Change to active clerks

To all concerned parties: Clerk Daniel is on real-life vacation and hence has withdrawn from clerking this case. Clerk KnightLago is his replacement, assisted by trainee clerk Manning. Manning (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruption by list members continues

I'm afraid Battle of Konotop is incurable. Plenty of volunteers beyond the ring of usual suspects. NVO (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
At this point the article should be properly protected (which was just done), and parties need to discuss things on talk (with a possible mediation?) till they agree not to revert war again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
As for my supposed edit warring at Aleksei Losev, you better read through my arguments at the respective talk page. I had a similar encounter at Igor Shafarevich, and I do feel I am right here. That case obviously has no 'mailing list' involvement, it is more of a question if we are here at all to build up an encyclopedia or in order to post tabloid press rubbish. So if you Offliner want to accuse me of disruptive editing, please do so on the basis of your stolen mailing list evidence, not totally unrelated conflicts I've been party to here on wikipedia. Thank you. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I thank Offliner and PasswordUsername for getting to the essence of the argument here, that:

I additional thank Offliner for his use of the "Soviet Procurator" model in the section title: "Disruption by list members continues", that is, present all communication in terms which indicate a crime is already confirmed to have been committed and the defendant already convicted. PL calls. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  15:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all about framing - with a healthy dose of domestic abuse :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Key principle that I feel is lacking

While there is a principle on Gaming the System, it is geared towards editing issues. I feel the principle of Stonewalling (covered under WP:GAME) geared more towards its use in Dispute Resolution really needs to be covered in this case. The success of this tactic in preventing the resolution of disputes on Wikipedia has always bothered me. I think it would be useful if Arbcom specifically condemned it.--BirgitteSB 20:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What specific dispute are you claiming was prevented from being resolved through this "tactic of stonewalling"? --Martintg (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The allegations of Russavia socking is one example. Or at least the AN/I thread on that subject. I suppose it could have been resolved somewhere else that I haven't followed. Did that ever get resolved that you know of or were the allegations just left hanging?--BirgitteSB 02:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It was raised, discussed and discarded by the community, and to my knowledge never brought back. There was no harassment or stonewalling (?) involved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
From what Russavia's evidence it was first raised in Nov 2008 and was still being brought back up at the end of April 2009. I never suggested this was harassment BTW. Harassment is a description I would only use very carefully. But the AN/I report falls under stonewalling in my book.--BirgitteSB 22:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This episode of Russavia's alleged account sharing is typical of the way some people disingenously present evidence. In the very first line he claims "I have good, and sound, reason to believe that I have been subjected to long-term systematic campaigns of harrassment which involved at first User:Biophys, User:Digwuren and User:Martintg, and later more actively joined by User:Piotrus," First he mentions some unrelated alleged BLP violations in some articles back in November 2008 (how is that relevant?) in which I wasn't involved in at that time, Russavia then finally mentions the initial account sharing accusation of November 2008 (which occurred before the list was created) which I certainly wasn't aware of. Then he brings up the ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive191#Ethics_of_sharing_an_account, where my only contribution to that thread was to ask a general question "Out of curiosity, would checkuser be able to detect multiple users using the one computer via a remote client?". Hardly a "campaign of harassment". In my experience one needs to unpick a lot of what Russavia says, he tends to jumble up events and mix in unrelated issues (the more heinous the better, alleged BLP violations fits the bill nicely) and present it in a wall of words. --Martintg (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realize you were asking for an example of you using this tactic. If I had I would have responded that I have no idea if you have used this tactic as I haven't focused on your contributions. I don't see why you feel the need to disparage Russavia so extensively here. I have not been quoting Russavia's conclusions anywhere, only the dates I personally gathered from diffs that I personally read which were linked in his evidence. The sorts of comments you make are unnecessary even if they were accurate.--BirgitteSB 17:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

BirgitteSB: why did you single out just one dispute strategy? In retrospect, "stonewall them" isn't as bad as "stone them" or "tar and feather" or "pocket checkuser", is it? NVO (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all the existing principles already cover other things. I am not sure what you mean by "stone them" or "tar and feather". I don't really have an opinion on whether some tactic is worse or better than another. Certainly this Stonewalling is more successful than the "pocket checkuser" tactic. As reprehensible I as think gaming RFA and Checkuser elections with an undisclosed accounts is; it is hard to do and even harder to maintain for very long. I don't think focusing on the "pocket checkuser" tactic is going to make a big difference here. That said, it does reflect badly on Piotrus to have suggested such a thing in the first place. That the others responded by finding excuses as to why they personally were not interested in trying the tactic reflects a little better on them. The incident is a valid argument against Piotrus having adminship restored, but I am not sure where else you would go with it beyond that especially as a general principle.--BirgitteSB 17:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, in this arena of Baltic and Eastern European history and current events, "stone-walling" is a code-word used to attack any opposition by more than one editor to one's POV (e.g., Dojarca's complaint) regardless that said opposition is based on fair and accurate representation of reputable sources in the face of one's own WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Beware of making condemnations in the belief you are addressing an issue. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Birgitte: back to the issue. The perpetrators, no matter how despisable, represent a viewpoint that is dominant in the English-speaking world. Why would enforcers of a dominant viewpoint, having a clear majority, succumb to opposition in "dispute resolution", rather than stonewall it? They already have majority (which in clumsy wikispeak equals "consensus"), why step back? NVO (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Why would the perpetrators of stonewalling always have a clear majority? I suppose you are saying Piotrus et al have a majority here. Well I am not against stonewalling because it is being used by Piotrus et al. I am against stonewalling because it leads to systematic failure of dispute resolution and collaboration. I suppose others should be against for those reasons as well. Because you should all want a working dispute resolution process for those times when you don't have the majority. Because you should all want collaboration to succeed so that Wikipedia succeeds. I don't know what to say to anyone that might want Wikipedia to fail. Luckily I don't think anyone here subscribes to that goal. I think that everyone here wants Wikipedia to succeed, but I am afraid most people here can't see the larger ramifications of the tactics that bring them some short-term successes against their opponents. BTW I don't despise anyone and am not intending to use a "codeword"--BirgitteSB 21:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess one person's "stonewalling" is another person's "consensus". If one had a particular viewpoint and they can't bring others around to that view, then I suppose they may accuse others of "stonewalling", but to me that is just making a bad faith assumption. It is easy to construct idealistic arguments based on vague generalities, but let's focus on specific cases. Look at the two AfDs for Communist genocide, one held before this case, the other held after this case was opened. In the first AfD many list members participated, in the second AfD there wasn't the same level of participation. Yet in both cases resulted in "no consensus". This is empirical evidence that list participants had no material impact on the formation or non-formation of concensus. It is evidence that Wikipedia processes are working, AfD's are being closed based upon the merits of the arguments, not the number of voters present. --Martintg (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really going to address the discussion you're having here but I just wanted to dispute your example -- your claim that the second AfD shows that the listmembers did not disrupt the vote the first time around is incorrect; if you count votes in the second AfD it is 21-21... there is less participation from listmembers to be sure but there are at least 3 listmembers who went ahead and voted and argued on the list despite the really obvious poor form involved. So it is in fact quite possible that disruption from listmembers may have been decisive in preventing a "delete" vote a second time as well. I cite this only to dispute your characterization here. csloat (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
What disruption? Politely disagreeing with you and presenting arguments to counter yours? Very disruptive attitude indeed. The disruption I see is that many "listmembers" are now intimidated and afraid to take part in any related disputes. I am somewhat interested in the issue of "communist genocide", and would have liked to comment in the discussion and AfD - but because of the recent dramu I decided to stay away from it. I wonder how one can argue that the discussion is now better and more objective when an entire group of editors is scared away from it. If it was disrupted before by undue interest from a group (which has not been proven other than by arguing that "you discussed the article off wiki, you have no right to discuss it on wiki..."), it is as disrupted now due to forced lack of interest from that group. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop, Piotrus. You have already strained the limits of my credulity as I have mentioned earlier; it does not help that you continue to misrepresent things. Obviously "politely disagreeing" is not disruption. However, organizing group action on an outside list in order to defeat an AfD is. And then during an arbcom case in which that very activity is under scrutiny, returning to the same basic AfD to do it again is really in poor form. That you wisely chose to stay out of the second AfD does not mean your compatriots did, so claiming an entire group of editors is scared away from it is ludicrous. In any case, if you continue pretending that you believe there is nothing untoward about any of what took place on the mailing list, I fear you will have a more difficult time finding editors who will take you seriously. csloat (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The only thing straining the limits of credulity is the claim that 3 list members disrupted the 2nd AfD. Subtract the 3 and 18-21 is still no clear consensus. Besides, since when are AfDs a vote? Pinning your AfD failure on the mail list participant bogeyman may be convenient, but maybe your arguments for deletion just weren't convincing enough for the closing admin. Have you considered that possibility? --Martintg (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
LOL. Yes, of course. That's not the issue and I wish you guys would quit pretending that it was. The issue is the disruption, not how successful it was. We don't know what would have happened without the disruption; all we know is that there was disruption and that at least a majority had voted the other way absent the disruption. If you don't see the distinction here, or if you don't think there is anything disruptive about organizing group action via a secret email list, that may be the problem that has you here in the first place. csloat (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, csloat, your analysis is based on the a priori assumption of offense instead of the actual of defense. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It appears members of the cabal are simply incorrigible when it comes to blatantly misinterpreting what anyone else writes in order to "win" their "battles." I'm not accusing anyone of offense here; if you read the discussion in context it is quite clear - in fact I even added a qualifier originally to this effect - that I was simply responding to a misrepresentation of evidence by one of your colleagues. And again, the underlying problem seems to be that you guys simply don't think there is anything disruptive about organizing group action via a secret email list and pretending that it is the spontaneous action of individuals. I do hope arbcom takes into account the fact that you have not stopped treating wikipedia as a battleground, even here on the arbcom case itself. csloat (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Please feel free to bring up the substance of any edit. Anything else is a partisan contention on your part. Of course the list was a spontaneous reaction to WP circumstances. I do hope Arbcom considers who were/are the actual initiators of attack pages and purveyors of opinions as substantiated facts in creating so-called "encyclopedic" content. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It just appears to me that you are digging yourselves deeper every time you respond like this. You expect people to believe the list was a "spontaneous reaction" to things when it is obvious to anyone who looks at the evidence - and I admit I have only barely scratched the surface - that the list was a forum for orchestrating actions on Wikipedia, anything but a "spontaneous reaction." csloat (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
A 6-month ban from discussions which involves deleting or moving content (AfD, Cfd, TfD, etc) is but one of the sanctions that I sincerely hope the Committee will consider placing on list members. Given the amount of gaming that has occurred in creating falses consensuses, it is more than warranted I believe. --Russavia Dialogue 07:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what I mean by stonewalling. Let's look at how an a dispute is supposed to be resolved. There are two opinions about a matter. Whether something is a reliable source. So the parties in dispute go to the RS noticeboard for an outside opinions. At the noticeboard people point out what sorts of claims the source will be considered reliable for if any. Now stonewalling is when a party refuses to accept the outsiders view and responds with: How can you say that paper is reliable when they are so obviously POV, look at this other outrageous pieces they published, how can trust what they say here if they print that? Outsiders say: well they have a significant level of editorial integrity, they ran a correction about that piece you found outrageous and also that other piece was an editorial while this article is regular reporting. The party says: I just don't understand how you guys could suggest such a POV rag is reliable and could be used in Wikipedia, of course they issued a correction on the outrageous piece, they were forced too, everything they print is inaccurate. Outsiders say: look it fits the criteria for a reliable and it is suitable for Wikipedia. The party says: It is not suitable for Wikipedia it is completely biased and inaccurate! See how the party ignores the validity of points raised by outsiders about how the source fits specific criteria for judging sources and continues insisting that the source is unreliable because he dislikes the content of the source. That is stonewalling the dispute can never be resolved. Of course the party may be overridden and the source used in the article over his objections, but this isn't the same thing as resolved.
To resolve a dispute both parties have to recognize the reason for the dispute is that one of them is mistaken (and it might be me!) on the issue and when there is outside consensus the mistaken party needs to concede the error. That doesn't need to be a fancy apology. It is enough to say "I still cannot personally trust this source nor think I was wrong to question it but I understand that it fits Wikipedia's policy for reliability." This is different from both parties believing the reason for the dispute is that the other party is evil POV-pusher who will say anything to push his POV and that if outside consensus falls against him it is merely because the outsiders were hoodwinked by the evil POV-pusher and don't understand what is really going on.--BirgitteSB 01:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
In my experience, I've often had to deal with "stonewalling" editors. I don't think I was ever the one stonewalling (and editing the article against majority consensus). I don't see anything to contradict me in the evidence, neither. Why are we even discussing this? The discussions here are getting way too theoretical to be useful, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It does not automatically follow that a source's POV (real or imaginged) is enough to measure its reliability. Two of the most reliable and respected newspapers in the United states are the Village Voice and The Wall Street Journal; their editorial boards are well known to have strong POVs toward opposite sides of the political spectrum. Durova322 02:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I never said otherwise. I was merely more focused on the behavior I was trying to demonstrate than the strength of the arguments used in the example.--BirgitteSB 02:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) Birgitte, I have to thank you for the first observation which allows us to cut to the core of the issue: "To resolve a dispute both parties have to recognize the reason for the dispute is that one of them is mistaken ... on the issue and when there is outside consensus the mistaken party needs to concede the error."

When reputable accounts of history based on verifiable facts and representation of same meets versions of history which are less than reputable and protected by a presidential commission denouncing revisionism as lies when said revisionism is factual, there will be no admitting by anyone of being mistaken. And uninformed neutral parties, well meaning, will be cut down in the cross-fire, especially if they get duped by the side which does not bring reputable accounts of history to the table.

   When Christopher Columbus sailed to America, he kept two distance logs, his true log and another log for consumption by the crew so as to not discourage them and protect from possible mutiny. As it turned out, his fake log was actually more accurate than his true log. And so it is here, regarding hood-winking—note, however, only one side has reputable facts. Allow me to acquaint you with this simple example:

I've been asking for the reputable facts backing this contention for years. And what do we have (instead)? Medvedev's commission criminalizing stating the Soviet Union occupied Latvia.
   This has already been resolved by noting the Soviet viewpoint (and when it matches Official Russia). The issue is the recent push to institute that viewpoint as reputable and objective, for example, per Russavia's threats of filling the The Soviet Story article with "historian" Dyukov's rants. (I see also that Russavia has recently protested in their evidence that evil editors have attempted to defile Dyukov's reputation.) I hope to get to Russavia's "evidence" presently. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Brigette, without any desire to get involved in this, I think you were not exactly correct in saying that "To resolve a dispute both parties have to recognize the reason for the dispute is that one of them is mistaken (and it might be me!) on the issue and when there is outside consensus the mistaken party needs to concede the error." In a great many disputes in the RW, and in a great many that come to arb com, both sides may be mistaken, sometimes even to an equal degree. Sometimes both of them need to concede their errors. I don't think you really disagree with this? DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
DGG I agree with you 100%--BirgitteSB 00:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
In the abstract and as a principle, I wholeheartedly agree. Attempts to portray the Soviet legacy as other than it was (Official Russian nee Soviet fiction versus verified facts that all non-Soviet, non-Official Russian supporting sources agree on) and the attempt to vilify those with the verified facts (e.g., anti-Estonian attack pages created as articles and in user space) are a different case. In this case, the abstract and concrete are not related whatsoever, although mistaken for being such by outside observers. This is not about some "content dispute" of "conflicting POVs" regarding the same set of verified facts leading to a "dispute." Repeat 100 times:
  1. Not a content dispute.
  2. Not a content dispute.
  3. Not a content dispute.
  4. Not a content dispute.
  5. Not a content dispute.
  6. . . .
I myself have added the Soviet versions of history, in the appropriate context, to articles to insure all "points of view" are represented. A "point of view," however, does not imply a basis in fact. Hope this helps. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  12:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Adding more POV doesn't make an article NPOV.198.161.174.222 (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You rather miss my point. For example, that the Baltic states were "occupied" is not a POV, it is a fact which only Official Russia disputes based on no credible evidence as when the Russian Duma declares Latvia joined the USSR legally according to international law. Your response assumes that everything is a POV and nothing tracks back to verifiable fact. That is not the case here, and has never been. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
At least in NYT archive for 1940, events in Baltic states are often described not as "occupation" but as "sovietization" or "absorption".DonaldDuck (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
We are discussing legal according to international law (per Duma et al.) or not. Your example is more of the position best characterized as (per Petri Krohn in particular): if an encyclopedia says Latvia "became part of the Soviet Union" then it couldn't have been "occupied." Answer me, how legally? What is the basis for Official Russia obviously being so sure it was legal that we are looking at Russia criminalizing the statement that Latvia was "occupied" by the Soviet Union? (Haven't been keeping close track whether it's become law or not yet.) VЄСRUМВА  ♪  12:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
No point missed Vecrumba, you stated "I myself have added the Soviet versions of history, in the appropriate context, to articles to insure all "points of view" are represented.". and I am responding by saying that having multiple points of view represented in an article does not make it NPOV. If my response assumes everything involved is a POV, its because you clearly labeled it as such.198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Community encouraged

Does it apply to Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs) (topic-banned by Shell Kinney for 6 months), DonaldDuck (talk · contribs) (indefinitely blocked by Thatcher, allowed to participate in this ArbCom), HanzoHattori (talk · contribs) (indefinitely blocked by Keilana), Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) (indefinitely blocked by Tariqabjotu), Jo0doe (talk · contribs) (blocked by Moreschi for one year), Kuban kazak (talk · contribs) (banned by ArbCom for one year), M.V.E.i. (talk · contribs) (indefinitely blocked by Moreschi), Miyokan (talk · contribs) (community-permabanned), Molobo (talk · contribs) (blocked for one year, allowed to participate in this ArbCom), Muscovite99 (talk · contribs) (indefinitely blocked), Petri Krohn (talk · contribs) (community-banned for one year), RJ CG (talk · contribs) (indefinitely blocked), Roobit (talk · contribs) (indefinitely blocked by Moreschi), Russavia (talk · contribs) (topic-banned by Sandstein for 6 months)? Wouldn't you like to weight the consequences beforehand? Colchicum (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that each of those should be reevaluated. It is entirely possible that a renewed inspection into the circumstances concludes that the sanctions were proper and have consensus; the point is that they should be reconsidered with an eye towards assuming good faith where possible. — Coren (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest that if such re-evaluation discussions are to be held, the list members should be excluded from participating in them, otherwise we'll only be seeing a rehashing of the same battles. Would you consider adding something to that effect? (I wouldn't worry that this would bias the discussion too much in the favour of the other side; the people who enacted those sanctions – admins like Moreschi or Sandstein – are quite capable of defending upholding of those sanctions if they should judge it appropriate.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what the justification for any of this is, except to prohibit some uncomfortable but relevant questions. Also don't see how FP thinks this would not favor one side - certain editors have certainly proved themselves experts at stirring up enough meaningless drama so that frustrated admins throw up their hands and relent. How many different times and in how many different forums exactly (4? 5? 6?) did Russavia ask to have his block lifted?radek (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I asked to have my block lifted in only one forum. The same forum at which you appeared, and which resulted in yourself being deemed to being disruptive and banned from discussing myself outside of this case for the duration of this case. As to the justification, it is within the email archive itself as to why such a proposal is warranted. --Russavia Dialogue 17:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be like some sort of time limit how old blocks should be considered for re-evaluation? I mean re-evaluation of infamous sockpuppeter Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) who was indef. blocked in beginning of 2007 (for example that was before Digwuren even joined wikipedia) just because of this mailing list case, really seems absolutely pointless.--Staberinde (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I've personally encouraged to focus on the past year or so, but I did not want to make a bright line timeout. I suppose it is reasonable to focus more closely on recent incidents, but I leave the relevance of different examinations to the community as a whole. I should point out that serial socking is unlikely to be overturned even over a cursory examination no matter who was involved in the original discussion! — Coren (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I stand behind all the blocks made above: MVEi, Roobit, Jo0doe, etc. These were made independant of any efforts to manipulate the outcomes of such discussions, and the people blocked were particuarly nasty characters (MVEi and Roobit, in particular, I remember, had a history of vile ethnic slurs). Despite the despicable events of this RFAR let us not remember that there are very nasty and real Russian nationalists out there (doubtless some of whom coordinate their activities) who do troll and disrupt and to unban the lot would be to undo a lot of good work in a very short space of time. Moreschi (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


Simple request

Clerk note - I removed most of an extended thread here because I could not see any way to refactor it to make it acceptable. Almost every party in this thread was guilty of some form of misconduct. The discussion topic is valid, the way it has been discussed thus far is not. Feel free to continue the discussion, but focus on the issues, and not on criticising other editors. Manning (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is something I've brought up before - nobody here is "anti-Russian" - and Cool Hand Luke acted appropriately before in acknowledging that fact and apologized when I pointed out earlier that this kind of characterization is insulting.

Yet, the same pattern appears to be included in the wording on the Proposed Decisions page. In particular it occurs in #6) "against a perceived "Russian cabal"" (does the phrase "Russian cabal" even appear in the supposed archive?). Same thing with #7 "participants sincerely believed that there is an organized group or groups attempting to push a "pro-Russian" point of view on Wikipedia".

(unacceptable paragraph deleted)

Like I said, nobody here is "anti-Russian" so please don't insult people like that. Somehow I get the sense that the ArbCom has been busy with so many ethnic issues in the past that it just can't get past the fact that this one is NOT an ethnic issue at all, however much some people try to play it that way.radek (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedy - ban from process discussions

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Improper_coordination makes note that there was improper coordination by the group. And there has been enough evidence presented which demonstrates that most list members actively took part in what can only be described as subversion of the gaining of consensus on Wikipedia. As such, I feel that a "ban" of sorts relating to list members from participating in process discussions on Eastern Europe topics is in order. This would include WP:AFD, WP:CFD, WP:TFD, WP:RM. Length of ban could be 3 months, or whatever the committee feels justified, but it is my belief this is totally warranted for most list members. In the perusing the archive myself (and yet not still done in full), User:Poeticbent and User:Alexia Death should be exempted from this remedy as I don't believe I found any evidence of those editor engaging in such behaviour. --Russavia Dialogue 11:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with you, Russavia, about Poeticbent - the timing is hard to establish, but he - along with several other members of the mailing list - !voted in a rename here [9]. (Piotrus' request for action on the mailing list (20090907-0129) is timestamped Sunday, September 06, 2009 8:29 PM, and PB !voted at Wikitime 12:06, 6 September 2009). But yes, I'm grateful that closers no longer consider these by the numbers only. Novickas (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh no! Somebody voted in a way that Novickas doesn't agree with! On a topic they've shown lots of interest in the past! Seriously - this is a ridiculous attempt to get one's way in content disputes, AfDs and RMs, when one has lost the argument on the relevant talk pages.radek (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I perused my own evidence as well as found Poeticbent too, so have struck inline with my own findings and yours. --Russavia Dialogue 17:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
In all of these cases decisions are made by uninvolved closing admins who try to evaluate consensus, which is NOT majority voting. So what is the problem? I know you're itching to get some uncomfortable articles deleted (throwing the hard work and time of many editors into the waste basket) but this is really cynical - you're basically asking that people are prevented simply from giving their opinions on these matters.radek (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Radek, you need to stop assuming bad faith with me, because as of now, I will no longer stand for it. You may want to note that I am currently topic banned for some 6 months, so I am not able to discuss any articles which deal with Russia or Russians. But it is common knowledge, and it has been recognised also, that the mailing list attempted to subvert the gaining of consensus within policy by using the mailing list as the tool with which to do it. With such actions has to come some responsibility, and by excluding list members from such things for a period of time is a good way to show you that what you guys did is not OK and that there can and will be consequences. --Russavia Dialogue 17:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, Russavia, I can't assume something that I know not to be true and neither does Wikipedia policy require me to do so. And the things you say are "common knowledge" and "recognised" (sic) are NOT in fact "common knowledge" or recognized except by yourself and your group of friends. As I say above - this is simply a cynical attempt to get one's way in content disputes, AfDs, RMs and other discussions. Apparently, since some people were incapable of making convincing arguments on the relevant talk pages those who disagreed with them (and who were capable of making reasoned arguments) must be silenced.radek (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is a serious question. You write "Well, Russavia, I can't assume something that I know not to be true and neither does Wikipedia policy require me to do so." Does this mean that you do not assume good faith now, and you will not in future assume good faith? A very clear, concise answer to this question is needed. --Russavia Dialogue 18:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, Russavia, I will take that as a serious question and answer it with good faith and not take it as some kind of baiting. Basically, both myself and other members of the list have made attempts in the past to "extend the olive branch" to you - which you rejected each time. I think that as of now I've used up all the olive branches from my tree. Additionally you've made some crazy accusations and statements, like comparing us to "gang rapists". I hope that clarifies the current situation.
As to the future - I can't say. The olive tree may grow more olive branches. But this in fact depends on you and your behavior. As I've said before I actually TRY to assume good faith - and I have no problem AGFing and respecting editors I very strongly disagree with like Igny or Paul Siebert for example. But at a certain point, TRYING to do something that is obviously not working (which is I believe the usual definition of "stupidity") just makes one feel foolish.
So, bottom line; up to you whether or not we can work on improving on the current situation.radek (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
For the record - my offer to you, Russavia, still stands. I am willing to work with you on content creation, assume good faith towards you, and if you do the same, I will support removing the topic ban that was placed on you. I believe we can all edit harmoniously to build a better encyclopedia. Can you assume good faith towards us and work together towards that goal? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong support for this. In general, I think Coren's proposal is fine. He did a good job in identifying the ring leaders (Piotrus and Digwuren) as well as one of the most disruptive editors (Martintg). But will this proposal stop other list members from gaming the system, stealth canvassing and swamping noticeboard and AfD discussions? I don't think so. At least there is no indication that they would. These users have been warned over and over again, but still (as the list affair proves) they have always continued the disruption despite the warnings. Therefore, I strongly support a ban from community discussions for all of these editors. Sanctions should be preventative, and this one certainly would prevent disruption. In addition, losing the right to participate in community discussion would not be a major loss for these editors (or to the community), as they can still edit articles and create new content, which is the primary task in Wikipedia. Offliner (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

To reiterate: this is nothing but a blatant attempt to accomplish indirectly - delete multitude of "uncomfortable articles" or move them to weaselly titles - what Russavia, Offliner etc. were unable to do with actual reasoned argument on the relevant talk pages and AfDs. It is a proposal to censor and silence.

In fact, the proper course of action is just the opposite - it is to more widely advertise such discussions so that a wide range of editors can participate which would prevent the potential of hijacking of various "votes" and "discussions" by any one group. The proposal to censor would be a step backwards, not forward.radek (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, "warned over and over again" is of course, just false. And this is just a blatant attempt to silence a group of editors with opposing views. As we can see from proposed findings, an arbitrator has not found evidence of "swamping noticeboard and AfD discussions", probably because there weren't any. --Sander Säde 09:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course there was swamping of AfD discussions. Here's another example. On 30 January 2009, Dc76 posted a link to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_29#Category:Moldovan_linguistic_and_ethnic_controversy and specifically asked for help with enforcing his own POV. Immediately after the email, Martintg, Digwuren and Biruitirol appear at the CfD and defeat any notion of true consensus. It is obvious that there was creation of false consensus by the web brigade, and this is why I recommend that a remedy of banning for a period of time for list members from consensus discussions be written. Arguments used by brigade that this is a proposal to censor or to silence have no foundation in fact; it is a proposal to remove editors from an area for a period of time where they have clearly been disruptive. I would hope that editors would not use this as an opportunity to revisit AfDs, CfDs, etc where there was clear consensus, and I would be disappointed myself if they did, however, if it were the case, arguments used by brigade members in previous discussions could still be used by other editors as a reference in any discussions on why an article or category, etc should be kept/deleted/etc. Such discussions are supposed to obtain consensus from the community and it is my firm belief that members of the brigade have forgone their right to participate in this part of the community for a period of time. --Russavia Dialogue 16:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedy - Digwuren's 3 month ban

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Digwuren_banned suggests that User:Digwuren should be banned from WP for 3 months. In October 2007, Digwuren was banned for one year as a result of Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Digwuren_banned. His setting up of this mailing list for what many believe was for nefarious reasons, and his continued battleground behaviour on WP after returning from stated one year ban, would demonstrate that WP:DIGWUREN and his one year ban taught him nothing, and hence the 3 month ban will not be a strong deterent. I request that an alternative remedy of a 12 month ban be added to allow arbitrators to vote for a stronger remedy that takes into account the history, particularly given Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#At_wit.27s_end. Is a 3 month ban after a 12 month ban really taking all of this into account? --Russavia Dialogue 11:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And since Digwuren has left Wikipedia, the reasoning for any kind of ban would be..? --Sander Säde 12:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
And why should Digwuren's alleged "retirement" be allowed to have any effect on this case? Digwuren has already stated that retiring before an ArbCom case is good "tactic" which has been shown to work. In addition, Digwuren has already stated on the mailing list, that he intends to return with another account and a clean block log. Offliner (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
And if he does that, then the block would be useful exactly how..? Although creating socks while blocked (like Vlad fedorov) seems to be unpunishable now. And naturally, using the impeccable mental powers of mailing list member, Digwuren already knew about the ArbCom case in June and decided to leave. --Sander Säde 06:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Digwuren is one of the most warned and sanctioned editors in Eastern European topics and probably one of the most warned editors in whole of WP. He has already been blocked for a year by ArbCom. After the ArbCom ban expired, Digwuren has been blocked for harassment,[10] disruptive editing,[11] and in addition has been placed on 1RR for edit warring. How many last changes is this editor going to get? I've seen absolutely no indication that this editor is going to change his behaviour (getting blocked by ArbCom appears to only have prompted him to create the mailing list). In the light of all this, the 3 month ban is lenient indeed. Offliner (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Why two links to his block log? And where is the block for harassment, I seem to have a hard time locating it. Also, there doesn't seem to be that 1RR that you claim, unless you mean the same that you got and which was removed after lobbying - from both of you. --Sander Säde 07:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Harassment, Disruptive editing, 1RR. If you want to act as the lawyer of the "retired" Digwuren, you'll have to do better than that. Offliner (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The 1RR was imposed and lifted from both of you, as you conveniently forgot to mention again. Your other two links still don't have anything about harassment. If you want to act as a prosecutor, judge and executioner for Digwuren, you'll have to do better than that. --Sander Säde 08:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

On the three proposed topic bans

Considering how User:Russavia has eventually gotten away with a 6 month topic ban for his disruptive behaviour, battleground mentality and even past herassment I find a year long topic ban rather strict. It would be fairer to match it with Russavia's topic ban of 6 months. If Russavia has been given another chance to prove himself that he's able to contribute positively to Eastern European topics after 6 months, I'd say you should give these other three users the same chance. Grey Fox (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, I think even Russavia's topic ban could be revisited and shortened, if he can demonstrate that he is willing to work with others in good faith again. In either case, I think that instead of the sweeping "half of the continent" bans, several specific article bans or much more focused topic bans would be more constructive; most controversial editing occurred around the subject of "modern Russian politics", and I have already indicated I can adopt a voluntary restriction and avoid editing/commenting on that subject. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of other Foundation projects to store grievances

At last year's arbcom, there was some discussion of grievance lists maintained by Piotrus on PL WP. Altho the final decision was that 'Piotrus's activity on the Polish Wikipedia lies outside the Committee's remit'. [12], one arb opposed, and two abstained. He kept a similar list of grievances and diffs on Wikibooks between April and August of this year (its contents were deleted yesterday after this discussion [13].) Could the committee re-address this issue? Novickas (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it lies outside the scope of this case, but principle 5 ("Not a battleground") is materially relevant and should help guide further decisions. — Coren (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you say it's outside the scope of this case - maybe you are referring to proof that the diffs posted there were actually used in later En-wiki disputes. That I don't know - harder to know now they're deleted. Most seemed to be against Deacon, who reduced his activity. Flo did mention at that previous case that 'For us to sanction for problems in another Foundation wiki, there would need to be evidence that serious harassment was happening.' Novickas (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
As last arbcom demonstrated, preparing DR drafts is within rights of editors. What I wonder is - how much time did you spend to track down my draft, why did you do that, and how do your actions benefit the project? I also wonder if there is a wiki term to describe what you did (looking through thousands of my edits to different wiki projects in order to... do what?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Irpen's protests against the use of foundation space to compile this stuff were directly addressed in the last arbcom decision - that's why I felt it was appropriate to bring it up again. Your entries in Wikibooks are, right now, the fifth result of a Google search on Piotrus Deacon Wikipedia [14] - and one of the subpages mentioned it was taken from Wikibooks. So it didn't require searching thousands of edits; it was one Google search followed by three or four subsequent clicks. You could consider asking the site to remove them. Novickas (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I will try to. Those wiki forks are really annoying. I have asked a wikibooks admin to delete the revisions, hopefully this will be reflected by the mirror when it updates again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

On the proposed decision

So, it is proposed the conspirators pardoned and victims of their baiting and mobbing campains retain permanently banned. It is also postulated good faith even for such editors as Radeksz against whom there is massive evidence of bad faith. This proposed decision is surely not a coincidence or ignorance, it can indicate only intentional taking sides by Wikipedia's ArbCom on political questions. This means complete catastrophe for Wikipedia's neutrality for years to come and Cart-Blanche for any sorts of nationalist attackers to disrupt Wikipedia further.

If this to pass me and many other good editors would have no choice other than abandon any participation in the project.--Dojarca (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Amnesty"?

About "Amnesty": What is this supposed to mean? "Granted amnesty for past behavior stemming from their participation" – does that mean all that behaviour is supposed to be written off and forgotten? Does it mean that, when considering possible sanctions against these editors in the light of any future (on-wiki) infractions, admins will in the future be expected to ignore this past history of theirs? That, I think, would be highly inappropriate. I don't mind these editors getting away without bans and the like for now, but I can't ignore that some of them have still been engaged in problematic editing over the last weeks – e.g., Jacurek had to be warned off about wiki-hounding of Matthead, and Dc76 appears to be engaged in some rather un-nice POV skirmishes with User:Anonimu ([15], see also Anonimu's talk page; I believe both sides are partly at fault there.) So, these editors are continuing editing in the spirit of their battleground mentality, and I can easily see further AE threads coming up.

If you judge they did nothing wrong, they don't need an amnesty. If you judge they did something wrong but it didn't rise to the level of requiring serious sanctions, for now, then an amnesty isn't what they need either; they just need minor sanctions (such as warnings and "admonishments"). The term "amnesty" seems to mean either nothing at all, or something rather counter-productive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What about a little bit of a good faith from your part Future Perfect at Sunrise? User Matthead was blocked several times[[16]] for a reason and your controversial unblock of his account[[17]] was very unjust in my opinion. I never wanted to go into details here over this and I still don't, but if you continue to attack me and portray me in a bad light I will have to I'm afraid.--Jacurek (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The point, FP, is that the infractions commited by other members are — in the whole — relatively minor and the remedy was crafted looking forward. I think that the interests of the project are best served with closing the matter (to prevent such minor infractions as may have been from being raised over repeatedly in the future) while not going so far as to give absolution (given that there were cases where the editorial process was tampered with).

I should expect that, given the admonishment, all of them will shy away from such off-wiki fora in the future. — Coren (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is coordinated editing, edit warring, and secret mailing list canvassing in full knowledge of the rules of Wikipedia a minor infraction, not in the spirit of battleground mentality? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, given the fairly extreme battleground views taken by many on both sides of these debates, do you (ArbCom) really think that this amnesty will prevent it from being brought up over and over in every future dispute? Given the glee I see in some of the posts, this will be used as a hammer against specific people and groups with opposing views for quite a while. I think it's an admirable statement, but isn't it just wishful thinking? Ravensfire (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Coren: in wikispeak, admonishment equals commendation, doesn't it? NVO (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't appear you are asking this in good faith, but no it doesn't. It means "Don't have done that, and you had better not do it again." — Coren (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Quite right, I don't have faith, good or bad, in the Committee. NVO (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I know you say it should make them shy-away from off-wiki fora in the future. But I am going to ask a stupid question here. Has anyone asked any of the group members if this list is still operational? And if so, what has the response been? --Russavia Dialogue 17:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's simple. Blame it on the ringleader, let the soldiers elect a new chief. Back to square one. But I doubt that any wholesome punishment will change the pic; in the absence of an editorial policy wikipedia will remain a battleground, new editors will quickly radicalize into fighters etc. Deja vu. What year it is, doctor? NVO (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If the amnesty is to work this time, it needs to be followed up by an attempt to restore good faith between radicalized editors. See my proposals for that here, here and here. I hope that the committee considers adopting / building upon some of them. If there is no follow up to the amnesty aiming to reform the editors, the underlying problem will not be solved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The decision, as of today, relieves you and your ring of any of these formalities - you've won again, three months is nothing, go on as you wish. NVO (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
See, I am tired of the battlegrounds. I have no intention to see them resume, be it tomorrow, three months or next year. I don't want to see EE'10 arbcom. Hence I want to help in finding and implementing a solution that will ensure the cursed cycle of EE battlegrounds and cycles will end - this time for good. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Whatever you choose, it's not a matter of your own will (and it was not before). I doubt that the framework of WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS allows any long-term solution. NVO (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Coren, this is a good faith question. My question is just how many amnesties are we going to have? Editors have already had an amnesty as demonstrated at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus#Amnesty. Are you aware of this? Given that, this amnesty is entirely inappropriate, as it is allowing editors to get away with the same thing every other day. The time has come, that being now, that editors take responsibility for their actions, and for this Committee to ensure that this responsibility is taken, even if forcibly. This proposed amnesty does not sit right with me, and I doubt it will sit right with other editors either. To put it in a humourous light, it reminds me of The Simpsons episode The Parent Rap: "Harm is just about to punish Bart when Judge Snyder returns from his vacation. Lisa moves for a motion that "boys will be boys", and Judge Snyder grants the motion, dismissing the case. The family returns back to normal, and Marge makes the family promise not to break the law for a year (after which Homer immediately hits Hans Moleman with his car)." What this Arbcom needs to do is to be firm but fair (too all sides), otherwise it is continually going to end up back here. --Russavia Dialogue 17:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I've commented on this case previously, and just happened to be reading the proposed decision... I find the "Amensty" proposal to be pretty risky territory, particularly with respect to the potential for unintended consequences. It seems unnecessary and not entirely reasonable, given the potential downsides. I'll be interested to see what the other arbitrators think about this provision. Nathan T 22:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty needs to be followed up with remedies that will ensure that those editors who are not "scared away" (for a while) are otherwise convinced to deradicalize and be productive editors. See ideas at #Constructive proposals and #Community service: Wikisource. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor factual error in FoF

Authenticity of archive contains a small error of fact: "period from 2009-02-01" should be corrected to "2009-01-02", i.e. 2 January, not 1 February. (The date format used on the archive index page is confusing, I know.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, and changed format to be less ambiguous. Danke. — Coren (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, while we're on the topic here, I'd like to point out (I've only looked at some of the emails in the archive recently) that this is inaccurate: There are no technical inconsistencies, nor any indication that any part of it has been tampered with. - there is actually one very strong indication that the emails have been tampered with. Any email that had been posted by somebody with a Gmail account should've had headers like this:

MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by xxxxxxx with SMTP id xxxxxxx; Date Time Time Zone (PDT)
In-Reply-To:

However, from the emails I looked at, the "Received: by..." part has been removed - presumably so that it couldn't be determined from what account the archive was leaked (basically the hacker/leaker covering their tracks). This was obviously done intentionally and deliberately as, for example, all the spam filter stuff was left in.

So there's definitely been *some* tampering with the emails (covering up of tracks) - the question is was this the only tampering that was done or was there further monkey business.radek (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Listman software can apparently work this way, so there is not necessarily any truth to continued tampering claims. --Russavia Dialogue 18:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting the mail list administrator leaked the emails? --Martintg (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
No. Exactly what I wrote is exactly what I mean. --Russavia Dialogue 18:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so this alleged leaker used Listman to strip the "Received: by" line from all 3000+ emails in their inbox. So how does that invalidate what radek said? Presumably if this person is malicious enough to out you in the process of posting the archive, he would also be capable of injecting stuff to further incriminate list members, no? --Martintg (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Please read 20090606-0903-[WPM] Security idea_ get rid of headers.eml (the title says it all.) Offliner (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Except that ... the emails apparently still have headers. Strange, huh?radek (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Constructive proposals

I'd appreciate arbitrators and community feedback on my workshop proposals: mediation/mentorship good-faith committee, public discussion forum for EE topics, an offer to build trust (and good content) and voluntary restrictions.

I would like to point out that in the past month I have not been involved in any controversial dispute resolutions, but I have worked on uncontroversial content. I have finished following DYKs: Kordian, Colonies of Poland, Polish–Muscovite War (1577–1582), Dymitr of Goraj, Landflucht and Adolf Bniński. I am willing to place myself (voluntarily, even before this arbcom ends) on a series of restrictions to assure the community that mistakes of the past will not be repeated, but I would like to ask - what harm is there if I am allowed to continue with my uncontroversial content editing? The only diff cited by FoF regarding me is the one where I semi-protected an article - an action that would have been carried out by somebody else if the article was reported to RfProtecion... but if the community and the committee feels that this one diff is enough to justify desysoping me, I am prepared to resign my amin tools. However, I want to finish helping GAing Suwałki Agreement‎, I plan to improve Juliusz Słowacki - one of the three greatest Polish poets - from start to GA, I want to continue the clean up of Poland-related new articles feed (I am the only editor doing so...), filling the blanks in those missing articles, and my activities related to WP:SUP, WP:ACST and other uncontroversial projects. I'd hope that it would be possible to tailor the proposed decisions to balance restrictions to avoid disruption and allow constructive editing (please see my proposal here, and I am quite willing to work with the committee to refine them further). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why you two dispute the remedies here. However I wonder if you agree that the findings of fact are accurate or if not which of the proposed facts you dispute.--BirgitteSB 17:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Speaking just for myself, regarding "List secrecy" I acknowledge secret lists are problematic and as I stated in many places I vow not to use them again in any fashion that could be interpreted as disruptive. Regarding "Use of administrative tools in dispute", I've addressed the Battle of Konotop semi-protection in my evidence here (re:Piotrus has abused his admin powers subsection); I believe it was an uncontroversial request that would have been granted at RfProt - but in retrospect I should've asked the editor who submitted this request to resubmit it publicly at RfProt (and this will be my response to any future private requests like this I receive). Since the FoF states that "has used his administrative tools in disputes" I'd appreciate it if other diffs could be added that would indicate other occasions I used my admin tools in an inappropriate manner, to justify the use of plural in the FoF and to allow me to address and/or learn from those diffs. Regarding "Disruption" FoF, I'd appreciate it if diffs were added to it so that I could again address and/or learn from them; regarding comments in private correspondence, see my first sentence in this post. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I've already commented on these emails that form the basis of the FoF against me on the workshop page, perhaps you would like to discuss it there. For example, this is cited 20090818-0353 "Can someone revert PU [PasswordUsername] on Neo-Nazism and Nochnoy Dozor (group)" yet when you look at the articles Neo-Nazism and Nochnoy Dozor (group) at that time, no disruption actually occurred at those articles. The same with the other emails cited, no on-wiki disruption resulted. Talking the talk is one thing, but actually walking the walk is something else altogether.. I thought there would be atleast some workshopping done to clarify some issues before the proposed decision is drafted. Now the proposed decision appears seemingly as a fait accompli without any significant discussion on the workshop page. --Martintg (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Unless you go here [18] and see the stonewalling you guys did, which prevented a move to another title for several months. That's in reply to what you just posted. No disruption, Martintg? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
"You guys" - not me, I've never participated in this. I see a discussion involving several editors that lasted a few days in June. Martin solicited input from WP:3O - hardly an action that would be taken by a group of editors who want to keep a discussion under a control. But where is the disruption? Estonian editors interested in article about Estonia and disagreeing with other editors is wrong because...? But for the record: if I had taken part in this discussion I'd have supported your request and move per WP:DISAMBIG - (group) is much more encyclopedic than (pressure group), unless there is more than one group to disambiguate between (which doesn't seem to be the case). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Except that Password/Anti-Nationalist's move warring of Nochnoy_Dozor_(group) occurred a couple of months before the email cited as evidence of my disruption, and disruption of Estonia related articles are detectable via this tool, making the list redundant in any case. Let's have some semblance of cause and effect. --Martintg (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Haven't you realized yet, Martin, that they are using this case to get rid of their content opponents and are willing to blame absolutely any edit by list members on the existence of the list? Not to mention, covering up their own "Child abuse is common"-style disruptions - something so evil and biased that no list member has not even come close to that level. --Sander Säde 19:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
So, the discussion for a move to a more neutral name was not advertised on the e-mail list, as I noted in my evidence? And it wasn't compounded by the e-mail list's enthusiasm for getting me banned should I "move war" the article in spite of your false "consensus"? And it was not stalled for months on the flimsiest of pretexts? And my-oh-so-evil inclusion of the pedophilia in Estonia material was something taken from here [19], where you can see the cases per population ratio for yourself. So it was sourced material, and I included it because I was tired of your team's stalking, stonewalling, and outright harrasment on every article I edited, and needed to distract your attention somewhere else. I did not reinsert the material again, so you're bringing up one edit over and over and over again: one freakin' diff, my one case of really lashing out at the dumb and persistent harrasment (in a way that seemed like a smart idea at the time). Every single other edit I performed was far more sober, in spite of your constant harrasment. Not that this even was, or even could have logically been, the cause of your hate campaign against me: you were active long before I made that edit or even registered, and your harrasment extended to everybody you did not like. I was blocked for this when your friends showed up on ANI to protest at what an egregiously bad edit this was. Prior to this, I appealed to admins for help and got none. Not only is this a very stale subject, showing this as some "evidence" of my horrible views – so horrible that coordinated action not only against myself, but at least five other editors was warranted – isn't sufficient. And I can provide far worse violations of tendentious editing by members of your team on request. (The edit history of Monument of Lihula and edits like this deletionist beauty from Martintg [20] speak far louder than my words ever could.) Anti-Nationalist (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It's just simply amazing that P.U. (AN) is STILL defending the ==Molestation== "Children are molested there" edit that he is (in)famous for. I guess this was one of those "far more sober" edits - by his standard.radek (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
And since the article is not even mentioned in the list until June 14 when you started move-warring - long after the attempts by me and Martin to talk peacefully, as Martin pointed out, that doesn't naturally matter - there was a mental message to all list members to go and argue with you. And go look at your gleeful edit spree where you insert absolutely anything negative to Crime in Estonia, whether it was relevant to the article or not, sourced or not. Yet you have more then enough of self-justification - and dare to accuse others. --Sander Säde 20:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How about we all try to assume more good faith, guys? This section is supposed to be about constructive proposals, after all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I support these voluntary restrictions - they are preferable to a crude ban. I believe that Piotrus' believes in WP, suggested those restrictions in good faith and will abide them. His contribution to non-controversial articles will be easy to follow and judge. Leaving Piotrus on such field will be both profitable and safe for WP. Visor (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
While this offer has some merit I'd like to note that it's completely incompatible with the attacks on their opponents some mailing list members have made during the arbitration and still make (see threads below). Also, imho it would be not fair if the editors not guilty of off-wiki disruption who were punished in the course of this conflict end up with similar sanctions as the ones whose case is currently investigated. Alæxis¿question? 20:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I hope that none of my edits here can be interpreted as attacks. Please let me know if you think I made an improper comment anywhere here and I'll refactor it if possible. That said I agree that all parties should concentrate on constructive proposals, and stop attacking one another (see also my comment above). We need to repair our relationships, not make them worse. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus is proposing constructive and neutral solutions which will not harm anyone. He doesn't seem to be making any attacks at this moment. I really support Piotrus and keep in mind what he done for WP. Just make a little résumé of what he's done to WP. Quantity and quality of his edits, fighting with bias and pov, articles about WP outside it, etc. Look also at his barnstars and keep in mind that he is the most contributing Polish Wikipedian here, on enwiki. Isn't just enough? Fair, he done what he done, but I believe that by his contribution, we can give him a chance. Visor (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

All I can tell you all is that if Piotrus is banned for a year, Wikipedia will loose THE BEST Polish editor it have ever had. His knowledge of Polish related topics and dedication to this project is extraordinary and hard to match. ..And I don't want to hear now all the B.S. of the usual opponents of Piotrus PLEASE, I have heard it all already, so keep you comments to yourself. All I know is that one editor like Piotrus is worth more to Wikipedia than all of us Polish editors combined. I think it will be a huge loss to Wikipedia if Piotrus never comes back if banned.--Jacurek (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And who are you to question my opinion?--Jacurek (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Piotrus is right that some initiative needs to be taken to help resolve at least some of the conflicts in Eastern European subjects and re-establish good faith between editors (honestly, speaking for myself, due to the persistent personal attacks and the outting that has taken place, I've lost most of mine in regard to some editors. However I've also gained a LOT of respect for others - like Igny). There are actually two general aims here: 1) diffuse potential areas of conflict before it erupts, 2) get editors talking to each other honestly (but with civility and mutual accusations). Hopefully, success in 2) will lead to less of a need for 1) - but let's try to do what we can and not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Diffusing conflicts would actually be better done with MORE editor involvement rather then less. With more editors there's less of a chance that a extreme view (or two polar extreme views) will take sway. Basically, articles and topics of potential conflict (including things like AfDs) should be advertised more widely - this would also make it "fair" in the sense that anyone interested could see it, and it would also eliminate the temptation to engage in off-wiki "letting people know" (NTTAWWT). To that end, I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe/Noticeboard can serve as an appropriate tool.

For building good faith ... ugh, this is going to be the tougher one. A "mediation/mentorship good-faith committee", as Piotrus proposes would definitely be needed. The problem of course is that whoever joins the committee is going to have some really hard - and often thankless - work set out for them (a special award/barnstar would probably be the least the community could do to show its appreciation to such a person). It would be good to know at this stage what kind of interest in mediating these issues is out there. But one way or another, something like that has to happen, just so we're not back here a year from now with another ArbCom case (with same or different participants).radek (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Radek, and naturally I would be in favour of constructive proposals such as those put foward by Piotrus. See my Thoughts below. We really need to sort out these endemic problems - in the name of building a good encyclopedia - and we won't do that by handing out arbitrary punishments to selected individuals (except for those who have clearly shown they've no interest in contributing positively). --Kotniski (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Being involved mostly in the Central-Eastern European articles editing, I'd hate to loose any valuable editor because of content disputes, and I'm all for a constructive solution if one is possible. I believe that self-imposed restrictions plus parole is the way to go, although it would be good to contemplate which restrictions should be considered and what purpose would they serve. Myself, I've limited my editing mostly because I was not interested in warring, wiki-lawyering etc. but in the content and maintaining a neutral pov, so I can well understand similar disappointment feelings of the others. Anyway, I think by all means you should strive for a constructive constructive solution that would not harm wikipedia in this, already very delicate, area. --Lysytalk 14:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There are what - five? - edit diffs in evidence against Piotrus. He offers to put himself under long term voluntary restrictions. There are editors here from both sides who have been really disruptive, and they have not followed suit. Considering how Piotrus is trying to reach out to everyone and atone for any misdeeds, I think it would be a shame to ban the guy who wrote 80% of Poland-related Featured Articles (what - 20 total - probably more than all of the people criticizing him here put together...), and probably a good chunk of all Poland-related articles for even few days, not to mention months! And look - Piotrus has done nothing controversial in the past month, doesn't that mean anything? Tymek (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus has been an incredibly productive contributor to Wikipedia content and process. If he has shown a few lapses, which of us has not? The tone of discussion, and the quality of documentation, at Wikipedia have been improving, and should continue to. I think we should take Piotrus up on his proposals. Nihil novi (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

He is not being accused of "a few lapses." We would not be here if this were over a few lapses. Please read the evidence page. csloat (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure, he is being accused of all kinds of crazy things by people who have an axe to grind and who are blowing things way out of proportion (as well as making totally incivil comparisons to "gang rapists" and "pogromists" that, were this not the ArbCom discussion page, would have gotten them a hefty civility ban already). The actual concrete evidence that has been presented however shows at best minor infractions (like protecting a page that in fact should have been protected - but probably by an uninvolved admin).radek (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's also instructive to consider the behavior of both "sides" during this case. Piotrus (and others) are at least trying to make constructive proposals, and are looking for a way - through discussion and offers of cooperation - to mover forward.

It appears though that Offliner, Russavia and PasswordUsername (as well as uninvolved 'auxilliaries' like Dojarca, csloat and Viriditas) are not doing anything of the sort but rather can only howl for blood, based on false accusations and extremely offensive personal attacks (like comparing, wrongly, to Holocaust revisionists, pogromists or gang rapists).

In other words, one side is trying to end the battleground atmosphere in EE topics, while the other side is just trying to stir up pointless drama and propagate the battleground atmosphere.radek (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So to summarize: Mailing list members are guilty of only minor infractions. They are trying to make constructive proposals. They are looking to move forward. The other side is only trying to stir up drama. They propagate the battleground atmosphere. They howl for blood. They make extremely offensive personal attacks. If things would only be that simple.
Here is my suggestion to the mailing list participants: Take responsibility for your actions (And no you haven't. Saying sorry for joining the mailing list makes you sound that you are sorry for being caught. Saying if the arb com feels that I did something wrong I will promise not to do it again is exactly the opposite of taking responsibility. And so on.). There is no need to apologize, but there is a need to acknowledge what you did wrong. Only this would make it believable that this secret mailing list will end, once and for all, and that your future contributions to the project will be constructive. If that would happen, I would be the first to support much more lenient editing restrictions. Pantherskin (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
OK.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point, Piotrus. You take responsibility for minor infractions, well, not even that as you actually downplay them. You do not take responsibility for any of the major infractions you are guilty of. If that is all we can expect from you after all the evidence presented by involved and uninvolved editors... Although to your credit you are taking more responsibility than other members of the mailing list. Pantherskin (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

While I'm merely a lurker here at the wiki these days, I thought I'll drop by and add my two eurocents to this discussion (or two euros, considering the length of my post). As I already noted numerous times on numerous occasions, I was chased off Wikipedia some time ago by one of the EE clubs and now don't waste too much of my time on it. Anyway, in the recent months I cooled down a bit and don't believe in bans as a way to change anything.

But let me tell you a story first. Once upon a time we (I mean all of Wikipedians interested in EE and CE-related articles, but those of Polish extraction specifically, more on that later) had a huge problem with certain User:Zivinbudas. The guy was clearly way off-balance when it comes to views and he used all means possible to ensure that Lithuania-related articles represent his point of view - and his only. Sockpuppetry, constant reverts, ignoring sources, ignoring consensus, name-calling, you name it. In the end the guy became so infuriated that he started adorning his edits with comments similar to "Poles to gas chambers". Only then were we able to attract any admin's attention to what was happening. Why? I guess no admin was interested in EE&CE topics or knowledgeable enough to tell the truths from complete nonsense (note the plural). In the end Zivinbudas was banned for one year and never showed up again.

This was in 2004 or 2005. However, others followed his path. His example showed only one thing: as long as you stay in EE-history area, you're safe to do anything you can as there's no admin to watch those articles. You can delete sources from an article and then claim it is unsourced - it's all fine. As long as you don't call for sending anyone to gas chambers, that is. Once Zivinbudas has been banned I was quite happy. Not because I could insert anything into Lithuania-related historical articles (which BTW I could as there were apparently no other editors with that knowledge in Wikiland back then), but because I felt there would be some peace in articles on EE and CE history. But in the end the can of worms remained open and only got harder to close.

The other side of that coin is what I discovered during my (failed) RfA a long time ago. If your main area of interest is, say, maths or biology, you'll live a long and happy wiki-life. However, if you're interested in history, sooner or later you'll end up in some endless quarrel over this or that topic. This is especially true in the case of modern history (a can of worms), and CE and EE history in particular (a shipload of worms). It doesn't matter if you're a university professor, a greatest of all minds and a good-faith editor all the time. In the end someone will start to revert your articles just because, and in the end you will get provoked and finally respond with a word too much. This IMHO explains why we (I mean all historically-minded Wikipedians) couldn't get any help from the outside even in the most simple cases. I remember starting RfCs where noone outside of the interested parties showed up. Typical.

And now on to ban of Piotrus (I refer to him specifically, as he's the only person out of those listed in this ArbCom case I know and in fact even met personally - once, but still). I don't believe banning him would do this project any good. In the end the war is not between wikiPoles and wikiRussians, but between those of us who are content creators (creating featured articles, adding sources, negotiating the release of media into PD and so on) and content destroyers (quarrelling over everything, not providing any sources for their edits, accusing everyone around of fancy things and so on). Having said that, I believe Piotrus' has been on the bright side of the force for most of his time and Wiki would loose a valuable editor. Whether he is worthy of being an admin is another case I'm not judging here. As I said before, no person interested in history is "adminnable" in Wikipedia. //Halibutt 21:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This was our last chance

If such solid extraordinary evidence led to nothing, there is no hope at all. Suppose the archive was not dicovered. The cabal would continue their disruptive work without any obstacle, stonewalling dispute resolution and banishing other editors. But the very fortune gives us such a solid unprecedented evidence. But the arbitrators suggest to close eyes on this. What next? If the off-wiki coordination continue (this will be the case for sure), the particepants will keep it in even greater secret and take any measures to avoid detection. We cannot expect to get such exceptional evidence for a second time. This was the last chance for Wikipedia's neutrality. --Dojarca (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Reds under beds and cabalists in the closet. Are we really that insecure that we cannot rely upon the judgement of admins closing debates or conducting dispute resolution on the merits of the arguments presented? How often are we told that "it is not a vote"? Any reasonable person involved in EE space knows who is who in the various factions, which existed long before the list was created. --Martintg (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Was not it you who rejected the meditation [21]?--Dojarca (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
When it involves an article that had been stable for over a year and which yourself hadn't edited for two years, and a admin Hiberneantears (who was totally unaware of the previous dispute resolution processes) acting as proxy on your behalf, decided to split and edit a perfectly stable article unilaterally and use his admin tools protect the result, it had moved beyond mediation. --Martintg (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It was stable because all your opponents were banished from it.--Dojarca (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you link the relevant topic ban? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The outcome of the previous mediation case has been violently rejected and the mediator attacked: [22]. Any attempts to make the article more neutral were reverted on sight and any references removed.--Dojarca (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
"violently rejected and the mediator attacked", are you kidding? The participants approached the case in good faith but the case was subsequently closed prematurely by the mediator, citing the mysterious advice of some unknown arbitrator. Hardly conductive to dispute resolution. But regardless, the article was extensively re-written after the case, introducing additional viewpoints per WP:YESPOV, but you wouldn't have known that because you were away, returning later like Rip van Winkle with your baggage of bad faith assumptions. --Martintg (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense Dorjarca. What prevented you from editing the article in the previous two years, your block log is clean. Instead you drew in Hiberneantears in this bad faithed manner, several days before you even returned to edit the article after your year long absence. This poisoned the atmosphere right from the beginning. --Martintg (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It is impossible to edit article when all you edits quickly reverted.--Dojarca (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
How would you know, you hadn't edited the article for two years before making you bad faithed claims about events that occurred two years ago on Hiberneantears' talk page. --Martintg (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Because I do not like edit-warring.--Dojarca (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well then participate in good faithed discussion on the article talk page rather than engineer bad faithed disruption via unsuspecting admin's talk pages. --Martintg (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
What the purpose of discussing if it cannot lead to any change in the article? Both meditations were rejected. It is impossible to convince nationalists in anything without policy enforcement.--Dojarca (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with you, Dojarca. Therefore, it is excellent that the current article is based on the opinions of the international historians/politicians and not just historiography of one country - which is there mentioned as well. --Sander Säde 21:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Good faith

There is every indication that the mailing list's participants sincerely believed that there is an organized group or groups attempting to push a "pro-Russian" point of view on Wikipedia, going so far as to suspect involvement by the Russian government. - this is completely flawed argument. The group pushed anti-Russian propaganda anywhere they could, making no difference between Tsarist Russia, Soviet Union and modern Russia. They managed to insert anti-Russian statements into articles from Alexander Suvorov to Santa Claus. It is evident that such overwhelming POV-pushing cannot be made in good faith as well as removig the references. Could good-faith users reject a meditation? Or maybe they thought administrators Hiberniantears and John Carter were Russian government's agents?

This argument is completely the same as to say that people who organized an anti-Jewish pogrom should be pardoned because they believed that Jews really drink blood of Christialn babies.


Only Anti-Semitic government could pardon pogrom participants on such pretext.--Dojarca (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Dojarca, please keep on posting these kinds of comments. Really. I'm not sure if comparing people to pogromists is an improvement on comparing them to gang rapists - I guess it's a horizontal move. But seriously, you're illustrating certain things very nicely here.radek (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Good faith and facts seems to be sorely missing from this post. At least try to get your facts right: not a single of our members has ever edited Santa Claus: [23], and not a single post on a discussion page (including archives) mentions any anti-Russian comments. What's next, the accusation that we are promoting the flat Earth POV? PS. Dojarca, I am certainly willing to assume good faith toward you. What puzzles me is that I can recall only one instance of our interaction - and that was when I agreed with you here. So why not take up my offer and work with me to create uncontroversial encyclopedic content? I'll do my best to prove to you we can work together to improve this project. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
But edited Ded Moroz [24], at least Molobo and Piotrus. And edit-warred in it.--Dojarca (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2005 diffs? I can't really speak up for what Molobo did in 2005, but my edits from 2006 involved one revert and merging a fork into the article, which has been rather stable since then (and not edited by me). If you'd like to work on improving this article, I am willing to help. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, revert restoring unsourced claim that after communism Dziadek Mróz disappeared from Polish culture. Why then Polish schools celebrate Christmas with Dziadek Mróz in 2008? [25] --Dojarca (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe because the 2008 page didn't exist in 2006? You are welcome to add a note that DMróz still exists in Polish culture, if you can find a reliable source for it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
But you're free to add that Dziadek Mróz does not exist in Polish culture without any source, yes? Because you have "consensus" for it, yes?--Dojarca (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Dojarca, information about disappearence of Ded Moroz from Polish schools and preschools was sourced, so you are claim isn't correct.. As to your link, it seems to be another poetic expression of Saint Nicholas rather then the exact Russian version that was enforced during Soviet occupation.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

To the actual proposal, I am sorry, but I personally have engaged editors active on Wikipedia paid to push Russian interests in Transnistria (banned William Mauco, Mark Street, and sockpuppets associated with both). There is no "good faith" problem here and I request this be struck as more "mailing list = must be evil" in the absence of any factual basis regarding good or bad faith. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Good faith? A question to Coren

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Good_faith, list members thought that editors, including me, Russavia, PasswordUsername and others are connected with or paid by the Russian government or security services. I do note that in your own support you say that this is misguided.

In a previous case in 2008, the ArbCom found that found that There is no convincing evidence that any of the security organs of the Russian state 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[26]. As Russavia notes in this case[27], an editor escaped enforcement[28], for what appears opposition from a couple of Arb members who noted a promise not to engage in such things again, and also escaped admonishment.[29]

Still, there are plenty of instances on the mailing list of editors claiming that myself and other editors are members of Russian security forces, etc. And there is also evidence at this very case in which the editor accuses myself and other editors of not only being employed by yet another Russian government-related entity, but in which he also calls us neo-Nazis. This happened right here on these very evidence pages, and it was picked up on by Russavia with this evidence that he presented.

The question to you is, given editors have denied unfounded accusations against them on multiple occasions in the past, and given the fact that an RFAR from less than 12 months ago found no evidence of this, and given evidence that has been introduced of the continuation of accusations since then, and given evidence that was introduced in this very case, how can this very well be assumed as being "good faith"? Is this not an insult to those editors who have long been at the receiving end of these unfounded accusations? Offliner (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is simple: if you say that they are agents of Estonian government, it is break with the policy and offense, if they accuse you being agent of FSB/KGB/NKVD, it is good faith because FSB is so evil, why not to believe they have agents everywhere? :-) --Dojarca (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Offliner, on the subject of good faith, how about you take up my offer and work with me to create uncontroversial encyclopedic content? The two of us have never interacted much in the past, how about we try to establish a good editing relationship and give others an example of how we can help this project? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Not just KGB agents, but also "liars" and "big fans of" none other than "Uncle Joe Stalin" himself, as just posted by Radeksz in this very discussion. I'm glad that this kind of abuse flies under the radar is not considered by ArbCom as anything serious or damaging to Wikipedia's processes.
I'm just an American in his early 20s with Eastern European Jewish roots (not ethnic Russian) and a serious interest in the Eastern European topics and left-wing political philosophy, but apparently I'm a KGB agent and an operative of FSB as well, and it's apparently alright to violate all norms of WP:CIV and everything else in order to poison the environment for me and others (apparently, the Wikipediametric mailing list was not enough). And I'm sure that Radeksz will return to cooperative editing as soon as this affar is settled, after one or two be-nice-to-these-editors admonishments. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Funny. You complain about my edits - which I can support with diffs, yet make no mention of Russavia comparing people to gang rapists or Dojarca comparing them to pogromists.radek (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
He is currently edit-warring in coordination with Loosmark in German-Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk without any pause even for this case. He knows it will lead to no punishment. This has been added to my evidence, but it seems it falls under amnesty now. --Dojarca (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Folks, go to the article Dojarca's linking to. Look at the talk page. See for yourself.radek (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Or look at the history page: [30]. One revert on Oct 6, two reverts on Oct 8, all with edit summaries, plus a lot of posts at talk. WP:BRD? Nah. Behold Radeksz, the wiki menace. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the peanut gallery on both sides above (take bickering elsewhere, I for one have had a bloody gutful it). If we can stay focussed on this one thing, that being the issues that Offliner has raised. His sentiments mirror my sentiments in their entireity. To see the section entitled "good faith" with details covering consistent and persistent accusations of a multitude of editors being KGB agents and a whole lot of kooky things has me absolutely stumped. So I too ask the same questions of Coren, and I ask him these additional questions:

A response from Coren, or other arbs, appreciated. Russavia Dialogue 21:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, please tell me: where have I accused you, publicly, of being a KGB agent, neo-Nazi or anything similar? Please let me know and I'll be more than happy to refactor that comment and apologize to you. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Russavia, the way I read that finding is it really just means: "they honestly believed this", and Coren's own comment below, "... however misguided" clearly indicates he isn't endorsing that belief. The phrase "good faith" is often misused or misunderstood in Wikipedia, of course. But if understood correctly it doesn't really indicate anything about whether that stance was objectively justified, it speaks only to the subjective state of mind of the people on the list. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This FoF is flawed because it assumes that all list participants monolithically shared this same view, which is not the case. Some may have believed so, others didn't and even refuted the arguments of those who did. Why is it so difficult to verify things first, ArbCom could have privately emailed each and everyone of the list participants individually to poll them on their beliefs first before drafting a FoF in this regard? --Martintg (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks FPaS for your take on it too. However, the FoF as it stands now does appear to me to be giving these editors an excuse for their behaviour, particularly in regards to harrassment and teaming on their opponents or deemed enemies. I would recommend the following:
1) The section be renamed to "Involvement of Russian government in editing processes" or something similar.
2) Parts of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Involvement_by_security_organs be incorporated into the text, or a new FoF be created which reinforces that PD from the 2008 arbcase.
Is this a fair thing do you think? --Russavia Dialogue 22:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
No, because it assumes this was a common belief shared by all, but I count only one who holds that view. --Martintg (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What Martin said. I don't think I ever thought anybody was a FSB agent... well ... ok, maybe for like 2 seconds when the archive was leaked. I got the general impression from a few others that they didn't completely dismiss that possibility. That's about it.radek (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if what Martintg and Radek say is the case, and it appears to be the case from looking at the archive, the entire FoF should be voted down by the committee, or stricked/retracted/whatever. --Russavia Dialogue 22:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Things that are impossible to prove or disprove should not be seriously entertained (here's another one: "Computer trespass"). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Coren: Relatively-minor-infractions rationale

In response to Coren: "the infractions commited by other members are — in the whole — relatively minor and the remedy was crafted looking forward."

It is true that the mailing list did not manage to control the content of EE articles to the extend they envisioned, and it is true that the mailing list did not succeed to implement all the sanctions they thought of for whom they regarded their opponents yet. But the mailing list archive proves beyond doubt that they were making progress.

That several wikipedia editors and administrators were subject to off-wiki coordinated hounding, revert warring, deception campaigns, block evasion, votestacking and tactical plotting is a major offense itself, regardless of whether these campaigns in full accomplished or missed their stated objectives. That should be reflected in both the fofs and in the proposed decisions.

The Occasional disruption fof needs to be ammended, likewise the proposed decisions, based on the proposed principles Canvassing, Not a battleground, Gaming the system, Meatpuppetry and Off-wiki communication. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Amnesties and admonishments are insufficient

In response to Coren: "I should expect that, given the admonishment, all of them will shy away from such off-wiki fora in the future."

There is no reason to believe that the remainder of Piotrus' group ceased to coordinate themselves off-wiki via mailing list, IM or their parallel wiki, there is no reason to believe that this group has any intention to do so, and based on their behaviour in the past it is extremely unlikely that amnesties and admonishments will upset them. There is no other way to deal with such an off-wiki organized group (mailing list, IM, own wiki) than to disconnect them from their targets, article- and editor-wise. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And then you will have a free hand to edit Polish-German articles[[35]] you "own" [[36]]without any "Pollacks" "messing it up", right?:)--Jacurek (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I never said "Pollack" to anyone, as your quotes suggest. Don't falsely present me as someone using ethnic slurs. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
No, of course you did not and I never said that you did. But you agree that the only reason you are even posting here is to eliminate your opponents and possibly get a free hand to write the German-Polish history the way you want or am I mistaken Skäpperöd??--Jacurek (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, yes, I write a "satirical blog" and "satirical essays". Horrible of me. I'm perfectly willing to apologize for mistakes I've made in the past six months - six months is a pretty long time to go without making any mistakes. But I'm not about to back down before people who try to call me a "Holocaust revisionist" or compare me to a rapist or to a pogromist or try to slander me with other false hate filled accusations. When this kind of offensive behavior and personal attacks stop I will be quite happy to apologize to anyone who deserves an apology.
But that probably won't include people who've shown up on this case to cynically push their own agenda so that they can get a free hand in their POV pushing and content disputes.radek (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, Skäpperöd posted an image on his userpage of a bottle of Russian vodka with link to this case page toasting "Skål!" to his expected "win" in the content space he shared with you guys, but it will be a loss to Wikipedia if balance is broken by the wholesale removal of one side. --Martintg (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, an image of a (good!) vodka is the most uncontentious way to link this EE madness. And if you think that there is anything to "win" here for anyone, you are badly mistaken. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
...just stop Skippered.. it so obvious what you meant by toasting "Skål!" and Russian vodka image...but I understand why you wanted to celebrate also.--Jacurek (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Amnesties and admonishments are insufficient". If they are to work this time, they need to be followed up by an attempt to restore good faith between radicalized editors. See my proposals to that goal here, here and here. I hope that the committee considers adopting / building upon some of them. If there is no follow up to the amnesty aiming to reform the editors, the underlying problem will not be solved.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well Skäpperöd, having read much of the archive, I'm stunned Radeksz is escaping without even an admonishment. But I assume the thoughts of Coren are similar here to those of medieval kings putting down rebellions (not like the Basil Bulgaroktonus type of course): treat the ring-leaders severely and allow the remainder to return to ploughing their fields and paying their taxes. They might be right on this one, we'll see. It's too early to make much comment anyway, as only one arb has voted on the proposals, and others may still propose more.
Yes, they'll definitely continue to co-ordinate in some manner, but it's very difficult to see what ArbCom can do about that. Console yourself with the thought that the golden age of dumb "good faith" in the face of conspicuous tag-teaming and vote-stacking is probably over. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps other Wiki "Tag-teams" and mailing lists members can learn something positive from it? You could not possibly think that this project is absolutely free of some kind of "coordinated editing", do you Deacon of Pndapetzim?--Jacurek (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The main lessons are for the community dealing with it, not so much the participants. All the participants are adults. If I were a pessimist, I'd say the main lesson for cabals of nationalist edit-warriors is likely to be "we'll no longer be so dumb to have huge mailing lists with lots of members"; but the optimist in me hopes the whole thing will be a wake up call for at least some. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The real question is whether list membership afforded any real advantage. It is almost an article of faith that it does, but did it really? Any objective analysis of the evidence will reveal that it didn't. As sure as night follows day, there is no doubt other maillists and other forms of off-wiki communication exists within other groups, to believe otherwise is simply delusional. The Foundation even encourages off-wiki communication through provision of the email feature on our userpage. Are we, as a community, mature enough to be confident in the robustness of our on-wiki processes, or should the community continue to hold on to this fear? Here the ArbCom have a golden opportunity to bust some myths and finally put to rest this "cabalist" bogeyman. --Martintg (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison

Compared to what members of EEML tried (successfully!) to get for their victims (that is indefinite blocks), three-month sanctions really seem too lenient.DonaldDuck (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody tried to get you indef blocked, Donald. You did you 17 reverts-in-a-row and such by yourself, nobody was steering you from behind the scenes... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Your blatant denial of reality is just unbeliavable. [20090506-1615] "Help appreciated, I would like to avoid more then 2 reverts per day..." This is quotation from you email, calling to attack me, from the workshop section.
I've been reminded by ArbCom to ignore edit warring, I am trying to say on 1-2RR a day in that article, so I cannot by myself ensure it is correct. - this is also your own words.DonaldDuck (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Run it by me again: how is my attempt to avoid multiple reverts per day translates into your multiple 3RR violations? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Please clarify, Piotrus. Did he revert the same thing 17 times, or did he revert various items in the article 17 times? I guess specifically I would like to know how many times in his 'spree' he actally broke 3rr. To avoid confusion, to break 3rr for the purposes of this question he must revert the SAME piece of information in an artice MORE than 3 times in one day. In addition, if he reverted the same piece of info 5 times, I would concider that breaking 3rr twice (once for the fourth revert, once for the fifth). I realise admins have some leeway for interpreting 3rr but for the sake of this question I'd like to see the technical answer.198.161.174.222 (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
DD broke 3RR many times (see his block log). The (in)famous 17-reverts in a row spree is covered here (see also my evidence). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't treat us all as fools Piotrus. You know very well that you and list members provoked editors into breaking 3RR. This does not excuse editors for breaking 3RR, but you and your list members do explain why members may have broken 3RR on occasions. Do I need to add this to the evidence so that others can see it for themselves? --Russavia Dialogue 20:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Gee, I see your point now. By making edits we provoke DD and others into disruptive behavior; like, let's say, I am to be faulted for creating tsarist autocracy, as this baited DD into making dozens of reverts in that article. Obviously, if I have not created the article, or at the very least, if I have not dared to disagree with him, he would not have had to resort to reverting me. Hmmm. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Good link, had the evidence I needed, and I have to say that 'spree' is all in your mind. When your going to accuse someone of having a spree you really should tell people EVERYTHING. Like the fact that the 17 reverts were spread over the course of a week. The way you go on about it you act like it was in one day. Then I suppose that there is the fact that only 3 of his 17 reverts broke 3rr, not excusable mind you but concidering you could have called him on breaking 3rr with 6 revisions one wonders why you had to jump up and down about 17. The other 11 didn't even matter... and three of those weren't even relevant. The only thing I can think of is that saying 17 reverts is sexier as long as you rely on people to not actually check the diffs. I guess my other question is, if you treat your mailing list as a unified voice... how many times did you break 3rr in that week? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a revert does not necessarily have to be the same piece of information. Check the relevant WP:3RR policy: "a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period" --Martintg (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Luckily that point is irrelivant since I checked the diffs. 15 of the reverts removed russian despotism from the article lead 3 of them changed byzantism to something else (one did both, thats why it adds up to 18). So even accounting for that my numbers dont change. Oh, and unsuprisingly, I have also answered my own question. The unified mailing list voice (in this canse Pioturs, Radeksz, Digwurgen) also had a 17 revert 'spree' in that time. They managed to rack up 6 3rr violations in that time but obfuscated it by coordinating off-wiki so that no particular individual violated 3rr. (Caveat: that may be less. I trusted the edit summaries and ASSUMED someone had to revert between DD's reverts I did not actually look directly at the diffs themselves but I am confident that who was doing the reverts was self evident from the history and the edit summaries).198.161.174.222 (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that at that time Radek was not a member of the list... this may change your analysis a little. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Radeksz exchanged a lot of emails with you at that time and you invited him to the list [20090515-1304-[WPM] Radeksz].DonaldDuck (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, Martintg. I must say I was suprised by the 3RR thing. In retrospect I can see the reasoning behind it, but in my mind I separated reverts of different information as unique. I wonder how many people have fallen into that particular mistake by accident. Live and learn, I guess. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to Amnesties and Admonitions are Insufficient

Like anyone else involved for some time on the Wikipedia project, I have made my share of friends and encountered others who would not consider me to be their friend. It goes with the territory. To deny that there is off-wiki communication truly would be "delusional". Of course there is. There is nothing wrong with such communication, but what has transpired here truly puts the project in jeopardy and would make a mockery of its rules and regulations if it is allowed to go unpunished (with a mere wimpy slap on the wrist). The above proposal reminds me of having to write, "I will not be a bad boy," a hundred times on the blackboard (sure beats getting a switch, or expelled). There is no need for me to recapitulate what has occurred here for the benefit of anyone, let alone the members of this ArbCom. The evidence is there, and those guilty should not be able to slough off their guilt, unique in its enormity, with the hope that "this too shall pass". During other attempts to remedy these types of transgressions, and the behavior of some of the participants of the mailing list at previous ArbComs and the like, the arbitrators were unsuccessful only because of the lack of fortitude necessary to correct such transgressions. But regarding these people, this is the "Mother-of All-of-Transgressions" on their part. I have had the misfortune of having read a great number of their correspondence, if one can call it that, as I was one of the earlier recipients of the list. It saddened me to read those particular emails in relation to myself, and their conspiring to have me banned or otherwise "neutralized". I think one of the major tactics was to "ignore" Dr. Dan. Never had a problem with that guys, and I too have done my best to ignore you as well. Until now that is, because while you lied about the cabal being a figment of one's imagination and burbled a lot of euphemistic nonsense about assuming good faith, that was was not the case. All I ask of those capable of remedying this clear violation of what this project is supposed to be about, not to blow this one too. It's not about supposed previous "contributions" to the project, or associations made at Wikimania or the like, it's about reality. This reality is very ugly and will haunt this project in the future if not remedied appropriately. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Have they really planned to "ignore" Dr.Dan? Man that's a really diabolical plan, I hope the ArbCom advises them to stop ignoring you at once! Loosmark (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Loosmark, are you just trolling straw man nonsense, or did you really believe Dr Dan claimed to be bothered by cabal members planning to ignore him? If the latter, then reread his comments. If the former, then ... well, you deserve a good trout slapping. ;) Come on, your friends don't really need you to be acting like that atm. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully no one else thinks this is all a big joke. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Simple request 2

Umm, this one's related to my previous request - noting that no one on the list was "anti-Russian" but this one is even weirder and more inaccurate: encouraging each other to fight editors perceived as being "opponents" and generally assuming bad faith from editors editing from a Russian or Western European point of view.

Uhhh... weren't we just being accused of *representing* the Western point of view? What is this referring to? Where did we say "those damned Western Europeans!"? We used mainstream Eastern *and* Western European sources (sometimes in the face of objections). This one really has me scratching my head.radek (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a reference to your conflicts with Germans ... But I don't think that you guys will ever be accused of arguing a "Western point of view". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Well in the dispute with Skapperod over expulsions I used ... German sources! And for that specific accusation - I believe it's on this very page in several places.radek (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly, you used Molobo as a source and Polish websites Molobo posted on the mailing list, one of them contained a translation of a German scholar which you used selectively resulting in the article being protected because of BLP. (Use of other information from the same source was instantly reverted by you [37], btw). Skäpperöd (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Uh, no, I did not use Molobo as a source. What, was he published somewhere that I'm not aware of? I found a bunch of German language sources and since I don't speak German I asked Molobo for help with translation (while struggling with my own Babel fish translation).
Also, please don't misrepresent the fact that you were trying to hide the extreme far right nature and Holocaust-denialism of Heinz Nawratil and that BLP noticeboard completely agreed with me on this. And I reverted your edit simply because you were misrepresenting the source.radek (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, the statement is not specifically about the sources, but about cultural standpoints. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what's that supposed to mean and I'm not even gonna ask.radek (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Coren has already responded here. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Err, I finally understood the question: I just realized I had rewritten this so often I had ended up reversing the sense I intended! Imma go fix this now! — Coren (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!radek (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The way it's formulated now editors like Skapperod and Matthead end up with 'Russian or against the prevalent Western European point of view' position. I don't think it's accurate.

Also, the ML members did not always defend 'prevalent Western European point of view' as could be perceived from current wording (Human rights in Estonia and the Amnesty International report about them come to my mind). Alæxis¿question? 19:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I also wonder about the oversimplification regarding Russian POV. I'd suggest rephrasing it to indicate that the list members dealt with "perceived undue weight POV"; it doesn't really matter where it came from. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts

Being totally unfamiliar with the detailed facts of this case, I would nonetheless like to offer a few impressions:

  1. We don't (or shouldn't) do retributive punishment on Wikipedia. We shouldn't be applying sanctions because of what people have done in the past, but because of what they might otherwise do in the future (and the good things they will incidentally be prevented from doing ought to come into the equation too).
  2. In subject areas where strong points of view are prevalent (such as those of different nationalities) the normal editing model breaks down (I'm sure ArbCom doesn't need me to tell them that). Ordinary well-meaning editors tend to be shouted out and lose patience, leaving the POV-pushers to fight it out. There is no effective system for ensuring good content in these cases; the best we can hope for is a truce between sides that isn't biased too far in one direction or the other (but still probably won't be well-written or particularly factual). This is a fault of the system, not of individual editors. Enough cases like this have come to ArbCom by now that surely we can be thinking of ways to repair the system, not continually papering over the cracks by imposing punitive sanctions on individuals and describing them (perversely) as "remedies"?
  3. Given the system we have, if one group of POV-pushers is allowed to work their stuff, then it's no surprise that editors with opposing POVs work to counter them, even to the extent of coordinating their actions. It might even seem negligent of them not to, given that the system offers no alternative course of action.

I edit in the "Eastern" (Central) European area too, and am quite frequently annoyed by POVers of various nationalities editing to an agenda to the detriment of the encyclopedia (such as by removing places' former names and information about their having belonged to other countries in the past). I haven't been involved in any of the major content disputes that this case seems to be about. But my impression of User:Piotrus has always been extremely positive - unlike some Polish editors, he genuinely strives to improve the content of the encyclopedia and keep POVs out rather than in. He has also made vast and extremely valuable contributions to WP, and continues to do so. I would have hoped that the amnesty (which, following from the above numbered points, I clearly support) would be applied to him first and foremost. Effectively it is proposed (if I understand correctly) that he be excluded from his area of interest at WP for 15 months, which will undoubtedly harm the project significantly, for no visible gain. I don't know the other potential sanctionees so can't offer an opinion there, but would ask the Committee to reconsider the case of Piotrus. If we're in a retributive mood, is the desysopping not sufficient as a punishment?--Kotniski (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Pasting together two parts of your statement: Does the presence of one competent editor justify the absence of those editors who turned away from EE battles managed by this editor? Which evil is lesser? Who will care to improve Franciszek Smuglewicz, for example, if even such benign (and well-researched) topic is a slow-burning minefield? NVO (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what you're alleging here, or what your point is about this article. I doubt that "battles were managed" by any one editor.--Kotniski (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
What's the problem with Smuglewicz, other than some anon disruption (solution: request semi-protection)? If there are interested editors here, please keep in mind my offer - I will gladly help you or anybody else improve this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Lets see. I figure I can respond to each of those points individually.
1. This is not retribution, this is responce to ongoing disruption. What people have done in the past represents what they are likely to do in the future. Poitrus has had previous brushes with the law and each time it gets more damning. This mailing list represents long term commitment to actions the commitee is against and therefore their responce must be commensurate with it.
2. The 'System', as flawed as it is, did not make them do anything. They chose their actions, recognised its negative nature, and actively hid it from view. If you want the system improved then you should help improve it, not actively subvert it while waving a flag that says 'I only did it cus the system sucks'.
3. So its negligent to not edit war if someone else is doing it? You really think that ones gonna fly? Ever?

If the comittee believes what was in the FoF's are true, then no only has Poitrus actively persued multiple avenues of longterm disruption on wikipedia, but he has also used his position to assist others to do so as well. He was warned in previous cases it would come to this, and now it has. If he is such a good contributor, then he can be a good one in other parts of wikipedia where he can do so without worries of evil russian cabals.198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you perhaps log in so we know who you are? (Seems courteous if you're going to make potentially defamatory accusations against named editors.) But it seems you - and the Arb who wrote the proposed decisions - are trying to make Piotrus a scapegoat for everything that's been going on. Even through my limited involvement I am quite aware that there is nationalist-motivated disruption going on from all sides, and there always will be if we think that singling out individual editors for punishment counts as a "remedy".--Kotniski (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The case is not closed yet; nowhere near it. If you have evidence in favor of anyone involved, you still have time to present it. "Why do you wonder at me? I gave an onion to a beggar, so I, too, am here. And many here have given only an onion each — only one little onion.... What are all our deeds?" NVO (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't logged in yet, and I really have no intention of doing so. Any potentially defamatory accusations I have made are based on currently voted on FoF's, noting that the accusations only stand if the FoF's are taken as true. As for Piotrus being a scapegoat, the current voting list makes it out more that they are focusing on who they believe is the ringleaders as opposed to hitting the list with a carpet bombing of bannination. Anyone who agrees with that assessment will call it that, anyone who disagrees with it will call it scapegoating. Po-tay-toe, Po-tah-toe. As for solving the nationalist-motivated disruption going on from all sides, I am sure Arbcom will be happy to hear your thoughts on how to solve the issue that does not involve either singling out individial editors for punishment and calling it a "remedy" or promoting editwarring as a method to combat nationalist agenda's198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
If we could focus our discussion on that subject, then maybe they would hear all of our thoughts on it, and offer some of their own. Then we might achieve something useful. (But I think it would need a powerful discussion mediator - and all-round change of mindset - to make that happen.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I fully support the need for some mediation-like post-arbcom proceeding. Remembering past grievances is not helping anyone, we have to move forward (or we will end up here again in few months). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts are precisely this. And I have made it known to the Committee. It is fine and dandy for members of the mailing list coming up with alternative remedies, and rolling out all sorts of character witnesses from wikiproject who are not involved. But the problem is, is that not a single member has yet to acknowledge that they did a single thing wrong, not a single list member has acknowledged that they have harrassed editors (even though evidence shows this clearly), and not a single list member has yet agreed with a single finding of fact. No, it is a complete denial. In my world, this is how children behave, and children who do such things are sent to their room until such time as they are willing to acknowledge what they did, and apologise. Only then should any of them be allowed to play with the grown ups. And the members of this list are no different. Why not encourage your colleagues to acknowledge what they have done...for this is the first step on the road to regaining an ounce of respect from the community. --Russavia Dialogue 18:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly encourage everyone who has participated in this warring on whatever side to acknowledge and apologize for their deeds; but more noble and productive still would be for all sides to leave off the mutual accusations and help work out together what needs to be done to stop this type of situation repeating. --Kotniski (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
"not a single member has yet to acknowledge that they did a single thing wrong". Sigh. For evidence of acknowledging of past mistakes, apologies and constructive proposals seek no further than here (and links that lead on from there), for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(Irrelevant comments removed by clerk)

Coren is trying to do right thing

Coren considers people at the both sides as misguided participants of this project rather than hardened criminals who must be exterminated. This is a noble approach. Digwuren and Piotrus appear in sanctions as ringleaders and Martingt as a scapegoat. Indeed, it was Digwuren who created and administered the list and therefore initiated the entire thing. It is also true that only involvement of Piotrus made the entire enterprise legitimate in the eyes of people in the list, not so much through administrator's status of Piotrus as through his authority as an excellent content creator and a friend. Well, maybe he was not such a good friend, since he did not warn others of potential dangers of participating in the list. And maybe he manipulated his friends? Or maybe people wanted to be manipulated and Piotrus simply has excellent leadership skills? Whatever it was, But Piotrus is undeniably the most prolific and neutral content creator in the mailing list. It may be fine to place him on probation and some set of voluntary/involuntary restrictions, but not allowing him editing articles on Poland-related subjects does not serve any purpose.Biophys (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems I should apologize to anybody whom I might have drawn, purposely or accidentally, into that list, without fully explaining and/or realizing myself the consequences. In hindsight, I should have never supported discussions that could (and some that did) result in real edits; those should have been kept, as much as possible, on Wiki. Now that we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe, I expect that all such discussions are moved there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You might also like to apologise to the community at large, and to those who you harrassed also. Some priorities and some responsibility taking is long overdue, don't you think? And this doesn't just go for you, but every single one of you who were on the list. --Russavia Dialogue 18:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have issued my series of apologies already. And whom have I harassed? Diffs please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Response_to_denial_by_Piotrus -- everyone has read this Piotrus, and yes you blatantly lied on that thread, and actually had the nerve to pull the line that it was everyone else who was libelling/slandering/harrassing other editors on your mailing list. The Arbcom may want to avoid this issue, but I will argue until I blue in the face that they recognise there was a massive harrassment of editors (not only myself) by your mailing list; the rest of the community basically already recognises it. --Russavia Dialogue 19:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Starting one ANI thread which doesn't even mention your name = my long term and nefarious campaign to harass you. Yes, I wonder why Arbcom is avoiding making this a cornerstone of this case... EOT for me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Russavia, please see my talk page for Offliner's harassment, Viriditas' harassment, et al. Not to mention PasswordUsername's contributions in that department as well. Then there is your invective all over the place. Which, apparently, has been rewarded at least to some degree.
   When you were first topic banned and you asked about some of your content under development (e.g., Russia-Australia relations), I was going to suggest I correct a few bits regarding Whitlam's recognition of Soviet sovereignty over the Baltics and that an admin post your article. I was clearly mistaken that there is any ground here for cooperation.
   Please show me where I need to apologize to anyone for "harassing" them. Your incessantly vituperative and combative attitude (shared by Offliner, PasswordUsername, and others) is a prime motivator for why I might wish to discuss topics with other editors in a venue offering peace and tranquility. I attribute the phenomenon of a mailing list not to my "depraved" (per another observer) behavior, but to yours, et al. Your use of these proceedings to berate others, and the apparent indulgence for you to continue to do so, rather disinclines me to apologize to anyone for anything. And so to you and to those who indulge you, you can collectively thank yourselves that I will be deleting the "apology" part of my "going forward" response to these proceedings. I am sure such action will be denounced by yourself and others as proof of Vecrumba's bad faith and recalcitrance. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Vecrumba, works in my userspace are my works, and I will post them in my own time, when I am satisfied that it is complete. Thanks for offering that anyway, but it is not complete, and it can wait until March 2010 when I am able to edit on enwiki again in that area. --Russavia Dialogue 19:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus, your posts on the mailing list provide ample evidence for Russavias claim that you were engaged in harrassment. That you are still denying this makes it rather clear a topic ban is not punitive but preventive. All that even ignoring that your so called series of apologies is in fact a rather meagre collection of excuses (just look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Workshop/Archive#Proposal_by_Piotrus_-_voluntary_restrictions) and counter-accussations. And btw, I am not one of those who would normally support Russavia or any of the other rightly banned "pro-Russian" editors. Pantherskin (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, Vecrumba rather proves my point. Makes me really, really confident that things will change in the Eastern Europe topic area. Pantherskin (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop with the thought police arguments. What I wrote on a private list may offend Russavia now - but it was private and never meant to offend him if he hasn't started reading somebody's else private correspondence. If I and you were talking face to face or exchanging emails in which I'd say something uncivil about Russavia, this is not harassing him. WP:HARASSMENT clearly states that it is concerned with on-wiki edits - and such are not present in evidence. EOT for me, till evidence is given that contains some on-wiki diffs. PS. I have no intention of discussing issues such as whether I am still beating my wife. PPS. On the subject of apology, where are the apologies from people reading private correspondence that was not addressed to them? EOT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Discussing people in private correspondence is not harassment, as someone else said somewhere above, discussing pipe dreams, engaging in pillow talk and daydreaming is just that, idle discussion. Whether it consumed 10% of the emails or 100%, it does not matter. What counts is what was translated into on-wiki action, and the only evidence of harassment that Russavia cites is the ANI report discussing his alleged account sharing, which was a legitimate concern that needed to be aired in my view. Whether it is because he is attempting to over compensate for his own conviction for harassing Biophys last year or it is some kind of persecution complex that is driving Russavia to claim he is being harassed, I don't know. But I do know that Piotr did not harass him. --Martintg (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I will let Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Response_to_denial_by_Piotrus and associated evidence speak for itself. You do not have an ounce of credibility on this issue Piotrus; none of your fellow list members do either. And I am afraid to say, that I don't have an ounce of respect nor good faith for a single one of you, so long as you all continue to deny what is clear to everyone else and is written in black and white. Echoing Panterskin, perhaps the 3 month vacation and a 12 month topic ban from the area will give you enough time to reconsider just what you have been responsible for. Now that is EOT. --Russavia Dialogue 19:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Your "Response_to_denial_by_Piotrus" contains no diffs to on-wiki harassment. Piotr has already asked you several times already on this page to provide diffs. None have been provided thus far. --Martintg (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have provided an entire thread of harrassment, which is tied up with emails from the list archive. It's there in black and white. Anyway, I see the harrassment is already covered at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Improper_coordination so it is being recognised in a proposed finding of fact. The only question remains whether editors are going to continue to deny absolutely everything? Only then can respect and good faith be truly restored and the community in general can move forward. --Russavia Dialogue 20:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Diffs? Yes, you provided an entire thread claiming harrassment, but you have not provided any diffs to support those claims. If you are offended by reading emails about yourself, then perhaps you shouldn't be reading other people's private correspondence in the first place. --Martintg (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thats really chutzpa. Russavia provides a thread linking your and others posts the emailing list with diffs on Wikipedia and you come hear and just claim that there are no diffs, no proof, whatsoever. You know as well as me that this is not about you and mailing list members badging about their perceived opponents on Wikipedia, it is about you (yes you, specifically you according to the evidence presented) and other following up, here on Wikipedia. That you (and Piotrus) are denying even the fact that Russavia presented evidence which include diffs (sic!), let alone are willing to acknowledge the wrong you and other mailing list members did and the disruption you caused., all this only allows the conclusion that nothing better will come out of this. Seriously disgusted, Pantherskin (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) <<Sigh>> more lecturing. As for proving points, Pantherskin's rush to judgement knowing nothing about me is the real point. For Pantherskin, who pretends he knows anything about me, and to those wish to believe defamatory evidence about me that I stick labels on people I don't like, please feel free to read this interview here. Cedrins, by the way, is probably the best-versed WP editor on the Baltics I know, and by no means a nationalist apologist, and driven away from WP by the incessant attacks of those pushing Russian interests. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You talk an awful lot about opponents and attacks and extremist editors. Of course you are on the right side, what makes it ok to treat Wikipedia as a battlefield, right? Pantherskin (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - Due to the depth of feeling about this issue I have for the most part given considerable leeway on discussions. However this particular thread is now veering into an incivil dispute. This will STOP now. Any further discussion in this thread or on this page which does not directly relate to discussion of the proposed decision will be removed without notice or explanation. Voluntary striking of your own incivil comments would not be a bad idea. Manning (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

More