, leading to the point that editors familiar with "true believers" know that discussion is close to pointless ("true believers" often recycle the same arguments on discussion pages and engage in personal attacks), but have to go through the pain of showing this to neutral RfC editors over and over, in each new article visited by the circus. In other words - when the "discussion" part breaks down, the entire system is in trouble, yet proving to neutral observers that the "true believers" have an established record of not discussing in good faith is quite difficult (which is when you get radicalization). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you're encountering troubles with a problem editor, you should try to comply with these 3 fundamental principles as much as possible. When the cycle breaks down, you use the dispute resolution process - tendentious editing is increasingly becoming well recognized by both the community and the Committee and is being treated accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is usually not "treated accordingly". To the contrary, things becomes worse and worse. That is why we have this case. What we actually need is an editorial board that rules on the article's content. We only went as far only because there are a few dedicated wikipedians like Piotrus or Connelly who act as de facto members of the content editorial board in WP (which does not mean these people are always right). I am going to always support such people, even if I had a few disputes with them (and in fact I had such dispute with Connelly), because this is needed for the sake of the project.Biophys (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they are being treated accordingly - I presume you may not be having much success due to a severely flawed approach or because of the nature of this dispute. The community has ridden the project of several such editors in the past few months alone. While there were several considerations, one of them being that the community was ready to handle such users, both the community and the Committee explictly rejected an idea of a sourcing adjudication board, let alone a content editorial board. Obviously, certain disputes like this one aren't going to get looked at by the community - far too many parties, not enough concrete evidence for some claims, area of editing, type of user etc. etc. etc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and in 99% BRD works. The problem is when in the remaining 1% it doesn't. That happens when few editors - "true believers" - refuse to participate in the D part (discussion) - they discuss, all right, but simply to restate that they are right and their opponents are wrong (peppered with personal attacks). Eventually, DR and input of neutral editors makes them give up on a given article for a period of time, while at the same time they disrupt other articles with "tendentious editing" and increasingly harass their opponents wherever they can. True, our system at the end usually does the right thing - but it takes so long to do the right thing, that in the meantime, many editors give up and leave (and those who stand up to disruptive users slowly see their reputation ruined). I don't think we need a content board - what we need is a way to deal with radicalized editors and "true believers" faster, a way that would make the life easier for civil content creators and others who are here to try to build an encyclopedia (and a way that would make life more difficult for flamers and trolls). PS. Consider why I have never initated an ArbCom or even RfC myself: because they cost so much time and stress and prevent me from creating content (which is the reason I joined this project) that I preffer to suffer the harassmet rather than to invest a ton of time required to deal with it (and the ton of time I invested in the arbcoms I was made a party to in the past has in any case not been sufficient, as the harassers I and others mentioned then are still at large and happily mudding the waters in this case, too). It is only because I saw good editors and content creators chased away by the harassers that I started to compile evidence (and also because I knew that the harassers would start a new arbcom involving me eventually). Bottom line is that good, civil content creators are leaving, and wikipolitics savvy harassers require a ton of effort to deal with. The system is not broken, but it is in dire need of repair. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. The general atmosphere in the Russian/EE section of WP is much worse than it was two years ago, and this case is much worse than anything I have seen before. I almost stopped creating anything new, because I am closely watched by a tag team. This project is breaking down.Biophys (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate these responses. Unfortunately, detecting these type of editors can be difficult, as these editors often do not directly violate the conduct standards, and if they do, it is often overlooked because of compliance with the principle of assuming good faith. Going through the edits of such an editor can have a draining effect (or one that produces burn-out, as Raul654 has said in an essay, iirc). Overall, it can take a long before anything is done. I know some users are trying to find quicker ways of identifying such editors and putting a stop to their disruption. Unfortunately, I personally don't think there are any shortcuts, or much we can do beyond what is done already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is perhaps the biggest danger to the project. The software can scale up, but can the community? As civil editors are burnt out/chased away, and uncivil flamers/harassers remain, I am afraid that the proportions of disruptive users to the rest of the community is increasing, resulting in a vicious downward spiral creating more and more battlegrounds, radicalized editors, and such. How to deal with it? Of course, this is the one million barnstars question :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that the EE (have worked minimally on Russian) section of WP has gotten much worse over the past couple of years, per Biophys. And it is ALL, I repeat, ALL the result of one-dimensional POV pushing. Single issue voters have remanifested themselves as single issue single POV editors. And so...

"Adding materials based on reputable sources"--easily becomes "MY" reputable sources only
Disputing the reputability of reputable sources--this happens endlessly, sometimes deserved, but now far more often to the purpose of eliminating balanced article narrative, that is:
- HERE IS MY REPUTABLE SOURCE SUPPORTING MY POV
- THEREFORE YOUR SO-CALLED REPUTABLE SOURCE NOT SUPPORTING MY REPUTABLE SOURCE ("my reputable source" being code words for "my highly POV interpretation of this particular source") IS WRONG AND INADMISSIBLE
- edit war follows
I hold out Boodlesthecat as just one among this class of editor. All reputable sources support their one-sided portrayal of a subject. Any editorial expression which does not support their POV is summarily deleted EVEN WHEN TAKEN FROM REPUTABLE SOURCES ALREADY CITED IN THE ARTICLE. Any sources which might provide perspective to the subject do not apply to the subject.

Good writing about history demands a priori the use of numerous reputable sources and not endlessly disputing those sources (except when in error, and I had one of those arguments with the now banned Anonimu). Good writing about history weaves an informative narrative that incorporates numerous reputable sources offering multiple insights. The community of editors willing to edit to such consensus, to write an informative narrative based on numerous reputable sources, not just the "single definitive source" (theirs), has dwindled to a handful. Most of those reputable and thoughtful editors have been run off over the last two years and Wikipedia is the far, far, far poorer for it. Meanwhile, the true believers point to their accomplishments in beating down their opposition and increasing the crop of dismally one-sided articles. —PētersV (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: good principle but per my talk page post should be preceded by a principle that addresses the concept of edit war. The principle seems to imply that "edit war" is a form of bad conduct. My understanding of edit war agrees with that. However, edit war's definition cannot be reduced to a simple number of reverts. --Irpen 22:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes

4) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard, as per Sam above. Kirill ^(prof) 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Consider a user who repeatedly inserts a claim that Earth is flat, or a user who is trying to "prove" that Jews deserve to be exterminated. Is that a good-faith dispute?Biophys (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every POV has the right to be represented in due weight. The problem is, what to do with "true believers", who refuse to compromise and adhere to NPOV? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom should settle guide-lines for resolving recurrent content disputes, when a topic (not just an article, but a wide range of them) gets bugged. In a sense, ArbCom is the authority that writes a "How to" guide for admins to take actions, and also the ArbCom takes itself the initail action that it deems necessary in order to start implementing the "How to" guide, for example ArbCom can ban a user or two that would otherwise undermine the application of the "How to" guide. Conclusion: 1) A good-faith content dispute is always resolved in the articles' talk, it never gets to ArbCom. 2) If it got to ArbCom, it is either a bad-faith dispute or an attempt to use WP-politics to hurt an "enemy", if not by banning him, at least by taking so much of his time that he no longer edits content. So, filing such ArbCom cases is a win-win situation for those that cannot do a dispute in the talk page and actually arrive at something there. Dc76\^talk 12:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very good conclusion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dc76's analysis is absolutely impeccable and spot-on. —PētersV (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vested contributors

5) Editors are expected to make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "permitted" instead of "expected". There are plenty of good editors who don't ignore all rules from time to time, too; that isn't considered a failing.... Also, I'm not certain about the title. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support, however in my experience "strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia" very rarely go together with "excuse repeated violations of basic policy". The real problem is that it is not easy to deal with users whose contributions to the encyclopedia are small, but who combine "excuse repeated violations of basic policy" with high skills in wikilawyering (and/or support by tag teams). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree, but the following may be more relevant in this case: WP is not a justice system. The purpose of ArbCom is to ensure good work of the project. To achieve that goal, it is important to provide good working conditions for the most productive contributors, unless these contributors violate WP policies, as proven beyond the reasonable doubt. So, I believe the productivity of an editor is an important factor, and Piotrus was many times more productive than other people involved in this case, perhaps excluding only Deacon.Biophys (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, we still have such a spirit of the project rule somewhere, regarding the ArbCom? It should be a bolded motto at the top of every page here... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Per Nyb, though~~ I'd probably favour keeping the title as is as opposed to something like 'established users'. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, permitted isn't quite the word either. Keeping it implict may be a good idea here too; "editors might make mistakes...." Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we're used to it being called "Vested Contributors" now! Yes, "expected" is not quite the word, nor is "permitted" I fear. "It is accepted that editors may make mistakes ..."? And that's not so great either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

6) Users should not respond to inappropriate behavior in kind, or engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 02:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support PētersV (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circumstantial evidence

7) Absent an extraordinary and compelling need to do so, the Committee will not sanction an editor solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In particular, editors will not be sanctioned for participating in a collective violation of policy without direct and concrete evidence of their involvement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 03:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Defining an extraordinary and compelling need will vary with interpretation, and it's probably better to keep it implicit. Although I like most of what is said, I'd prefer a little less rigid wording. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what is "direct and concrete evidence". For example, would a preliminary agreement of users I and R followed by a synchronized edit war constitute an evidence of collective action? Or would an open admission of users I and A to work as a team constitute a direct evidence of collective action? I am not talking about violation - that should be determined by ArbCom.Biophys (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This wording suggests Case dismissed due to lack of direct evidence, although there was a lot of circumstancial one. In fact it should be Case filed in bad-faith. No evidence to alegations were found. Evidence found for using ArbCom cases in a campain of wikilawyering. Wikilawyers given a cool-off period for filing cases. Dc76\^talk 12:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Case filled/evidence presented in bad faith" is a very important finding to consider. Are certain editors presenting evidence to address honestly perceived grievances - or are they presenting it so they can harass, defame and chase off their content opponents? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compelling, yes, but not extraordinary. If it were truly extraordinary there wouldn't be an average of 2-3 cases running at any one time, half or more of which end with some form of sanctions. As for circumstantial evidence, that is used frequently elsewhere on Wikipedia (WP:SSP, WP:RFCU, probably others). I see no reason why it shouldn't be acceptable here. I don't see this as a very sound general principle. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living persons

8) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 21:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support - it is often tempting to use Wikipedia to attack a living person someone disagree with but this is wrong. Removing such materials is not whitewashing Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Administrators

9) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 21:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Use of administrator tools in disputes

10) Administrator status or tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content or policy dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 21:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support. A principle I've adhered to for years. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Common sense

11) Not every aspect of Wikipedia activity can be exhaustively prescribed by written policy; experienced editors are expected to have a modicum of common sense and understanding, and to act in a constructive manner even if not explicitly forced to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 13:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

WP:COMMON, WP:IAR, WP:AGF... of course.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

So far the most commendable principle of this proposal. However, it will remain useless unless coupled with findings that some editors behaved insensibly and remedies that address such behavior despite no explicit policy sanctions apply. This would be tricky, subject to backfire if not done with utmost care and would require the highest degree of deliberation on the arbitrators' part but if done well, this could indeed solve some of the most difficult long-standing problems. --Irpen 05:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial disputes and "The Wrong Version"

12) Editors—particularly experienced editors—are expected to recognize the onset of an editorial dispute, and to work towards calming it rather than escalating or prolonging it. In particular, once it is clear that a certain revision or passage is disputed, it is unhelpful to revert it to one's preferred version until the dispute is resolved (with certain narrow exceptions). All editors must be willing to allow the article to remain in "The Wrong Version" while dispute resolution is proceeding.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, in part to address Irpen's questions regarding the edit-warring findings; could probably be worded better. Kirill ^(prof) 13:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support. WP:BRD, as I've noted, works most of the time. But [[User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_the_most_dangerous_of_mindsets|sometimes it doesn't] - when you run into editors who refuse to discuss, or whose idea of discussion is somewhere along WP:NPA/WP:HARASS.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples would be nice to illustrate your point. --Irpen 05:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. In the spirit of this proposal, it would help to mention that in a case of a valid dispute a revert that removes a tag or tags that indicate disputes are especially unhelpful. On the other hand, tagging may be disruptive too and made only to WP:POINT. Common sense is required as always. --Irpen 05:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casting aspersions

13) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. This includes accusations concerning off-wiki conduct, such as participation in criminal acts, membership in groups which take part in such acts, or other actions that might reasonably be found morally reprehensible in a civilized society.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, after the similar principle in the Zeraeph case. Kirill ^(prof) 20:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support - very important. One comment, however: this should not impede the ability to present one's case in an ArbCom, provided, of course, that if the ArbCom does not find the evidence credible or sufficient, this is noted, and a party making such claims will not make them further. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support strongly. I basically said the same thing in #Flagrant accusations of exceptionally egregious abuse principle. However, not only direct but thinly veiled accusations should be covered as unacceptable behavior. --Irpen 05:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Endemic conflict

1) Numerous past cases (including Digwuren, Piotrus [1], Occupation of Latvia, and AndriyK) have dealt with conflicts arising from various disputes related to Eastern Europe and the editors working on the affected articles—notably including several of the parties to the present case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Background. Kirill ^(prof) 03:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The above sentence may imply partial recognition of my motion above, as so far the only official parties are me and Deacon (and I've never been involved in OoL and AndriyK arbcoms).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the case of Eastern Europe we are bound to have an endemic conflict no matter what. The conflict arrises from the clashing historical narratives and national historiographies in the real life. The challenge is to channel the conflict into productive colloborative work that show all the points of view and all notable arguments rather than sterile edit war, personal attacks and block shopping Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes, as a matter of fact.Biophys (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, also Anonimu case. Since this finding implies, among other things, that the endemic conflict persisted despite past cases' remedies, it should be noted, additionally, that except for the ancient AndriyK's case, all other cases were drafted by the same arbitrator of an entire Arbcom, see background. I understand that this reminder may be seem like a bitter pill and, possibly, as I explained in this comment, the reason is the problems' complexity rather than the past decisions' deficiencies but I think it's time to analyze this and, if the fault is at least partly in the deficiencies of past decisions, make some adjustments. I tried to analyze what these past decisions had in common here. --Irpen 06:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

2) All articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted, are currently subject to discretionary sanctions, as outlined in the Digwuren case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Background. Kirill ^(prof) 03:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Sanctions which have proven game'able/disruptable by tag teams (example1, example2).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions were indeed gamed and abused. Firstly, by serving the honeypot for the trigger happy admins when in the mood to go around showing who is in charge. On the other hand, these sanctions contributed to a development of a sophisticated culture of block-shopping. One example of such gaming is assembling diffs for months (instead of (not in addition to) addressing incidents as they happen), unload them to the noticeboards followed by running to #admins for a friendly closure. But as for being "gamed" by tag teams, I am not sure what Piotrus means. Take, eg. his example1. Editors opposed to the applicability of the sanctions were Elonka, Alex Bakharev, Novickas, Angus McCellan, Deacon and myself. Piotrus seems to identify the "Russian", "Lithuanian", "German" and "Jewish" tag-teams on Wikipedia. So, what is the tag team to which these editors above belong? --Irpen 06:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can the Digwuren discretionary sanctions be expanded to include Stalinist and KGB/FSB trolls to the list of the forbidden characteristics? It is one-sided as it is now Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actual sanctions don't mention any specific examples; they're completely open. The only portion of the remedies which mentions anything in particular is a warning provision, but that's not actionable, nor part of the formal sanctions. Kirill ^(prof) 03:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support expanding the existing ruling to include KGB/FSB allegations. I don't understand KL's objection. The Nazi/Holocaust denial remedy is clearly stated and still stands [172] - why do you object to these additions, and describe the remedy as not actionable? Am I missing some legal shading? Novickas (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A warning is not actionable or binding in and of itself, since any actual sanction related to it would go through the Committee again. (Not that I have any problems with issuing more warnings, of course; but I've gotten the sense that editors are looking for something more substantive from us.) Kirill ^(prof) 00:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All editors in this case are certainly subjects to Digwuren ruling, as Kirill said. One should make a clear difference between debating articles on controversial subjects, such as Holocaust denial and making accusations about a specific WP user. Telling something like "User X is troll" is not allowed. But there is nothing intrinsically offensive to be a "Stalinist" (many people in Russia proudly identify themselves as such - this is a matter of personal convictions), and there is nothing wrong with working in an intelligence organization.Biophys (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that the Sun rises in the east is hardly sufficient. The finding on discretionary sanctions should not just state that they are there but whether they helped. --Irpen 06:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinated editing

3) It is almost certain that externally coordinated editing—meaning an off-wiki, premeditated undertaking by several editors to perform certain agreed-upon (whether in specific or general form) edits—has taken place, and continues to take place, on articles within the area of conflict. However, because such external coordination leaves little or no direct evidence, it is generally difficult to distinguish among several possible scenarios:

(a) Editor A edits in support of editor B because A and B have explicitly coordinated their editing.

(b) Editor A edits in support of editor B because A has a personal relationship B, but where A and B have not explicitly coordinated their editing.

(c) Editor A edits in support of editor B because A shares a national, ethnic, or other viewpoint with B, but where A and B have not explicitly coordinated their editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Thoughts. Kirill ^(prof) 03:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

It is true Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

In certain cases people make a preliminary agreement on wiki or openly admit that they are going to support each other, as in two examples I provided above. In other cases, this may be judged as WP:DUCK, but this should be a clear pattern through a number of different situations or articles. For example, a continuous support by an administrator of users clearly identifiable as a group (by arguing in their favor at the ANI), may represent such case.Biophys (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a self-fulfilling prophecy - radicalization - occurring with coordination. When I first came to this project, I made a point of keeping any kind of communication on wiki, I even frowned at email, used to reply to wiki email with a comment "please consider communicating with me via talk pages in the future". But after continued accusations of cabalism and bad faith, email and IMs became more attractive, as they lessen the chance one will be accused of canvassing or cabalism. I still try to use on-wiki communication to the maximium, and off-wiki to the minimum, but in the end, any on wiki comment I make can be called by some bad-faithed harasser of mine canvassing, and such an accusation is in 99% unactionable - ignored on AN(I) as a "personal attack" of little seriousness and so on. And when using a private communication channel, radicalized attitudes become more likely to be expressed (people may say things in an email or in IM that they wouldn't say in public, IRC is the case in point as some people consider it private and others don't). Does it mean that (build in wiki) email or IMs should be forbidden? Of course not (this is not only impossible, but IMs in particular offer instantaneous communication, not offered by mediawiki). The real problem is bad faith and personal attacks, which leads to radicalization and teaches users that they should use off-wiki communication. Unlike unprovable off-wiki misdoings, bad faith, expressed on wiki, like accusations of canvassing and cabalism, is also identifiable and actionable. If there would be no bad faith and accusations in the first place, there would be much less off-wiki communication, and much less radicalization. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. But "difficult to distinguish" does not mean totally impossible. --Irpen 19:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But how do you tell which it is? We had an example of a party to the case engaging in one of these sorts of editing just yesterday and right next door, on the evidence page of this case. First Renata3 posts evidence concerning PoeticBent. This is followed immediately by Piotrus posting evidence concerning Renata3, and acknowledging that this is done in response to the evidence posted by her earlier in his edit summary. How can we determine whether this falls into group (a), (b) or (c)? Or perhaps we don't need to because decorum, forgive-and-forget and WP:BATTLE might actually matter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. In a community of editors with similar viewpoints watching similar articles (I've got close to 500 on my list) who check WP regularly, just about anything can look "coordinated." This is just another flavor of coordinated "meatpuppets." Requires a priori assumption of bad faith. —PētersV (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heightened tensions

4) Because of the endemic, long-term conflicts plaguing the topic area, many editors have at times experienced understandable—though regrettable—difficulty with assuming good faith of their counterparts. In such an environment, it is unfortunately possible for certain actions to be regarded as provocative even if the actions are not problematic in and of themselves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

More thoughts. Peaceful coexistence in this area requires a certain voluntary restraint beyond that expected of other areas. Kirill ^(prof) 03:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this sentiment. We want experienced editors and administrators to help work on contentious articles. Because of the difficulty in dealing with these topics, I understand that at times the good faith efforts of editors and admins will not work and perhaps even make a situation worse. But that said, these editors and admin need to take stock of the situation, and if their contributions are not helping then they need to reconsider their approach. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree, some sort of an engagement rules volunteerily adopted by experienced editors in the area might be very usefull Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think we should clearly define what is "provocation" and what is not. I think that insertion of properly sourced materials in an article can never be regarded as a provocation and belongs to good faith disputes (see above).Biophys (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radicalization is unfortunate, but should not be accepted. As soon as it is detected, affected users showing bad faith and similar symptoms should be subject to mentoring and the community should try to revert the radicalization. Of course, "true believers" that are impossible to de-radicalize and whose actions result in increased radicalization all around should be dealt with more harshly.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per one part of FloNight's comment, I think this isn't a finding that can ever be limited to one area of the pedia - all problem areas will have such heightened tensions. I was going to suggest changing this into a principle earlier for that reason. However, I don't think this is something that necessarily should be specified or else it'll be constantly championed by parties as an excuse rather than as something that uninvolved users excuse/discard themselves when and where appropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When people start seeing conspiracy lurking in off-wiki communications and "black books", start seeing "sophisticated incivility" in a thankyou note and start railing against "arbitrators' glaring lack of personal and judicial ethics", I'm thinking "burn-out", and I am thinking there may perhaps be a need for a long enforced wiki-break. Martintg (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At minimum, the wording should interchange the words "understandable" and "regretful". It is much more regretful, and it is hardly-hardly understandable. Per Ncmvocalist above, I also think this can be misused as an excuse. Dc76\^talk 12:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Irpen 19:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty

5) On 19 August 2007, as part of the decision in the Piotrus [1] case, a general amnesty was granted to "editors who [had] been involved in disputes in articles related to Eastern Europe, liberally defined".

Comment by Arbitrators:

More background. Kirill ^(prof) 04:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Is violating the amnesty punishable? Some editors have presented much or even most of the evidence based on pre-amnesty diffs (including some brought to arbcom before and ignored). This has not been criticized by clerks or arbcom members and contributes to making the amnesty solution worthless. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think background diffs explaining ongoing problems are useful. No actions on the stale pre-amnesy problems is of course needed Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes, everything that had happened prior to this amnesty should be disregarded here.Biophys (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to add "but the circumstances of this case are evidence that some forgot to bury the hatchet Dc76\^talk 12:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Piotrus. Clerks should ask to remove all pre-amnesty evidence about people noted in the amnesty.Biophys (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment above. Most editor's contributions must already exceed the 1000 word limit, so if this amnesty has any credibility, the clerks ought to remove all pre-amnesty diffs and related text. Only then will there be a clear picture of what alleged infractions have been committed since that point in time. Martintg (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor findings

Alden Jones

6.1) Alden Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred ([173], [174], [175], [176]) and used Wikipedia as a battleground ([177]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Is there a reason for avoiding (in all editor findings) the standard 'has engaged in disruptive/unseemly conduct, including edit warring and using Wikipedia as a battleground'? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the editors are winding up with multiple findings, so the standard, combined form isn't really useful here. Kirill ^(prof) 12:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Thank you for clarifying. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal fails to mention abusive sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive469#Massive sock farm through multiple wiki-projects and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alden Jones. --Irpen 19:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry is unproven, since the CheckUser case is stale (did you check that it was stale before posting it here as evidence?). Martintg (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A common pattern of evidence distortion: report and reframe past accusations as conclusions/findings (ex. start a thread in May about user's X incivility and in July, whatever the conclusion of that May thread was, refer to it as a "thread where we discuss User X incivility")...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to say that Alden Jones did not engage in sockpuppetry? --Irpen 22:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bakharev

6.2) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by Alex Bakharev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 20:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. The overall contribution of Alex to the project was very positive in my opinion. There are some problems, but they are relatively minor.Biophys (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boodlesthecat

6.3.1) Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has treated Wikipedia as a battleground; his actions to that effect have included repeated edit-warring ([178]) and incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks ([179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188]).

6.3.2) There is no convincing evidence that Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are accounts operated by the same individual.

6.3.3) Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has used the Wikipedia email system inappropriately.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 6.3.2. Kirill ^(prof) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 6.3.1 and 6.3.3. Kirill ^(prof) 00:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Still waiting on important findings regarding what I and many others addressed in evidence - enormous incivility and battleground creation... Would accusing scholars of "ethnonationalism" be a BLP violation? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification Are you asking if it's a BLP violation by me or by the reliable sources, e.g., Joanna Michlic, who "accuse" [sic] particlar scholars of ethno-nationalism? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If slander is printed and verifiable, it still doesn't mean its inclusion in our project is OK.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, if you are genuinely concerned that the characterizations in the article sourced to historians Laurence Weinbaum and Joanna B. Michlic violate BLP and constitute "slander," then shouldn't be hastily bringing those concerns to the BLP board, rather than to your Arb? Isn't that the proper place for your question "Would accusing scholars of "ethnonationalism" be a BLP violation?" Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Regarding 6.3.1: There is no excuse for incivility, but Boodlesthecat is regularly baited by Piotrus and his crew. Assuming good faith is an excellent guideline, but repeated demonstrations of bad faith can overwhelm one's ability to give other editors the benefit of the doubt. After a certain point, it's appropriate to stop pretending and just call a spade a spade. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Piotrus and his crew". Sigh. And how do we bait Boody? By "being there" and thus becoming target of his incivility and bad faith? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Piotrus and his crew" And here is how he summons them. And I asked you to stop calling me "Boody." And I assumed you agreed. So please stop it, Pootry. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parts 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 are correct statements of fact. 6.3.3 fails to note that sending an abusive email was a one-time mistake (do I understand it correctly?) for which he apologized profusely. Was his conduct improving with time? --Irpen 19:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were two abusive emails, and his apology was hardly "profuse" but seemed quite "forced" to me. That said, the emails do represent only a tiny fraction of his incivility and disruption. And no, based on my interactions with him, his conduct only worsened with times. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting, after half a year, for you to apologize for this, Piotrus. Even a "forced" apology. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to be clear here.

A while ago Boodlesthecat sent two (?) abusive emails to Piotrus and was blocked. He later apologized. Did he ever send any abusive emails after this incident?
Second, you, Piotrus, also made uncivil comments about Boodlescat off-wiki as late as on October 5. While his incivility, still inexcusable, was in an email to you, you badmouthed him behind his back at #admins. I think trashing people behind their backs and shopping to have them blocked that way is more inappropriate that saying bad things openly. (Note, I am not saying one is good and the other is bad. I am saying that one is bad and the other is worse.) My point is that if off-wiki bad conduct such as in the emails is an arbcom matter (and I support this view), so should be bad conduct at #admins. --Irpen 21:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon of Pndapetzim

6.5) Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred ([189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Oh, gimme a break. :) What about "Deacon of Pndapetzim has engaged in Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle", or "We're not entirely sure whether some of Deacon's edits constitute Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle or WP:Edit warring - as there is no clear distinction - but to appease certain peoples we'll declare some were edit-warring". That at least would be honest. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BRD cycle does not envision repeated, identical reversions over the course of multiple days. The latter diffs show nothing more than you and Piotrus reverting each other repeatedly; that's not BRD by any stretch of the imagination, regardless of who instigated this particular episode. Kirill ^(prof) 23:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, please note that in my diffs I tried to incorporate Deacon content and remarks from editors on talk. Deacon was just boldly reverting to his own version... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BRD cycle doesn't "envision" anything since it is not a person. But if are you actually talking about the same page you are quoting as evidence, Kiril, I find it hard to see where the confidence to call it EW rather than BRD comes from. Certainly no rational person could draw it from reality with such confidence, and seems more a way of trying to disapprove of something for the sake of it. Did I revert Piotrus in between several long posts on the talk page? Yes I did. Shame on me. ;) Similar reverts? Yes ... but this was because this was needed. Wikipedia also has content policies (I know everyone always forgets about these for some reason) and if that's the way it had to be then that's the way it had to be; the fact that there is a registered account trying to keep poor content in an article shouldn't make any difference. Not that I couldn't have done anything "better", but imperfection is only to be expected. I mean, this sort of thing happens as part of wiki's editing cycle ... it's a wee bittie strange to be proposing this in the context of the problematic behaviour under discussion in this arbcom, no? Well, that's the way it looks to me at least. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Finding fails to establish "edit warring". See "Bubba edit-warred" here. Needs to be either elaborated upon or stricken. --Irpen 20:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Irpen that there was no edit warring there Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kirill, seven diffs are rather compelling. Deacon's edits of the Boleslaw article was rather disruptive, some believe even combative, given the GA status of the article. Martintg (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon, you just admitted to multiple similar reverts, But claim that its not edit warring because you think it "was needed"? Does that mean I can revert people repeatedly but call it BRD because it was needed, or are you the only one that gets to do that?198.161.173.180 (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Martintg: that the article had a GA status despite being written without the use of major mainstream academic sources (and contradicting to them) is simply a demonstration of the flawed assessment process of the Wikipedia. This is a separate matter though. --Irpen 22:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Martintg's comment, GA status is proof of nothing in particular, and it certainly doesn't give the author(s) ownership of the article. And yes, edit-warring is very naughty, but it takes two. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However GA status does indicate a considerable amount of effort had gone into the article, and Deacon's massive revision and dismissive edit comments indicates a lack of courtesy anyone would rightly expect. It is not an ownership issue here. Why didn't Deacon raise his editorial concerns during the GA process, or follow the Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment process? If Deacon really was following Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, he should have moved to discussion after Piotrus reverted his initial "BOLD" changes. Martintg (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming that the Deacon was aware of the GA nomination. Evidently I can only speak for myself, but I rarely look at the list of GA nominations. I find it hard enough to keep an eye out for FA nominations that I might be interested in. Had I seen that GA nomination, I'd have failed it. I didn't see it, and it passed. But this is irrelevant. Little green blobs and brown stars do not, as a matter of policy, mean that articles may not be improved by editors who have the means and the will to do so. Consider the text which appears every time you click edit: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." What courtesy? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to excuse my ignorance, aren't notices of FA or GA nominations usually posted on article talk pages (where massive edits should be discussed prior to being made)? —PētersV (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never the less, Deacon claims he was following WP:BRD, so Deacon makes his "BOLD" change, Piotrus "Reverts" and then Deacon "Discusses"? Nope, Deacon reverts the revert, i.e. edit wars. Martintg (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg park avenue

6.6) Greg park avenue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has treated Wikipedia as a battleground; his actions to that effect have included violations of the BLP policy ([196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202]) and incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks ([203]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't think the term kick ass is offensive. If President Bush can use it in publicc in respect to political opponents [204], I feel it's save to do it by me. It's just a metaphor, although, if someone is offended, I apologize for it. There was nothing personal in it, just a matter of speech. I'm sure Jay-G, to whom it was addressed, as an all-American wouldn't mind. greg park avenue (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen

6.7.1) Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly edit-warred ([205]).

6.7.2) The interaction between Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to be confrontational, despite having been found wanting in the Digwuren case.

6.7.3) There is no definitive evidence that Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is responsible for any off-wiki editing coordination that may have occurred in this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 6.7.1. Kirill ^(prof) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 6.7.2. Kirill ^(prof) 12:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 6.7.3. Kirill ^(prof) 03:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

It is important to state who is responsible for that. Have I been going around, disrupting his articles and commenting about his alleged misbehaviors on Wikipedia? Or was it the other way around? This has also important implications for the remedies (a remedy equally affecting offender and victim would be rather unfair). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Piotrus in that it is indeed important to state who is responsible for what bad conduct. Without that "confrontational interactions" is an empty finding that also paints this case as a dispute between personalities rather than policy compliance and conduct issues. That I saw several issues in Piotrus' conduct a major obstacle to the harmonious editing climate is true. The major question here is whether we are indeed facing content and conduct policy violations with the the material obviously and blatantly violating our sourcing and neutrality polices [206] [207] (content) being pushed through "wrongful strategies of dispute resolution" [208] [209] (conduct). To this I just want to add that, as I asserted multiple times, I do not see this conflict as a personal one. For example while Piotrus examines my edits looking for whatever he can find that can be spun for his dossier, I neither follow his contributions, nor dump any of the diffs for the future use. I only interfere into "Piotrus'" new articles when he tries to push them to the main-page either through DYK ( this is where I find them) or assessment process. Caring about this project, I am concerned when poor content is about to hit the main page and get seen by tens of millions of people bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. And my problem with these articles are their policy compliance and have nothing to do with who their author is. As for the organized strategies, yes I do find it alarming when same 3-4 people show up at multiple articles they never edited exactly when Piotrus run out of reverts without leaving a word at the talk pages and this becomes repeated pattern, that while Piotrus preaches civility in public you he repeatedly badmouth people behind their backs on IRC to convince the channel members to interfere on his behalf (with blocks) and that the content of the detailed dossiers kept on a whole bunch of people gets unloaded to various boards at the opportune times. Such "strategies" are the conduct rather than personal issues. --Irpen 05:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how the reference proves 6.7.1. Productive work on a difficult to reach agreement on issue is not an actional editwarring Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment: on 6.7.1 see "Bubba edit-warred" here. Needs to be either elaborated upon or stricken. 6.7.2 seems wrongheaded as it paints the case to be largely a personal confrontation between users. Arbitration cases are not about editors liking each other or not. They are about the violations of behavioral and content policies. --Irpen 20:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if you accuse me of edit warring with other users, support the finding that I edit warred but disagree that they edit warred... well, edit warring often "takes two to tango", you know... I didn't edit war (IF I did at all, as you analyze this question on talk with your "Bubba" section) with myself why they were standing back and applauding :) Update: struck out per new Irpen's edits which invalidate this comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, despite what Irpen says, arbitration is primarily about resolving personal disputes, as confirmed by Jimbo here. There is most definitely an interpersonal dispute between Irpen and Piotrus, so 6.7.2 is definitely a valid FoF. There also needs to be another FoF that Irpen breached the spirit of the Piotrus amnesty by bringing pre-amnesty evidence to the case, if the ArbCom can't uphold its own previous remedies, we may as well all go home. Martintg (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Jimbo's quote you link and he says no such thing. --Irpen 03:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I see the primary role of the Arbitration Committee as having a dispute resolution function." Another microcosm. A completely valid interpretation on the part of Martintg yet Irpen states Jimbo "says no such thing." Let's stop with the narrowest letter of the law point interpretations which pronounce in no uncertain terms that every other interpretation is false. This is why Irpen generates as much editorial ill will as he does. —PētersV (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as of the proposal's update [210]: On 6.7.2., just to reiterate that "interactions confrontational" is rather devoid of substance and as such does not constitute a good finding. When people strongly disagree on important matters close to their hearts, that is what's good and what's bad for Wikipedia, the project to which Piotrus and myself are committed beyond reasonable doubt, the mere existence of such disagreement and its becoming a sticking point cannot be in itself a sign of anyone's wrongdoing to warrant a finding. What is behind the disagreement is by far more crucial than the disagreement in itself. Perhaps I am (or Piotrus is) just "harassing" Piotrus (myself)? If there is sensible evidence for either of these alternatives, the finding should say it and the "harasser" should be sanctioned. If my criticism of Piotrus' editing or his methods of dispute resolution (or his criticism of my own actions) has merit (btw, I never accused him of "harassment"), there is no foul play in the disputes' existence and it is the wrongful conduct being criticized on whoever part is what needs to be addressed.

For example, and I am of course as biased here as Piotrus is, if I point out at foul sourcing in articles on which we disagree, see #Misrepresentation of sources and the evidence sections "Dishonest editing", "Delving into BLP territory in a quest to miscast sources" and "Use of sources", there may be either that the sources are indeed manipulated by Piotrus or the sourcing is compliant and my criticism is bad faithed (I don't remember anyone alleging that I manipulate sources, but same should be done if I do.) Same applies to the choice of methods in dispute resolutions. If my complaints that Piotrus is following me everywhere with the goal to collect the material for his extensive dossier on myself to be used to call for blocks and sanctions when the time is ripe are a sensible reaction of any reasonable person who became a target of such activity then there is no wrongdoing on "confronting" Piotrus about such method of "dispute resolution". If however, Piotrus activity is nothing but commendable and I am simply trying to "harass" him and prevent him from pursuing his valid grievances, than the finding should be about my wrongdoing, not "confrontational relations".

On 6.7.1 and 6.7.3., I already asked (and asked again) for an elaboration, how a mere number of reverts in a complete disregard of the time frame and presence (or absence) and sensibility of attempts to engage everyone in discussions and disregard to how everyone else behaved indicates "edit-warring". My personal guideline is 1RR in most cases, and I avoid going above 2RR save few truly exceptional instances (I've never been at 3RR btw, which is not an entitlement anyway). I always make best use of talk pages and I never ever ask anyone to do a revert for me. I would really ask Kirill to explain this finding that I "edit war". --Irpen 09:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See #Editorial disputes and "The Wrong Version" above. The issue is not the number of reverts, either per day or total; the issue is that you continue to revert to your preferred version over the duration of a dispute, despite the fact that the disagreement is obviously not settled (e.g. this series of identical reverts: [211], [212], [213]). Even if you, personally, are only reverting once or twice a day, the net effect is still a pointless and unhelpful escalation of the dispute. Kirill ^(prof) 14:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? Did not you notice I thoroughly endorsed "The wrong version" principle above? Did you see what my "identical" reverts were? Because if it is clear to you that the "disagreement was obviously not settled" and if you cared to investigate and actually click on the links at the evidence page, my reverts were mostly restorations of the "disputed" tag precisely to indicate that the disputes are not settled. While several editors, mostly Relata refero and myself, went into lengthy explanations at the talk page and those objections were dismissed and tag repeatedly removed. You should really investigate the tag-removers, like Biophys and. especially Horlo and Bobanni, the latter two were clear Holodomor-SPAs. As for the removal of template:Holodomor, you should really click on the history and the talk page discussion of the template itself. While there was obviously a dispute about the template's content, originally a horrible soapbox same editors were inserting clearly disputable in good faith template into a main article. The right way was to settle the template content before inserting it in half-a-dozen articles like done by Bobanni, Horlo, Martintg. As soon as the content of the template was agreed upon, its presence in the article became fully accepted. The bottom line, Kirill, is that those edits by myself were not about reverting to specific content to mu liking but to ensure that the discussions aimed at settling the disputes continue. This is the ultimate purpose of the disputed templates in the first place. Did I explain the points of contention at talk? Were my explanations reasonable and good-faithed or tag-trolling? How does the activity by Bobanni, Horlo and Biophys (on repeated removal of the tags that indicate the dispute) compare to mine? Please investigate this thoroughly. --Irpen 20:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(which was eventually

Lokyz

6.9.1) Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred ([214], [215], [216]).

6.9.2) Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([217], [218]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 6.9.1. Kirill ^(prof) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 6.9.2. Kirill ^(prof) 23:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Personally I find his incivility/battleground creation (per evidence) much more problematic. As for BLP: [219].--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, please stop beating this dead horse about my purported incivility. What happened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive19#Lokyz is really instructive. You brought in a misleading complaint accusing me of the block-level incivility and the only person who agreed with your claims was the one who was brought to this thread by your shopping at #admins for someone who would close your complaint it in your favor. While at least five editors (3 of who were admins) saw your complaint to be without merit. This shows again that gaming WP:CIV by you in order to shop for blocks of your content opponents thus using WP:CIV as a weapon in content disputes is much bigger problem than my purported incivility. Besides, I never ever gossipped about you and called you names behind your back in emails and chats with other admins. This is not just uncivil but indicent and unethical, Piotrus. I also do find it rather disturbing to be labeled as "the most uncivil editor" and I do think that it is a character assasination attempt.Lokyz (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Finding fails to establish "edit warring". See "Bubba edit-warred" here. Needs to be either elaborated upon or stricken. --Irpen 20:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how is the diffs showing my three reverts at Truce of Vilna is a proof that I "edit warred"? The talk:Truce of Vilna shows that I was repeatedly discussing the problem in good faith. Or is anyone who ever reverted any single article 3 times guilty of "edit warring"?Lokyz (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M.K

6.10) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by M.K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 23:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

With a few exceptions (like for the findings on Piotrus), generally, I'm not fond of the idea of subjecting an editor to an ArbCom finding when all that is being conveyed is that there has been no actionable evidence. The fact that they're not mentioned in any finding or remedy should be enough in my view (same goes for similar findings below). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M0RD00R

6.11) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by M0RD00R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 21:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Malik Shabazz

6.12.1) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

6.12.2) See 6.3.2 above.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 6.12.2. Kirill ^(prof) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 6.12.1. Kirill ^(prof) 21:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I do have one comment here: When I first met Malik, he seemed to be a cool headed and resonable editor. Over time, however, I found Maliks encouragement of Boody to be ill thought and counterproductive. He is an editor Boody respect, I've asked him several times to mentor Boody, instead he kept encouraging him and even seems to be slowly adopting his attitude, being more and more incivil and bad faithed towards editors who disagree with Boody.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an example of a single instance in which I have been incivil. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 16:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, October diffs: accusing Polish editors of baf faith and cabalism with the barnstar for Boody above; accusing greg of trolling in an edit summary; accusing me of Jew baiting, accusation me of "recruting edit warriors", accusation of vandalism and POINT... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg was trolling, you had no reasonable basis on which to lump historians together as practitioners of a fictional "Jewish historiography" except their religion, you had recruited edit warriors, and you had vandalized the article with "page number" tags despite the fact that the sources had URLs. I'm sorry that calling a spade a spade seems to you like incivility. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 18:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Even SPADE stresses in the nutshell remember to remain civil. ~1000 books who talk about Jewish historiography are not antisemitic. Adding tags appropriate per WP:CITE and WP:V asking for page numbers is not vandalism. As for your claims that I "recruited edit warriors"... this is offensive not only to me but to many users in question.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single source that discusses "Jewish historiography" with respect to Żydokomuna (see WP:OR), there is no requirement for page numbers so long as the reader can find the information in the source (see WP:V), and with respect to recruiting edit warriors, the facts speak for themselves. Don't you think it's about time that you stop hiding behind WP:CIVIL and start taking responsibility for your actions here? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Martintg

6.13) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 20:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personally, I think that Martintg's obsession about my person is unhealthy [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] but my own sensitivities does not have to be an ArbCom matter if the committee sees nothing wrong with his diffless and combative posts. --Irpen 09:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead

6.14.1) Matthead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks ([227]).

6.14.2) Matthead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ([228]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 6.14.1. Kirill ^(prof) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 6.14.2. Kirill ^(prof) 22:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Molobo

6.15.1) Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly engaged in edit-warring ([229]).

6.15.2) Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently subject to a voluntary editing restriction, as outlined below:

Upon conditions, as we agreed. These are
That you stick to a limit of one revert per page per week, and that you discuss all reverts you do make on the relevant talk page. If you violate this limit, you may be blocked by any administrator for any time limit up to a week.

That you stick to the Digwuren restriction: if you make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, you may be blocked for any time limit up to a week.
After four upheld blocks due to violation of this restriction or other issues, the indefinite block I originally placed will be reapplied. Agreed? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 6.15.1 and 6.15.2. Kirill ^(prof) 00:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The block log may look bad but look at the dates: it's mostly from 2006. He has repeatedly edit warred until 2006, but is it really justified to say that about post-amnesty period in 2008? I think Molobo has greatly improved his behavior since the end of his block, notably - there have been no incidents since his voluntary restriction since June. I would think that a finding 6.15.12 would be sufficient, and/or should be accompanied by a note that he is being a constructive editor now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Novickas

6.16) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by Novickas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 21:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree. I don't see why the decision should even mention this editor in any way. --Irpen 22:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus

6.17.1) Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly edit-warred ([230]).

6.17.2) Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has used his administrative tools and status inappropriately, including unprotecting articles in cases of personal involvement ([231]), and using threats of administrative action to further violations of BLP policy ([232]).

6.17.2.1) Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has at times used his administrative tools and status inappropriately; for example, he has used threats of administrative action to further violations of BLP policy ([233]).

6.17.3) There is no definitive evidence that Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is responsible for any off-wiki editing coordination that may have occurred in this case.

6.17.4) See 6.7.2 above.

6.17.5) Piotrus's activity on the Polish Wikipedia lies outside the Committee's remit. There is no evidence that anything related to said activity constituted a violation of policy on the English Wikipedia.

6.17.6) There is no evidence that Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is connected with or has edited on behalf of Armia Krajowa or any other organization.

6.17.7) On the whole, there is no convincing evidence that Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has acted in bad faith, or that he is motivated by anything other than the best interests of the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 6.17.1–6.17.3. Kirill ^(prof) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted 6.17.4. Kirill ^(prof) 12:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 6.17.5. Kirill ^(prof) 23:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 6.17.6. Kirill ^(prof) 23:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 6.17.2.1 and 6.17.7. Kirill ^(prof) 00:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I disagree with the findings and conclusion from 6.17.2. First, two exceptions to the rule should not be made into a generalization. Second: regarding unprotection - I have unprotected an article that was protected by an admin also involved in discussion, editing and edit warring ([234]), restoring the status que since it was that admin that has used admin tools to affect the article in the first place, not me. When he reverted my unprotection, I did not wheel war but asked community for input (on ANI, if I recall correctly). Gamaliel has unprotected the article week later and it has not been protected since. Regarding "threats of administrative action to further violations of BLP policy", it was never concluded that there was a BLP policy violation (it was a talk discussion, not mainspace) and my threat was not with regards to content itself but to violation of our talk page guidelines (a user repeatedly reverting another user's entire comment on talk, where a simple refactoring of one sentence would be enough).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies everywhere: "These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages" (emphasis in original). Kirill ^(prof) 23:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although I still think that Greg's post should've been refactored, not reverted/removed. In future, I will refactor such comments myself instead of simply restoring them (I don't take well to censorship so by default I have a bias towards opposing any in all forms, but I agree BLP should be taken into consideration in such cases). PS. Kirill, what about my first key point - generalization from two exceptions? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a generalization in the wording here—there's no assertion of a pattern of misuse—but perhaps you can suggest an alternative wording? Kirill ^(prof) 21:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you stand by the statement "has used his administrative tools and status inappropriately" with the two diffs cited, what about clarifying that "has used his administrative tools and status inappropriately two times"? Also, for the first one, should Gamaliel be cautioned as well - by protecting the article in the first place, didn't he start the problem in the first place? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As an example of "threats of administrative action to further violations of BLP policy" (6.17.2) Kirill provided this diff. But Piotrus simply restored a comment made by another user and promised an administrative action if misbehavior continues. Deleting other user's comments at talk pages may be indeed an WP:CIV violation and a blockable offense. I have seen a user blocked precisely for that. The edit summary by Piotrus sounds simply as a reminder about the rules (which is always appropriate), although he should not promise to block the user himself.Biophys (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring a comment which contains a BLP violation is prohibited, regardless of what reasoning would apply if the BLP violation were not present. Kirill ^(prof) 21:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reply. But I do not think that was a clear BLP violation on the part of Greg, because the claim was sourced, as one can see from the diff. This is the source. Was it a reliable source? That should be decided by consensus on the WP:RS noticeboard.Biophys (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

on 6.17.1 see "Bubba edit-warred" here. Needs to be either elaborated upon or stricken.
On 6.17.4 see [235]. Seems wrongheaded for the very same reasons as it paints the case to be largely a personal confrontation between users. Arbitration cases are not about editors liking each other or not. They are about the violations of behavioral and content policies. Will comment on 6.17.3 and 6.17.5 separately. --Irpen 20:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticbent

6.18) Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has treated Wikipedia as a battleground ([236]); his actions to that effect have included violations of the BLP policy ([237]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Against As far as I can see it, there is nothing disruptive in removing inflammatory comments, which added nothing to the quality of articles. Szopen (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations in edit summaries are still BLP violations. Kirill ^(prof) 00:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence has been presented regarding his edits over the last week which I believe requires a new finding of fact. Renata (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Poeticbent creates content. Renata doesn't like it. Sigh. PS. Actually, I do think ArbCom should address the ongoing censorship - removal of any mention that the related locations had something to do with Poland in the past ([238], [239], [240] and several other diffs, kindly provided by Renata in her "evidence" herself). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not creation of content is the problem. The quality of the content is. Leaving Poland but not mentioning that it was also part of GDL, PLC, Russia, LSSR is POV. But reciting abbreviated history of Lithuania for 25,000 times (that's how many villages are in Lithuania) is very unseful, cluterry, and better served by history of Lithuania. Renata (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Poeticbent didn't have sources about modern names / location of such villages? It commonly happens to me when I write historical articles based on Polish sources (just recently it took me much more time to figure names of Vyalikaya Byerastavitsa/Malaya Berestovitsa than to write most of the content for them). When a German user creates an article about now-Polish village from Regained Territories under a German name, I simply rewrite it, keeping info about its German history, and don't accuse him of some anti-Polonism. This is where collaboration comes into play: it's great that you can add information about modern state of those places, but why do you censor info about their Polish history, and why do you criticize an editor for content creation with rather uncivil comments like "blatant worst-kind POV campaign"? I am rather disappointed that the only Lithuanian admin is giving such a bad example to others.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renata is right about quality of the created content. For example,Poeticbent's recent "creation" is simply a quasi-plagiarism of a right wing fringe author.. And despite evidence, Poeticbent is quite inappropriately trying to suppress that discussion of that fact. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: the blatant violation of WP:BLP by Boodlesthecat above. He has labelled the primary source "right wing fringe author" without a single proof of any wrongdoing, and had his political tag team member, an admin, block the article and repeat the accusation again at Copyright problems/2008 November 2. The article Rescue of Jews by Polish communities during the Holocaust had 42 citations and additional 6 points of reference leading to works by Holocaust scholars and survivors. The primary source was a compilation of them, that's why the article can easily stand based on those sources alone with direct links and their detailed descriptions. It is a work in progress nevertheless. The fury of attacks by Boodlesthecat began with an unsuccessful attempt to have this 32 kilobytes long article speedily deleted in the interim, while his tag-team members were busy in real life. Everything here turns into pure poison at an instance as you can see. And no, I'm not interested in writting 25,000 stubs on Lithuanian villages, please see my reply at the evidence page. --Poeticbent talk 17:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that Boodlesthecat behavior on this article is a near perfect illustration of a battleground mentality, and one of the worst - aiming to suppress (remove/censor) any content that doesn't fit into his POV.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relata_refero

6.19.1) Relata_refero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly edit-warred ([241]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 6.19.1. Kirill ^(prof) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

RR was following WP:BLP in a really clear case of attack on living USA academics. BLP is not a subject of the edit war restrictions Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how inserting a {{POV}} tag into an article is BLP-related; am I missing something about these reverts? Kirill ^(prof) 02:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is mostly deals with living USA and Canadian tenured academics who are labelled as Holodomor denialists together with Soviet agents. Those are people whose livelihood depends upon their reputation that the article destroys. This people also know how to sue. By putting a {{POV}} on top of the article we inform the readers that the opinions presented here are not established facts but rather a work in progress. I think it is significantly decrease potential harm. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kirill about BLP policy. A sourced criticism of research by USA and Canadian tenured academics does not represent BLP violation. To the contrary, making the sourced criticism available to WP readers is necessary to follow WP:NPOV policy. However punishing this user for edit warring seems to be rather arbitrary. I think only users with a history of 3RR violations should be punished by 1RR restriction rather than by an outright ban.Biophys (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems odd to place a {{POV}} tag for a BLP issue when a {{Blpdispute}} tag would be more appropriate. I've seen plenty of {{OR}}, {{Synthesis}} and {{POV}} tags, but don't recall a {{Blpdispute}} ever being placed on the article. Martintg (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well nonconforming with WP:BLP was the first entry to the article talk page (now Talk:Denial_of_the_Holodomor/Archive_1#Sad_sight) Relato Refero mentioned it in the Talk:Denial_of_the_Holodomor#The_worst_article_in_Wikipedia) I guess not everybody is so familiar with the complaex system of dispute tags as Marting Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I do not think this rises to the level of an arbitration finding. RR's editing is generally constructive and despite a few too many reverts, examining the diffs the edits look to be reasonable. Moreschi (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: finding fails to establish "edit warring". See "Bubba edit-warred" here. Needs to be either elaborated upon or stricken. --Irpen 20:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:RR has definitely been standing in the way of concensus in a particular article, being the lone holdout and placing tags and reverting text without adequate explanation so that other editors can't progress in improving the article. RR is otherwise an excellent editor, but he needs to know when to drop the stick and back away slowly from the dead horse. This FoF would be sufficient and a single article ban as a remedy would probably not be required. Martintg (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I rather believe that article talkpage is stiff with suggestions with my signature on them.

/facepalm

Note the "reverts" were over months. Sigh. Kirill, you can do better.--Relata refero (disp.) 05:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same as what I said here, how does a mere number of reverts in a complete disregard of the time frame and presence (or absence) and sensibility of attempts to engage everyone in discussions and disregard to how everyone else behaved indicates "edit-warring". Compare Relata's edits and talk page entries with those who reverted him and their overall conduct. Is this "edit-warring" (disruptive conduct by definition) on his part? Maybe I am wrong and it is, but this is in a dire need of explaining. --Irpen 10:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sciurinæ

6.20.1) Sciurinæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has treated Wikipedia as a battleground ([242]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 6.20.1. Kirill ^(prof) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Looking at the "evidence" below, it appears that Wikipedia is not the only place that is treated like a battleground... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently this was taken from Molobo's section who complained that I said "you clearly represent Polish nationalist interests to which you habitually count picking on Germany and Germans all throughout history until today". He actually did not even dispute the statement, or address it back then, and now hopes you're erroneously acquitting him of doing what he actually does. I expressed the matter-of-fact statement in response to his misrepresentation of his personal background and point of view (responding to "Polish POV" by claiming "Half of my family comes from Germany" in violation of Wikipedia:Honesty).

I needn't find much evidence to back it up. Others already did it for me. In his mindset: German society is exactly the same as Nazi Germany. Germany is enslaving Europe right as I speak. It's also trying to abolish Poland. Merkel's government is trying to re-establish German nationalism. Germany is a rogue nation, like Iran. A united Europe would be in the spirit of Nazism. In his opinion Germany should pay 540 billion euro in compensation it owes Poland. Also, without Germany the world would be a better place. Nothing good ever came out of Germany. It should be dissolved. Anyway, Germany is only an artificial creation of evil Prussia. Germany still wants to steal territories from Poland. Germans can't even manage their own country and German women are ugly. The world can easily survive without Germany's economy, which is porn, vomit tasting food and polluting cars. Right now Poles are generating jobs and profits for the EU while people from Germany and England are buying up Poland's house market, making it impossible to buy homes for Poles. Poland should have nuclear weapons to defend itself against Germany. (and more)

It also proves again that he edited Wikipedia during his 1-year block ([243] [244]). Furthermore, while he spitefully laughed at the life expectancy of Russians ([245]), it even became his signature in the other forum ([246]). Having been banned from at least three other large forums, he is a known one. I can tolerate that the happiest moment in his life was Germany's defeat in the World Cup ([247]) and I already try to ignore his and Piotrus' well functioning Wikipedia warfare system. Ignorance can be bliss. But what you're suggesting to be used against me is actually just more evidence against him that he didn't even deny. Sciurinæ (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German women are not ugly! What idiot said that? don't forget to sometimes also smile :) Dc76\^talk 21:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:None of the above commments are made by me, they are collection of quotes made by several different people on the internet-all outside of Wikipedia. I stopped responding to the user above-his only interaction with me are repeated personal attacks underlined with intense emotions, Any responce triggers more and more personal accusations unrelated to Wikipedia.

To be honest I believe it is more damaging to him then to me, as he obsesses so about who I really am, or if really I have German ancestry or so on. They are better things in life then to obsess about Wikipedia users. Normally I would feel angry or insulted, but as I said-this is gotten to the point that can distance myself from those statements. --Molobo (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You brought up your personal background (in a misrepresented form), not me. Even in one of Piotrus' ancient rescue efforts for you he already conceded you were "a Polish POV"-pusher, but you just had to mislead some months ago in said thread. Anyone who cares to read the entire thread can easily see that it was actually Piotrus who converted the thread into a personal battleground and so did Poeticbent and Molobo, not me. No one asked Molobo to present his personal background in the first place and the way I disputed it was factual. Molobo is not only not part of the German minority in Poland, but also he had only ever had bad things to say about them. After the AE thread about Piotrus and co was created, it went like this:

Piotrus starts his argumentation that the initiator just didn't like Poles.[248]
Molobo joins Piotrus' argumentation that the initiator just didn't like Poles.[249]
Molobo starts an AE thread against the initiator as punishment.[250]
Molobo claims Piotrus' admin threat was against Boodles' "vandalization".[251]
Molobo tries to derail the AE thread on Piotrus again.[252]
As if it made any difference, Molobo claims that half his family came from Germany and repeats his tactic of derailment and broken-record [253] (to which I responded to)

I'm not among those who call you names and I admit some people overdo it. You were noted down as a "Polish troll" ([254]) although already banned years before. And just a few weeks ago you were referred to as a "Polonazi" ([255]). And those who do not insult you still make fun of you after years ([256] [257] [258] [259]). You claim to be offended that I wrote you represented nationalist interests and demand a penalty but when you were called "a petty nationalist and racist", you only protested "I am not racist".[260] By contrast, when someone in Wikipedia just clarified a headline ([261]), you already complained about worst-kind incivility.[262]

Wherever you went, you brought disharmony until you got evicted. Having checked them all rigorously, you are/were:

Obserwator who got banned from Axis History Forum in January 2005.[263] [264]
Molobo who got banned from AlternateHistory.com in July 2005.[265] [266]
Molobo who got banned from Axis History Forum in September 2005.[267], sock of Obserwator
Molobo who is still active in the English and Polish Wikipedia.
Torquez who got banned from Feldgrau.com in August 2006.[268]
Shade2 who was active in Politics Forum.org in 2006 and 2007.[269]
HurganPL who got banned from AlternateHistory.com in October 2007.[270], socks:
Datner who got banned from AlternateHistory.com in November 2007.
Korwar who got banned from AlternateHistory.com in January 2008.
Human297 who got banned from AlternateHistory.com in January 2008.

There was little reason for Molobo to bring the question of his POV into this arbitration but anyway it's important to deduce that he uses Wikipedia as a soapbox. The statements I quoted in my first edit in this proposal had been made by said Shade2, who is no other than Molobo. Evidence presented in a logically structured form. Sciurinæ (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose per this reply to Molobo's "evidence" Skäpperöd (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stor stark7

6.21) Stor stark7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has treated Wikipedia as a battleground and engaged in otherwise grossly unacceptable commentary ([271]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This was an interesting finding, based as it is on the evidence presented by User:Molobo and going back all the way to January 2006! Since at the evidence page I strongly objected to Molobos interpretation of the diffs that he provided, I believe I deserve a more explicit finding pointing to individual diffs and not just this apparent endorsement of Molobos presentation/interpretation. Also, as I pointed to in my reply to Molobo at Nick Dowlings talk page (which I link to from the evidence page), some of those diffs (January 2008) were the result of baiting, and have already been used to place me on the Digwuren restriction list. Since they are being reused here, does this mean that my name can now be taken off the Digwuren list, or will they be used against me over and over again for-ever?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 10:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a commentary on the evidence used by Kirill Lokshin for this proposed FF, the diffs have been grouped by date and with my commentary. Please take the time to actually review the diffs used in support of this proposed FF.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 10:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I can only encourage everyone to look up the actual diffs instead of merely looking at the way they were presented. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tymek

6.22) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by Tymek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 21:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Biophys

6.23) Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in unhelpful speculation and fear-mongering regarding potential efforts to undermine Wikipedia ([272]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 01:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Sorry, that was not anything special. User Dc76 asked me several inconvenient questions. When someone asks my opinion, I reply precisely what I think. Doing otherwise (lying) leads to failure in collaborative projects, shows an utmost disrespect to a person who asks the questions, and considered a misconduct. Yes, this is a personal opinion by an expert. Yes, everyone can be wrong.Biophys (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Halibutt

6.24) No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by Halibutt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been presented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 23:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree. --Irpen 20:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koretek

6.25) No definitive evidence is available to link Koretek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with any other account. The Committee notes that Koretek is indefinitely blocked for his actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Noted. Kirill ^(prof) 00:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Quality of evidence

7) The Committee notes that rambling, disjointed narratives, unsupported statements of opinion, and philosophical discursions are not useful evidence, and that presenting them as such is unhelpful.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 21:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment. Unless it is clearly stated whose evidence was unhelpful, nobody will learn anything from this finding, including the very editors whose evidence sections were problematic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Piotrus. This has to be specific and helpful, rather than, per Harry Frankfurt's On Bullshit, potentially misleading innuendo ... which is how it could look as it is. Doubtlessly this would only be used for few good purposes. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment. Is this FoF really useful or even fair, given there is a difference between presenting evidence and workshopping, a difference in the skill levels of various participants in presenting evidence, and the lack of action by clerks in not enforcing the 1000 word/100 diff limit. Martintg (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A correct statement of fact but clearly insufficient as it stands. See Mess in the case' pages in my comment at talk. Yes, a reasonable allowance must be made for a difference in a level of skill and experience. But no lack of experience can excuse some of the egregious rants we see at the pages of this case. It needs to be addressed, not merely acknowledged. --Irpen 20:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the case pages are a mess and difficult to follow (and I don't think they are), there are two ways to look at this:

The good faith view is that the process of conducting and managing ArbCom cases is somehow inadequate and needs to be examined and re-structured to better support the deliberations of the ArbCom.
The bad faith view is that the ArbCom case has been "egregiously" "derailed by the inappropriate actions of some of the participants in the evidence and workshop pages" and thus the "wreckers" need to be punished.

--Martintg (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#wikipedia-en-admins

8.1) The #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel is open to current English Wikipedia administrators and former administrators in good standing.

8.2) The #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel was created to facilitate discussion among Wikipedia administrators, with the intent being the creation of a forum where:

(a) administrators could obtain real-time or near-real-time feedback from other administrators

(b) matters requiring privacy or discretion which are unsuited for on-wiki mention could be discussed

(c) a limited set of users would create a forum with a high signal-to-noise ratio

8.3) The official relationship between the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel and the Wikipedia community is ambiguous. The Committee does not exercise any direct control over the channel; instead, it is controlled by an internal hierarchy of channel operators (which includes some members of the Committee acting in a private capacity).

8.4) Discussions held in the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel have historically been subject to substantial and unpredictable unauthorized disclosure to parties outside the channel. This limits the channel's usefulness for discussion of matters requiring privacy and discretion, as noted in finding 8.2(b).

8.5) The #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel has been the subject of repeated complaints and scandals which have adversely affected the well-being of the broader project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 8.1–8.5. While the role of IRC in the present case is a relatively minor one, it is nevertheless a good opportunity to address it. Kirill ^(prof) 20:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support good description of the background Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

A little late in the day Kirill, the commuity has already judged and dispensed with #wikipedia-en-admins. You had your chance to clean it up and blew it.It's now just somewhere for God knows who to discuss all manner of odd things in a private tab. Save your time somethig important. Giano (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement by security organs

9.1) There is no convincing evidence that any of the security organs of the Russian regime are involved in Wikipedia editing, directly or indirectly; nor that any editors involved in this matter are acting as agents of or receiving instruction from said organs.

9.2) Several editors have claimed that they are agents of certain Russian security organs. Such claims are disruptive and potentially intimidating to other editors, even when made in jest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 9.1 and 9.2. Kirill ^(prof) 22:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment. What about non-Russian security organs? I've seen accusations of involvement with Polish/Baltic/US organizations (including security organs). One of such accusations against me ([273]) indirectly led to this arbcom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that the AK could be considered a state security organ in any meaningful sense of the term; nor that any significant allegations had been made of organized involvement by it as a body (particularly as it was disbanded more than six decades ago). The isolated accusations against you specifically are best addressed separately from the general KGB/FSB/etc. matter, I think. Kirill ^(prof) 22:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. There is no convincing evidence. The claims noted in 9.2. are disruptive. As a side note, similar claims were made about me [274]. I am also surprised why people are talking about security organs. If anyone wanted to interfere, they would simply hire several students. Anyway, that would be a work of a state propaganda department, not security organs. But we do not have direct evidence of that too. The statements/boxes by the users were not a joke, because the "jokes" were followed by actions, such as harassment. I consider those statements/boxes only as an admission of belonging to a certain group of users which operates in WP. We do not know who these users are in real life, and we do not want to know per WP privacy rules. Biophys (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Only on Wikipedia is someone with the facts labeled an agit-proping militant nationalist, has people attack them for their disputing Stalinism based on facts userbox (on my user page) [I can provide diffs for the preceding if really needed], yet over time it's been just fine to have this sort of crap (which I ran into a while ago with another POV pushing editor) and it's a joke. If I had a userbox that said I'm a paid member of the Gestapo internet troll squad how many people would be laughing or think it's cool? I rather think I'd be banned for life from WP within five minutes.

The double standard applied to what behaviors are tolerated here as an expression of free speech is an utter sham. We are to represent Soviet/Russian nationalist fact-free contentions as reality while those same editors are free to glorify a security organ that itself, or whose predecessors (NKVD et al.), murdered countless individuals of the nationality of the editors they oppose.

Proposed: Every editor who has ever displayed I'm a member of the KGB (anything) is to be banned permanently from Wikipedia. No excuses. No appeals. No amnesty. —PētersV (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with funny jokes. These users wanted to show their solidarity with User:Vlad_fedorov who created this userbox and was later banned. They also wanted to ridicule the idea that Russian state security services may be involved in certain internet activities, like involvement in internet political blogs, or even worse, in editing WP (a claim about editing WP by the CIA was published in several major newspapers - see refs above).Biophys (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

10.1) Participation by various editors in arbitration enforcement discussions related to this matter has at times been unhelpful, tending more towards the continuation and escalation of existing disputes than to useful analysis of the initial request for enforcement.

10.2) Arbitration enforcement sanctions in this matter have at times been inconsistently or inadequately applied, or inappropriately reversed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 10.1 and 10.2 as general observations. Kirill ^(prof) 23:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Editors urged

1) In the interests of reducing the tensions in this area of editing, all involved editors are urged to voluntarily undertake the following:

(a) to refrain from externally coordinating edits (in particular, but not limited to, making off-wiki requests that certain edits be reverted or re-instated)

(b) to refrain from seeking blocks or other sanctions, both on- and off-wiki, as a method of resolving content disputes

(c) to refrain from maintaining lists of material for the purpose of using them in hypothetical future disciplinary proceedings

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Irpen's comments above; other items may be added later. Kirill ^(prof) 03:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree, good principles. Regarding (b) - there is a clear difference between a good faith content dispute and disruptive editing. The first is to be solved by consensus and compromises, the second by blocks. It is a bad faith to present former as a later Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think ArbCom should make a ruling/advice about this. My opinion:
- (a) Agree with the idea, but this is not enforceable; this is good only as a declaration of intentions;
- (b) Disagree. The entire idea of "block shopping" seems to be wrong. 90% of on-wiki complaints to ANI or individual administrators are made by people who are personally involved in a conflict. This is fine. On-wiki or off-wiki does not really matter. Only one thing matters: if an action by an admin was proper. How this admin had learned about the problem is unimportant. Admins do not penalize users for content disputes; they penalize people only to stop disruption or violations of policies, such as copyright problems, BLP problems, uncivil behavior, etc.
- (c) Disagree. ArbCom should encourage, not discourage collection of evidence on violators of policies.Biophys (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment on (b). "as a method of resolving content disputes" - certainly, seeking blocks for that is bad. But seeking blocks for users who violate policy with disruptive editing (ex. harassment and personal attacks) is a different thing. However, a lot of savvy harassers will portray themselves as victims of content disuptes - since in fact they did start as content disputers, lost the dispute, started harassing the winners, and when the winners complain about the harassment, the harassers say "we are being targeted because the winners want to silence us in the content dispute". I am sure this can also occur without the winners/losers - the discussion may be ongoing, but as long as one side is harassing the others, the victims complain, and the harassers complain about the victims complaining framing it as a content dispute, not a harassment dispute, the pattern holds.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the points:

(a) I agree with this, but as Biophys says, it is not enforceable.

(b) Does this contradict the intent of the existing discretionary sanction, which is enforced by block? Is there evidence that admins have difficulty distinguishing between a block shop exercise and a legitimate request for assistance?

(c) Thinking outside the box here, perhaps this is what EE needs: each editor could maintain a list of diffs for alleged wrong doings if they wish, with a rolling one month window where diffs older than one month fall off the list and cannot be used for any future complaints. This list would then be a good feed mechanism to help other editors evaluate their own behaviour lest the growing diff list be used to invite admin intervention. Martintg (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Agree, but it is a pity it is not enforceable.

(b) Disagree. Makes haven for vandals.

(c) Disagree. There was an ArbCom case about Transnistria, in which it was proven that a now banned editor mentained at least 3 accounts, developed them over more than a year with invented identities (one Brtish, one Branzilian, one Indian) and used them very succesfully in "votes". The case was proven only when over 300 (!) diffs were presented to the ArbCom and ArbCom allowed a checkuser. What if it were forbidden to gather that evidence? (Note, that wasn't me.) Look now at the article, there is more than a year without edit warring!!! Dc76\^talk 13:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: for this remedy to be of any use, the Committee needs to sculpt it a "backbone." Thus far, the behavioural issues rife in the concerned areas of editing have failed to vanish on their own; a plea for the editors to adjust their editing habits would not be out of place in a utopian community, but I cannot reasonably foresee it in practice being effective. Perhaps a clause to the effect of "editors who violate these will have their actions scrutinised by the Committee by means of a future case;" or indeed, perhaps discretionary sanctions, authorising the dispensing of restrictions on those who fail to heed the above requests. As this remedy stands, however: it is on the correct track, but in its current state lacks the gravitas necessary for it to work. AGK 18:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Agree per DC76

(b) Disagree per DC76

(c) Disagree per DC76. As one of the primary editors engaged in opposition to the now banned editor, I can verify the situation regarding the Transnistria article. —PētersV (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor remedies

Alden Jones banned and/or mentored

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

2.1.1) Should Alden Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) resume editing Wikipedia, he shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Harsh, but his presence has been completely unhelpful. Kirill ^(prof) 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2.1.1] Alternative to the above, contingent on having a mentor available. Kirill ^(prof) 21:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

We don't need editors like this. This isn't a child minding service, so as there is no serious prospect of such a user ever providing seriously good content (more likely to distract better users) or contributing to the pedia in any way beyond some BATTLE line solidarity, there's no need to waste resources on him. Just ban the guy. [[User:D

He was midly useful before he decided to become my "reverting fan". What about adding a "1RR per week" on articles edited by me to his remedy, or an outright ban on articles edit by me which he has not edited otherwise? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment, got to agree that his presence has been unhelpful, but mentorship is the way to go here. Don't bite the newbies. Martintg (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That said, I tried mentoring him, and all I've got was that he is mostly inactive now... which also raises the question "why bother with banning an inactive editor"? :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection in principle to mentorships as opposed to bans; but do we have willing and suitable mentors available? Kirill ^(prof) 12:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something similar to the final remedies in Strider12 will be helpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that his command of English language is poor, so any mentor should be able to communicate in Polish... :( That said, I think I managed to convince him reverting is bad, so when (if...) he returns, hopefully we should not have any recurring problems.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon of Pndapetzim admonished

2.2) Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 00:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Greg park avenue banned

2.3) Greg park avenue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment. I believe restrictions (parole/topic bans) would be of more use here. All of Greg's problematic edits seem to be tightly focused on the person of scholar Jan T. Gross (topic ban?) and on interactions with Boodlesthecat (wiki restraining order for both of them?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think topic bans for the both might be a reasonable solution. Greg should not edit anything about Jan T. Gross, and Boodlesthecat should not edit anything related to Jews and anti-semitism.Biophys (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be on a safe side, perhaps greg should be restricted not only with regards to Jan T. Gross, but to Jewish scholars and journalists writing about Poland in general? He also made negative comments about Thane Rosenberg.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps. Especially Thane Rosenbaum (strange, Greg calls him "Rosenberg")Biophys (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Clearly Greg park avenue and Boodlesthecat mix like gasoline and lit matches. Per what has already been discussed in this case, I fault Greg park avenue for rising to Boodlesthecat's bait, not more. As for the Thane Rosenbaum affair, which conversation I also had with Boodlesthecat, it is nevertheless true that Rosenbaum makes money off of fiction based on the Holocaust with heros uncanniliy like himself in real life. Let's not confuse complete lack of respect for an individual who happens to be Jewish (this would be Greg park avenue's position) with hatred for all Jews (this would be Boodlesthecat's accusation). Greg appears to be rational in his non-Boodlesthecat related edits I've come across. —PētersV (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only one charge which holds is that BLP violation regarding Thane Rosenbaum. Still it's very borderline since I quoted opinions expressed on notable blog by Luke Ford. Many articles about living persons such as LePen, Noam Chomsky, Uri Avnery etc. contain critisism. If it's backed by notable sources, it's allowed in Wikipedia. So why make an exception for Thane Rosenbaum? greg park avenue (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen restricted

2.4.1) Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing or otherwise substantively interacting with any article which has been previously edited by Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) until a period of six months has elapsed from the time of Piotrus's last edit to said article.

2.4.2) Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from interacting directly with or commenting about Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under any circumstances.

2.4.3) Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 2.4.1 and 2.4.2. Kirill ^(prof) 12:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 2.4.3; struck 2.4.1. Kirill ^(prof) 02:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

2.4.1 is a bit too harsh. I don't want to "chase" Irpen off articles he would be editing in a positive fashion (for example, I do occasionally edit his favorite article on Holodomor, and I don't want him barred from editing it just because I made a minor edit there, it wouldn't be fair). Not too mention that in heavily edited articles, he would have to carefully look at the 6 months of history to ensure he is not violating the rule... not fair, again. What about 1RR per week on such articles? Much simpler and just as effective. As long as he is not edit warring, his content contributions were often constructive. Also, I'd like to repeat the point about the need for mentorship that would steer Irpen back toward content creation (I've heard back from a few well known mentors that they would be up to a job if asked by a committee).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO 2.4.1 is counter-productive. Irpen and Piotrus both work in the intersected areas and their collaboration is often beneficial for the project. Piotrus is often writes using Polish sources they are often one-sided in the Russian and Ukrainian topics and almost certainly do not follow WP:RUS and WP:UKR, Irpen is using Ukrainian and Russian sources, with Polish topics they are often one-sided and their Polish spelling is wrong. Thus, they often fixes each other's articles. I am not sure if the edit war between them is an issue but I would think that 1RR in the articles of joint interest would be sufficient. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, Irpen's only content problem is that his spelling of Polish names is wrong? You sure you didn't mix up our names there? :) But of course, Soviet historiography or modern Putin (nationalistic Russian) one is much more reliable than modern Polish (democratic) or Western one... we have been through this before, you know :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2.4.1 and 2.7.2 look like a good solution in general, but it is not clear what "otherwise substantively interacting" means and in my opinion the period is too long. How would they know if a page has been edited by the opposite party before? Should they look through the page history whenever they are going to edit? It doesn't look realistic. Do minor edits count for the purpose of this restriction? There is a risk of article squatting. On the other hand, 2.4.2 without 2.4.1 would be harmful, as it encourages undiscussed edits. Colchicum (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the articles edited within a period of 6 months by both of them before this ArbCom or in violation of this restriction? How does the restriction apply in this case? Are they both banned from such articles for 6 months? Colchicum (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This remedy is not workable, and it does not really address the problem. Real problem is not the struggle between Irpen and Piotrus. It is the struggle of Irpen with Ukrainian, Baltic, Russian and Polish users, including Piotrus. 2.4.2 is clear and simple. 2.4.1 should be simplified and elaborated. I would suggest: "Irpen is prohibited from editing any article which has been previously (before this case) edited by Piotrus" and "Piotrus is prohibited from editing any article which will be edited by Irpen after this case". Any minor edits qualify.Biophys (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as written, inappropriate scope, per Biophys. This goes all the way back to my own first editing conflict with Irpen: "occupation" of the Baltics "judgmental", Russian and Baltic positions both "POV" (and so to be equally represented), "occupation can't last for 50 years", and all such similar UNSOURCED contentions. I have no issue with debating sources. I do have an issue when Irpen deems that words used in sources are not admissible or when Irpen overrides an author's representation of a situation with his own summary. And he has edit-war supported some of the most contentious editors on WP, including the now-banned Anonimu. Where Irpen's POV is concerned, this has very little if anything to do with Piotrus, Piotrus is just Irpen's personal punching bag and lightning rod for a far wider and deeper conflict. —PētersV (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Agree with Piotrus and Alex, a 1RR restriction on articles of joint interest, plus a one year ban on commenting about Piotrus on boards like ANI, AE, ArbCom or talk pages, etc. If Piotrus makes a mis-step in the future, no doubt there will be sufficient number of editors to make the complaint without Irpen having to add his own wikidramu contribution. Martintg (talk)

comment Alex Bakharev's proposal seems much more reasonable. 2.4.1 won't work, and the other one seems harmful as User:Colchicum pointed out above. Ostap 06:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lokyz restricted

2.5.1) Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.

2.5.2) Should Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 2.5.1 and 2.5.2. Kirill ^(prof) 00:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

~~Still waiting on the very important findings and remedies regarding this user who, in my experience, has significantly contributed to battleground creation on Polish-Lithuanian topics.~~ --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Matthead restricted

2.6.1) Matthead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.

2.6.2) Shold Matthead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 2.6.1 and 2.6.2. Kirill ^(prof) 00:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

~~Still waiting on the very important findings and remedies regarding this user who, in my experience, has significantly contributed to battleground creation on Polish-German topics.~~--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Piotrus restricted and/or admonished and/or reminded and/or urged

2.7.1) Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from taking or threatening administrative action with regard to any article which relates to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted, or to any editor who has substantively edited such an article.

2.7.2) Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing or otherwise substantively interacting with any article which has been previously edited by Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) until a period of six months has elapsed from the time of Irpen's last edit to said article.

2.7.3) Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from interacting directly with or commenting about Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under any circumstances.

2.7.3.1) Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) under any circumstances.

2.7.4) Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded of the need to comply with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy at all times.

2.7.5) Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.

2.7.5.1) Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 2.7.1. Kirill ^(prof) 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 2.7.2 and 2.7.3. Kirill ^(prof) 12:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 2.7.3.1, 2.7.4, and 2.7.5; struck 2.7.2. Kirill ^(prof) 01:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 2.7.5.1. Kirill ^(prof) 03:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment. Re 2.7.1. - considering that I have practically never taken an administrative action with regards to content I am editing/editors I am interacting with, nor threatened to take such an action (other than to report disruptive editors to appropriate foras), I have no problem with this remedy, as it prohibits me from doings things I am not used to doing anyway :) PS. That said, and completely agreeing with our policy that administrators should not take actions on articles they've edited and with regards to editors they've interacted with in content creation, I'd like to see a detailed explanation of why my judgment is considered problematic with regards to all of EE topics/editors. It's not like I have a history of wheel warring/(un)protecting/(un)blocking/threatening of such, do I? I've always been very careful how I use my admin tools, and if I had made a pattern of mistakes justifying such a restriction, I think I deserve a detailed explanation of it, so I can learn from my mistakes. PS. Ditto for 2.7.3 (I've never done that).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of avoiding something more unpleasant down the road. In the recent cases where you've taken an administrator's role in this area, you experienced some regrettable lapses in judgment, as noted in the associated FoF above. Since any further such lapses—particularly insofar as BLP is involved—would lead to your desysopping, it seems better for everyone concerned to simply remove the temptation of using your tools in this area. Kirill ^(prof) 00:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment, but the remedy seems to imply a general misconduct in EE, when all I've done was to restore one single comment (which due to BLP I should've refactored or not restored at all). Isn't this a bit too much? I'd be certainly willing to promise I will not restore BLP-controversial comments (edits., etc.) without refactoring them and/or consulting BLPN in the first place (or a selected BLP mentor).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong object to 2.7.2 - just as I've objected to similar remedy applied to Irpen. It wouldn't be fair to him, and it wouldn't be fair by a vastly higher amount to me (since I edit often hundreds of articles daily). I am not going to waste time seeing if he is in the last 6 months of edits before I edit a new article and I have "never" disrupted content he created (since he creates almost none anyway). On the other hand, this would give him a perfect tool to annoy me - just go around and make a minor edit to a history of Poland article, and lock me out of it. This remedy would already lock me out from all the Polish-Russian Featured articles I've written, and is close to banning me from the project altogether! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2.7.2 is merely a way of applying 2.7.3 in practice; obviously, if the two of you are to avoid interacting, then we need some way of minimizing your encounters in the course of article editing. I'm open to other approaches for accomplishing this, though. Kirill ^(prof) 21:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I asked earlier: do I disrupt Irpen's articles and go around the project damaging his good name? Are relations between Irpen and Piotrus problematic because they both harass each another, or because one of them harasses each other? What about putting him on 1RR/week - which will ensure there are no disruptive edit wars? Add to it ensuring he cannot harass others (like 2.4.2 but preventing him from discussing other editors like [275] or [276]), and the entire Irpen wikidramu will end once and for all. And if you give him a mentor that will make him concentrate on content instead of wikipolitics, we may even regain a useful Ukrainian-topics editor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object to 2.7.2, see my entry to the similar Irpen's restriction. Collaboration between Irpen and Piotrus are often beneficial for the project. I support 2.7.1 in principle but there should be reservation over non-controversial actions. E.g. blocking a vandal working in Eastern European articles or semi-protection articles on Eastern Europe over a vandal attack should be allowed (otherwise we just lose a pair of useful hands). On the other hand full protection of articles in the area of national conflicts in EE or blocking an experienced editor involved in the conflict, especially on the opposite to Piotrus side, etc. should be restricted. I agree with similar restrictions on myself if needed Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the newest changes: I do think that "reminded and/or urged" wording is more suited here. I completely agree with 2.7.3 - which was never a problem originating from me - and over the past weeks I have already taken the liberty to learn more about BLP; I will certainly not restore comments that may possibly violate BLP. However, I would like to disagree with the first part of 2.7.5: for years, I have ensured the quality of content (Featured, Good, otherwise), sometimes by reverting disruptive editors. I have always tried to reach consensus, and avoid edit warring, which had occurred only when the other editor refused to discuss issue in good faith. Further, based on some interpretations of 1RR rule I've seen recently, this is a giant restriction that would vastly limit my ability to edit articles and collaborate with others, one that is not too far removed from banning me entirely. Bottom line is that I am a content creator, and a solution good for some edit warrior essentially cripples my ability to contribute to this project. I don't think this is what is intended? PS. I can certainly promise to avoid edit warring even more carefully than I do now, and I would certainly respect the need for the committee to pass a warning/urging in this regard as a remind for myself that I can certainly use. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. This remedy does not address the problem. Real problem is not the struggle between Irpen and Piotrus. It is the struggle of Iren with Ukrainian, Baltic, Russian and Polish users, including Piotrus. 2.7.1. might be recommended rather than ordered by ArbCom. 2.7.2. is unwarranted and would be damaging for the project. Piotrus and Irpen are not equal on all counts: (a) the misbehaviour of Irpen was noted by ArbCom in Digwuren case; (b) Piotrus creates many times more good content than Irpen, especially during last two years; (c) I do not really see any serious violations of policy by Piotrus, whereas Irpen has been seriously disruptive. I noted in Evidence a couple of articles that became objects of Irpen-Piotrus disputes. All these articles benefited much more from contributions by Piotrus than from contributions by Irpen who essentially harassed Piotrus.Biophys (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. As commented by a truly uninvolved admin who changed their documented opinion on an item elsewhere, an objective review of the "evidence" is a tapestry of bits and pieces construed into a conspiracy based on the assumption that every breath Piotrus takes is infused with bad faith. If Irpen spent as much time creating content as attacking the (well sourced well informed) opposition, WP would be twice the size. An appropriate solution would be Irpen to not participate in any RfC or RfA involving Piotrus, if we want to have that sort of peer-to-peer (however inappropriate and not indicative of the larger situation) relationship. —PētersV (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, In regard to 2.7.2 and 2.7.3, there needs to be a distinction between the pursuer and the pursuee in this case, if the right lessons are to be drawn from this. One doesn't place a restraining order on both the victim and perpetrator. Martintg (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point. This really is related to WP:STALK: do I follow Irpen around and stalk his content / comments? Or is it the other way around? If one person is the stalker and one is the victim, if you put a restraining order on both and the stalker starts camping the street outside the house of the victim... go figure :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any restrictions put on the only Polish-American administrator in English Wikipedia, since the charges regarding tag teaming, black books and other are just silly. If there is a conspiracy, it's right here among the guys who brought it to the attention of this ArbCom, not for the first time anyway. And what Polish editors do outside of Wikipedia, is of no concern to anybody here. greg park avenue (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose for 2.7.5) ArbCom members should be aware that such a ruling would equate the victim with the perpetrator, and given the fact that this is a showcase, if such a ruling is addopted, Soviet-style punishments will start all over WP against good-faith people. I am not exagerating: translated into real life such a ruling would be a precedent to give free hand to NKVD to take upon whomever they wish. Wikipedia would be damaged, as edit-war will be waged at large and everywhere in 20-30 EE topics, with dosens of good editors leaving the project. Beware, this is a trap. I am afraid that Kirill bought into it without realizing he is being led into trap.

Oppose 2.7.1) because I don't understand this "legal" language. I am very suspecious of it, the implications might be deep, and they are now hidden from the eyes. Why not proposing something in more layman's words?

Support 2.7.3.1)

Inclined to support 2.7.4) Just currious, what is the substance? This warning is based on some specific deeds or is just an abstract caution? I was anable to find something in the diffs, maybe I missed some? Dc76\^talk 03:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticbent banned and/or admonished and mentored

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

2.8.1) Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to strictly comply with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy, both in article content and in other comments made on Wikipedia.

2.8.2) Should Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continue editing Wikipedia, he shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to comments below, I will ask the Arbitration Clerks to make sure that all editors named as the subject of Kirill's proposed findings and/or remedies are on notice of the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2.8.1 & 2.8.2] Alternative to the above. Kirill ^(prof) 21:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strongly object. The evidence against poeticbent comprises (as Kirill himself noted in #Poeticbent) of two diffs, both from May. Despite being an active editor for over two years, he has not been a party or subject to any finding in past dispute resolution processes; it doesn't seem that he has been even a receipent of any administrator's warnings. On the other hand, he is one of the most active content creators of WikiProject Poland, with over 30 DYKs and many helpful contributions to GA/FA class articles. To block such a productive user for a single mistake he made in 5 months ago... perhaps this remedy is a copy and paste mistake of some kind? PS. Poeticbent just got the 25 DYK medal from the DYK community... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2.8.1 & 2.8.2] Comment. Much better, although "Should Poeticbent resume editing Wikipedia"... he is still editing? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; "continue" is more accurate than "resume" here. Kirill ^(prof) 21:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment, given that Poeticbent was incidentally mentioned rather named specifically by a complainant in the evidence, this remedy certainly seems disproportionate. I don't see how banning a highly productive editor with over 25 DYKs to his credit and a single entry in his block log is constructive or benefits the project. Surely a lesser sanction is available. Martintg (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object. He was not a party in this case; there was no evidence of significant disruption.Biophys (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object. These proceedings seem now to be escalating into a virtual French Revolutionary Reign of Terror, with individuals being proposed for the guillotine at random, without rhyme or reason. Poeticbent has contributed substantial content to Wikipedia, has seldom involved himself in controversies or edit wars, and does not merit such dishonorable mention—unlike some others, whose principal contributions to Wikipedia have been tendentious editing, malevolent contentiousness, and libelous vilification. Nihil novi (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object per Nihil Novi. Szopen (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Incidental mention. He wasn't a party in this arbcom case. - Darwinek (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object, how is Poeticbent even involved? —PētersV (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object, per Biophys. Tymek (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object, someone just made fool of himself proposing to ban Poeticbent for a period of one year; doesn't matter how bad this user was, there is not even an evidence supplied by anyone to sentence, convict or even indict this guy of any crime in this ArbCom case. But I suspect it must be a Halloween joke, still it's too close to call, otherwise, it would be a landslide of opposite votes. greg park avenue (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've had no experience with Poeticbend until today, but seeing the discussion at Talk:Rescue of Jews by Polish communities during the Holocaust, I confirm that in this instance I see his writing as disruptive: a highly POV and unencyclopedic article, plagiarised from a single source of dubious reliability. His behaviour about this article has all the marks of disruptive agenda-pushing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable, FPaS admits he has had no experience with Poeticbent until today, and yet from this single datapoint he declares Poeticbent has all the marks of a "disruptive agenda-pusher". Martintg (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I wonder what has Poeticbent done wrong in that article, other than daring to create content on a controversial issue? Has he edit warred? No. Has he been uncivil on talk? No. Has he harassed others? No. He created a new article, whose only fault is that it heavily relied on a single source. Neutral editors are divided over the issue of plagiarism, the most anybody has shown is a similarity in several (referenced) sentences, hardly a major issue. A little more good faith would be nice towards the author of over 30 DYKs and contributor to GAs, I'd like to think (as has been suggested on article's talk by several editors). That said, I do think that this article is yet another good evidence of disruptive editing and battleground creation by Boodlesthecat and his friends, whose attitude is pretty clear: ("Don't touch this article again"). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL (yet again). Pointing out that an article is a massive plagiarism of a fringe author and his fringe viewpoint, complete with the flagrant cutting and pasting of 50 refs from the fringe website is "disruptive editing and battleground creation by Boodlesthecat and his friends." I suppose the POV Piotrus is expressing is that any sort of content can be created as long as you are one of Piotrus' "friends." Even if Piotrus' friends think that Amazon and Barnes and Noble reviews are reliable sources for a biography, or that it's sensible for Piotrus' friends to call a Polish Christian sociologist born in 1940 a Holocaust survivor--an edit so ridiculous and embarrassing to this encyclopedia that it caught the attention of the sociologist's university office (or the sociologist himself), who had to go into the article and remove the foolishness themselves. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object I have been alerted to this discussion and I am stumbling in to offer my support of Poeticbent. This fine man is a well-respected editor who recently received a medal for achieving the 25 DYK level. I have collaborated with him in the past on the editing of two articles and I found the experiences to be intellectually satisfying. If the article he recently created has problems (and, I believe, we are unanimous in agreeing it is in need of a rewrite), then it can be fixed through intelligent and cooperative editing. But calling Poeticbent names and making strange charges only serve to generate negative drama, not positive editorial results. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object A voluntary 1-month abstenance from the article FPaS mentioned would more than do. Dc76\^talk 04:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2.8.1 & 2.8.2] Oppose. I have not come across anything untoward in Poeticbent's conduct. His edits show him to be a valuable contributor. —PētersV (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relata_refero admonished

2.9) Relata_refero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid edit-warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 00:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sciurinæ admonished

2.10) Sciurinæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid treating Wikipedia as a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 00:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Dear Kirill, could you explain to me what was wrong about what I'd written and why? Sciurinæ (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Stor stark7 banned

2.11) Stor stark7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment, the guy has to be sanctioned because of the finding of fact, but one year seems a bit excessive here. Perhaps a WW2 topic ban? Martintg (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I support Martintg in this. I have been involved in disputes by Stor Stark and I certainly hope that he is material for good editor in the future, despite his very strong attitudes. One year ban is excessive. I believe he should be given a chance. Szopen (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC) After a second thought and reconsidering the evidence, and after reading through last few contribs by Stor Stark, I strongly oppose the ban for Stor. I think Stor should simply abstain for some time from Polish-German history and thats it. He has a POV, but who hasn't. Szopen (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about a topic restriction and mentorship from a WWII-history expert, which I think Kirill would be able to find in MILHIST? Certainly his attitude and undue weight given to fringe German POV is troublesome, but he is not in the same league of disruption and activity as for example Boodlesthecat. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppopse. The diffs presented against Stor stark7 do not support the way Molobo presented them in his summaries, they neither support the above statement of Stor stark7 having a "troublesome fringe German POV". Skäpperöd (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boodlesthecat banned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 00:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

IMHO it is too strong. Topic ban would be sufficient Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IF coupled with a civility parole, perhaps... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Object Boodlesthecat is a prolific editor who brings insightful views and academic sources to articles about Polish-Jewish history. Boodles is the punching bag of Piotrus and his crew because Boodles won't let them get away with their revisionist historiography that either blames the Jews for Polish antisemitism or pretends that Christian Poles were victimized by Jews. Perhaps Boodles should be put under mentorship or a strict 1RR sanction, but a ban seems excessive. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As far I as know, "christian Poles were victimized by Jews" and "blaming jews for Polish antisemitism" exists only in Boodles imagination. Szopen (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, "christian Poles were victimized by Jews" only "exists only in Boodles imagination?" LOL. see below, Tymek disagrees with you. It appears in his imagination too! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Malik Shabazz, you have touched the right spot here, and I hope the admins will notice it. It is impossible to write a comprehensive, NPOV encyclopedia, if some historical facts are overlooked. Boodlesthecat and his crew, including you, have been going out of their way to cover some facts and highlight other. The problem is that history is not black/white. There were bad and good Poles, same with Jews. Christian Poles were also victimized by Jews, and a reliable encyclopedia should inform a reader about it, too. All I want is the articles to cover the whole spectrum of any given topic. Tymek (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am tired of guy who is going around calling everyone antisemite. Szopen (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Since Boodlesthecat appeared on Wikipedia, articles on Polish-Jewish history have become a never-ending edit war. Tymek (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There's vigilance and then there's crossing over into witch hunting. Certainly a topic ban regarding Eastern European Judaism. —PētersV (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, regrettably. As I've shown in evidence, Boodlesthecat has mostly singlehandedly turned what was a rather peaceful topic corner into one of the worst battlegrounds I've ever seen, with terrible accusations of antisemitism and like. A topic ban is the least that can be done, and considering (as I've shown in my evidence) that he had civility / edit warring edits from topics areas before he became active in Polish history, a full ban per Kirill is a possibility.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Regrettably," LOL. Your first contact with me was in MAY and was to restore a a Jew baiting anti-semitic rant by your ally Greg :Park Aveneue; your second contact with me was to threaten to block me for removing another anti-semitic, BLP violating rant by Greg (this time another admin had to undo your reversion of a BLP violation. Since that time you have been lobbying on and off Wiki top have me blocked, banned, and removed from Wikipedia--all becuase I apparently upset you by questioning some of the anti-semitric content and commentary (and note, all of my edits have been upheld) that littered a dozen articles concerning Polish Jewry. "Regrettably?" OK. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my first contact with you was hardly positive - I met a user who collaborates by censoring other editors comments, accuses them of antisemitism, and who edit wars. Half year down the road, I see my first impression was if anything, an understatement.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your first contact was to defend the antisemitic BLP violating rants of an editor who has been a staunch ally of yourself, your second was a flagrant abuse of admin authority. Your characterization of "censoring" is hollow and transparently false, since my removal of those comments has been upheld and supported by numerous others, including the admin who overode you. Half a year later, you show no evidence of change. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, once again you're willfully misremembering the "peaceful topic corner" of Jewish-Polish history and blaming its battleground status on Boodlesthecat. Take a look at the history of History of the Jews in Poland and its Talk page, and you'll see that it was a battleground long before Boodles ever edited it. It was delisted as a feature article before Boodles edited it. But go on blaming Boodles for everything that's wrong with those articles if that makes you feel better. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What battleground? It was never protected before he started editing it, it was never a subject of a dispute resolution procedure before he started editing it, FAC and FARC discussions were a civil affair, and discussions on talk, while indeed including some civil disagreement, never deteriorated into accusations of antisemitism and discussions of "strong antisemitic traditions in Poland".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It was never protected before he started editing it"? Really? What do you call this from January? As I wrote, selective amnesia. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why it doesn't show in the logs, but short invasion by Jacurek (the protection lasted 4 days, the one Boody caused, almost 4 weeks) that ended with him getting a long block is a good indicator what happens to disruptive users.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no end to both Piotrus' selective memory and his ever more creative rewrites of history. The protection I caused? LOL. One editor can get an article protected for four weeks? Wouldnt the solution be simply to give that editor a long block? Obviously, Piotrus, the block was due to edit WARRING. Was I on both sides simultaneously? Is that how I managed to singlehandedly get an article protected for four weeks? The fact that the article was protected, and that I wasnt blocked for any period of time, despite your energetic efforts on and off wiki for MONTHS to have me blocked/banned puts the lie to your claim that I am the problem, rather than, at a minimum, the obstinate edit warring you and your crew have waged incessantly. And, I might add once again, with respect to the content disputes, you have pretty much 100% of the time been on the "losing" end, simply because the sort of bias you and your accompanists have attempted to skew those articles with has not withstood the scrutiny of the broader community. And that's all that really counts, at the end of the day. I rest easily based on those results, all this silly hoopla notwithstanding. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And make no mistake, this is nothing other than a content dispute, with Piotrus continuing to defend anti-semitic usage in this encyclopedia to this day. For example, his pushing the use of an extremist antisemitic periodical as a reliable source in a Jewish history article. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to share my unfortunate interaction with Boodlesthecat in the last 24 hours on this very page. I looked at the diffs provided in Kirill's "findings" sub-section, and made a proposal in the section I initiated below. Among other things, I proposed for Boodlesthecat a 3-month ban on one article as opposed to a 1-year total WP ban proposed here. I expected him to "negociate" his way out even without something going on his record, something like a voluntary cool-off period when he can work freely on any other article. I was very close to sway to his "side". Also, I did admonish him of the language he used, and proposed he should be blocked on the spot if he would use in the future 10x(the language he used). Again, this was a very simple way out. He would have walked out with no "punishment" for his language, just a promiss not to use incivil language.

But I was very wrong in assuming with what character of person we are dealing. IMHO, I think he might be a good example of a true believer. You can not agree with such people 99%, you have to go the whole 100% or you are their enemy. Forget to ever agree to disagree. If you suggest such a thing, your words are twisted to parade you as anti-Semite. He asked me to refractor things I did not say. I twice told him I did not say what he put in my mouth, and he twice again asked me to refractor. So I had to dismiss my whole proposal regarding him, for he was pushing it to try to somehow link me with anti-Semitism.

For Boodlesthecat, I am born in a town which before WWII had 45% Jewish population, and where Einsatzkommando D killed people only half a mile distance from the house I grew up in. It is one thing when you are told about Holocaust in books and a totally different thing when your relatives and friends tell you specific stories, point out specific places, specific people, and specific people that stood by and did nothing. Try link someone else with anti-Semitism, pls. Dc76\^talk 17:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dc76, are you committed to distorting my words on every single post you make? Where did I EVER "link you with anti-semitism.?" Where did I EVER "twist your words and parade you as an anti-semite? And in all due respect, why do I have to "negotiate" with you, another editor, about your proposed sanctions against me? And why should I take seriously youtr "admonishments" of my "language when you fraudulently portrayed my words with every single post you made, falsely accusing me of bogus claims that I claimed "all Poles are antisemites." And then when I bring that fraud to the attention of this board, you fraudulently, in public view, falsely claim I have accused you of anti-semitism. I have to again ask that--unless you can show a diff where I "link you with anti-semitism", and "twist your words to parade you as anti-Semite" I insist that you remove that malicious and false claim from this page.

Since you took it upon yourself to remove my detailed rebuttals to your fraudulent charges, I will reprint one of them here here:

*Dc76, the fact that Piotrus openly coached you on your presentations here including hints at how to clarify whether your statements are "a praise, criticism of a neutral description" of him lead me to take any commentary of yours regarding those who disagree with Piotrus with a huge block of salt. That strong caveat regarding the credibility of your comments asise, Dc76, the fact that you interpret my statement that "the commonplace scholarly consensus that there was a "strong tradition of anti-Semitism" in Poland from which the antisemitic Zydokomuna found its support" equal to calling "entire nations" antisemitic or saying "all Poles are antisemitic" indicates to me that you perhaps do not have the necessary background to be weighing in so strongly on this specific case. By your logic, we would no be able to discuss the strong traditions of Racism in the United States out of fear of offending some nationalistic Americans, and we would be threatening editors who discuss commonplace scholarly consensus on American racism with bans. That's pretty silly, but it's the direct implication of your logic. More revealing is your clear bias in this dispute--you threaten me for pointing out and taking action against, e.g., the vicious antio-semitic rants of Greg--(who has been admonished on a number of occasions, and about whom a number of admins and editors have concurred has indeed made nasty anti-semitic statement), yet you serially ignore the actual realities of this content dispute. That dispute is, at bottom, the fact Piotrus and his allies have and continue to introduce Judeo-phobic and anti-semitic content into this encyclopedia. Even still: here is Piotrus pushing the use of an extremist antisemitic periodical as a reliable source in a Jewish history article. A newspaper widely seen to be anti-semitic and extremist, which Piotrus knows is widely seen that way, but who defends anyway. This is the issue; all your other commentary about my supposed "language" is nonsense. I will call a spade a spade. If Greg or anyone else litters this encyclopedia with Jew baiting garbage, I will point iot out. If I am to be "banned" for stating commonplace views that there is a "strong tradition of anti-Semitism" in Poland, then it would really not be worth my time trying to improve this encyclopedia, because it would indicate that it has no credibility. But I believe the encyclopedia does have credibility--it's some individuals here whose credibility I strongly question. Now, for the third time--are yuo going to refactor your false claims that I said/intimated/implied (however you want to dance around it--why would you warn me against doing something that I havent done?) that "all Poles are antisemites" and/or that I have made charges against "entire nations?" Absent that show of good faith on your part to correct your fraudulent charge against me,, there is no further point in discussing this with you. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boodlesthecat, you asked me to retract things I did not say. How do you think I feel?

Indeed, this was a capital mistake I made, reaching my hand forward to you out of sympathy and you spitting on it. 100% my mistake. I should have known better. I promiss I will never interact with you again. How stupid of me to think you were involved only in a content dispute that on a give day got heated. How stupid of me to assume it was that simple. Dc76\^talk 19:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You propose I be penalized and write a series of lies about me out of "sympathy?" gee thanks. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two short remarks:

I did not remove the text quoted above. I moved it to the talk page. And obviously, Boodlesthecat only quotes himself. He did not quote my comments before and after his. Of course, that is his right, and I do not blame him for that. I just wanted you to know that what he quotes is not the entire thing. You can just go to talk page and find everything there, if you have nothing better to read.
Above I expressed my impression from a 24-hour experience. Please, do not assume it is the absolute truth. People are entitled to be wrong. I did not and do not accuse Boodlesthecat of anything except being confrontational with me. I did critisize him, but I did not accuse him of anything else. For what it is worth, he might be the one holding the truth and simply not being able to convey it in a temperate manner. Dc76\^talk 20:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that you did not accuse me of anything is transparently false, and documented. On the contrary--in this post you make accusations that because of me "your words are twisted to parade you as anti-Semite" and that I "link you with antisemitism." I NEVER even vaguely accused or linked you with any such thing or "paraded you" in any such manner. Over here we clearly see where you imply that I "use allegations of anti-Semitism, and accusations of "troll", "bigot", "sleaze" directed at other users, and especially at entire nations". This is another complete lie--you cannot and will not produce a single diff even remotely indicating that I have made any allegations against "entire nations." And you imply in the same post that I "call all Poles anti-Semitic." So for the 5th or 6th time, I strongly recommend that you retract these documented, false accusations on your part. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[277] I am sorry, but I really have to go now. Completely wasted time! Dc76\^talk 21:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object - Boodlesthecat should be restricted, not banned. After Boodles was banned on October 8 [278], his suspected sockpuppet Malik Shabazz entered the picture and removed all section of the disputed article Zydokomuna on the very same day [279]. After Jeeny was permanently banned Boodlesthecat became active. Both accounts should be contained; if you remove one, another one would surface. So why bother when this would accomplish nothing except losing the control for a while and having to start all these proceedings again in the near future? If ArbCom is unable to deal with this problem, no one should be banned. Better keep a close lid on both according to the old adage: Keep your friends close, but enemies closer. greg park avenue (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Where exactly has Malik Shabazz been identified as my "suspected sockpuppet?" And who is Jeeny? It's hard to keep up with your, um...creative posts Greg. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys admonished

2.13) Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished to avoid engaging in unhelpful public commentary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 01:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Can this very same wording, at the very least, be applied to User:Dr. Dan? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Thank you for feedback! I replied above and removed a couple of paragraphs from Evidence.Biophys (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account the grave nature of his offensive allegations (KGB and organized crime) and those allegations were made repeatedly after their being completely out of line was pointed out many times, I think mere admonishment is not enough. I would like to see Biophys on a strict remedy that would lead to immediate severe sanctions should he resume making such allegations (openly or veiledly) at any time. Perhaps, not everyone realizes how offensive it is to be accused of being an agent of the Russian state, especially KGB/FSB [280], or the organized crime [281], and what effects such allegations can have even in real lives. But if the ArbCom considers that the mere admonishment is sufficient to prevent recurrences of such outbursts (perhaps Kirill has more experience with Biophys than I do or has more experience in dealing with problematic editors in general) I am not going to insist on any explicit sanctions. I am hardly bloodthirsty and my main concern about Biophys is to see that such outrageous behavior stops. Maybe KL knows something that I don't. --Irpen 21:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#wikipedia-en-admins deprecated

3.1) The Committee recommends that use of the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel be discontinued.

3.2) The Committee will propose a restructuring of the current scheme of administrators' noticeboards in order to provide a suitable on-wiki replacement for those aspects of the channel which do not require privacy; see findings 8.2(a) and 8.2(c).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed 3.1 and 3.2. Kirill ^(prof) 20:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Strong support my limited experience with the channel shows that it gives more troubles than it worth Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We need a forum for real time interaction and quick responces. That said, I've for years supported public logging on the channel, to avoid any claims of "secret and incivil cabal discussions".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Suggest away. The Committee can't do anything about it, unless you can convince James to shut it down. I seriously doubt that will happen, because if it does, this will result in a number of small channels with even less decorum and more division among administrators. 8.1) is poorly thought out, in my opinion, unless by "be discountinued" you mean "discontinued for the purpose alleged in this case". Daniel (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Committee has no keys from this chat room to make any rulings on this channel that is plaguing this project for years now. What ArbCom can do, is address the ambiguity of the channel-Wikipedia relations and rule that the channel should be disconnected from the Wikipedia with all mentions of it removed from the policy pages. --Irpen 05:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I can see the benefit of a chat channel, because of its realtime nature compared with the unwieldy use of talk pages. The solution here is rather than fight it, have Wikimedia develop a built in chat facility, which would obviously give more transparency to the whole thing. Martintg (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages generally suck for instant communication, especially of a frivolous nature. It will be better with LiquidThreads, but to an extent, real-time chat is always better than on-wiki communication, simply because it's easier to use, and much quicker. — Werdna • talk 13:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unenforceable. And you've already promised to deal with IRC once or twice before with limited effect. If you want to stick with enforceable remedies, I suggest things like Admins who take on-wiki action based on IRC conversation without sufficient on-wiki discussion and consensus will be subject to severe sanction and then really enforce it--don't ignore or decline the next bad block or minor wheel war that involves IRC. Thatcher 14:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The only way Arbcom can effectively deal with off-wiki communication (be it IRC, Skype, or Smoke signals) is to hold Admins (and others) 100% accountable for their on-wiki actions. If it isn't possible to explain unilateral action with relevant diffs & policies/guidelines or show on-wiki consensus for the action - then the individual who took that action was wrong, even if the action turned out to be correct. I'm not a policy-wonk by any stretch of the imagination. I believe that this is one policy interpretation which, while it might sting a few well-intentioned individuals initially, would save a whole lot of time & frustration in the long run.. IMHO -- Versa geek 20:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Establish an admin-only discussion page on-wiki. Remove any links or references to the IRC in Wikipedia. After this, if it comes to light that anyone used IRC for an admin action that wasn't also discussed on the admin-only board before the action was taken, then desysop the involved admins immediately. That should take care of it. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. I don't see the point of even commenting on this ridiculous proposal because it won't happen. The Arbs have renegaded on such proposals before. I do not believe they have any intention of addressing this problem. I'm even cynical enough to say that such suggestions are only being made as it is obvious that IRC is going to be a contentious issue at the December Arbcom elections. Come January nothing will have changed. If people really want to see IRC brought to heel they can do so in December with a vote for non-IRC candidates in the meantime do not be swayed by talk from this IRC chatting Arbcom - we have heard it all before. Giano (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement reform

4) Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will open a general request for comments regarding the arbitration enforcement process, particularly where general sanctions are concerned. After this concludes, the Committee will consider instituting reforms to the process in keeping with the recommendations of the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 00:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Content dispute resolution reform

5) Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will propose reforms to the content dispute resolution process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 00:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Actually, I think this unnecessary. There isn't much wrong with content dispute resolution: it works very well when the parties are rational, reasonably intelligent, and engaged in a bona fide dispute. Naturally, when one of the parties is trolling or being tendentious it breaks down. But then so would any process. The problem here is an admin corps unwilling to clamp down on tendentious editors, not the DR process itself. Moreschi (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Case pages blanked

6) Following the conclusion of this case, all case pages, with the exception of the posted final decision, shall be courtesy blanked by the clerks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 00:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Evidence presentation guide

7) Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will publish a guide to properly presenting evidence in arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 00:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

A very good idea. Perhaps also a guide to proposing workshop proposal? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Commendations

Angusmclellan

8.1) Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is commended for his outstanding efforts towards resolving the dispute regarding the "Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018" article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 01:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I have asked Angus to mediate there, but I was eventually disappointed as he sided with Deacon. See evidence, in particular this diff accusing me "cherry-picking" quotes (from a source I went to much effort to provide Angus with...). As such, with all due respect to Angus, I believe he failed as a mediator - I will not ask him to mediate similar situations in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I have already made my view on "commendations" clear in regard to earlier proposals. It would be hypocritical not to make the same point here. It really isn't appropriate arbcom to commend or applaud people or things. And Piotrus has a valid point. If he doesn't feel I was fair to him, evidently I didn't do a very good job. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi

8.2) Moreschi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is commended for his diligence and dedication in arbitration enforcement work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 01:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Endorse. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree.Biophys (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1.1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeated violations. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

1.2) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeated violations. After the fifth block, the maximum duration shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard enforcement provisions, assuming some actionable restrictions are placed. Kirill ^(prof) 20:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Ncmvocalist

Proposed principles

Circumstantial evidence

The Committee are unlikely to sanction an editor solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In particular, editors are unlikely to be sanctioned for participating in a collective violation of policy, without direct and concrete evidence of their involvement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as an alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Dc76

Proposed principles

(1) The issues raised in this case are of two types: related to mainspace edits, and related to user-user relationships.

(2) [temporary] my proposal needs more wikification

(3) [temporary] grammar corrections are welcome

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Dc76\^talk 06:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea I had in mind when "distributing sanctions" below was for others to compare easily their own "findings" with those of others in regards to each user who has "trespassed". Therefore, please feel free to comment like (e.g.) "A topic ban of 1 month is insuficient. Should be 3 months." OR "A ban as proposed is too harsh. User has done nothing wrong to be banned." OR etc. I simply check diffs presented in this page and in /Evidence, as I presume most people reading this are. Dc76\^talk 06:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed sanctions to quell mainspace edit wars

(1) [from several proposals with my own editting] Various Eastern European history, geography, and politics topics have been a battleground at some point. While - as is the case with most other topics on WP - most of the problems in this area are solved/cleared in a civilized manner in discussions among content editors, a number of articles, issues and radicalized editors produce recurrent problems.

(2) [own] Remedees in previous ArbCom cases in this topic area (including Digwuren, Piotrus [1], Occupation of Latvia, AndriyK, and Transnistria) helped solve a number of problems, and were a real burst of confidence for the community towards commitment to the goals of Wikipedia.

(3) [from Peters Vercumba] Editor-specific remedy will serve to relieve the atmosphere of bad faith which currently envelopes the Baltic, Central, and Eastern European sphere of articles with regard to history and the role of the Soviet Union. This can be voluntary or mandatory, this can be temporary or permanent. A voluntary six-month cooling off period would demonstrate personal commitment to good faith.

(4) User:Alden Jones is prohibited from editing or otherwise substantively interacting with the article Truce of Vilna for 1 month.

(5) User:Alex Bakharev is prohibited from editing or otherwise substantively interacting with any of the articles Holodomor, Holodomor denial, Holodomor genocide question, and Kiev Expedition (1018) for 3 months.

(6) All comments and proposals about, by and to User:Boodlesthecat are moved to the talk page, since I don't want any longer to propose anything about him in this section. Please, discuss him in the sections intiated by others.

(7) User:Deacon of Pndapetzim is prohibited from editing or otherwise substantively interacting with the article Kiev Expedition (1018) for 6 months.

(8) User:Greg park avenue is prohibited from editing or otherwise substantively interacting with the articles Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, and History of the Jews in Poland for 2 months.

(9) User:Irpen is prohibited from editing or otherwise substantively interacting with any article related to Soviet history and politics in general, and especially in the articles Holodomor, Holodomor denial, Holodomor genocide question, Soviet-Polish War, Mikhail Meltyukhov, and Ukrainian language, until mentoring recommends removal of this ban. In addition, restriction on Kiev Expedition (1018) for 2 months.

(9a) [This is a last minute additioon.] Formally, the person has not been a party in this ArbCOm case. But content-wise and behavior-wise it is 100% identical with everything talked about here. Please, look at this AN/I thread. I do not know how about you, but I see a patern of stalking on the part of User:Kuban kazak together with User:Irpen against User:Hillock65. I propose:

User:Kuban kazak is prohibited from editing or otherwise substantively interacting with any article related to Ukrainian history, geography, religion and politics in general, and especially in the articles Holodomor, Holodomor denial, Holodomor genocide question, Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, History of Christianity in Ukraine, Ukrainians in Russia, Template:History of Ukraine, Zaporozhian Cossacks, Zaporizhian Sich, Cossacks, Ivan Bohun, Mukachevo, South Ukraine Nuclear Power Plant, and Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant until mentoring recommends removal of this ban.

(10) User:Lokyz is prohibited from editing or otherwise substantively interacting with the article Truce of Vilna for 1 month.

(11) User:Matthead - ? could be a problem, but no diffs provided, what diffs exist are what others talk about him, which is irrelevant. So, in absence of clear diffs I am hesitant to say either way.

(12) User:Poeticbent - one single diff (a revert in one article) does not qualify as edit warring. Would, nevertheless, Poeticbent take a voluntary 1 month cooling-off from articles on Polish-Jewish history? Not a ban.

(13) User:Relata_refero is prohibited from editing or otherwise substantively interacting with any of the articles Holodomor, Holodomor denial, Holodomor genocide question for 3 months.

(14) User:Stor stark7 is an interesting case. Although the diffs presented show that he clearly holds a fringe POV on some pre-WWII and post-WWII events, I must note that all instances I have seen of that POV being pushed are in talk pages. So, apparently he has not created problems in the mainspace. I also have not seen any incivility on his part. His arguments do have serious faults, and can be outrageous at times, but he has presented them in a civilized manner. I would ask Polish editors to debate him in talk pages and only if there are problems in mainspace to start a RfC on a specific range on pre- and post-WWII topics.

I would suggest Stor stark7 to think a little out of the box: do you really think Polish army officially ordered Jewish killings in 1919-1920? There is a recent Ukrainian movie about Nestor Makhno. Obviously, it's not a sourse. But it has an interesting feature: anti-Semitic sentiment/atmosphere in 1918-1920 Ukraine is presented very sincerely: the same people of Makhno one day would go on a Jewish killing spree, and the next day would be brothers with Jews and fight together against Russians. Speaks a lot about how deeply-rooted in personal conscience and simultaneously content-superficial was the anti-Semitic sentiment in 1918-1920 Ukraine. Another suggestion to Stor stark7: For how many 1945-46 Americans in Germany do you think was the Morgenthau Plan a "bible"? For very few. IMHO, some of your POVs on German-Polish WWII relations look very much as outrageous as the Morgenthau Plan. Try for 24 hours to look at the things from the other perspective. 99.5% of non-Germans have never plotted anything anti-German.

Would Stor stark7 take a voluntary 2 months cooling-off from articles on Polish-German history, and German WWII history? On one side, not a ban. On the other side, by no mean an approval of the really fringe POV. You should seriously think stopping promotting such POV on WP.

(15) Should the above-mentioned users start edit warring in articles other than the above mentioned, but area-connected with these, bans can gradually cover a wider range of articles, according to the table below:

If the same problem spills out of the article(s)	topic-ban the entire area
Truce of Vilna	Polish-Lithuanian history
Kiev Expedition (1018)	Ukrainian history
Ukrainian language	Ukrainian linguistics
Żydokomuna, Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, History of the Jews in Poland	Polish-Jewish history
Holodomor, Holodomor denial, Holodomor genocide question, Soviet-Polish War, Mikhail Meltyukhov	Soviet history
Another article	another area

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Too specific. The users listed above, with Irpen being the only semi-exception, are not one- or several- article fans, they are content area fans, and their edits are disruptive on an entire area (ex. Polish-Jewish history, Ukrainian history, Polish-Lithuanian history, etc.). Topic bans are helpful, but they should be area based, not article-based. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I was reviewing the diffs. In the articles I mentioned I noticed repeated edit warring behavior. For example, the first in alphabetic order: Alden Jones. There is evidence in diffs of his rv-warring in Truce of Vilna. You want me to say he did the same in entire Polish-Lithuanian history? That would be believing your word without checking diffs. On the other hand, if a user receives a ban on 2-3 articles, and after a while the same problems arise in other articles, in the same topic area, admins can be given instruction to gradually topic-increase the banned area. IMHO, gradual increase in what topics are banned is more efficient than gradual increase of the length of the ban. There are two instruments here - time length and topic area - , and they can be leveraged differently according to circumstances.

The length of the ban should rather be a function of the attitude of the person. Someone who is civilized and apologizes can be reinstated in 1 week. Someone who keeps the grudge needs a longer cool-off. A person can be banned in some topic area for 6 months and be free to edit in any other area, even to interact in other areas with users with whom edit-war occurred in the problematic topics. Civilized interaction in other areas can have healing effect on the problematic areas. Therefore I am personally opposed to issuing total WP bans for trespasses in a specific area. That, of course, if it is all about edit-warring in mainspace. If it is about name-calling, see next sub-section, and ban on the spot. Dc76\^talk 21:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could add Piotrus or anyone delegated by him can issue topic bans to anyone he chooses on any topic. This is so biased and ridiculous it is almost contempt. Nothing more needs said. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Piotrus, and any other edittor ever involved in this ArbCom case should NOT issue any ban based on this case. These all are proposals of instructions for UNINVOLVED admins. I thought this was more than obvious! It would have been a black-white case of conflict of interest. Dc76\^talk 18:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus personally coached Dc76 on his presentations in this arb. This is not material to be taken seriously as objective commentary, Deacon. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, sure, Piotrus coached me just as I deny existence of anti-Semitism. I might not be objective because I do not know the whole picture, but to claim I am acting as a Piotrus' puppet you have to be really mean. If you answer, I won't answer in this section anymore. So, if you post for me, post somewhere else pls. If you post for others, post whereever and whatever you wish, that only proves your character features. Dc76\^talk 18:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And my pointing out that Piotrus personally coached you on your postings here and offered you advice as to how he should be portrayed proves exactly WHAT about MY character? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dedication to confrontation. Dc76\^talk 19:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And where did I say you were "Piotrus' puppet"? I simply said Piotrus personally coached you on your presentation. "Puppet" is your word. And at least you admit that after he offered his coaching, you felt obliged to offer your opinions not knowing, as you admit, "the whole picture," and without being objective. So Piotrus coaches you, and then you show up to offer opinions and recommendations of "punishments" to editors who have opposed Piotrus, even though you admit you dont know "the whole picture" and even though you admit you are not "objective. And you accuse me of "dedication to confrontation". Okay. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Dc76\^talk 19:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Dc76\^talk 06:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with Piotrus on area versus article. In the larger conflict, it's "let sleeping dogs lie", so, if I proposed renaming Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940 to delete the 1940 and go back to Soviet occupations of Latvia, I'm sure the conflict would raise its ugly head there. My interests have tended to follow a larger sphere of articles and I have run across Irpen, at least, in most. (DC76, you and I know each other best over Romania, et al. where Irpen used to back Anonimu in edit wars.) —PētersV (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the caveat that by no means I would presume to hold the absolute truth, I would like to point out that the argument you are giving is exctly contained in the reason why above for Irpen I proposed a larger, area ban on Soviet history and politics (compared with my proposals for other users, where I proposed mostly article-specific bans).

In the case of Soviet-Romanian relations, IMHO, Irpen's strategy of supporting Anonimu backfired. Feeling the support of Irpen, Anonimu radicalized and became very incivil. He was then banned. I don't know all the specific details of the days when Anonimu was blocked, because I was on a wiki-break when that oocured. But I do remember Irpen's support, Anonimu's radicalization, and then when I come from the wiki-break, I find Anonimu banned. If Irpen would apply the same kind of strategy in all areas, WP would no longer have any problems. :) Dc76\^talk 00:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I think this is a reasonable approach in general. Some specific sanctions may be adjusted a little.Biophys (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed sanctions to quell abusive attacks by users on each other

(1) [from several proposals with my own editting] Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Editors should not leap to such accusations, either.

(2) [own] Evidence collection is within the norms of the community, as long as the person collecting it does not spend more than 20% of the edits on that. While a user is free to gather evidence in own user talk/user sandbox space, the user is fully responsible for the exactness between what the user claims the diffs show, and what the diffs do show whenever posting them in ArbCom cases, in AN/I threads, in RfCs and the like. Should serious discrepances appear, the user can be banned from filing ArbCom cases, posting AN/I notes, starting RfCs for durations from 1 week to 1 year. All instances of these bans will be logged, and linked to this case.

(3) [from Kirill Lokshin] Users should not respond to inappropriate behavior in kind, or engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism.

(4) [own] ArbCom has found evidence that civil content creators are harassed and chased off by tag teams. Therefore:

(5) All comments and proposals about, by and to User:Boodlesthecat are moved to the talk page, since I don't want any longer to propose anything about him in this section. Please, discuss him in the sections intiated by others.

(6) User:Deacon of Pndapetzim has treated Wikipedia as a battleground. He is prohibitted from filing ArbCom cases, starting RfC, posting new AN/I threads, etc. for 1 year.

(7) User:Greg park avenue is advised to use terms such as "kick your sorry ass for this cunctative tactics" with outmost care. Should instances of usage occure, he can be blocked for periods from 1 week to 1 month.

(8) User:Irpen has treated Wikipedia as a battleground and was disruptive and incivil to a number of users. He is prohibitted from filing ArbCom cases, starting RfC, posting new AN/I threads, etc. for 1 year. Irpen needs to be mentored to create content again.

(9) User: Malik Shabazz is advised to use terms such as "Jew-baiting", "strong tradition of antisemitism in Poland" (if aimed at an user), and "troll" with outmost care. Should instances of usage occure, he can be blocked for periods from 1 week to 1 month.

(10) User:Piotrus - nothing in diffs, except threatening with block a users who removed a comment from talk page, a legitimate admin warning. Give Piotrus advice to not interact with User:Boodlesthecat in the future ?

(11) User:Sciurinæ is advised to use accusations of "you clearly represent Polish nationalist interests" and "you habitually count picking on Germany and Germans all throughout history until today" with outmost care. Should instances of fraudulent usage occure, he can be blocked for periods from 1 week to 2 weeks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. Users should not be advised to use incivil comments "with utmost care". They should be advised that any use of it may result in a ban for creating a battleground (particularly if preceeded by a history of warnings, including ones expected from this arbcom). Regarding Boodlesthecat: if he gets a ban from Polish-Jewish topics, I certainly will not interact with him, since this is the only area our interests overlap.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"X is advised to use an incivil comment with outmost care" is a way of speech. :) In English it means "if you, admin Y, see him using this or similar comment just one more time, block him on the spot". Anyone understood this differently? It is a last warning, and in a last warning you don't threat, you simply say "the line is crossed, you need to make just one more move in the wrong direction to be punished". Anyway, I am not opposed to slight reformulation. I am not a law expert to come up with the right words right away. Dc76\^talk 20:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All comments and proposals about, by and to User:Boodlesthecat are moved to the talk page, since I don't want any longer to propose anything about him in this section. Please, discuss him in the sections intiated by others.

Comment by others:

Proposed. Dc76\^talk 06:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Relata refero

Proposed principles

User:Biophys has, aside from tendentious and unencyclopaedic editing, repeatedly and after being advised not to, made extraordinary assumptions of bad faith, in order to win a content dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No alternative. Supporting evidence on the Evidence talkpage of this RfArb. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely inappropriate and oppose. I and many others have asked you specifically what is it that according to you makes Denial of the Holodomor the "worst article" in Wikipedia. You keep insisting you've explained in detail, but there's nothing to hold on to. One person's tendentiousness is another's faithful interpretation of sources. As for "assumptions of bad faith," your penchant for criticising without suggesting concrete changes to content is little more than the bad faith you accuse others of. I have found Biophys to be an upstanding editor who contributes appropriately based on reputable sources. It's so easy to accuse other editors of poor behavior when you contribute little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT (as far as I can tell). —PētersV (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, bollocks. If you refuse to look at the point-by-point demolishing on the article talkpage there's nothing I can do; and furthermore, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the state of the article or my views on it, it has something to do with this editor's completely inappropriate behaviour. Really, what a farce arbitration is. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly been demolished, but that's editorial opinion. Biophys has not contended anything for which he has not also provided a concrete basis. Tar content by attempting instead to tar the editor--there I agree with you that arbitration is a farce where facts and fanciful interpretations are both presented on an equal basis. —PētersV (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't waste everyone's time. You brought up the content. Irrelevant, because we're discussing editor behaviour, which has been deeply unacceptable in one aspect in particular, which you haven't addressed. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her discretion, ban User:Biophys from a talkpage if the latter is found making assumptions of bad faith, or using what the administrator believes are similar methods to win a content dispute. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

People, feel free to tweak it. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sour grapes to be summarily deleted. —PētersV (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No bad faith accusations at article talk pages. Yes, this is the rule.Biophys (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Irpen's discovery of Piotrus' evidence list: evidence of stalking?

Irpen's claim that he "accidentally" discovered this list[282] via some unrelated Google searching doesn't add up. What possible combinations of search terms could reveal this evidence list? Was the list apparent in the first couple of pages of results or did he have to dig down and sift through dozens of pages of Google search results?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Perhaps Irpen could post the original google url that contains the search strings that lead him to "accidentally" discover this list. Martintg (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I was about to leave for a few days but I've got to respond to this vile. Martin, you are effectively accusing me of lying. I can only repeat that my explanation given in this thread is the Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The Black Book was on the first page of google results. Maybe Pitorus made some sort of a mistake when he left the page in the intermediate condition for several days and it made it googleable at that particular unfortunate time of our unrelated dispute when he challenged me to find the reference to our past discussion claiming he never said what he said. Piotrus took measures to prevent his Black Book discovery by logging out before adding stuff to it. So I would not have been able to find it by stalking. That is on top of the fact that I certainly never ever stalked Piotrus. I really do not remember the exact date nor the google string as I explained here. I have no habit of lying. There must be a limit Martin to the absurd nonsense you keep saying around about myself. It is plain obvious by now that you conduct is egregiously vindictive. Grow up! --Irpen 01:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Irpen explains that he has found the black book accidentally doing a vanity search. What are the other theories? The edits were done from a dynamic IP on Polish wiki. Irpen monitors all the recent changes in Polish wiki? Irpen monitors all the anonymous IP from Pensylvania? It looks like extraordinary hypothesises require extraordinary proof. Unless the proof is provided I would ote oppose Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Alex, the hypothesis that Irpen found the evidence page "by accident", with it appearing on the first page of the returned Google results as he claims, is indeed extraordinary. Hence that was why I asked for the Google URL Irpen used so that we can replicate the result. Martintg (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made at least one edit, early on, logged in ([283]). As I've explained: I wanted to keep this semi-private (hidden from google to avoid offending people doing google vanity search), but if anybody wanted to dedicate considerable time to stalking my pl edits, it was findable. I can think of several other ways one could trace me, too. I was curious if anybody would be that dedicated. Apparently, somebody was. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter whether he found it by accident or deliberately? — Werdna • talk 10:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen's evidence of "Sophisticated incivility"

In presenting evidence of "sophisticated incivility" on the evidence page, Irpen clearly demonstrates how this terminal lack of good faith gets in the way of effective collaboration with some editors, and why Irpen needs to be placed on a permanent "wikibreak" from interacting with some people.

Case in point is this episode Irpen presents from March 2007 (paraphrased below from the evidence page), where any other editor involved in a tough content dispute would have taken Piotrus' initial words of thanks with good grace and even humour (and thus would have ended the matter), however Irpen sees it as "one step to far":

Here Piotrus makes a completely uncalled for post at my talk "thanking" me for my "bad edits" that prompted him to spend so much time on a particular article. His wish to "Keep it up and I am sure we will see it on FAC in the near future :)" is very civil without doubt. When I calmly respond that this post is just "one step too far" and that he "used to avoid needlessly inflaming matters which this post is nothing but" Piotrus continues his offensive taunting claiming that there was no sarcasm and he finds my actions to "motivate him to work harder on Wikipedia" and that he is "thanking me again for that". I responded that I won't feed him anymore but apparently Piotrus feels he has not taunted me enough yet. He comes back and accuses me of bad faith edits aimed at "disrupting an article pushing my POV" and this is always "feeding" him to spend more time on that. Only when I say that any of his further such entries that are nothing but banal harassment will be simply removed, he stops.

There is nothing particularly wrong with having tough content disputes, as it challenges editors to produce the best possible content particularly when there are competing narratives, which benefits the project in the long run. The problem is that when the content dispute is settled, some editors continue to bear ill will against their opponents long after. This ill-will is manifested in the seemingly never-ending stream of EE cases brought before ArbCom, which is poisoning the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is not isolated, Irpen has on occasion called Vecrumba's good faith comments "vicious". Perhaps a Polish and Baltic topic ban for Irpen may be the answer here. I can't recall any significant contribution from Irpen in those areas anyway, apart from driving away several good editors with his combative attitude. Martintg (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add that much of his diffs fall within the scope of Piotrus 1 general amnesty remedy. If I were to ignore the amnesty and present evidence of past wrongdoings on the part of some editors, my evidence would be several times longer... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing the Proton-Antiproton (aka Piotrus/Vercumba/etc-Irpen) collisions can be achieved effectively by limiting the places this can occure. So in view of Irpen's grudge (I infer it from the cited text above) and unwillingness to forget (even when asked by the ArbCom case Piotrus1), a narrow topic ban could help. For example, not on all Polish and Baltic topics, but only on Polish/Baltic-Soviet/Russian interactions (b/c the problems stem from Piotrus creating/expanding articles in that areas, and Irpen attacking them). Contributing to, say bibliography of a Polish scientist or architecture of a building in a Baltic country, is ok. So, they will continue to interact only in places where there is no conflict. Dc76\^talk 08:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "No conflict" between individual parties in this RfA means "where there has been no Soviet presence". This is simply not workable. Editor topic bans in the larger context here are a band-aid on a community problem. I have suggested amnesty and the RfA editor-on-editor moratorium so we can

never dredge up the past again and
move ahead with our lives, editorial and otherwise

Everyone has professed their desire to live their WP lives in good faith. This is simply not possible while we drag around past baggage. It only takes one (unfounded) accusation of bad faith to spiral into endless recriminations over everything that has ever happened all taken in the worst light, hashing through everything again. (And without ever posting it I deleted a hashing of the past which I fell into as part of this edit.) As much as I would appreciate the dispensing of punishments or restrictions in certain areas, I'm willing to forgo that if Arbcom can give us the simple (if drastic) ruling I request.

Should Arbcom note that such a drastic solution and opportunity to move forward does not improve the participation of particular editors regarding particular topics, a specific topic ban would be open to being revisited by Arbcom and NOT at the instigation of an editor-on-editor RfA during the moratorium period. —PētersV (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have proven over and over again that the "fair" solutions in these conflicts which mete out punishment "equally" to "both sides" to teach "both" to cease and desist from future conflict DO NOT WORK. Equal punishment does not work--in fact, it breeds extraordinarily bitter resentment on both sides, just causing future trenches to be dug even deeper and even larger artillery to be applied to future conflicts in order to avenge the past. So if we are going to continue on the road of equal fairness, let's take the high road and go for equal amnesty and for the moratorium to insure such amnesty has time to "stick." —PētersV (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of M.K and Novickas

Looking at the articles presented in evidence of conflict, it is obvious they are mostly concerned with areas of shared Lithuanian-Polish history. What they are basically asking of Arbcom here, in a nut shell, is assistance in giving the Lithuanian viewpoint the upper hand in these content disputes over shared Lithuanian-Polish history, by asking Arbcom to sanction one of the most effective and prolific Polish editors Wikipedia has in its stable.

While I have deep empathy with Lithuania and Poland due to my interest in Baltic and East European history generally, I am disturbed by the inability by some to play the ball and not the person and focus on the bigger issue concerning all of EE: that of Russian nationalists and their supporters pushing Soviet era POV. I was involved briefly in the content dispute in Holocaust in Lithuania and disagreed with some of the material written by Piotrus, but I have no bone to pick with him, ultimately the content dispute which Vecrumba helped to mediate was resolved and the article's quality immeasurably improved as a result. Re-opening these past content disputes and bringing them here says more about the complainant than anything else.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Exactly. And this attitude is shared by other parties: Boody wants to portray Jewish historiography as one and only and ignore the Polish historiography (since all Polish historians are anti-semitic ethnonationalists...), Irpen wants to cite Meltyukhov to support modern "Putin-approved" version of history and he wants to hide negative reviews of his work, and so on... And it is not suprising: for "true believers", there is only one POV - theirs - and it is the "Truth", to be enshrined as NPOV in Wikipedia, and any who disagree are evil. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

A sense of perspective is needed here. Martintg (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The perspective is obvious, imho: "ultimately the content dispute which Vecrumba helped to mediate was resolved and the article's quality immeasurably improved as a result". Ask Vecrumba (and others) in the future to mediate again. Dc76\^talk 08:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My thanks for how well this has been stated. Conflicts in good faith over reputable sources involving even the most painful historical conflicts can be remedied. Piotrus himself requested my assistance. That this is made out to be something against Piotrus is ludicrous--and speaks volumes about the accuser. —PētersV (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading evidence (2)

I'd like to draw attention to the post by a neutral admin (with whom I've never interacted before this arbcom): [284]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Zed zed zed. Nothing more sophisticated to be said here. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that is a good illustration of how Deacon "discusses" things on talk, while revert warring in the mainspace... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but pointless space-wasting partisan posts like this are just boring and will probably be ignored. And unfortunately for this assertion, my talk page comments on the Boleslaw article are actually ... on the Boleslaw article. They're still there! Yes. See Talk:Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018, where you will find them. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment. This is a very, very important point that ArbCom needs to address, being the dishonest editing that happens in ANI and other forums, with the falsification, misrepresentation and skewing of evidence. There needs to be a statement of principle in this regard. Martintg (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; could you propose one? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of Proposed. In considering evidence (diffs et al.), admins should

examine the evidence, not personal interpretations of the evidence exhibiting "proof" of any intent or conduct; and
examine entire threads that the evidence is part of to insure context is appropriately considered in evaluation of the said evidence.

Accusations in any forum outside this RfA's scope (evidence, workplace,...) are inadmissible as "proof" of any intent or conduct.

Suggestions for refinements? PētersV (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Tag_team_1:_Russian

Comparison of Irpen's and Piotrus' daily new article edit count (averaged over a 12 week sliding window) by mainspace

Piotrus has provided an interesting graph in this section of his evidence, which piqued my curiosity. I have made the following analysis and supply it without comment here for discussion. There are plenty of tools available, so other interested people may make their own analyses if they wish.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Interesting. I'd assume that the last dip in my mainspace contribs (proportional to no-mainspace edits) represents this arbcom. the dip in the middle of 2007 (around Jul) represents Piotrus 1 ArbCom. The second, smaller dip later that year represents the Digwuren arbcom I was not that active in. I honestly have no idea giant dip in the middle of 2006. Do note that from Piotrus 1 arbcom onwards, there is a correlation between my and Irpen editing pattern - we both have the same "dips", which represent participation in the same giant, time-consuming arbcoms - which as the graph shows represent now vast majority of what Irpen does on Wikipedia. PS. see also analysis of Irpen's edits I posted in evidence - more detail available following the link in the heading of this section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Standard disclaimers apply. Martintg (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what this graph is suppose to prove other than both Piotrus and Irpen seems to have strong interest in checking new articles. I also not sure if such images are not violation of privacy of the users. Unless the purpose is explained can we remove the image from this page? Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is reporting someones public edits on Wikipedia a "violation of privacy", particularly given the number of tools available for anyone to use in Wikipedia:WikiProject_edit_counters? Martintg (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed it before, Martin, collection of evidence against Irpen or discussion of his behavior is, to some, very annoying. Some people, indeed, would like to be above public scrutiny, and don't understand why others can comment on them - this should only be theirs right, not others.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested why so many Opt-In and Opt-out options are available with e.g. the Interiot counter. There is not that much additional clues are usually required to guess real-life indentity of a user. Do you know what those minima on the graphs means? I do not but e.g. assuming that Irpen is a software developer and the minima are the release dates of their product the info is enough to calculate the employer. At any rate those graphs are not usable for the workshop and only create additional clutter Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With thousands of software companies around the world, each with dozens for product lines at various stages in the development, it would be increadibily difficult to identify anyone with any certainty. Add in other companies that work to a schedule, such as architects, builder, construction companies, advertising companies, etc, etc, etc, the odds become astronomical. If anything the graphs indicate the magnitude of Wikipedia activity between the two as well as the relative priority between mainspace and the rest. Martintg (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still putting personal info without any particular need is wrong. We never know how a personal info might be used. The "new articles edited by a user" show almost nothing. At any rate, why did you put only Irpen and Piotrus on the graph? How about yourself, myself, Dean, Greg Avenue, Poeticbent, Boddlethecat, etc.? Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Molobo

Proposed findings of fact

Wikipedia as media for non-mainstream views

Wikipedia is a relatively new and open media. This puts it in different area then TV or widespread newspapers, that require significant amount of resources to operate and distribute. Mainstream history and views exist alongside fringe views and beliefs that are not generally accepted as valid interpretations of history, facts or reality. Due to openess of Wikipedia and its growing popularity to use as reference, it is unevitable that it will be a magnet to people wishing to advocate a belief that otherwise would be not accepted by mainstream history or media. As such Fringe and extreme political movements will be attracted to Wikipedia, due to to ability to present or influence the worldview to their benefit. However we should not be naive enough to assume that a person will write "Holocaust didn't happen" for example. Only a very unsofisticated person would do that. Instead the manipulation would follow small step by step, edits in neighbouring articles and so on. Making several small edits which would bend the view to support a larger hidden view.The best way to do this would be to manipulate by selective quotes and adding picked out sourced info that would manipulate the reader into coming to a conclusion that resembles the opinion, that the manipulating user supports and which is fringe. Wikipedia faces interests from various political and worldview believers that can use it to promote non-mainstream POV, especially in areas not widely known among general readers of Wiki. I would add that the problem intensifies with dedicated groups, as the chance of cooperative editing increases. --Molobo (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Darwinek

Several days ago I suffered a headache. Why? I went through only several percent of this RFARB comments/statements/evidence. I am absolutely cool and neutral about this RFARB, and to be honest with you, I don't really care about the outcome. From my outside point of view it seems to be just a heated, self-accelerating confrontation between two parties. Alex is my friend, Piotrus is my friend, I have good relations with some users who confront with Piotrus, although I must admit some users act frequently below the line of good behaviour. Both parties have positive input in en wp, both create good and valuable articles about Poland or Lithuania (which is btw extremely vital in WP overflowed with articles about Texas or California), both enrich our community, but both also confront each other and from time to time participate in some edit warring (which I was regrettably participant a few times) and heated discussions. It is clear to me that some users feel strong negative feelings towards each other, which rather don't help our community. I would like to see both parties happy and content. But this is not some Pleasantville, WP is a part of real world and various confrontations occur in real world. This process is healthy for any society, as it denotes plurality, so precious. I know, I know, "Wikipedia is not a democracy", I just wanted to remind that 1.) Both parties confront (sometimes in nasty way) and ain't holy. 2.) It is quite normal, although more temperance is definitely needed. One closing remark - I think members of ArbCom and other users who will try to resolve this case should get some huge hug or free beer from all participants, because it's a really huge (amount of text, diffs etc.) case. Regards and good luck to all. - Darwinek (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, you named incorrectly one party: it is not Alex. That's the whole problem. I think Alex is only forced by the circumstances of the case and his country of origin to be part of this.Dc76\^talk 08:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This makes him a party.Biophys (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Termer There is one thing I'm not getting. Instead of all this fuzz and waste of time, in case there are 2 different or more POV's in any given subject, why doesn't get the WP:NPOV implemented by clearly defining the opposing POV-s in an article? I do believe I can take credit for defusing at least 2 problem cases on WP. One of which was Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940. Back then my intention was to clearly separate the Western and Latvian versus the Soviet and current Kremlin's POV-s in the article, and what happened- the piece has been a stable place ever since. And that after the article went through a similar arbcom case like the one here WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia and had been placed under probation for a year. Lately I came across a conflict between Polish and German POVs regarding Prince-Bishopric of Warmia. My solution was putting both periods into one article, the Polish and the German story side by side and there has not been any editwarrings ever since.

So the solution for the World peace on WP seems to be simple, just follow the WP:NPOV that says you should have conflicting perspectives within an article do the fighting instead of fighting and editwarring over POV-s in the article. From my experience the problems start when some guys who do not tolerate the POV-s of their opponents, and instead of spelling out the POV they might support in any given article, keep manipulating and often remove the opposing POV-s. And that's what I call information warfare instead of building an encyclopedia according to WP:NPOV which says all possible POV-s that are based on WP:RS should rest happily together within an article. thanks!--Termer (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. Just some people prefer to muscle their soap boxing through using tag team editing and shopping for blocks of their content opponents. That is all Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the solution for the World peace on WP seems to be simple, just follow the WP:NPOV that says you should have conflicting perspectives within an article That's a shortsighted view-example:It would mean in Holocaust to have Holocaust denial as valid counterpoint. Or in Katyn Massacre statements that the Polish officers were fascist spies as counterpoint of equal weigght. I know you didn't intend it but that would be extension of the idea.--Molobo (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misunderstanding of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Holocaust denial is sufficiently fringe to be included only in articles on denial and deniers. In the world I live in, although perhaps not everywhere on the planet, the claims of Stalinist propaganda and Soviet historiography on Katyn are almost equally crank/fringe. They'd merit a mention, but only that, and clearly attributed *in the text*, not in a footnote. NPOV works, eventually. It works much faster if those involved assume good faith, avoid using Wikipedia as a battleground, et cetera. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have an established a precise definition of fringe unfortunetely, the one existing is too vogue and subject to interpetation. The dispute if a claim is fringe or not, especially when they are concerning topics not widely or deeply researched in western sources is a frequent problem in the area of this Arbcom. For example we had once claim that Russian soldiers were mass murdered in Warsaw in XVIII century by Irpen supported among others by Russian XIX century sources. Only by personal research, editors discovered that the claim was falsification(the soldiers were to be murdered in church, that was IIRC discovered to be build after those events). The bottom line is we are dealing in history that often is poorly researched in the West and simple solutions do not work. Also users are reluctant to take an opinion on those issues do to atmosphere that surrounds Central European topics, or they lack the proper education to judge a source or claim.--Molobo (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We sure do have an established definition of fringe, it's defined by common sense. In case there is none left, it pays off to double check out the policy, especially the WP:UNDUE :Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. And is it really so difficult to show per WP:RS that ideas like Polish officers were fascist spies are just too far out to be considered anything but ridiculous. Well, and in case anybody can come up with any sources that claim so, what's wrong with stating the fact like the given example: according to source X the soldiers were murdered in the church that in fact was built so much time after the event? Like said, the facts should speak for themselves.--Termer (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"And is it really so difficult to show per WP:RS that ideas like Polish officers were fascist spies are just too far out to be considered anything but ridiculous."-Termer, having seen disputes surrounding CEE issues I know examples of very extreme viewpoints being presented as facts, or facts being removed or citations being demanded in most obvious statements. As well as completely unreliable sources being defended-I personally had to argue for removing a real Nazi propaganda book(published in 1934 by Nazi Germany and written by known Nazi propagandist) as a source for Polish-German history. Perhaps the problem is that the dispute resolution ways don't work since admins are unwilling or not knowledgable enought to take a stance on a issue.--Molobo (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't see the problem. In case anybody adds "a real Nazi propaganda book" as a source to an article, there is WP:RSN for the purpose where everybody can get answers to such a question. meanwhile, the only thing that would need to happen, instead of removing the source and starting an edit war about it, let the facts do the talking by saying that according to this source thing is this and that and the source itself is "a real Nazi propaganda book" according to following sources. The bottom line of this, nothing has changed what I've already said right in the beginning: you should have conflicting perspectives within an article do the fighting instead of fighting and editwarring over POV-s in the article.--Termer (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, no one objects to keep all sources. In practice, Irpen and some others simply remove any texts they do not like, even if they are sourced to academic books [285], [286],[287]. Instead, they use self-published sources on the internet to "discredit" academic books [288]. ("Is an email being used to override peer-reviewed literature? Good God!", said uninvolved User:Sarvagnya in last diff). This is the reason of many ArbCom cases.Biophys (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sarvagna said that and then went on to be contradicted by every single regular at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. But that doesn't matter, apparently. We can happily misread the source, as it were. This is precisely the sort of deliberate misreading that means you're incapable of contributing to WP effectively and need to be banned. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can do with this is just repeat myself and ask again: in case there are 2 different or more POV's in any given subject, why doesn't get the WP:NPOV implemented by clearly defining the opposing POV-s in the articles? The policy is simply that we should describe disputes, not engage in them. And since editwarring has been one of the major issues on this case page, I'd recommend to those who see on WP "enemies and friends" around them go over once more the WP:ENEMY. --Termer (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Termer, I actually agree with you. Yes, of course, WP:NPOV should be implemented, but it is vigorously opposed and violated by certain editors. You asks "why doesn't get the WP:NPOV implemented"?. The answer is obvious. Because in certain cases (see my diffs) some editors do not want this policy to be implemented "by clearly defining the opposing POV-s in the articles". Instead, they want an opposite majority view to be eliminated. ArbCom is powerless to enforce WP:NPOV policy because it considers such things "content disputes".Biophys (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're right and ArbCom is powerless in enforcing the cornerstones of Wikipedia, I'd have an answer to my question why doesn't get the WP:NPOV implemented? Any community or society where the law is not enforced would be a mess and an anarchy , why would WP be any different. I'm not saying that WP should become an administrative bureaucracy, but if such basic rules like the traffic lights get ignored or are not working, a traffic jam is what you're going to get, and that's exactly what has caused this case I think.--Termer (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existing system works very well in most areas (chemistry, biology, geography, etc.) However, I believe that we need an editorial board to deal with political/history subjects, and a few other contentious subjects (such as global warming). A member of editorial board on Polish subjects, for example, could be someone who made significant content contributions in this area, and preferably holds at least a B.S. degree.Biophys (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. You should make a proposal for an editorial borad on Soviet or CEE hitorical and political topics. It would be a first for WP, but it is also a proofcase of WP's maturity: quality, not quanitity is now the major problem, at lest in these areas. The board should have the power to occasionally contact, in the name of WP, scholars to request outside oppinion on a given topic. IMHO, it should accept cases of articles or groups of articles, and provide gideline for the coverage of a topic. The guideline should specify what "content" must not be removed from the article, and what "content" should not be present in the article. Outside that, editors should have freedom to edit how they wish. By "content" here I mean not several exact paragraphs of text, but rather a description of the scholarly oppinion in the particular matter. The editors should then edit through the prism of their personal understanding of this scholarly oppinion. Dc76\^talk 06:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The system works just fine as long as anybody takes their time and effort and follows the WP:NPOV. Once the POV-s have been spelled out very clearly, according to whom exactly anything is like this or that, the articles do stabilize. One of the most difficult cases probably on WP the Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940 is evidence of that. Also, it has taken time but Holodomor seems has finally stabilized, even though it has taken at least a year to get it thus far. So it shows that even most diverse political POV-s can coexist in articles with no problem as long as it's clear who says exactly what. And there is no need to have any editorial boards since anybody who'd be willing to take their time can check out if any given fact or opinion in any article is based on WP:RS sources or are we dealing with random personal opinions, the latter should be simply removed per WP:NOTSOAPBOX. And it shouldn't be difficult to separate facts from opinions. For example: The Earth is flat is an opinion. The fact is: the Earth is flat according to the Flat Earth Society. There is nothing different once it's about politics or history.--Termer (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily disagreeing with you. But how do you enforce if someone continues to edit war after it has been soursed as you say? Of course, if admins would have more 'currage... But they don't, many rather accept pretending it's all a content dispute about ... er, what? ... the shape of the earth? ... oh, that's a hard one, scholar sappear to not agree on it so we continue to have edits wars and we the admins can only block users for their behavior. In fact we like blocking users for random rants than reading an article and trying to read into the issue. Dc76\^talk 06:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I think you're clearly missing what this was all about. you should have conflicting perspectives within an article do the fighting instead of fighting and editwarring over POV-s in the article. It can be only turned into a content dispute if anybody pretends like any POV is the final word on the subject. Have separate chapters if needed , as long as it's clear who says what exactly instead of having continuous mix of random POV-s that can be easily challenged and removed and replaced all the time. How are you going to remove or challenge anything if you had well sourced paragraphs or even chapters in the article: 1.The position of Flat Earth Society; 2.The position of Geographers Association etc. In case it's laid out like that there can be no content dispute, meaning a fight over POV-s in the article but there would be conflicting perspectives within an article that do the fighting. And again, the proof that it's working has been given with the examples above. And the reason it's working, it's not in anybody's power on WP to change the POV-s of the Flat Earth and the Geography associations.--Termer (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Tadeusz Piotrowski, Poland's Holocaust, page 60
^ [Stefan Korbonski, Poles, Jews and the Holocaust]

[1] Tadeusz Piotrowski, Poland's Holocaust, page 60

[2] [Stefan Korbonski, Poles, Jews and the Holocaust]

[1]

[2]