Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: KnightLago (Talk) & Manning Bartlett (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Coren (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .

I am recused because user:Russavia is a member of m:Wikipedia Australia (see User:John_Vandenberg/recusal#AU). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk-issued notices, warnings and enforcement

All editors are strongly advised to observe that proper conduct on these Arbcom will now be subject to severe enforcement. Special attention is brought to the interim ruling by Arbcom for this case concerning speculative and inflammatory comments.

From here onwards any infraction will receive a first and final warning. A second infraction will result in a permanent topic-ban for all Arbcom EEML pages (except when directly instructed to respond by an arbitrator). Any further infractions will result in a block. Such actions can be appealed to Arbcom. Manning (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Notices

• User:Molobo was unblocked for the purposes of this arbitration case.
• User:DonaldDuck was unblocked for the purposes of this arbitration case.
• Arbcom clerk AGK has recused from participation in this case.

Warnings

• User:Biruitorul has been issued with a first and final warning for misconduct on these case pages. This was the result of an inflammatory post which served no purpose other than to criticise another editor. Manning (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• It is favourably noted that User:Biruitorul has (via PM) since retracted the statement and apologised for his/her actions. Manning (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• User:DonaldDuck has been issued with a first and final warning for misconduct on these case pages. This was the result of an inflammatory post which served no purpose other than to criticise another editor. Manning (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Thatcher has been issued with a first and final warning for using an inappropriately derisive tone on these case pages. Manning (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• User:Paul Pieniezny has been issued with a first and final warning for misconduct on these case pages. This was the result of an inflammatory post which served no purpose other than to criticise another editor. Manning (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Request to clerks

Could you please keep discussion here at least on topic of the section titles, if not the Proposed Decision. The Evidence and Workshop talk pages would be more appropriate. Thanks. --Martintg (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As per my note above, I have given all of the leeway I am prepared to give and strict topic enforcement in now in operation. If a comment is not directly related to the subject heading then it will be subject to either refactoring or removal. Thread drift is not being tolerated either - if you have a specific point to raise (which had also better be related to the general topic of "Proposed Decision") then create a new subject heading.

If things are a concern and a clerk does not appear to be around, please alert the clerks-l list clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. Manning (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

On Proposed Remedy 12 and the sanctioned editors from the other side

Proposed remedy 12 strikes me as a well-intentioned but also overly optimistic proposal. The idea of leaving it to the community to carry out an objective review is admirable, but I fear that any review will degenerate into an unproductive free-for-all. Mailing list editors (and those who hold similar editorial views) will likely argue that the sanctions were correct and that any baiting doesn't justify whatever response may have been provoked. Hard-line administrators will also reject any justification position, likely supported by those administrators who view themselves as virtually incapable of error. Supporters of those sanctioned will argue that the baiting was extrordinary and highly coordinated, and will probably make all sorts of allusions to how bad the content of the archive is. Uninvolved editors and administrators will either stay as far away as possible, or will hope to help - but will have to wade through the entrenched views and won't have seen the relevant evidence (on the archive) in any case. If you want to allow the community to look at these sanctions and believe that a useful review is possible, please please please at least put a back-up in place. Delegate to the BASC a right to review any sanction at the request of the sanctioned editor. That way, a decision can be made by people who have read the archive and so are in a position to assess the severity and context of any baiting. BASC would also not have the "noise" of barracking from the onlookers and those with vested interests. I believe it would be unfair to the sanctioned editors to not make 100% clear that an objective review of their sanctions is assured. EdChem (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

EdChem, as the case of my own topic ban could clearly be covered by such a remedy, I am not going to be using that remedy as a reason to revisit the topic ban of myself. I would rather my topic ban be revisited as a result of 2 or 3 admins giving their opinion that the topic ban was unwarranted, or too harsh, or whatever the case may be, and then it can be taken to community review, or whatever. I would think such a scenario would help to alleviate the unproductive free-for-all that one fears, and probably knows would occur. In the meantime, I am editing other subjects outside of my topic ban of anything relating to Russia or Russians, and the Soviet Union and its successor states (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, etc), and have been working on articles such as Druk Air and Flag of Bhutan (on front page as DYK now). However, I have hit a snag in that my 5x expansion of Air Botswana at User:Russavia/Botswana may not be eligible for DYK, as I have to omit an aspect of the privatisation process of a Russian businessman rumoured to have been interested in taking a stake via his German airline (he owns the German airline). But that is the type of thing that I think I will be leaving to 2 or 3 admins to address on my behalf at any review. Do you think that such a "certification" by other admins before taking to review could work? --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see your response earlier, Russavia. Could it work? Sure - but it may not. My point was that the unbiased review BASC could offer should be a fall back position in the interests of fairness. If the community processes can't disentangle the results of the mailing list participants baiting and barracking (for example), ArbCom should - and they should make 100% clear in the decision that they will. EdChem (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ed, I have some response to you, but in order to do so, can you tell me what BASC is? --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, BASC = Ban Appeals Sub-Committee of ArbCom. EdChem (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerks, please

The FoF "Disruption", which deals with Martintg, is currently in a sub-heading under the section dealing with "Tymek". Could you fix the heading hierarchy please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I couldn't immediately make sense of this. Some links would be appreciated. Manning (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice there were several headings "Disruption". I was talking about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision#Disruption_3, currently section 3.2.10.2. It's a sub-section filed under the wrong parent section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I suspect this is a drafting error by Coren. I'm not entirely sure of his actual intent here, so I shall bring it to his attention immediately. Thanks for alerting me. Manning (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• [Noting here as this is the first header relating to the clerks that I could find, and not in response to the above thread:] I consider myself recused as a clerk for matters relating to this arbitration case. AGK 10:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia principle (2)

In an earlier section of this page I also raised the question of a Purpose of Wikipedia principle for the proposed decision. Neither of the responses addressed the point I had raised, and I believe my point was both valid and relevant.

So, I would like to raise it again, and I would really like someone to explain to me why the principles as stated begin with Consensus. In the earlier section, I wrote: if the mailing list has influenced the formation of consensus, disrupted wikipedia processes, and attacked / harrassed / baited editors (all of which are alleged in various parts of the evidence), surely the ultimate motive was to influence the content of the encyclopedia. The logic of begining the principles with consensus escapes me, in that achieving consensus is desirable as a means towards high-quality unbiased content; consensus is not an end in itself.

In other words, surely the fundamental problem flowing from the mailing list participants was not the disruption of consensus formation but rather was the disruption to advancing the purpose of the encyclopedia - namely, content development. That being the case, a statement regarding the importance of consensus is a logical consequence flowing from the purpose of Wikipedia, and the logical structure of the decision should reflect this fact. Please, if my reasoning is flawed, please explain what I am missing. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a very interesting question. I can certainly understand your confusion. My personal observation in this regard is as follows:

• Consensus is one of the the fundamental foundational principles of Wikipedia.
• Therefore, consensus is equated with good content on Wikipedia.
• This is because the fundamental idea of Wikipedia is that the development of a large enough consensus over time will inevitably lead to high-quality content.
• Thus, the interruption or disruption of consensus-building, or the false projection of consensus is equivalent to vandalizing the article page, as it inevitably and directly leads to lower-quality content according to the Wikipedia model.

Just my thoughts... —Finn Casey * * * 19:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

But what is a "false projection of consensus"? I'd say that meatpuppetry or sockuppetry - voting/discussing simply because one was asked to - would be the answer. But what if editors are not meatpuppets and actually considering the issue before posting/voting? If I send you a wiki @ and ask you join a discussion related Student of Fortune, will I be destroying consensus by not asking you publicly? What if I contact, privately, an off-wiki group discussing Student of Fortune and ask them to join the Wikipedia? The assumption that our email list was disruptive is based on the unproven assumption that its members were meatpuppets and yes man, an assumption to which I strongly object. A good counterproof is the fact that never ever have majority of the group members turned out to support a given point; only in few cases a few members did so and they usually joined with well thought out posts and comments. Further, there is evidence to show that on occasion members of our group disagreed, publicly, with one another. I think this should illustrate well that the accusation of "false projection of consensus" is invalid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia is important - and simple: to create encyclopedic content. Hence my support for remedies that will allow editors to continue doing so while restricting them from possibly disruptive actions and encouraging them do rebuild trust and good faith with others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I truly can understand your position. When I first reviewed this case, I was ready to call for heads to roll (metaphorically speaking, of course). And while I am still of the opinion that errors in judgement were made, I am impressed by your apologetic and reasonable demeanor. Still, I wonder whether a topic ban would really be so terrible — I am sure that an intelligent and competent editor such as you could edit constructively on many other subjects. —Finn Casey * * * 21:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your toned reply. Let me try to explain why I am arguing against a wide topic ban (please note that I proposed in my voluntary restrictions to avoid subjects related to "modern Russian politics", a major area of contention in this case I have little interest in). A topic ban as currently being discussed would exclude me from all Eastern Europe articles and associated discussions for 15 months. This would entail:

• loss of many tasks I preform for WikiProject Poland and have done so for years (nobody has stepped forward to take up any of them)
• I will not be able to support the Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe and its newly established noticeboard which I created to address some issues raised in this arbcom
• Vast majority of content I create and edits I do in EE subjects are uncontroversial (look at my user page, check my random edits from any period) - and I am still waiting for a single diff of a disruptive edit of mine to an article in FoF. In the past month I created several DYKs (see bottom of my userpage), many stubs, copyedited various articles and nowhere was I engaged in any controversy (not to mention disruption). And my last month is not that different from my previous months. If I restrict myself from editing the controversy prone modern Russian politics articles and from certain discpute resolution proceedings in which my input may not be helpful, what's the reason to prevent me from creating stubs on artcles I have planned (see my userpage, red box on the left), GAing Juliusz Słowacki, re-featuring Stanisław Koniecpolski (I'll have limited time access to the books I need for that in December only) or addressing current FARC comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Warsaw Uprising (1794)/archive1 or GAC comments at Talk:Suwałki_Agreement#GA_Review? In an average year (I've been active in this project for over 5 years) I create 2-3 FAs, twice that many GAs, over 50 DYKs, and I do many other uncontroversial and arguably beneficial EE edits. What good will result from me not being able to carry on those uncontroversial tasks?

There is also the assumption that I would be as productive contributor to other areas of Wikipedia as I am in Poland-related subjects. This assumption is false: I find Poland-related subjects most interesting, and I very much doubt I could redirect my activity towards other areas (and there is a question of what exactly is related to EE: is the article bridging two of my fields of interest - Poland and sociology - sociology in Poland - violating the topic ban? Probably. Could I expand the article on the most famous Polish sociologist, Florian Znaniecki? I guess not, even through such subjects are as uncontroversial and unlike to create conflict as one can imagine). I assume most editors are here to do edit what they find fun, and if hey cannot do it, they leave (that said, I support the idea of community service as an addition to regular editing of certain editors, including myself). In the end, topic bans are designed to remove editors who cannot stop edit warring and doing disruptive / controversial edits in a given articles. I would prefer to that a different editing restriction is chosen with regards of myself (see Wikipedia:TOPICBAN#Types_of_restrictions and see my proposed voluntary restrictions), ones that would allow me to continue my uncontroversial editing (GAing of Słowacki, reFAing Koniecpolski, and such). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am quite persuaded by Piotrus' comments that a ban from all EE related topics may be overly broad. I can really see his point that there are many uncontroversial tasks from which he should not be barred. And I agree that since this is a volunteer project, attempting to prescribe what areas an editor should edit in may be futile. I am becoming convinced that perhaps the fifteen month broadly construed ban may be, from a neutral vantage point, counterproductive. It may be better to consider the more focused alternative that Piotrus has proposed. Nonetheless, I remain disappointed that an experienced editor would not see that some of the things said on the mailing list would be disturbing and upsetting to many neutral editors. —Finn Casey * * * 03:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC) (Clerks: Thank you for your diligent efforts. This comment is directly relating to the topic of the effectivness of one of the proposed remedies. Therefore it appears to me to be appropriate.)

Piotrus, you mention on your userpage a list of subjects that interest you. There is plenty of other stuff you can write on. You have misused your admin tools in a dispute in the EE topic also. You also participated in a number of arbitration cases, from which you knew that the operation of the mailing list in the way it was would be disruptive, and you acted towards increasing the battleground conditions in this entire area. One need only look at the AN/I evidence I presented - you post a thread on AN/I in order for editors to further harrass me, you lie about who approached you, and then you call on the web brigade to try and deflect the harrassment. This is classic furthering of the battleground, and it is all related to EE topic areas. And that is just one example. Others have posted more, and the archive is full of such things. As I say, you have other interests, you may just have to edit on those topics for a while...much like I am presently doing. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I consider your topic ban too broad and unfair as well. All of us should take a step back from some controversial modern Russian politics articles, but why should you not be allowed to write about Russian embassies and diplomacy or why should I not be allowed to write on Polish history and literature - this is hard to understand. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - enough with the off-topic "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots". Formal warnings are not far away at this rate. Manning (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Finn, thanks for actually responding to my question, though I still think the logical thread is strange. Arbitrators, I remain disappointed that none of you feel willing to offer any comment. I am also disappointed - though not especially surprised - that the comments following Finn's rapidly abandoned any pretence of relevance to the question. EdChem (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A remedy that seems obvious, but is missing

I should think that an obvious step here would be to topic ban the participants of the mailng list from all Eastern European articles, broadly construed. Zapping a couple of the people who were most deeply involved is a good start, but it does nothing to deal with the very large number of people on the list who've also been causing trouble. An amnesty really sends the wrong message here. Jtrainor (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Endorse. Giano (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Come on, that's too harsh. There are editors among ML members who could be accused only of knowing what was happening and doing nothing about it. But since apparently one of them eventually disclosed all this stuff even this accusation shouldn't be made imho. Alæxis_¿question? 18:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Failure to report a crime about which one knows - is a crime, and this was an indisputable crime, we are not talking about an odd sock, or an extra vote on FAC, or a little incivility; this was a highly organised mass crime, a crime that deliberatly and willfully influenced the whole encyclopedia, and more importantly its reputation and credibility. Firm, even harsh, precedents need to be set, so that the next case, and there will be one, can be more easily adjudicated. This is a wiki-crime that is new to Arbcom, hard precedents are required, or to put it bluntly, it needs nipping in the bud. Giano (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate the sincerity and enthusiasm of all parties. I do wish to note though, that using the term "crime" may be a bit inflammatory. A crime is typically an act punishable by law, and no actions by any party appear to meet this threshold. There certainly do appear to be serious violations of Wikipedia policies, and some parties must therefore be censured on Wikipedia. However, terms such as "highly organized mass crime" seem a bit over-the-top when used regarding a volunteer encyclopedia-writing project. Further, it is my understanding that there are no agreed-upon mandatory reporting provisions for administrators, much less ordinary editors. Thus, there was hardly any precedent for requiring editors to report violations. Editors are volunteers, and proposing to censure them for crimes of omission seems unnecessary. That may be part of the rationale behind the amnesty. —Finn Casey * * * 19:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• On the subject of crimes: reading somebody else private correspondence is illegal and thus a crime (details). I will not beat a dead horse regarding possibly illegal way that correspondence was obtain in the first place (hacking) as there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove this theory at this point. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You are, in fact, beating the dead horse. "Hacking" is a ridiculous red herring and we need to stop bringing it up; arbcom has already made clear that they consider it irrelevant. If you think a "crime" has been committed, report it to the FBI or something -- arbcom is just not the appropriate place for that conversation. csloat (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the 'crime' (as you put it) has been eventually reported. Alæxis_¿question? 19:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that if you're a "prolific content creator" and your userpage resembles a trophy case, even the most egregious policy violations can be overlooked or given a slap on the wrist at most. I can only come to this conclusion, having witnessed the ease with which year-long blocks or even perma-bans have been handed out to the less "indispensable" editors. _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 19:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really... a "soft" ban is perhaps the most hypocritical punishment (dear Socrates, we don't do lethal injections now, would you mind drinking your stuff voluntarily?) ... and as past cases shoes, it is seldom enforced. Perhaps a forty-eigth month hard block for the soldiers will suffice. NVO (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who says that my proposed remedy is too harsh hasn't paid attention to all the problems caused by the denizens of the list. And it's not enough for the problem to be reported-- something must be done about it. An amnesty does nothing to prevent these users from simply continuing right on with what they've been doing. A topic ban, on the other hand, removes them root and branch-- they'd have to sock to get around it, and the ones silly enough to do so will presently get caught and dealt with permanently.

Jtrainor (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Such scenario was discussed-it would mean basically eliminating most active editors in FA's DYK's and content creation within Central and Eastern European topics, while leaving many users with heavy POV active. This would create in effect obvious issues.

As to problems-hmm, the list proved rather more place to talk then any actuall action that wouldn't happen anyway. Could you point any problem that the list members created that wouldn't happen without the list discussions ? A wide range bange would be problematic-many list members provide much content and valuable additions to Wikipedia. Also it wouldn't change the problematic nature of those disputes that happen time and time again the area concerned-a more productive solution would be enforcing 1RR rule and strict enforcement of RS and Civility. In previous cases where beginnings of such restrictions were introduced the quality of discussion and beheaviour started to improve.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - More erasure of irrelevant material. As I have said *multiple* times, if discussion veers away from the topic of a specific proposal or it veers onto discussing the conduct of another editor for whatever reason, I get out my eraser. Manning (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(am I supposed to add stuff above or below a clerk note? o_O) Anyways, the useful contributions of these folks are irrelevant. They've still caused a lot of trouble and I see no reason why something shouldn't be done about them.

Someone's contributions are never a reason to ignore bad behaviour. I cite the Betacommand precedent-- perhaps an extreme case of "well, we'll give him another chance because he's useful", but it easily shows where such things can lead. Jtrainor (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

JTrainor, if you have evidence of my bad behavior, please participate at Evidence. Sweeping statements such as "Anyways, the useful contributions of these folks are irrelevant. They've still caused a lot of trouble and I see no reason why something shouldn't be done about them." don't do anything to advance the dialog here. 1RR and removing arbitration as a means to control content (6 month trial) and less attempts for proactive administration—which in my view have been disastrous and have contributed to an escalation of belligerence (not to mention that the current EE conflict over history and the current situation particularly regarding Estonia, per the position and rhetoric of the Russian administration, is not solvable)—would go a long way to restoring the uneasy calm which existed prior to the arrivals of Offliner, PasswordUsername, and Russavia abandoning his more constructive activities for overt POV pushing. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  06:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If you participated in the list in any fashion, you're guilty, as far as I and a lot of other people are concerned. Either directly, or for allowing this crap to happen without reporting it. It is a fact that many of the list members have been involved in ongoing disruption, meatpuppetry, et cetera. Topic banning them from the area wherein they caused trouble is a logical choice to improve things. Jtrainor (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Whiel your comment certainly seems reasonable and appropriate on the face of it, those familiar with the editors on the list will see that many of the listed Polish editors have actually had a significantly moderating influence on much more extreme Polish editors. By outright banning all the people on the list, we will be creating conditions in which the extremiists, who weren't on the list, will be running wild. This is the equivalent of, say, eliminating the entire police department for systemic taking of bribes or the occasional false imprisonment (or failure to report such by those not directly doing it) as a way to "cut down on crime" when the result of such action will be no more police and thus much more crime due to the total absence of police. It's a complex, delicate situation - how do you punish those who did something wrong and ought to have sanctions, without causing more overall harm to the project? Who will replace the banned moderate editors or pick up the slack when some intervention is needed with the Polish extremists? The solution should somehow be more nuanced than merely a blanket ban on all editors involved on this mailing list.Faustian (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing fof and remedy: Molobo's block evasion and meatpuppetry

Molobo, while blocked for using a sock to evade editing restrictions, continued contributing to wikipedia via meatpuppets Jacurek, Piotrus, Radeksz and Tymek. This needs to be addressed in a fof and a respective remedy. Given Molobo's block log and continuous disobedience to sanctions, one would reasonably expect the remedy to be a permaban.

If it is Arbcom's intention to include this case with the general amnesty for EEML members, there should nevertheless be a fof, and a stated rationale for the exceptional treatment in the remedy section. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - Skäpperöd, although this largely just repeats evidence already given, I'll begrudgingly let it stand, despite the fact that it definitely has the smell of flamebait about it. I am certain that Arbcom have already looked at Molobo's role closely.

Molobo/MyMoloboAccount: I don't actually feel a rebuttal is necessary here as nothing new has been stated. If you do make one, keep it calm, highly specific and free of ad hominem elements. Manning (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users: "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes in the Piotrus FOF section?

In this section [1], are there some mistakes in the listing of the relevant emails from the supposed archives?

On 9) Coren lists [20090916-0602] and [20090915-0610]. In the archive I got through Future Perfect there's no email under [20090916-0602]. All I can find on the 16th is Piotrus saying that somebody should be reported for edit warring and that people should observe 1RR. There doesn't appear to be a email under [20090915-0610] either. Is this referring to [20090915-1802] where Piotrus says that he put semi-protection on the Battle of Konotop to stop IP edit warring, rather than reverting himself? (Again, this seems like the perfectly appropriate action - even if it isn't Piotrus protected the "other side's" version)

On 10) Coren lists [20090206-2304] twice - is there a reason for this? There's also no [20090206-2304] in the archive I got through Future Perfect either. Is this supposed to be the one which suggests that Deacon should be de-sysopped?

I'm guessing that [20090216-0055] is actually [20090215-0055] in which Piotrus just says that he has critizied Jehochman in the past (?).

Is there a different archive out there than the one that Future Perfect made available to me, or are these mistakes?radek (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of FoFs, it would be nice to see on wiki diffs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - I have emailed Arbcom to bring their attention to the issues raised here. Manning (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Gah. The handling of the timestamps and the quantity of cut and paste needed is error prone and, indeed, errors may have slipped in. I'll cross check my references with my notes and the archive and make needed fixes later today. — Coren ^(talk) 13:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd particularly appreciate clarification (diffs) regarding Fof10, in particular: "Piotrus has participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution". Which articles have I disrupted with my edits? Where have I participated in dispute resolution in bad faith? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

IF you assisted, advised or coordinated list members in disruption or bad faith off-wiki AND they followed through on said advice on-wiki then it is not unreasonable to expect that you would be held accountable for those peoples actions as though you yourself committed them. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As I've indicated in my evidence, in the vast majority of cases where questionable edits or comments were mentioned, if I had anything to say on-Wiki about them, I had already found them and commented/edited per my own editorial POV. That there is an Email which is timestamped prior to an appearance by myself means absolutely nothing, while my opposition here would contend it's damning. The entire issue here is that the EEML is being painted as an evil web brigade, plotting disruption of both Wikipedia and editors' personal lives. The list materialized rather spontaneously in order to informally keep tabs on spreading anti-Baltic/anti-EE article disruption (as an example, see my evidence regarding Offliner, where he paints me/us as edit warring when in fact it was only a response to Offliner's attack content), to have an off-Wiki venue to resolve internecene, if you will, conflicts regarding EE history, to discusss news and sources and history, etc. Those who paint the EEML as being a "brigade" betray their own WP:BATTLEGROUND POV. If anything, the EEML moderated responses by NOT having everyone pile on. Any discussions of how not to pile on and to not create opportunities for those pushing attack content to cry "foul," deflecting the conversation from content to procedure (and lobby unsuspecting admins about stonewalling, etc.) is not an evil conspiracy. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 14:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternate remedies

If the Committee is not already aware of this, I would like to draw their attention to the recently opened RfC Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/The_Plague, which contains a discussion of voluntary Community Service as an alternate remedy. --Martintg (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You may draw the Committee's attention to the RfC, but this is why numerous editors objected to this RfC to begin with, as we know it is going to be, and is being, used as an avenue for lobbying for editors outside of this case. Am I the only one who believes it is completely inappropriate for editors to be doing this. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Unhelpful to the RFC, and inappropriate for this case. I don't doubt your intentions, Marting, but really, what made you think this post was a good idea? Rd232 ^talk 11:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The Committee may consider its attention firmly undrawn from an RfC that cannot and should not have any practical relevance for this case. Only discussion on this page, right here, should be taken into account. Rd232 ^talk 11:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that those alternative remedies are worth considering. Classic remedies like bans and amnesties don't seem to be solving anything. We need a new way of doing things to fix this problem. See my longer comment on that above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for posting this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Remedies concerning Piotrus

I have mixed feelings about this case. The archive in possession of ArbCom begins in January 2009, but prior to that I was at the receiving end of what appeared to me to be coordinated editing by some members of the mailing list. A part of me would like to see ArbCom "throw the book" at the list members, especially Piotrus, who has always seemed to be their leader.

In February 2009, after nearly two years of editing articles related to Polish-Jewish history, I decided to join WikiProject Poland. As a member, I came to see a different side of Piotrus. Yes, he seems like the leader of the Polish editors on Wikipedia (speaking in broad generalizations), but that's he's the mainstay of the WikiProject. I won't bother listing all the things he does for the WikiProject; he's done a good job here. In addition to Piotrus's work at WikiProject Poland, he is a prolific creator of articles about Poland, the vast majority of which are completely uncontroversial.

Of course nobody here is irreplaceable. As an administrator, Piotrus should be held to a higher standard of responsibility than other editors, and ArbCom may decide that a short ban is appropriate. But I think a topic ban on Piotrus's return—especially one that would run consecutive to his editing ban—would be a tremendous loss to the project. In order to allow Piotrus to continue his work on uncontroversial articles, and his valuable work at WikiProject Poland, I would like to ask that ArbCom consider a 1RR restriction (perhaps 1RR per week) instead of a topic ban. Thank you for your consideration. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

%100 agree with Malik, topic ban would be tremendous loss for WikiProject Poland. ArbCom please consider 1RR per week or whatever but not a topic ban.--Jacurek (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

1RR restriction for engaging in meatpuppetry, harrassment, misusing admin tools, and generally bringing WP into disrepute by treating it as a battleground? Yes, Piotrus was an admin, and should know better. However, he is also a participant in several cases for arbitration relating to this area, and he should have known that he was doing the wrong thing by joining this list, particularly as it is evident by reading the archive that treating WP as a battleground in order to enforce the group's POV, and hence a remedy of 1RR is not in my opinion a remedy which takes into account past history of the editor in the controversial areas of this subject. If the remedies as written pass, Piotrus will be able to continue working on uncontroversial articles. He writes on his user page "My interests concentrate around history (including counterfactual history), political sciences, communication, technological singularity, sociology, economics, and finally, as perhaps a bit more trivial a hobby, all things related to good science fiction." He will be able to pick a topic, and edit on it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Rusavia, no offense, but I think that you are just more concern with making sure that Piotrus gets banned here. Let's put "all weapons" aside and be honest now. Piotrus is the most dedicated Polish editor here and WikiProject Poland will suffer a lot if Piotrus gets a ban. Honestly, I'm not saying that because I know Piotrus or anything like that. Any Polish editor will tell you the same thing. It will be VERY hard to find an editor so valuable and so dedicated as Piotrus. I don't even know who would be so "nuts" to spend so much time (FOR FREE!) just to improve Wikipedia. I personally would not, never. But Piotrus is. He contributed very positively to this project and this should be taken into account while judging his misconduct. Thanks for reading Rusavia, hope you understand.--Jacurek (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually Jacurek, I am more concerned with getting Piotrus (and all list members) to face what they have done, accept responsibility and apologise, just as I have had to do, even though I was seriously harrassed by your web brigade, I still shoulder my responsibility. So far, there has been none of that from the entire web brigade, only blaming everyone else. And sorry, but Piotrus has been disruptive (as have all list members, who seem to be getting a free pass), and he himself said Disruptive users should be taught a lesson. There is no evidence of him having learnt any lesson as yet, as there only seems to be weaselling as much as possible against any accepting of responsibility. Also, we as editors are not here for any WikiProject, but rather as the project as a whole. WikiProject Poland will "survive", and there is nothing stopping any of the users who are getting a free pass, and other editors, to take on some of those things...think of it as your community service. Anyway, all of these "Free Piotrus" threads are getting quite tiresome; all we are missing is a Bob Dylan song for the cause célèbre. --Russavia ^Dialogue 23:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This pointedly includes a restriction on me commenting on you. If you think I've harassed you (with my ANI post that didn't mention you...) and such - fine, your perception is important to me, so here's my proposed guarantee that you'll not have to worry about me again. Now tell me: what problem do yo have with my wanting to spend this and the next month GAing Juliusz Słowacki? Why do you want to see me banned from contributing to Poland-related article so much? PS. And I do enjoy those "Free Piotrus" threads, it's nice to see not everyone thinks I am Enemy of the State #1 :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note: Irrelevant comments removed by clerk. DonaldDuck has been issued a conduct warning. All editors in the above thread are advised to tread carefully. As soon I feel the discussion has crossed the line from relevant discussion of the Arbcom case to simple criticism of another editor, action will ensue. Manning (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Malik. The topic ban is unnecessary and does not serve any useful purpose. I feel very bad about this, because many members of the group did not behave any better than Piotrus, but he was selected for the most serious punishment, mostly because he has more enemies and because he was an administrator.Biophys (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Piotrus is a prolific editor, and this has always been taken into account whenever he was in trouble. Regarding 1RR: 1RR is favorable to us because we have the numbers; Piotrus already implied the strategy of keeping individual reverts low and rather request additional reverts per mail and IM. 1RR does not work with tag teams. Skäpperöd (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If Piotrus promises that he will not edit any controversial articles you are editing (and there are very few such articles), would that be all right?Biophys (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

So your solution is to have the person who conspired to violate the rules voluntarily agree not to conspire to violate the rules again only on the articles where Skapperod also edited? Interesting solution; I wonder how that would work out with crimes in the real world? Shall we ask bank robbers to voluntarily agree not to rob the same bank again rather than imposing prison sentences? What is really disconcerting is that people are discussing amnesty for editors who have not only massively abused the rules but who have not even acknowledged that what they did was wrong and who are basically arguing here for the right to continue to abuse the rules in the future. csloat (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Real life criminals are isolated from society because they represent danger for the society. Isolating Piotrus from EE articles assumes he represents danger for these pages. Not so. Few to none editors made so many positive contributions in this area as Piotrus. Topic ban is simply a wrong remedy. The real problem of Piotrus: he cares too much about the content. It was him who reminded to other members of the list (see emails, I will rephrase): "People, why are you so eager to discuss and flame war? Make good content contributions please because nothing else matters". Telling him: "please edit anything except something you know a lot about" means effectively excluding him from the project.Biophys (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

All the listmembers have shown they are a danger to Wikipedia processes. This isn't about whether they contributed decent words to any particular article. It's about making a mockery of the entire process itself. And you're right - topic ban may be the wrong remedy, as the problems will just move toward other topics; a hard ban of 48 months for all listmembers, as suggested by another user, would make a lot more sense. csloat (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As an editor well removed from the locus of dispute, I wish to note my support for this proposal too - especially given the admin bit is no longer in question, as he has resigned it. I took him on fairly solidly earlier last year and he was very civil in addressing my concerns and we actually had a pretty reasonable conversation after it. This is genuinely rare amongst those with whom I have been in strong disagreement outside my own project (WP Australia) and a credit to him in my opinion - I had falsely accused him of something as it turned out and after viewing all available evidence had to retract it, and I've been pilloried for much less by others.

Apart from the incidents considered here, I have seen little evidence in the time since that he has engaged in problematic behaviours. I know all too well that it is possible to get caught up in a "battleground mentality" in controversial spaces and end up with alliances and enemies and so on, especially when there's a group of like-minded editors involved. (Been there, done that - as I'm sure have many other Wikipedians in good standing at some point in their Wikicareer.) Take the group out of the picture and the individual is a quite reasonable and intelligent person capable of doing lots of good here with his knowledge, understanding and skills in the subjects in which he edits. I'm also pleased to see his constructive comments and proposals on this page to try and find a way out of the ongoing EE conflict. Orderinchaos 18:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read everything here in detail. I would add that Piotrius (though by no means totally nuetral) is among the more moderate of the Polish editors. My fear is that, due to a topic ban, without his moderating influence some of the more radical/extremist Polish editors will be more likely to run wild. This would be counterproductive to the project. Any decisions should consider this factor IMHO.Faustian (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the decision should not consider this factor, true or false. The decision is not about whether there are worse editors out there. The decision is about the processes by which things are done at Wikipedia and a group of editors' collaboration to circumvent (and, indeed, make a mockery of) those processes. The idea that we should put up with a serial abuser of the rules who hasn't even been willing to acknowledge that he has violated them simply because there are other editors out there who are POV-pushers is absurd -- if those others are breaking the rules too let us open cases about them too. csloat (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that the fact that others are worse means we should be lenient with those guys, rather that those guys, in addition to bad behavior, also kept some of the worse editors in check and that this should be considered when a decision is made. Perhaps a remedy would involve identifying the victims of the "cabal" and instituting a ban broadly construed of any actions done in any way against those specific victims.Faustian (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I support Malik Shabazz proposal. I believe there should be made a clear difference between Piotrus' activity and responsibilities as an admin and his activity and responsibilities as an editor. IMHO, there was no proof by anybody that Piotrus has abused or compromised his editorial position. A civil service and an 1RR would be IMHO a more logical remedy than a topic ban on thousands of non-controversial articles. Dc76\^talk 17:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If we ban all others involved in the mailing list 1RR could work, but given that this is not likely to happen we need to put restriction on Piotrus and others mailing list members that will ensure that they will stop manipulating the process in order to push their POV and/or battle a perceived POV by other editors. That we cannot trust promises by Piotrus and other editors to stop is suggested by how this arbcom case evolved and the fact that this is already the third (sic!) arbcom case involving Piotrus, with the last case resulting in the secret mailing list (according to Piotrus himself). Or more simply, it is apparent from this reply. Pantherskin (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

One option, which I myself wouldn't mind, would be to allow Piotrus to work on articles in userspace and then request an uninvolved administrator selected by others than those involved regularly in Poland related material to review the article for transfer into mainspace. This would allow him to sanctioned, if that is deemed appropriate, while at the same time allowing him of develop content which I think we would all hope not be about particularly controversial subjects. If we could get the review to be done by someone known for neutrality on subjects in this area, that might help ensure the article's neutrality. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Community encouraged (2)

Since references to the "author of content" are being brandished so often as an argument to not ban or block Piotrus (I have given a different reason for that), perhaps arbcom will also take that into account when re-appraising the blocks of several of the victims of the mailing list (and the unholy alliance that preceded it and existed since 2007). Petri Krohn also was an author of content and actually came to this EE battlefield as a Fin more favourable to the "non-Russian" side. He was one of the last strong defenders of the existence of a Siberian Wikipedia (I once even remarked that with him as its sole sysop, the project could have been saved but of course at the cost of 99% of its contents). He has in the past mediated (no, not covertly, but on talk pages) in edit wars between "Swedish" and "Russian" contirbutors to articles on Russo-Swedish wars. It was the vicious attacks by what was recently revealed as the main ingredient of the mailing list that got him on "the other side" and eventually banned for his exasperation. Kuban kazak (talk · contribs) has made alot of good articles connected with train and subway stations (though in his case, some oversight may be in order to insure that he no longer interprets every criticism from someone he recognizes as "the other side" as an orchestrated attack.

Second point. As for the others that have been mentioned, there is no way Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) or M.V.E.i. (talk · contribs) were victims of the alliance. They should not be given a chance to redeem themselves, which is what I hope will be offered to the others. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If working on wikisource or translations or whatever has been proposed for the mailing list members is good enough for them, I hope arbcom will also envisage it as a manner for the victims of these mailing list members' actions to redeem themselves. If they are really incorrigible POV pushers and nothing else, they will not even consider doing that work. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Kuban Kazak was not a victim of anyone. He was a viciously chauvinist troll, and it's one of my regrets I didn't ban him myself before arbcom had to waste a case over him. Moreschi (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure how any "mailing list" forced Kuban Kazak to fake references to articles he edited and post Stalin pictures on his user page, as well as make threats to hang elected leaders and beat up Wikipedia editors. The idea that the "other side" are all victims is ridiculous. (As far as I remember, the "Siberian Wikipedia" was a huge hoax so I'm not sure defending it is to be commended). --Folantin (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom should clarify its position on this (see discussion at this page above). If arbitrators have concerns about any specific block, they should vote and say so. Then such block should be re-evaluated at the ANI. But if they are not sure, the block should not be re-evaluated unless the blocking administrator suggests that new evaluation was needed after looking at this case.Biophys (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus

As Piotrus has been desysopped already, should remedies not be expressed in terms of confirmation of the desysop? Stifle (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would guess no, because the desysop was without prejudice. –xeno^talk 12:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - The desysop was a temporary injunction only. Manning (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Committee should modify previous ruling on Piotrus_2 case

Committee in the Piotrus_2 case (later renamed to Eastern European disputes) delivered verdict that There is no definitive evidence that Piotrus is responsible for any off-wiki editing coordination that may have occurred in this case. However, due to new evidences such ruling is indeed misleading. New evidences clearly shows that such off-wiki coordination occurred in 2007. Now it is possible to conclude which scenario took place in 2007 as well. Therefore I propose that Committee should modify previous rulings, if not on Piotrus_2 case page, so at least - incorporating appropriate formulation on this case's final ruling. Thank you. M.K. (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

For starters, your "new evidences", violate(s) that big red box that says "Attention:" and has a big exclamation point in a red triangle, and that says "Clerks are instructed to enforce those measures with blocks as necessary", right at the top of the Evidence page.radek (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked ArbCom if it is ok to quote relevant parts, and they did not prohibited so far. So, please stop your wikilawyering. M.K. (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not wikilawyering. I don't know what you asked or did not ask the ArbCom. All I see is the big red box that says No quoting of any email is to be done by persons other than the author or intended recipient(s). As an aside, you might want to look at the actual contribution log of myself (hint: there ain't much in it) and some of the other people in 2007 before you start making these accusations.radek (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is more trying to get on the EE editor bashing wagon. There was no list of any kind in 2007. The fact that so many people (my perception, POV pushers) are convinced there must have been one rather proves that there actually being one didn't make a damned bit of perceptible difference. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course particular list was not established in 2007. But there were ample of other means to coordinate reverts and POV pushing - Gadu Gadu etc, you name it. 2007 events are relevant as they present similar editing pastern and mentality. M.K. (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. So editors who weren't even active in 2007 were coordinating their non-existent Wikipedia editing via Gadu Gadu. You're trying to re-fight some battle from 2+ years ago, which has no relevance to the previous case whatsoever. Let it go.radek (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said previously - it was yours and others insistence that such a group exists that gave us the idea to form it in the first place :) See also my essay on the subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

So the lesson you drew from this past arbcom case involving you was to form a secret mailing list? That sounds rather like lesson not learned to me. Pantherskin (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying it was a correct lesson to learn; it is in fact a lesson I have repudiated several times on those pages and suggested a better lesson to learn - that about the need to rise above petty grievances and rebuild trust and good relations. But since we were discussing why such a lesson was learned in the first place, the argument about the importance of a self-fulfilling prophecy is a part of my answer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

1. This is the third arbcom case involving you, so I am not sure what to think of your promises. 2. I am tired of hearing claims that you and other take responsibility, and in the next sentence you blame the bad behaviors of others for your own behavior. That is not the way to move on here after such an egregious violation of the community trust. 3. I do not think that the previous rulings should be modified, but I hope that arbcom will take into account the previous cases. They are very instructive indeed, in particular when it comes to evaluating light sanctions (what was tried in the past) and what lessons participants draw from these light sanctions. Pantherskin (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not everything is white and black (it take two to tango, and so on). I agree that the remedies of the past are useless - however you seem to forget the fact that remedies of the past included bans too; those have proven rather ineffective as well, breeding only resentment and martyrs. That's why we need a new solution. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - M.K.: Can you identify which Arbcom member gave you this consent? Alternatively please forward a copy of your communication with Arbcom to me at manningatwpen@gmail.com. As your evidence breaches the specific Arbcom directive on this point, I require proof that you were given an exemption. Manning (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Is such a directive against literal quoting still in force at all? After all, Coren himself broke it with his own postings on the workshop page. As long as privacy concerns are handled properly, I really cannot see why it would be okay for the arbs to quote stuff but not the rest of us. I also honestly don't see how close paraphrasing stuff is objectively better than simply quoting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note Yes. Until I am instructed otherwise, I am enforcing this rule. As per the actions of Arbitrators and the interpretation of this rule, you would need to contact Arbcom for a clarification. Manning (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Future Perfect's comments. In addition, I'd like to mention that quoting of emails was allowed in the WP:CAMERA case, despite protests by the members. Offliner (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have contacted Arbcom for clarification of this matter. However until instructed otherwise I am obliged to enforce the rule. Manning (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

@MK, no new evidence was really necessary. There was enough evidence at the time to make the ruling a ridiculous one, but they passed it anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbiters make mistakes as well, however this is the proper time and place to finally correct them. M.K. (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Eastern European Disputes case (no, not "Piotrus 2" as some editors want to call it in order to create a false impression with regard to Piotrus) by any objective standard was a very good, quality, decision made by the ArbCom. It extinguished a multitude of conflicts. It enabled the editors who were not sanctioned to build up good faith and trust and even cordial relationships. It established the 'discretionary sanctions' approach which for all intents and purposes was working quite well - with some inevitable hiccups - under oversight of some very competent administrators (who have since then been attacked and smeared by the mob). It achieved what an ArbCom case was supposed to achieve - arbitrate and settle disputes in a way which doesn't screw up the usual work of building an encyclopedia. It worked.

The fact that some people are unsatisfied with it - well, some people will always be unsatisfied unless they get their way 100%, are given the freedom to push POV unhindered by the general community and get the "blood sacrifice" they require. But those aren't good standards to measure up the quality of an ArbCom decision against.radek (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Grammar issue

In the remedies which refer to two penalties, the words "consecutive with" are used in 3, 5, 7. This should be either "concurrent with" (i.e. served at same time as) or "consecutive to" (i.e. after the end of). I'm not sure which the framer intended. Orderinchaos 15:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note I have emailed Arbcom re this matter. Manning (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) BTW good work with the clerking here - it's a job which, if done properly, probably attracts more brickbats than bouquets, and this case is probably one of the more challenging ones. Orderinchaos 18:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus Sanction Effectiveness (Uninvolved Comment)

In perusing this case, I was initially prepared to argue for the strictest sanctions against Piotrus & Co. However, I have recently been looking into more detail. My opinion:

• Serious errors in judgement were made by the mailing list members.
• That said, the proposed sanctions on Piotrus may be too harsh.
• Piotrus has persuasively argued that there are many completely uncontroversial ways he contributes to Wikipedia that the proposed broad topic ban would disallow.
• Piotrus has been performing many of the said uncontroversial tasks during this case, at great benefit to the project.
• Thus, the proposed ban should be more tightly focused, as there appears to be no actual benefit to the project in barring Piotrus from the uncontroversial projects.

I am totally uninvolved, having had no contact with any of these editors or topics. I simply wished to offer an opinion to the arbitrators and others regarding the most effective way of promoting our core effort. Thanks, and best wishes to all in your future editing! —Finn Casey * * * 03:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC) (Clerks: Clarifying in advance for your convienience - this comment is directly related to the effectiveness of a proposed remedy, and is therefore on topic.)

Clerk note - indeed it is - well done. I actually give broad latitude for relevance as long as the post is free of incivility or biting criticism. As most will have realised by now, I am particularly harsh on anything I regard as flamebait. Manning (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a standard knot to be untied any time someone with great contributions runs afoul of unrelated issues. How do you stop the bad hand without killing the good one? How do you explain to the persons supporters that the bad behavior must be stopped even if the contributions suffer for it? How do you explain to the persons detractors that you aren't letting that person get away with murder just because of his contributions? It really doesn't help that the only implements at their disposal are brute force banhammers and the 'tightly focused' solutions end up being convoluted clusters of unenforcability. I'm sure certain users with names starting with G could tell you a thing or three about failed and misguided attempts to deal with high profile users with lots of contributions. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there are alternative solutions that don't involve nuking everyone or another amnesty. See here and also look at my other proposals on that page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions for arbs and clerks

Any newer time frame? Not much posted yet by the Arbs. Also, could we see some explanation about why quotes are not being permitted in the evidence section? Someone has pointed out that they were used in the evidence section of the CAMERA case, not by arbs. Why are direct quotes not preferable? Novickas (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason why the usual Workshop process wasn't engaged I suppose. --Martintg (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - The time frame has now been updated to 27 Oct 2009. Because of the difficult nature of this case, the time frame may again be extended, should the Arbcom adjudge it necessary. Manning (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal wrt Russavia

Ok, let's give this a one more try.

I’ve said before that if Russavia cut out the personal attacks, uncivil commentary, withdrew some of his most egregious false accusations and otherwise displayed a willingness to try and work with the editors he has been in conflict with, I would support weakening the topic ban that he has been placed under. So far I haven’t seen much evidence to that effect but perhaps what it takes is a proactive step from the other side. I have not made any concrete proposals along these lines simply because I felt that in the current atmosphere any kind of positive proposal is likely to be taken in bad faith or as a “sign of weakness”. But what the hey, let’s try again. AGF, one more time.

As I also said before I do have a lot of respect for content creation and editors who work on the meat and potatoes aspect of articles. This is the most fundamental aspect of building an encyclopedia and I do think that too often we forget about this. This has also been the basic reason for why I think the proposed topic ban on Piotrus is extremely wrong and will just be destructive to the aims of this project. In the spirit of the constructive proposals made by Piotrus here, here, and here I think that relaxing Russavia’s topic ban in some specific ways– provided that he does in fact stop the incivility, withdraws the false accusations and hopefully supports the constructive remedies that have been proposed – may work. Here’s specifically how:

Aside from all the "battlin'" that Russavia has engaged in, it is true that he has also been very active in creating and making quality edits on articles relating to the airline industry and diplomatic relations of Russia. Looking over these I think most of them are uncontroversial (and some of them are very well written). A sanction which takes this creative activity into account, while at the same time preventing further disruptive editing on controversial topics, would work better than an all around topic ban.

In particular I think that – again, given some signal of good faith from Russavia – he should be allowed to continue to create new articles, even if these would normally fall under the topic ban that has been imposed on him. For example, here [2] Russavia mentions that he would like to expand the article on Air Botswana with information relating to Russia but is unable to do so because of his topic ban. I fully understand the frustration that this entails. And as long as there’s no monkey business involved (i.e. gaming the topic ban to push POV) there doesn’t seem to be a good reason why he shouldn’t.

The basic proposal here is that Russavia’s topic ban be relaxed to allow him to create new articles relating to the airline industry and Russian diplomatic missions, subject to some kind of mentorship or over sight. The mentorship is required to make sure that the relaxation of the topic ban isn’t used as a way to game the topic ban and engage in disruptive POV pushing (like recent "topic ban fence hugging" at the DYK page with Colonies of Poland). But, giving AGF with respect to Russavia one more chance, I don’t think this will be a problem.

Since Sandstein is the one who originally placed the topic ban on Russavia, he might be the appropriate person to oversee this relaxation of the restriction and act as a mentor. Of course, if Sandstein is not interested in this, which would not be surprising given the abuse he’s been subject to, another admin could probably be found.

I hope that Russavia responds positively to this and in good faith and supports other constructive proposals which would likewise allow other editors to continue with their content creation.radek (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Before I respond to anything, you state above that I should withdraw false accusations. Could I ask what false accusations you are talking about? --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In all sincerity, if I respond to this and explain, we're gonna get bogged down in an argument as to whether these accusations are false or not. That's not the point here. What do you think of the proposal generally?radek (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Was Russavia a member of the list? If not, this proposal should probably be discussed elsewhere. csloat (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Russavia was not a member of the list, but is one of the lists most vocal detractors. Reaching out to people like him is an effective way of showing that list members can and are taking steps to reform from previous behavior. It could go elsewhere, but I think the list members (rightly) feel the need to ensure that the Arbs see their attempts. Plus, everyone is here with bated breath looking for updates. Trying to drag them elsewhere to discuss moving forward before this case officially closes would be like herding cats. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a proposed remedy which encourages the community to revisit bans and blocks and the like. If that remedy should pass, I have made it be known that I have no intention of using that remedy to have my topic ban lifted, eased, or otherwise, until such time as I have demonstrated that I am not a problematic editor. In doing this, I am abiding my the topic ban, and editing on topics outside of the scope of the ban. In the last week or so, I have expanded Flag of Bhutan, Air Botswana, Air Malawi, Air Madagascar and created Albert Sylla, and am working now on an expansion of Royal Tongan Airlines. In the near future I will also start rewriting and expanding 1989 Australian pilots' dispute (any Australian will remember this, and the article does not do the event justice as it stands now). Yes, I would like to expand articles such as Vietnam Air Service Company, Alyemda, Air Koryo, etc, but due to the fact these airlines operate/d Soviet/Russian-built aircraft, which would be covered by the topic ban. But as one can see, I am editing other things.

As I write above, until such time as 2 or 3 admins think that the topic ban should be eased/lifted/whatever, I will keep editing other subjects. Perhaps it may be decided by the community that given the circumstances, I am given a second chance. It is not up to myself to be asking the committee to be modifying my topic ban.

I know this is not probably the response one would expect, but as with anything I do, it is an honest response. Why? Because I recognise, that although the last 10 months or so have been stressful, from what we now know has been going on, I still bear responsibility for my actions. I have admitted that I was somewhat a prick at times on my talk page in discussions on the topic ban, and I have apologised to Sandstein for that, and whilst I hope that editors understand that the circumstances had some bearing on that behaviour, I still take responsibility for it, although legitimate questions were being asked by myself and other editors (including admins in good standing), and Sandstein should recognise that. But, I still bear all responsibility for the situation.

In retrospect, the way that I now look at my topic ban, the situation has not so much removed me from an area in which I am productive, and which some incorrectly portray me as only being disruptive, but has removed me from the battlefield that has been created, fostered and nurtured over the time by numerous editors, allowed me to destress, and at the same time allowed me to create content that I may not have gotten around to otherwise, and which other editors would not have done, which will help to demonstrate to the community that I am an asset to this project rather than a hindrance. I have other interests aside from "Russia", and I can edit on those interests for time being, even though there are sometimes overlaps with the topic ban which restrict this. And I say that all editors are the same; they all have more than one interest, whether it be football, science fiction, whatever, they can edit those topics, and they should edit those topics. If one is interested in soccer, there is no reason that they have to edit on Polish soccer; they can do what I have been doing as of late, and help to fight WP:BIAS by creating/expanding articles on soccer in Guinea-Bissau or Swaziland, etc.

This is even moreso the case, as I have watched some EE topics and off-arb interactions during the proceedings of this case, and the battlefield and gaming continues. I'd rather have no part in the nationalist POV-pushing -- yes, and this includes the nationalists on the mailing list -- and yes, it would be good to have editors removed from the topic area when they have been disruptive -- but the thing is, the PD has not gone far enough as yet in removing disruptive editors from this area for a time, and yes, more should be removed, and I think they know who they are.

So in short, thank you for bringing this up, but I am not interested in having the committee modifying my topic ban, in that I am not going to be asking for it, and I would encourage editors who were on the email list to stand up and take responsibility for their actions, and cop whatever they get on the chin. That is the first, and most important step, towards reforming oneself and helping to rid this topic area of the rubbish that has gone on. Then one may look forward as a collective, collegial group. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Russavia has refactored his statement above, I've struck following as no longer applicable. You have been pushing this "harassment" barrow for a while now. Nobody has harassed or stalked you. Areas of interest overlap and thus we come into contact. If you create articles like eSStonia, and I arrive, this is not stalking. Real stalking would see people arriving at your Russian aviation or Russian diplomatic relations articles, for example, and this has not happened. Being reported to ANI for possible account sharing is not harassment either, it was a legitimate concern, it is like claiming that your involvement in this case is evidence of you harassing me. --Martintg (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Presumption of coordination

I am sorry, but in this content dispute arena, one side having a consistent opinion based on reputable sources does not require "coordination". This accepts the meme that there has always been off-wiki coordination against editors promoting the Soviet view et al. of history regarding Eastern Europe, how else can they all possibly agree. (You will note that the editors piling on in evidence against the mailing list say virtually nothing regarding any article other than the USSR and/or Russia relative to the Baltics and EE.)
   This is a utterly misguided condemnation of every editor with reputable sources regarding Eastern European history before, during, and after WWII, and that reputable sources don't count. This amounts to making a finding in favor of all those who insist "the mailing list" has existed for years. This is completely speculative and totally inappropriate. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposal to FoF 7 (Good faith)

I propose the following alternative to the proposed FoF Nr 7 (Good faith), according to which 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. My alternative proposal is adapted and improved from the WP:CAMERA case [3]

Good intentions
3) Inappropriate conduct even if undertaken in the service of a "noble cause" is still inappropriate conduct.

Some list members have claimed that the inproper off-wiki coordination was necessary in order to counter a "Russian cabal." However, the members have failed to provide any hard evidence of the existence of such cabal.

Drawing a parallel to WP:CAMERA, CAMERA also pretended that there was a Palestinian cabal on Wikipedia—but did not provide hard evidence. See for example page 2 ("there are loud and aggressive groups of anti-Israel editors".) No one fell for that framing.

The claims that there was "a Cartel" like the list members say (while not being able to provide evidence) has one or more of the following reasons:

1. it's necessary to glue the group by pretending they aren't more morally reprehensible than the others
2. wishful thinking
3. a dogmatic piece of a group ideology
4. in case of leak, people might fall for that.

The are clear indications that even the list members themselves did not believe that there was an organized "Russian cabal."

In [20090429-0549-[WPM] Attack on Russavia_.eml] Piotrus expresses his doubts that the Russian users are organized and that their small number and poor handling suggests no involvement from any Russian government organization.

The list members knew that their basis of evidence was non-existent and they could not convince the ArbCom during a previous case [4]. However, even this statement by ArbCom was exploited by the list members, who tried to insert this into Web brigades. (20090113-0209-[WPM] ArbCom as RS_ also Russian media.eml) [5]

In reaction to Vecrumba's post in the above section, I'd like to point out that there is no organization that admits to being the bad guys, not even the Nazis did. But euphemisms are no excuse and nothing to take at face value or is needed to be mentioned. CAMERA, too, claimed it was about "accuracy". Every group of this kind spins with Glittering generality.

This "Russian Cartel" invented by the list members is nothing but framing. It is obvious that what the list members mean with this is simply editors with a POV different from their own. Offliner (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• This FoF is deeply flawed. In the entire 3000+ messages of this posted mail list archive, "Russian cabal" is mentioned some 4 times and "Russian cartel" is mentioned 3 times. However "cabal" and "cartel" were mentioned over 100 times in relation to Russavia, PasswordUsername and Offliner, since those three seemed to support each other in content disputes at various venues. Who amongst them are ethnic Russian anyway? Everyone in the maillist had their own opinion, there was no unified view. In my view a more accurate wording based upon the evidence would be:

Good intentions
3)There is every indication that some of the mailing list's participants sincerely believed 
that there is an organized group or groups attempting to incite ethnic tensions between 
Russian and Estonian editors by pushing particularly extreme "anti-Estonian" viewpoints on Wikipedia

--Martintg (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that "there is an organized group or groups attempting to incite ethnic tensions between Russian and Estonian editors by pushing particularly extreme "anti-Estonian" viewpoints on Wikipedia" is exactly what Offliner called framing. Just to be clear, your suggestion, Martin, is to explicitly add this ridiculous framing statement to FoF by ArbCom? Why would arbitrators do that? Be reasonable please. (Igny (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC))

The hypothetical FoF I proposed was meant to exemplify that the original FoF does not accord with my belief nor the beliefs of those members whose beliefs I am aware of. Each list member could probably each write a different FoF. Whether these beliefs were a case of framing or not is irrelevant I think. --Martintg (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Diff provided by Offliner was dated January 12. Therefore, it has nothing to do with email list. I suggest to insert only one word to the current version by Arbcom. It should tell "pro-Russian government point of view". I am also Russian editor and my point of view is different. I am sure that Colchicum or Dormitori have their own "Russian" views that are different from my views and views of Offliner. There is no such thing as "Russian point of view" or "American point of view"Biophys (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said. As for tensions, I believe my evidence conclusively demonstrates Offliner and PasswordUsername edit-warring over presenting (and misrepresenting in the process) negative content regarding Estonia. Lastly, as I've already stated, I've personally come up against editors paid to push pro-Russian interests propaganda on WP and that the appropriate action is to strike the item. It's not a "belief." It's a fact. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  04:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Offliner referencing mine regarding presumption of coordination, there is no right or wrong; however, it is:

• instituting the meme that circumstantial evidence must be true
• and if not explicitly applied to both "sides" in contention over EE, then it is nothing but a priori convicting the mailing list members regardless of evidence.

I respectfully suggest to the admins that less is more. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  04:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My evidence and that of M.K. prove that this line-up has existed since 2007. Digwuren was actually proposing the very thing we are now talking about, and none of the people who were then participating in the discussion called him to order. We are not just dealing with the reading list, we are dealing with the disruption in general and the false consensus problem in particular caused by the participants to it. To delete a reference to a diff because it antedates the archive that was leaked by a few days, the discussion in the mailing list is a joke under these circimstances. The problem seems to be that a) most of the particpants still do not realize how much harm they have done to the project by driving off prolific authors of content or having them banned (Ghirla and Irpen, remember?) b) that they have become black-belt masters at baiting (and do not realize that they are also teaching their victims how to do it) and c) that they still refuse to withdraw their accusations ("paid to push pro-Russian interests propaganda on WP") while they are asking their victims to withdraw theirs ("I never accused you of being paid to ..."). Arbcom should take good note of that. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your evidence and MK's proves nothing except the ridiculous lengths that some people will go to try and milk this case for their own purposes. I wasn't even editing (that much) in 2007 so I couldn't have been part of any kind of "line up". Stop making stuff up - especially stuff that is so blatantly false.radek (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

They do not withdraw accusations because the ArbCom said the more they make accusations the more their actions are justified.--Dojarca (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not very constructive. And it obfuscates the main point: accusing your "opponents" plus demanding apologies from the same while passing on their own apologies, usually with words such as "it would not be difficult for me to apologize because I have not done anything wrong" is now part of a historical pattern, Piotrus did exactly the same versus Irpen. (see Skäpperöd's evidence) AGF and all that, yes, but how can you still trust these people? --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please answer

Did the mailing list members believe me also was a part of some sort of "Russian cabal" and if not, what can justify their stonewalling against my edits and dispute resolution?--Dojarca (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's actually not a bad question, the use of inflammatory rhetoric aside.radek (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if Dojarca adopted a good faithed approach from the beginning people would take more notice of him. Instead he complained to an unsuspecting admin Hiberneantears about an article that he hadn't edited since 2007 and which was stable for over a year, as discussed here. The admin accepted his complaint at face value without first checking, became editorially involved and proceeded to use his admin tools to split the article and protect his version. The subsequent mediation involved Dorjarca and this admin acting as his proxy. I opted not to participate under these bad faithed conditions. BTW, another admin (Russian btw) eventually cleaned up the mess left by Hiberneantears. --Martintg (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Incredibly lenient

Clerk note = as per the OP, only replies by arbitrators (including former arbs who choose to comment) will be retained in this thread.

Given the findings of fact and the prior context, including multiple Arbitration cases with many editors on various topic restrictions, revert limits and other sanctions, the proposed remedies seem incredibly lenient. (I'm interested in the Arbitrators' rationales, other parties need not reply.) Thatcher 22:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If people purely consider politically correct conduct, political power and all that, yes. Whether being sanctioned correlates to POV-pushing, racial chauvinism or anything, I don't think that was considered. It would be the same if the tables were reversed. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Trespass

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: The request for the motion be struck is noted. Unless there is new and conclusive evidence to present on this topic, there is no point to rehashing previously discussed material.

---

I request this be stricken. The mailing list members have all stated they did not leak the archive. I've also mentioned the failure notice I received of the mailing list coincidental (i.e., directly after) with the last Email in the archive. This proposed decision propagates the meme that the leak of the archive was an act of conscience. It was categorically not. This is a speculative conclusion not supported by any evidence that has been produced by admin and does not belong in the findings. If you insist on keeping this, then you must ALSO make the finding that someone who was a member of the mailing list is lying that they were not the source of the archive. Plain and simple. Insinuations are not decisions, they are insinuations. Either prove the leak originated from the mailing list and that a mailing list member is lying or remove the finding. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  05:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence to suggest that the list was hacked, Vecrumba, and the arbs have even said as much. Occam's razor would mean that someone who was once involved with the list leaked it; a hacker would require too much evidence to stand as a theory given what is available. In re the leak, well-based and plausible insinuations are all we have to go on, *especially* given (α) Tymek's account compromise and (β) MBisanz' section on the Evidence page. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 05:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no proof of hacking; neither there is proof of whistleblowing (or a mole). I don't think the Committee should support either hypothesis given the near complete lack of evidence for either. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus - talk} 05:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

MBisanz' section on Evidence page is completely unrelated to whether this was a hacking or a leak. In fact, it's hardly related to the mailing list at all. I don't know why he phrased it in such a cryptic dramatic way. Also Occam's razor doesn't apply here since any explanation is bound to be complicated. And even if it did, despite what many think, Occam's razor is not a logical principle but just a nice sounding rule-of-thumb without any justification.radek (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, you are adding editorialised emotions to a proposed finding of fact that does not have one. The FoF "Computer Trespass" makes no speculation about the motives of the leaker other than it was done willingly and with a shared account password. It makes NO claim that is was an act of concience or if the person was a mole. Simply that the person chose to do it. Further, the Fof even states that evidence on this matter was scarce and that this is simply the "most credible" possibility. No inflammatory language like you suggest has been used, and no inflammatory language you suggest will be used. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The controversial speculation in that section is: "The committee finds that the hypothesis that one of the members of the list willingly mailed their own copies of the emails via that shared account to be the most credible". Each member has denied doing that. What could make the hypothesis to the contrary "most credible"?? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus - talk} 16:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This alleged leaker is under no obligation to tell the truth, and it's simply common sense that a whistleblower isn't going to reveal his or her identity if it can be avoided. The fact that no member of the mailing list has admitted to doing it isn't contrary to Occam's razor, rather, it's predictable. LokiiT (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Denied after you publicly asked every known mailing list member to deny that they are the whistleblower. No surprise then that everyone denied being the whistleblower. What makes the scenario of the whistleblower the most credible is the simple fact that contrary to popular opinion hacking a computer is very, very hard. Pantherskin (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur Pantherskin. If I were on the mailing list, I wouldn't be making it known that I was the whistleblower, because of the obvious recriminations which certain members of the group could possibly take part in. This is one proposed FoF that I will not be expecting the committee to be elaborating on in public, past what they have likely discussed on the group, because for them to expand on it publicly, it may divulge information which may make the whistleblower become known. Other than that, this section is discussing pure semantics. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 17:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom does not need to state neither that it was leaked, nor that it was hacked. A "finding of the fact" about that would be a finding about real world, not about WP. It has the potential of putting Wikipedia in an unnecessary awkward situation by influencing real world. ArbCom is concerned with the privilege the Foundation gives to individuals to edit its website. Such a finding of the fact is neither logically needed, nor used in proposed remedies. ArbCom can make a finding of the fact that the members of the mail list have confirmed its existence and that occasionally Wikipedia was discussed there (they did during this very case). Dc76\^talk 17:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Poitrus, it is 'most credible' due to the admission of a shared password. That admission alone means that everyone had the means to leak the list anonymously and could continue to remain anonymous via denials. The idea that one of the list member lied about the leak is not hard to believe since the whole idea of the list is a clandestine operation to begin with. All that remains left is a desire which, while the assumtion can be made that someone had one, there is no speculation on what that desire stemmed from. The idea that the list was hacked, while not proved or disproved, is simply less likely in light of the shared password. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I recall that early on an informal CU was done and the conclusion was that the person accessing Tymek's account to post the maillist was not one of the maillist participants. --Martintg (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. You remember a lot of interesting things. csloat (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The ArbCom does not need to act based upon a hypothesis or upon ideas that are not hard to believe. The ArbCom can act based on the admission by the mail list members of its existence and of the fact that Wikipedia was discussed. There is no need for real life FoF unrelated to editing Wikipedia. Those are not in ArbCom's jurisdiction, and they can place WP in awkward situations. The influence that the list might have had on Wikipedia is what ArbCom is concerned with. (The list members have admitted that some influence existed; the dispute is only about what the influence was specifically - simple battleground mentality or something more) This "FoF" is not used in the remedies! Why then have it? Dc76\^talk 19:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an influence on the other findings and it should stay. It's also pretty obvious and completely uncontroversial. It's a red herring being used to detract from the legitimacy of this whole case. As with the list itself, it's allowing the cabal to make a mockery of Wikipedia procedures -- never admit to having done anything wrong, even when you are caught red-handed, and instead divert attention to some phony charge of "hacking" so the editors involved can posture self-righteously about having been the victim of alleged "crimes." It's getting old. csloat (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer salmon to herring. :-) Now, seriously: the legitimacy of this case was openly accepted by the mail list members. The point is: this case is about editing Wikipedia, not about real world. Dc76\^talk 20:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) It's quite simple, prove it is a leak or strike the finding as speculative and prejudicial, as it affirms the leak was precipitated by conduct so heinous that it could no longer be tolerated. I am sorry to be blunt, but:

• speculation on razors by the uninvolved is simply speculation; and
• such speculation requires the assumption of bad faith.

VЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You guys have illustrated exactly the point I was making -- instead of addressing what is wrong here, instead posture self-righteously and make yourself out to be a victim. csloat (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In my personal opinion (knowing the people from the mailing list) the e-mails were stolen not leaked and I'm %100 positive on that. Of course there is no prove, we are not hackers, how can we prove it? At the same time there is no prove that there was a whistleblower ether, just speculations. I don’t think it is right to assume anything in such situation.--Jacurek (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable severity of Piotrus remedies

I wish to register my strong objections with the Committee against the proposed remedy which would ban Piotrus. Whilst, as Finn notes above, Piotrus is guilty of chronic poor judgement in relation to the incidents that are contextual to this case, the response proposed by Coren and supported by Rlevse is not a justifiable one. I would implore the Committee to limit the proposed decision to, at most, only a desysopping of Piotrus (which I do admit would be reasonable, if regrettable). Piotrus may have messed up, but kicking him out of the project is a step too far.

An editor's Wikipedia career should not be lightly destroyed. The arbitrators ought to especially consider, if they have not already done so, the fact that Piotrus has never been sanctioned in an arbitration case, and that he has largely conducted himself admirably well (even having edited in subject areas as contentious as his areas of speciality are)—out with the context of this case. Having read the proposals that Coren has drafted and that he and Rlevse have supported, I would say that there is such a thing as being too severe. AGK 21:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

he has conducted himself admirably well—does this mean that if I ask others, through a secret mailing list, to do the all dirty work (such as edit warring, baiting, vote stacking and harassment) on my behalf (instead of doing them myself), I have conducted myself admirably well? Offliner (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A fair point. What I meant to say was that, out with the context of this case and incidents related to the EE mailing list, Piotrus' conduct has not been concerning. I have slightly amended my statement. AGK 22:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggested that good work negates bad work, or that Vested Contributors should get special treatment or what? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if Piotrus' on-wiki "bad work" could actually be pointed out via diffs in the Proposed Decision, so far it seems to be based only upon a lot of politically incorrect private discussion. --Martintg (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd very much like to see diffs in FoFs, so that I could respond to my specific edits and either explain them or apologize for them if necessary (and to learn from them what kind of edits I should avoid making in the past). Regarding inappropriate (if private) emails, as Radek pointed out below, I am certainly recognizing errors were made and shouldn't be repeated in the future. PS. On good content vs bad content and what it means in practice (disclaimer: shameless plug for my mini-wikiessays). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of us less-involved observers might be inclined to agree with you except that not only has he done all the things that Offliner mentioned; he also pretty much refuses to acknowledge that there was anything wrong with the behavior in the first place. In fact, all I see here from Piotrus and other listmembers is an attempt to further game the system, splitting hairs over wikipedia rules and definitions, and attempts to deflect attention to extraneous concerns (e.g. "hacking," as well as the argument that Piotrus or other listmembers were "good editors"). The purpose of sanctions like the proposed measures is not to "punish" Piotrus or other serial abusers of the rules, but rather to protect the integrity of those rules and the Wikipedia process in the first place. csloat (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The decision by Piotrus et al. to use the EE mailing list as they did was a shockingly misjudged one, and one that at best was based in tragically poor thinking and at worst was downright malicious. (The reality is probably somewhere between the two). But I don't think that, in Piotrus' case, the behaviour was ban-worthy. This may be the case for others, but I have looked in detail only at the remedies relating to Piotrus. So, to respond to Rlevse and Commodore, I'm not proposing that we bend the rules or make special allowances for a vested contributor; I am only observing that a ban and desysopping is not a reasonable response to the evidence and to the misconduct that has been perpetrated, all things considered. Taking away his tools (and do note that he won't be getting them back for a very long time) is reasonable; kicking him out is too much. AGK 23:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

csloat, sorry, I would like to just say that I really believe (%100) that the e-mails were hacked and I'm saying that not to "game the system" but because I strongly believe they were stolen. All members even signed the list confirming that. I could ask many questions which would be hard to answer..for example: Why somebody would release e-mails incriminating himself at the same time?? I would rather contact you for example, and ask for advise what to do etc..just as a example.--Jacurek (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would consider discussion of the "hacking" (and the truthfulness of claims thereof) issue to be quite unrelated to this discussion and also to not be particularly helpful (in that it repeats earlier threads)—which I think qualifies them for removal by a Committee clerk. That would perhaps be a point to bear in mind. AGK 23:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

O.K. sorry.--Jacurek (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - the above irrelevant exchange is being left as a reminder to all not to go down this path again. Manning (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• With respect to the original comment, I note my agreement. I have already outlined my opinion above. As a side point, it is ironic that the the proposed decision is criticized as "unacceptably severe" by one uninvolved and competent user, and is considered (two sections above) "incredibly lenient" by another uninvolved generally respected and competent user... —Finn Casey * * * 01:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thatcher was criticised extensively in some exchanges on the EE mailing list, so I wouldn't agree that he is uninvolved. AGK 11:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment amended - still ironic (the Committee will never please everyone). —Finn Casey * * * 20:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

csloat says "(Piotrus) also pretty much refuses to acknowledge that there was anything wrong with the behavior in the first place." - uhhh NO. Here is Piotrus' self judgment with regard to his actions as well a pretty long list of voluntary restrictions which he has referred to in at least three places already. (irrelevant comment removed by clerk) radek (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) It all depends on if you think we seriously discussed creating sockpuppets and harassing Russavia in real life et al. If you believe that, there is one solution. If you believe it was blowing off steam (and please, anyone, point out a single instance of a sock puppet or personal harassment, surely one would have surfaced during, what, 9 months of heinous plotting! if not, then we were certainly inept conspirators!), then there is a different solution. That the list had absolutely no effect on my on-Wiki behavior is not an anomaly. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 01:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - Several comments removed. Keep it on-topic people. Manning (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe 20090603-0726 and 20090608-1119 may be relevant to this thread. Offliner (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with AGK. If Piotrus was guilty of something, that was canvassing and making a few provocative comments in emails, but his actions did not cause any real damage to the project. Yes, his significant content contributions and his current pledge of cooperation is definitely something to consider. Moreover, he was the only member of the list repeatedly telling to others in emails (I rephrase): "you guys stop edit warring", "do content editing instead of bickering" and even "D., B. and some others who are not under sanctions, you would better stop editing in this area, abandon your account and do something very different, because your reputation is terrible".Biophys (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Him telling you all to behave does not prove that he had good intentions. He only told you that so you would not get into trouble, since he was an admin and knew more than you what gets users caught. -YMB29 (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Q.E.D. Thank you! Incitement to attack = bad intentions. Advice to moderate and not attack = bad intentions. So, where exactly is there room for good intentions in your view of the world? VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 17:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You are not following what I am saying. It is not about him giving advice to "moderate and not attack". It is about him telling the list members to not do anything obvious which can be used against them. He was not trying to be fair, but was just trying to protect his teammates. -YMB29 (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire, YMB29, I am following exactly what you are saying. Your view is based on the before-hand assumption that Piotrus is an individual of malignant bad faith. Mailing list members piled in at instances of (per their editorial viewpoint) bad content long before the mailing list, leading to accusations of stonewalling, of—as here—accusations that the mailing list must have existed for years, etc. A moderated approach to keep "out of trouble" and to keep the conversation on the topic at hand and not invite "attack the editor not the content" is not bad faith. It is your personal choice to interpret it as such. So, again, where is there room for good faith in your view of the world? VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 14:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You are still not following... My point is that it is not evidence of "good faith" by Piotrus. This is not based on my assumptions, but on actually reading some of the emails. -YMB29 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Then let me tell it differently. By unblocking/not sanctioning some and blocking/banning others Arbcom will effectively replace Piotrus by DonaldDuck, Vlad Fedorov, YMB29, LokiiT and Russavia. If this makes WP a better place (more friendly, better content, etc.), then fine, this is right decision. It may be also true that some members of the list, like me and Digwuren will be much happier in their real lives when they stop editing here. So, it's time for them to go. But Piotrus will be much better off by remaining in the project.Biophys (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You are so desperate to get Piotrus off with no punishment... That seems to be the main strategy of the list members now. Since there is a proposed decision for amnesty to most of them, they have concentrated on getting Piotrus off too.

So no one should be punished for violations of rules/policies because you are afraid that Wikipedia will become too "pro-Russian"? -YMB29 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Singular character of this case

Dear csloat, we "refuse to acknowledge" because we were told this is not a typical ArbCom with two parties. There is one party under the investigation directly by the ArbCom. I did and will answer to ArbCom for my entire WP life. You simply do not have all info. With all due respect, you are not a party here. With all due respect to your persona, in this case you are just someone on the bench watching. If you have any additional evidence (on wiki diffs, not excerpts from the private emails - ArbCom can read those without your help), please do present them in the Evidence section. But we were told on these very pages, from day one, when the case began, that there will be no deliberations. If you have any diff about me, present it, I will answer it. The rest is in the hands of ArbCom, without prosecutors and defenders. How can you comment in an informed manner on proposed decision when you do not have access to all the evidence and statements? (As an editor you do not have access to the mail list, it is not hosted on WP and cannot be downloaded from a link on WP, as far as I understand.) I might have said something to ArbCom and you are not aware of that. I have done nothing wrong to you personally, otherwise be sure I would have acknowledged and apologized. I believe in one apology too many than one too few, but I saw your name here for the first time. I believe all except maybe 1-2 also never met you. In the case of Piotrus, show him the diffs you believe he did wrong, and ask him to explain and/or apologize for those. For the participation in the mailing list, he answers to ArbCom. You as an editor have no access to the archive. The ArbCom does, the ArbCom is in a position to make an informed judgement. You, on the other hand, can help the ArbCom determine whether there was any correlation between maillist discussions and on wiki events, by providing diffs of activities you consider suspect. For the general participation in the maillist, Piotrus has already lost his adminship. Now, is there something problematic about him as editor, not as admin? Respectfully, Dc76\^talk 02:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - unacceptable comment removed and warning issued to User:Igny. Discuss the comments, NOT the editors making them. Manning (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Manning. It is understood that we shouldn't comment about the editors. But I would like to pay your attention that the originator of this thread provokes and asks exactly to comment on Piotrus. I cite his question: "Now, is there something problematic about him as editor, not as admin?" Could you then remove all such phrases from the originators post and issue a warning to him? Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Vlad fedorov - the conduct of Piotrus is under ArbCom examination, hence is an accepted topic of discussion here. I have regularly permitted discussion of Piotrus (both positive and negative) as long as it does not breach civility rules. The comment by User:Igny I disallowed was uncivil to Dc76 and Igny is free to repost his comment as long as it redacted to be civil. (I also withdraw the warning I issued to Igny as I have accepted his claim that the offending statement was not intentionally offensive.) I found nothing offensive or uncivil in Dc76's original post. Manning (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dc76! Before you start another "Piotrus is a good guy" thread, attempting to "impartialy" criticize non-cabal participants, and csloat in particular, please read previous arbitration case csloat-biophys, initiated and lost by Biophys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Commodore_Sloat-Biophys. I guess the case would explain to you something that you miss.The diffs that you are requiring are already given in Evidence section, enjoy them while reading mailing list archive. The answer to your question would be - we all have suffered from Piotrus and his cabal in some way. Could you give me a link where Piotrus tries to reach consensus with such "Pro-Putin paid editor" as me? Nope, you can't. That's because Piotrus is not collaborating with every user. If good editors do not collaborate with other editors?

May you explain me only one thing? If Piotrus is so excellent editor, why it happens so that there are so many people there disagreeing with him? Why it is third arbitration case which brings complaints over Piotrus behavior to Arbcom? If Ghirla and Irpen where miserable editors? Why they have left the project then?

Should Piotrus be so good editor as you write, then he wouln't have needed mailing list. Or you can explain to us, for example, why Piotrus was proposing to create socks for reverting in 20090701-0204?Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is correct - as I noted in the evidence section, my only real contact with the "brigade" was through Biophys, and it began long before the events under consideration here. My only knowledge of Piotrus before this was as a mysterious figure who would suddenly appear whenever I had a conflict with Biophys and whom Biophys would portray as the ultimate neutral arbiter. Others I began to notice when they showed up to defend Biophys' original research on AfD cases. Otherwise I would not say that I participate much on the EE topics this list was mostly obsessed with. But after reading the evidence section here and looking at the archive, I am definitely concerned that there is a larger problem here that needs to be addressed -- the coordinated attempt to undermine the open editing structure of Wikipedia. This isn't about punishing Piotrus (who I really have had very little contact with at all other than this ArbCom proceeding) or any other listmember. But the point is that I don't believe this is resolved by having someone acknowledge that they framed a few private emails unwisely and promise to say nicer things on email lists. Anyway, that's my opinion but I'm going to try to stop commenting here because I think dc76 is right that Arbcom can sort through the evidence at this point without my help. csloat (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The problem is their brigade operation structure. They start by POV fork article or POV section, then delete and undermine other views and texts in the article, own the article, then they bring complaints against users who are in dispute with them, then they proceed to ANI. And this goes over and over. KGB internet troll squad article, Human rights, Litvinenko, Occupation, Operation Sarindar, etc., etc. And there is no end for this. Long topic ban would be very effective and reliable remedy.Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk comment - Vlad, the comment above certainly dances on the edge of being deliberately inflammatory. I'm working very hard to keep things under control with all of the heightened emotions in this case so please try to avoid statements that risk being deemed as "flamebait". I also encourage people to simply not respond to things which got them hot under the collar. Manning (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• To the parties involved in this exchange: Please stop being silly and listen to the clerk, lest you find yourself being smacked with the banhammer. AGK 11:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Manning. I assume your remarks on acceptability of comments applies equally to all commentators, including admins. "Being silly", "fear the banhammer" isn't that civil and "in good faith" for this difficult arbcom case (I am not the only who shares this view). And considering that the discussion was just like you asked only the conduct of arbcom case particpants, it was just this, nothing more. Could you, please, remove offensive comment by AGK not related to the topic and rest of this useless thread, then? Many thanks in advance. I won't comment anymore. Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, but in what way does an invitation to the parties to obey the rules of the project constitute an offensive comment? AGK 23:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Vlad - the comment was made by a clerk (recused on this case, but still a clerk) and he was making general statements that were not critical of any editor in particular. He was also correctly pointing out that I have far more aggressive tools for maintaining decorum at my disposal (which I have thus far managed to avoid using). I see nothing offensive or actionable in this. Manning (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Its been some time now.

While I realise Arbcom is all volunteers with busy schedules, it has been almost a week (give or take) since there was any Arb activity on this case and even then it consisted of rubberstamping the proposed principles. Could one or more of the Arbs (which have not completed voting) throw us a bone and let us know your still there? Perhaps even say a few words along the lines of, 'Having difficulty sorting out 'X' issue, expect to vote on 'X' soon'.

This is a complicated and unusual case, so obviously some patience is nessesary. The issue, however, is that leaving the 'participants' in this odd wiki-limbo is turning the talk page into a festering wound. There are what, four warnings for civility already? I'm not saying their behavior was justified, but that a little progress, and dare I say a conclusion, would settle a few matters. I don't think there is much value in having 5 more threads about how lenient/harsh arbcom is being to the list members/others and how unfair that is. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk comment - I fully appreciate your concerns. I can at least assure you that there has been enormous amounts of activity on this case in recent days - just most of it is behind the scenes. Due to privacy issues it was made clear from the outset that much of the deliberations would be offline. (I am not privy to the actual ArbCom discussions, but I am kept aware of the general workflow).

On one hand there is the overwhelming desire of the community for a resolution, but on the other there is the critical need to make balanced and well-reasoned decisions. Hence this case is a very difficult one for all concerned. The involved parties are in the situation of having to sit around and wait and no-one is pretending that is a good thing. In defence of everyone, given the difficult circumstances I feel that people have more or less conducted themselves with acceptable decorum, and that is to the credit of all.

I've got a request in to ArbCom for a revised decision date and as soon as I hear something I will pass it on. I wish I could offer more at this point, but I can't. Manning (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(od, edit conflict with the above) Hello, our anonymous friend dedicated recently (it appears exclusively, for more than the last month) only to making observations regarding the EEML case. Is there a train that's leaving the station that we're about to miss? Quite frankly, I'm glad to see there is not rush to judgement, this would appear to indicate arbcom is not just taking everything at face value, particularly all the a priori convictions of bad faith based on the mere existence of the list. When arbcom is ready, they will be ready. They are volunteers, after all, let's not make their task more thankless by badgering them for a response. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 15:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As to the threads about lenient and harsh, I find them quite revealing. No need to cut the debate off prematurely. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 15:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed, Manning. They should take as much time as they need, and I do expect they would need extra time. Was just looking for a break in the deafening silence, is all. Your word is good enough for me that the activity is bustling. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Semantic: Dear anon, it's rather a deafening bang on the ears, not a "deafening silence". After a very serious bang, there is indeed an apparent silence: contusion. :) Dc76\^talk 12:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's from the English saying "the silence is/was deafening" :-) It's yet to be seen whether we end, per TS Eliot, with a bang or a whimper. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 13:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I echo Manning's comment above. KnightLago (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are blocks or bans needed?

Piotrus said: "We recognize we made errors, we promise never to do them again." I second him in that. Wikipedia:Blocking policy says: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." What kind of damage of disruption did I or any other editor on whom a block is proposed do in the past month? What damage or disruption are we likely to engage in the next months that bans are needed? How are such blocks and bans supposed to benefit the community? Tymek (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a block proposed on anyone? I can only see a short ban and a longer topic ban for some participants. And to cite Piotrus again, the lesson he and others drew from the last arbcom case was the secret mailing list. That doesn't evoke much confidence in any promises made now, after it became clear that this time there will be some sort of consequences. Remember the initial denials and claims during the early days of this arbcom case? Pantherskin (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The initial denials were related to the original claim that half of the emails were about "getting Russavia", as I recall. --Martintg (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you recall, but I recall denials of any misbehavior accompanied by claims of forgery and fabrication. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What was said that the archive has not been verified to be untampered with, leaving the topic of how it was obtained aside. As for "misbehavior", Alex Bakharev's inflammatory and prejudicial comment on his initial post rather set the stage; what was reacted to was Alex Bakharev's defamatory (my reputation, my perception) summary. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sanctions presumably prevent damage to Wikipedia by functioning as a deterrent to future such behaviour (by the named parties or others). –xeno^talk 14:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC) (added the word "presumably" due to a conversation on my talk page) –xeno^talk 20:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

But this is straight up "punitive" reason for sanctions (you can't separate deterrent aspect from punishment aspect except in almost non existent cases where a sanction is made for personal reasons). If the purpose of punishment sanctions is to serve as a deterrent, then why bother having a guideline which says that sanctions are not meant to be punitive but preventative at all? Just to add another layer of Wikihypocrisy? At that point it would be just better to come out and say it "we're going to punish you so you learn not to do it again and as a warning to others". But hopefully, Wikipedia is not at that point. Yet.radek (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, then, please show me, for example, any edit in 2009 of mine, talk or article, "damaging" Wikipedia that banning myself would protect WP and deter others. Virtually all the Sturm und Drang here has been over proving the intent of the mailing list was evil and presenting evidence which constructs circumstantial timings, in cases grossly mistaken, to support that view. Per my evidence responding to Offliner, I, for one, was protecting WP content against Offliner's attack content—whereas Offliner paints me as edit-warring where I only reacted to his provocative one-sided edits.

   It's up to ArbCom to decide who was attacking and who was defending. That has nothing to do with whether or not a mailing list existed. As to the purpose of the mailing list, I've already stated that. ArbCom can choose to believe or not. That many here have jumped to accept "Private" = "Plotting" by definition rather speaks to the state of WP. That is not a state I have contributed to in any way.

   Let us deal with the specifics of how WP ended versus where it began 2009 with regard to the EEML members and their opposition and the Baltic/EE content in question, not generalities about situations. That something is true generally or in past experience does not mean it is true specifically in these proceedings. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 14:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not being combative. What I am simply saying, if this is all as egregious and damaging as some make it out to be, starting with the meme that any mailing list exists solely for the purpose of disrupting and damaging Wikipedia, then let's see the evidence of the damage. If I'm going to be convicted of something, I'd prefer the findings of conviction to contain more than unsubstantiated hypotheses on how the mail archive came to be available. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 14:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of a recent edit of yours that was damaging to wikipedia. Attempting to present a person's opinion (which is quoted as her opinion in the source) on a controversial subject as an undisputed fact is a clear violation of WP:ASF. Considering that this was the only time I ever crossed paths with you, I think it can be assumed that this isn't the only damaging edit of yours. This particular revert was also repeated by other members of the mailing list which shows a group effort to disrupt. Don't take this as a personal attack, I'm only answering to your request. Please stop playing innocent. LokiiT (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh LokiiT, the edit diff you provide is a straight up content dispute and its not the job of ArbCom to decide every minor content dispute such as this. For what it's worth, the revert is a removal of words to avoid] and attempted weaseling. The edit in question improved the encyclopedia by attempting to bring an article in accordance with stated Wikipedia guidelines. I'm sorry but it's just not the case that every single edit you disagree with is some kind of a crime on Wikipedia.radek (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Re: Lokiit's, as I recall there is a very long discussion from myself in talk regarding the content of the texts. It's not the person's opinion of the text, they are stating what's in the text, which is either correct or it isn't. If correct, attribution makes it sound like an opinion when it's not (LokiiT's edit is the real "weaseling" here); if not correct, then it's an opinion which needs to be represented as an unsubstantiated allegation. Yet another conversation to be archived as not helping the proceedings. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 20:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"they are stating what's in the text, which is either correct or it isn't." - Exactly. They are stating their interpretation of what's in the text, which is not an indisputable, inarguable interpretation. Whether or not it's true is not for us to decide. Therefore it's an opinion, clearly a disputed one, and thus it requires attribution. Your attempt to turn this around as an attack on me won't work, as everyone here can see for themselves the edit, and compare it to the article cited. LokiiT (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not edited that article before, but do note that attributions are rarely necessary. In fact, attributions are often used incorrectly, in an attempt to make a given fact appear less reliable. They should be used primarily when sources disagree, and there is a need to attribute contradictory (or fringe yet notable) theories to individuals. In this case I am not seeing any other interpretation of the book, so I'd say that if a review in BBC says that the books "justifies" something, than we don't need to attribute it (other than via normal referencing). PS. The proper way to deal with the situation, if you cannot agree on an outcome, is WP:3O/WP:RFC; you may want to ask for opinions on related noticeboards and such. As far as I see it, your reverting of Peters is as unhelpful as him reverting you. Remember WP:BRD: you both reverted once, fine, not discuss it - and if you cannot reach an agreement, ask others to join the discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Attributions of controversial opinions are indeed usually necessary. If someone claims that a history book justifies using terror "as an instrument of development", that needs attribution without question, because obviously no one wrote a history book with the intentions of justifying state terror. This is merely the way one or more persons interprets it. The reason you see no counter opinions is not because they don't exist. And yes, you're absolutely right that the issue wasn't dealt with in the proper manner. However, discussions require more than one party, and I can't ask for a third opinion when I'm already being reverted by 2-3 members of the cabal (and if I do, what are the chances another cabal member won't just pop in to give his "objective" stance?) This is one of the more obvious problems with the cabal. It negates any customary dispute resolution by ensuring that organized numbers will always outmatch any single contributor, or multiple unorganized contributors. This only leads to one conclusion: The cabal wins. Perhaps the opponent gets blocked in the process, or perhaps they just wisely give up. LokiiT (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

LokiiT, et al, something that I have not yet seen on Wikipedia is the fact that The Gulag Archipelago is being mandated as compulsory reading in Russian schools as of September; it's been known about for sometime in Russian press, but whether the western press has picked up on it, I don't know - it doesn't quite fit in with the demonisation that often occurs in western media. The Guardian has done it by the looks of it. Add it to the article, but attribute opinion, which according to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia#Neutral_point_of_view (which Vecrumba was a part of), "No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates." And this is in essence what irks me with this mailing list, and it was hell bent on promoting the truth, when what they should have been doing is attributing opinions. This engaging in advocacy is one reason why I believe that blocks/bans are required. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is basically more flaming but I'll take the bait. No, people on the mailing list did not try to present some kind of "absolute truth". What myself and some others have done is insist on 1) provision of reliable sources, 2) that these sources be represented accurately without weaseling or twisting of words, 3) exclusion of unreliable sources from extremist organizations and individuals (like, say, a certain fascist blogger) and 4) that undue weight is not given to fringe sources (like, say, Dyukov). This was met with obstinacy and stonewalling and delay tactics, with bad faithed pretending that unreliable sources were not in fact unreliable, with random inclusion of irrelevant tags, with "retaliatory" strikes against other articles that some people edited (i.e Offliner on Heinz Nawratil and other disruptive behavior. But at the end of the day everything comes down to reliable sources. And it's the people who have not been able to provide these in content disputes that are now screaming for bans and blocks as a way to short circuit the Wikipedia editorial process. Why bother providing reliable sources if you can get ArbCom to ban your opponent?radek (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I was actually the one who brought up the thing about mandatory reading of the Gulag Archipelago in the Neo-Stalinism article discussion. It kind of puts a hole in the whole "glorify Stalin" angle some people like to take regarding the current administration's views on history. And although it was covered in some of the more objective western media outlets, it wasn't given much attention, unsurprisingly. But yes, you're absolutely right in that this wasn't an isolated incident. I recall the attribution of opinions as facts being one of the biggest problems I came across when editing articles such as the Chechen wars, the Moscow bombings and the Litvinenko poisoning. It's just so easy to remove "according to _____" from the start of a sentence and change people's views entirely. LokiiT (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes and because you provided a reliable source for this piece of information, it's still in the article [6] (despite Russavia's claims above) and no one (IIRC) ever tried to remove it. That's how editing should be done.radek (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

How is your comment relevant? I have never tried to add unsourced material to an article, and the disputed edit above is precisely the opposite; my attempt to be as accurate as possible to the source. LokiiT (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is what I get for trying to commend one of your edits.radek (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies all, I didn't realise that it was in the article. I would have kind of expected it to be in the T.G.A. article, but it wasn't. Didn't even think of checking this article. As to attribution, my rule of thumb, is if it is something that can be disputed -- i.e. it is opinion or interpretation, then it should be attributed. The book mentioned should be attributed, as there is also a line of thought that it may be a balanced judgement on Stalin -- i.e. he was one right son-of-a-bitch, but he also did bring some good to the country. Only if it is fact should it be written as such. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 19:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Xeno: please show me any edit of mine since that arbitration begun that is disruptive and should be prevented from reoccurring. Barring that, I'll quote Peters - show me any of my ~20,000 edits from 2009 that was disruptive and should be prevented from reoccurring. PS. If you find such an edit, please also explain how this is not a satisfactory solution to it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I was commenting generally, I'll leave it up to the arbitrators to determine whether there was disruption. –xeno^talk 17:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess the key words here are "since that arbitration began". Apart from that, your proposal is not a satisfactory solution as it does not address the problem of you working in conjunction with other editors. For example, a self-imposed (although not really self-imposed given the wording you choose) 1RR is all nice and well, but only if you are not able to just ask someone else to do the revert for you on a secret mailing list. Pantherskin (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And do tell how a ban or a block is supposed to prevent me from doing just that...? :> And seriously, look at the evidence. Taking it all at face value (which I am not sure ArbCom members did, since none of that evidence made it to FoF (!)), how many times have I allegedly asked that? Once? Twice? Over 9 months? On what, one article? Which I can pledge not to edit or comment upon for the next 15 months, if you want. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Neither I nor the proposed decision says anything about an outright ban or block. 2. The Fof do incorporate evidence in this succinct summary. 3. Confused here - you both claim that you recognize your errors, but then you vehemently deny your disruption. Is this another example of only acknowledge what has been proven without doubt? 4. I lost count of all your pledges already. 5. What all this makes clear is that a measure is needed that restricts your ability to coordinate edits with other like-minded editors. A topic ban on all list members would be one way to achieve this goal. Although then arbcom should make sure that the more disruptive editors on the other side remain blocked or banned. Pantherskin (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

1. For all practical purposes it's a proposed outright ban (on one of the most dedicated and active Wikipedians around. 2. What evidence? Where's the diffs? There's a reference to some emails, one of them is incorrectly listed twice, I can't find either in the actual archive (though I can make guesses) - and that's beside the fact that the interpretation of the contents and of people's intentions (you know, unobservable stuff in their brains) is not connected to any on Wiki activity. 3. Recognizing some errors (and even the best of editors do make errors in a 9 month period - anyone who thinks they don't has no business interacting with other people, on or off Wikipedia) is different then falsely confessing to every imagined accusation that is being made. 4. That's your problem - the pledges are there and are current. Or are you trying to insinuate something false about past ArbCom cases? 5. Right, let's save Wikipedia by destroying it. Or better yet, to ensure that no coordination takes place how about just banning everyone who ever edited the same article as Piotrus? Let's be serious here.radek (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, blocks or bans will most likely encourage whatever they are meant to prevent. First, any other cabals out there will increase their security to ensure they will not be burned at stake (or ignore it, since discovery of one is a major fluke anyway). Second, since blocked/banned users obviously cannot edit, but others are allowed to edit on their behalf, there is a significant incentive to ask others to do various edits on their behalf (and since banned editors cannot obviously post to RfCs/public wiki noticeboards themselves, they will have no recourse but to ask others to this for them). Whether this will take a form of emails to individuals, discussion groups or a mockery of English Wikipedia rulings for example by editing Simple En Wikipedia and having one's friends repost the content to En Wiki is hardly relevant, I think. The most ironic outcome, of course, will be (or already is...) to prove that such sanctions were either unnecessary in the first place (why did the Copenhagen embassy article had to be added to en Wiki in such a runabout way...? It's uncontroversial and constructive...) or had the opposite effect of the intended (if they lead to further radicalization and "sikret" organization among affected editors). The solution is to reconciliate, engage everyone in rebuilding trust - not to create more martyrs, burnouts or revanchists. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you planning to circumvent the proposed topic ban by asking other editors to edit on your behalf? Are you planning to participate in a secret cabal in the future should a the proposed decision go through? Pantherskin (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment struck by clerk: Pantherskin - If you get yourself elected to ArbCom then you will be free to ask these sorts of questions. Until then, keep this sort of interrogatory nonsense out of ArbCom space, or face the consequences. Manning (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And are you going to stop beating your wife? BTW, you might want to read WP:BLOCK again.radek (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of "circumventing the topic ban" by having other editors edit on someone's behalf. Please observe this chain of events:

1. Russavia, who's topic ban from Russian and Eastern European topics, writes an article on Embassy of Russia in Copenhagen [7] on simple Wiki.

2. Alex Bakharev reposts the article to en:wiki [8] and nominates it for DYK

3. Russavia - who's still topic banned - gets a DYK recognition for the article, and all kinds of folks show up on his talk page to congratulate him on successfully circumventing his topic ban [9]

Now, the question is, did Russavia (or Alex) do anything wrong here? And the answer is NO, neither of them did. WP:BLOCK permits the posting and making of edits for a banned user, provided that whoever does the posting takes full responsibility for the edits. So actually, even though I've been very critical of some of Russavia's past (and current) actions, this one's completely legit.

Hence, your question, Pantherskin, doesn't make even make sense. It's a loaded question designed to imply guilt and nothing more.

The situation outlined above however does suggest that it's probably not us, that you should be worrying about in regard to circumventing bans.radek (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you please confirm whether you are accusing me, or not, of circumventing my ban Radeksz? Because I, nor anyone else, has done no such thing :) --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 02:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that you did NOT break any Wikipedia policies in this particular instance.radek (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool, it's just the "The situation outlined above however does suggest that it's probably not us, that you should be worrying about in regard to circumventing bans." made it look like you were ;) Also, just to correct you, Alex didn't nominate it for DYK -- he was however named as the creator, which is technically correct with the GFDL/CC licencing, he simply placed the DYK notice on my user talk page as he believes that I was the creator of the article. Which I guess I also technically was; albeit on another Wiki :) It's actually no different to say Piotrus taking an article from Polish WP and transferring it here, except in this instance my articles don't require translating. :)) I have made it be known of course that I am editing on Simple English Wikipedia, so what other editors do is up to them, not me. Anyway, it's all good, cheers --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 03:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk Note - I have to go to work and do not have time to fully review any of the above just now. If any of you want to strike your statements so as to avoid unpleasant consequences, you'd better do it in the next few hours. The rule of engagement are at the top of the discussion page. Manning (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, but I strongly disagree with your striking of my rhetorical question to Piotrus. But let me rephrase it in form of a statement, and not a question: Fact is, Piotrus said that a ban or topic doesn't work because editors will circumvent the ban, encourage them to participate in secret cabals and will further radicalize them. All nice and well if Piotrus would speak on behalf of other editors under the threat of a ban, but here it is Piotrus who is under the threat of a topic ban. Pantherskin (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The whistleblower (FoF #3)

The original EEML archive has been deleted soon after my arrival to the list, because I started debating security issues with Digwuren. So, the "whistleblower" could be only one of the original members of the list, including Miacek and me who came when the archive was still available. Only one of these people was mildly "pro-Russian" and might be the "whistleblower". However, any normal whistleblower would simply report the problem to the appropriate authorities (Arbcom). Placing the archive in RapidShare and the sending it in multiple emails could had one purpose: the outing. Doing so would be completely out of character for any member of the list. Hence my suspicions that one of them was actually a "spy", or that outing was done by someone outside the list. Sorry if this sounds improbable.Biophys (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already requested this be stricken as baseless and prejudicial as its only purpose is to support the meme that private communication is evil and all those engaging in it are guilty. That prior conversation here has already been archived by the clerk. ArbCom has no place musing on circumstances and what is, or is not, "likely" without any concrete evidence. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 14:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)