Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:58, 20 June 2007

User:Otto ter Haar objection moved from page dor misplacement

The above request is in my opinion biased and unfounded. The above request is a reaction on the incident reported by Petri Krohn earlier today. Support for Petri by me and other editors can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Independent_view. I have first hand experience of edit warring and incivility by requesters Digwuren and Alexia. Otto 20:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put it back. Sorry. Misread the instructions myself. work needed on the form tho.--Alexia Death 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute"

Posting a flame on Petri Krohn's talkpage, accusing him of inserting weird fantasies, of being a WP:TROLL, etc etc, emphatically does not equate to attempted dispute resolution—it's more likely to escalate than to resolve the dispute. I must ask the nominators to get some serious attempts at dispute resolution, by at least two people, going before 15:00, 21 June, or the page will be de-listed and deleted. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for what can be called a serious attempt. Note especially this passage:
"talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it."
Digwuren, I would strongly advise you to get a neutral intermediary to mediate the conflict, as the situation between you and PK seems to be too inflamed for you to speak to him, even in the name of "dispute resolution," in a spirit of conciliation and compromise. (The diffs by Suva and Alexia Death, which consist of referring PK to your post, with some added aggressive remarks, are even weaker as "dispute resolution".) You can apply at WP:MEDCAB, if they will take a case urgently, or ask any experienced, truly neutral, user to help out.
Meanwhile, I have moved the RFC from "approved" to "candidate" pages. It certainly is not approved. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I am not yet sure about the other aspects, but I'm pointing out that my original complaint was certainly not intended as a flame, but as a thorough presentation of the issues, complete with a crosscut of the evidence. So far, the most thorough discussions regarding patterned WP:NPOV/WP:OR had occurred on Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, and had not openly proposed a solution to the dispute.

As for "failure to pursue discussion in good faith" -- I believe I have done everything that can be reasonably expected. I have been open; I have listed particular complaints; I have given two advance notices ([1], [2]) of the WP:RFC/U preparations, and in the second one explicitly sought comments (which, for obvious reasons of DR policy, would at least have postponed the RFC step). If I'm continously ignored, and in worse cases insulted in response, this would seem to be the limit of my powers; repeated pestering of the talk page would have been much ruder. Digwuren 21:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the reason of me referring to Digwurens post was because I agreed with his views. I found his writing to be good enough and I did not feel the need to duplicate it. I just want same answers and same results as Digwuren and probably other editors. So in my opinion the request can be concidered as separate and independent. Suva 10:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell us what needs to be done, because all attempts to have a discussion with this user have ended in us getting insulted.--Alexia Death 21:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also as I understand mediation cabal is for content disputes... whats out there for insults and acusations and threats of arbcom?--Alexia Death 21:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry if I seem a bit short fused at the moment. Ive put a lot of effort in putting this together in the hopes to some time have not as nerve wrecking and and hostile environment when trying to improve Wikipedia but its starting to feel that it has all been futile and I'm not cut out for this afterall...--Alexia Death 21:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digwuren, you can't expect people to research your interactions with Petri to look for your dispute resolution attempts. As it says at the top of the RFC page, "at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed... The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts." Evidence means diffs. You provided one diff, so that's the evidence I go by. (Alexia death and Suva merely provided diffs that refer to your diff.) I know you also mention earlier attempts, but it's really for you to point us to these, via diffs; it's not for us to dig for them. I haven't seen these attempts, but, well, frankly, if this is in your book "evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute", I rather doubt that the earlier attempts are exactly conciliatory, either. Because from where I stand, that's a flame. It's not about your intention—whether or not it was "intended as a flame"—but about the result. The tone. The attacks.

Alexia, it's often difficult to separate behavior issues from content disputes. That certainly seems to be the case here, going by your own "Statement of the dispute": "Long-term pattern of attempts to represent private fantasies as historical fact coupled with hostile attitude towards any criticism, regularly leading to ethnic insults against Baltic editors." See how the problem starts (again, according to you) with content— historical inaccuracy— but ends in behavior ("ethnic insults")? That's normal, and I can't see why the case wouldn't be appropriate for MedCab. However, I would rather recommend an experienced "amateur" mediator, because it should be faster to arrange that. Consider who you know, or advertise on your portal page or something. If Petri should ignore or refuse such mediation, by the way, you're done: you have made attempts and they have failed. Whether or not he agrees, make a note as soon as possible about your ongoing efforts, under "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". For any other questions you have, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Bishonen | talk 23:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, I can expect people to research the issue. That's why it is called RFC: it implies that people take a look, and then comment.

However, I can add a more detailed list of my previous attempts.

Yes, the diff you're referring to is such evidence in my book. By necessity, it has the form of "You have done wrong; here's why. It is wrong. Stop it." You can not reasonably interpret detailed presentation of wrongdoing as "attacks". If that were true, all WP:DR would be either beating around the bush, or attacks. The tone is of regular formal English language; the way official documents get written. Digwuren 06:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not "content issue". Content issue implies disagreement regarding which set of sourcable content items is the best for Wikipedia. Petri Krohn's behaviour, however, is all too often fabricating "content" to be included in articles, or presented on talk pages in support of such. That's why I called it 'fantasies'.

If there was a genuine difference of POVs, reasonable debate would solve it, and would have solved it, and NPOV would have been served. If Petri Krohn had only been incivil, yet shown due diligence in article-crafting, I personally wouldn't have complained, either. This is why it is important that all three sides of the issue are represented in the complaint. Digwuren 06:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(My remark about "content issue" was in response to Alexia's worry about the Mediation Cabal not being suitable for helping out here.) I'm afraid none of what you say is relevant to the issue of dispute resolution, Digwuren. I've done my best to explain what the problem is. Please re-read my posts and consider, in your own interest, the possibility that I know what I'm talking about. Unless some proper dispute resolution is attempted, the RFC will be deleted after 48 hours, because that's how the system works. Bishonen | talk 08:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I completely agree with Bishonen here. In my opinion, a proper conflict resolution attempt should look like "I believe you have done wrong; here's why. ~~It is wrong. Stop it.~~ I disagree with you. Let us work together to resolve this issue. Here is what I propose [...]. My reasons are [...]." Your original "formal form" resembles an ultimatum more than anything. --Illythr 16:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petri Krohn's behavior

Petri Krohn was already admonished for tag abuse and poor behaviour inWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia/Proposed_decision back in February 2007. The outcome of that arbitration case was to place the article Occupation of Latvia under probation, the terms being "If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages." While the other particpants in that case have since moderated their behaviour, Petri Krohn has continued disruptive edits in articles and pages that are reasonably related to the original case. The evidence in this case demonstrates this. Martintg 01:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What actually is most worrying is that Petri isn't even trying to discuss things, he just keeps pushing his POV without discussion. For example, see [3] or [4]- there are more. If asked on his own talk page, the best we can get are insults such as "do not feed the trolls".

And accusations that this WP:RFC/U was filed because his WP:AN/I "Korp. Estonia on wheels" are clearly baseless. He was notified of upcoming WP:RFC/U long before he filed this insulting and baseless accusation - diffs have been presented before. Let me repeat it once more: we are not sockpuppets or meatpuppets. We do not know each other in real life. As far as I know, we do not communicate outside of English Wikipedia. We do, however, have one thing in common - and that is Petri himself. His blatant POV pushing and repeated insults are actually those things that have made us interested in certain topics and more active - we just cannot stand by when he inserts lies to Estonia-related articles.

As for Digwuren being "single-purpose" account... yes, definitely. His purpose is to better Wikipedia, like all of us. Or are you, Petri, here for some other reason? Practically all of us have stopped major edits to WP - quite frankly, because of you. All we can do is patrol the articles and try to keep facts straight. Is that what you wanted all along, Petri?

DLX 03:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a new thread with a new heading for you, Martintg and DLX, as your posts don't address the ""Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute"" issue. I hope you don't mind. Please change the heading to anything you like, or make it two headings, or whatever. Your posts address many things, so I don't really know what to put. I just want to keep the dispute resolution thread on topic. Bishonen | talk 08:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

P.S. Martin, I just noticed that your post also appears in the dispute resolution section on the RFC page. I don't understand what it's doing there. You should write an Outside view or something. I haven't meddled with it, but the RFC is very long and elaborate, and keeping its sections logical and relevant would really help readers. Bishonen | talk 08:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Canvassing?

Could User:Digwuren please state whom he warned about this RfC? As far as I see, among editors expected to support Petri Krohn, only Otto and Ghirla have been invited. [User:Turgidson] has been invited, [User:Anonimu]] has not. I hope nobody will accuse me or Petri Krohn of WP:CANVAS if I warn a number of others who may be interested in this RfC? --Pan Gerwazy 12:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notified people whom I expected to have an opinion on this issue. Anonimu has not been active on the topics relevant to this case, thus there was no reason to notify him. Digwuren 13:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the faith I guess. Everyone doesn't have time to notify everybody. I am not sure how related to the topic Anonimu is, except he declares himself as communist and is possibly occupation denialist. I am not sure whether his actions towards this RfC are done related to Petri Krohns actions rather than different POV from Estonian editors. Suva 12:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Pan Gerwazy question: I became aware of this RfC completely independently of any invitation or notification by a third party. I made this minor contribution to the RfC, regarding a totally strange "stalking" accusation that Petri Krohn made against me in an edit summary (I had been editing the page on Vladimir Socor for a while, when he came in to make a revert, without even bothering to read the long and complicated discussion on the talk page for the article, I think it's fair to assume, though who knows exactly why he did it -- he never bothered to explain his action to me). And I did that almost a full day before anyone left a message about the RfC on my talk page. So, please, do not say I have been "canvassed" — I do my own stuff here at WP, without anyone pulling my strings, thank you very much. Turgidson 12:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This gives me an opportunity to respond. Turgidson is right about the false accustion; he was not stalking me. I only checked the article history afterward, and found that Turgidson had been editing the article earlier. The only explanation I can offer for this mishap, is that at the time I was under constant stalking by User:Digwuren, and was wery suspicious of anyone who automatically reverted me. I also offer my apologies to Turgidson. -- Petri Krohn 16:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The other cases listed are however clear examples of Digwuren stalking me. He (or his automatic script) reverted my edits in articles he had never edited before, and most likely were not on his watch list. -- Petri Krohn 16:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to admit, that I have, do and will "stalk" some editors whose edits are on the suspicious side to monitor the factual correctness and NPOV. I would concider Petri Krohn a person with agenda to push one POV into previously NPOV articles, and those articles need to be corrected from time to time. So yes, I take a look at his contribution log from time to time. Also at some other editors logs to find out articles calling for watchlist and/or discussion. This is not a WP:STALKing, but just productive way to improve wikipedia. I think many if not most wikipedians use other users contribution logs from time to time. Suva 16:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 :::This gives me an opportunity to respond. Turgidson is right about the false accustion; he was not stalking me. I only checked the article history afterward, and found that Turgidson had been editing the article earlier. The only explanation I can offer for this mishap, is that at the time I was under constant stalking by [[User:Digwuren]], and was wery suspicious of anyone who automatically reverted me. I also offer my apologies to Turgidson. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] 16:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 :::P.S. The other cases listed are however clear examples of Digwuren stalking me. He (or his automatic script) reverted my edits in articles he had never edited before, and most likely were not on his watch list. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] 16:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
+:::: I do have to admit, that I have, do and will "stalk" some editors whose edits are on the suspicious side to monitor the factual correctness and NPOV. I would concider Petri Krohn a person with agenda to push one POV into previously NPOV articles, and those articles need to be corrected from time to time. So yes, I take a look at his contribution log from time to time. Also at some other editors logs to find out articles calling for watchlist and/or discussion. This is not a [[WP:STALK]]ing, but just productive way to improve wikipedia. I think many if not most wikipedians use other users contribution logs from time to time. [[User:Suva|Suva]] 16:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)