Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:16, 4 October 2007

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion: Clarification of parties

1) I supported acceptance of this arbcom case under the impression that the request involved me as a member of accused obscure group "Tartu accounts". At this point I request that ALL accounts considered to be part of this ArbCom be IDENTIFIED and NOTIFIED. Proceeding and making decisions behind peoples back without declaring them parties to this case is not possible. --Alexia Death the Grey 18:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Rolling identification of parties (and their notification as appropriate) is a standard part of the Arbitration process. I would ask Irpen, as with all parties to an Arbitration request, to take care in suggesting users as parties. However, I think it would be ill-advised for us to restrict ourselves to a set of users that happen to be selected in the first 24 hours of the Arbitration request being opened. James F. (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support. Such identification requires an analysis of both checkuser results and editing patterns. Since several of the involved are figures "known in Estonia IT-circles", there is no difficulty to engage in remote IP editing. Most computer-literate persons know how to ssh, rlogin, use X-windows remotely, etc. --Irpen 19:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not hard to edit from another IP. But IP-s cost money and having access to sites that are not open proxies is not a trivial thing. Also doing edit pattern analysis is rather pointless for users that due to sock fishing have forsaken their anonymity and are known individuals like I, Sander Säde and Digwurren(Erik Jesse to a lesser degree). That we are not socks is easily seen with a simple Google search. And once you exclude us who are left? Name them!--Alexia Death the Grey 20:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the comment by Jdforrester. Clerk action: moved by Cbrown1023 talk 00:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of this statement, I think following people should also be considered parties to this case:

Petri Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - as the initiator of the "Korp!Estonia" accusations and the initial sock fisher.
Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - as repeater of these accusations and the source of much disruption and slurs.
FayssalF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - as maker of dubious hacking claims.

--Alexia Death the Grey 05:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. It is very unclear to whom we are referring to as parties, that needs to be made clearer, I've added five I saw outright, but as you know, that can be modified at ArbCom's discretion. Cbrown1023 talk 20:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to you including Eric Jesse as one of the parties without his consent and you ought to reverse his inclusion unless he agrees. What Irpen appear to be supporting is a fishing expedition. Either Irpen himself should name and notify the parties he believes to be members of this so-called "Tartu based group", or he should withdraw it. His baseless accusations of using ssh, rlogin, use X-windows remotely is an example of attempting to generate hysteria for the purposes of a Witchhunt directed against a group of editors who happen to be ethnic Estonian. These scurrilous accusations could equally be levelled at Irpen and his supporters in this case or anyone for that matter, how can anyone in Wikipedia defend themselves from this. That's why this whole "Tartu based accounts" thing is totally wrong: no members explicitly identified, other than being Estonian; no articulation of specific wrong doings, other than alleged membership of a group. Irpen's complaint against Digwuren is one thing, but including this so called "Tartu based accounts" is gaming the arbitration process to unjustifibly harass a group of otherwise uninvolved editors for no other reason that they are ethnic Estonian. Martintg 20:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how it works, users are added as parties and notified. If they wish to be removed, they can make a motion. Furthermore, please wait for the arbitration Committee to clarify the parties as noted in this motion. Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, why didn't you wait until the arbitration Committee clarified the parties before adding Erik Jesse, just a cursory look at his edit history will reveal he has absolutely no involvement in any of Irpen's allegations [1] Martintg 00:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was already a part of the case when listed on the given Requests for checkuser cases provided as "Parties". I just clarified it further, the Arbitration Committee can remove or add whom they feel, but not all party members are affected by all decisions and even non-party members may be affected. Cbrown1023 talk 01:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five? I see only two statements, mine and Erik Jesses moved. I still expect Irpen to set the baseline as to who he is accusing. BTW, DLX is Sander Säde. He took his IRL name after last sockfishing.--Alexia Death the Grey 21:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were on the checkuser cases listed as outlining the party members. Cbrown1023 talk 00:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion for ArbCom to direct FayssalF (talk · contribs)to present the evidence for public scrutiny on the alleged hacking accusation or to withraw the accusation.

2) Accusations without proof are slander, and there is no policy preventing FayssalF (talk · contribs) from releasing details on an attack that did not happen on Wikipedia. I have no doubt he had a security incident but I am very doubtful that he manages to prove any reasonable connection to Digwuren. --Alexia Death the Grey 11:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Committee is examining evidence received regarding this matter. Kirill 00:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Do you want me to make it public so that people in Oceania and Alaska would know about my IP or the Tallinn based IP? It is to the Arbitration Committee that i'd be handing it. At their discretion, they would judge what is the appropriate action to be taken. Be patient please. Thanks -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S It is a Tallinn based IP and there is such a likely possibility that it may be related to anyone editing Wikipedia from Tallinn. There aren't hundreds of suspected people. There are only a couple of suspected editors who can edit Wikipedia from Tallinn and try to hack someone laptap in or just near Morocco in the same time when Digwuren was blocked. Please wait for the Arbitrators opinion on the matter. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you can give us the "evidence" where you replace IP's with "x.x.x.x". However, I must admit that this whole affair starts to smell extremely fishy. You have still failed to tell how Digwuren could get your IP and you insist that you show evidence only to the arbitrators - who may or may not know something about hacking and evidence for it (ie, it would take about five minutes to falsify a log file, ten minutes to do that with a screenshot).

Also, how many "attacks" do you get every day? I get about one port scan every 30 minutes or so - haven't paid attention to them for a long while.

As the good name of an editor can be destroyed by your accusations - and you are almost certainly on a dynamic IP (ie. simple modem reboot will change your IP), I recommend that you either withdraw the accusations or present the evidence for everybody to see and discuss. This is too serious to try to resolve it behind the scenes.

Sander Säde 03:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered 3 people and now it is your time. Not behind the scenes my friend. Who said that? Arbitrators will show it to you. So what is the difference. Who are you again?

Who said many and who said everyday? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment very narrowly and carefully per WP:BEANS. There are ways to find other users IP addresses that are available not only for admins but also for non-admins. I will just say this: there is no guaranteed way but there are ways to seek and find. Being an admin helps but only somewhat (admins don't have checkuser rights, true) but it may help indeed. The chance of success varies both by seeker and by a "hider". I won't say a word more here but the possibility for some pulled in front of this ArbCom to find Fayssal's IP and the possibility for Fayssal to find an IP of the other ArbCom party and match it with an attacker's IP are non-bogus even though there is no guarantee that this is what happened and/or such a discovery took place or was possible in this case. Please do not waste your time to pressure me to say more in public. I will answer further questions asked by Arbcom members and anyone who I consider 100% trustworthy by email. I completely understand Fayssaff's refusal to disclose details here especially since he said he disclosed them to the ArbCom.

For me personally, this incident is not the primary issue of this ArbCom. Digwuren was asking for it in lots of other ways. --Irpen 00:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a major distraction to the primary case. Computer intrusion is a serious issue, but also a highly technical one. I wonder if ArbCom is the correct place for this, whether they are (with all due respect) sufficiently technically competent to examine it. I also question why Fassyl kept a lid on this event that occurred in July until this ArbCom case. There must be other venues that Fassyl could and should have reported it to when this alleged intrusion occurred back in July. Surely his delay in raising this issue for weeks risks the evidence becoming stale. Martintg 01:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think you are correct in not wanting to release your own IP, for obvious privacy issues. However I don't think there can be an privacy issue involved in releasing the Tallinn based IP address of the alleged attacker, afterall, we see IP addresses every day anonymously editing Wikipedia. As I recall, Digwuren is based in Tartu (see the talk page in the checkuser case [2]), so I don't quite see how you could associate a Tallinn based IP to someone based in Tartu. Martintg 01:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S Phrases like in and around or in or just near are common idioms in english, so I wouldn't put much weight in seeing that turn of phrase as some kind of admission that Digwuren some how inappropriately knows you also edit Wikipedia in countries next to Morocco. Martintg 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, please understand that i am an administrator and that means that i carry the trust of the community and therefore i deprive myself from any would-be irresponsible act which would endanger that trust. Apart from that i am not a legal expert nor an arbitrator in order for me to decide what to do for now. I am waiting for the word of the ArbCom members. If you understand very well what i am saying you'd see that privacy reasons include the Tallinn IP as well.

As for that Digwuren was or is based in Tartu i must say that i have no idea. All i know is that at the time i blocked an editor based in Estonia, i discovered the attempts. He could be at Tartu but how do i know? I have no idea Martin. And sincerely Martin, would you turn your eyes or shrug your shoulders if you discover an intrusion attempt from let's say Colombia exactly at the time you'd have blocked someone from Colombia? I tried not to talk about it but kept the evidence if it would happen again. However, lately i've seen the Tartu IP issue around Wikipedia venues and thought that my experience is worth mentioning. Would you have acted differently Martin?

I hope you consider my concerns so i won't be repeating myself by responding to every single request. My position is clear on that matter as expressed several times. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S Re Morocco or near of it. Martin, i see things and ask questions. They are not random things. I see a connection and i ask questions. Maybe i am wrong and maybe i am right and this is why we are here. If i was accused but really innocent i'd really be calm and won't be impatient. It is not me or you who will judge but the ArbCom. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum By the way, divulging only the Tallinn IP doesn't make sense at all. You'd need a scene and a target. So to show the scene and the target i'd be obliged to show my IP. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already know the scene and the target, you and your laptop, so your IP is irrelevant. Divulging the Tallinn IP will allow us to determine the source of the alleged attack. Once we know the source, the only question that needs to be answered is: can we associate this source with Digwuren. Martintg 02:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you really consider that evidence? What if i tell you it is X.X.X.X? It doesn't make sense Martin. The evidence is contained in report w/ the attacker and the target IP, the level of the attack (this is important as well), and the time and date. So how is possible for you to accept just the attacker IP as an evidence? Why are you still insisting man? Edwiren or not Edwiren IP. The attack happened at the time of his block from Estonia and as i said several times there aren't millions of people whom we can suspect. If it is not Digwuren it would be User:X who may be Digwuren sock or Digwuren meat or friend or just totally unrelated. Please stop insisting Martin. You are just wasting your time and mine as well. Who are you by the way? Admin, Arbitrator, a legal authority? To whom you deliver evidence in real-life? To the court Martin. So please save us some time. - FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your refusal to come public. You CAN give out the evidence without compromising your privacy! You can divulge following info.

1) What kind of an attack

2) The attackers IP

3) Your rationale on how Digwuren is supposed to have obtained your IP.

Your continued refusal to do so is a sign that you have no real evidence.--Alexia Death the Grey 04:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S As to the trust of community, you have some warped ideas about that. I personally cant trust someone that throws around dubious hacking accusations and refuses to give out any proof.--Alexia Death the Grey 04:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexia, may I ask you to tone down this aggressive rhetoric? Nobody is going to discuss his/her IPs on this page. As for "lack of evidence", what's the point of coming up with false allegations against Estonia-based accounts? Do you take Fayssal for another Estonia-basher? Since the country has been trumpeting its recent involvement in what it calls "cyber-warfare" against Russia, it is only reasonable to assume that Estonia-based accounts may be more savvy in these matters than accounts based in other parts of Europe. The point to hold in mind is that "the main figures" of the dispute are "more or less known in Estonia IT-circles", as Suva has put it. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't think it reasonable to make those kinds of assumptions. Allegations where basic evidence is kept secret from the accused goes against all notions of natural justice. No one is asking anyone to reveal their own IP address, but the IP address of the attacker. Having your country's internet infrastructure crippled by Russian based accounts is more an indication of the tech savy of Russian based accounts. It is more likely that some bot created by a russian account probed Fayssal's computer via some infected computer in Tallinn. Martintg 23:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexia, please make sure i am not joking and stop your nonsense. I refuse to give it to you and obviously the ArbCom would make it public. You are going to see it of course. Do you think i am keeping it for myself or not having anything at all? Your continued refusal to do so is a sign that you have no real evidence. Do you believe i got nothing to do just create a story and come here to waste my time w/ you trying to mislead you or what?. Nonsense. So please stop it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but my IT-professionals mind cannot comprehend your obstinacy. You refuse to even give a rationale on how Digwuren is supposed to know your IP... Is the answer to that one that you have none? Because if that is true the whole accusation is smoke and mirrors--Alexia Death the Grey 07:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. Present the information or take back your accusations. I am quite sure Digwuren and all any other estonian wikipedia editors, are all quite educated and I bet they wouldn't try to hack your computer. They are definitely older than 12.

I am also interested in evidence because my computers are able to do something which can be considered "intrusion attempt." I have security measures installed which sometimes portscan other computers. Whenever someone tries to attack my computer, it starts logging all information about the event to remote location. During this event, my computer may do portscan, operating system detection and service version detection on the attacker to make sure if the attacker is infected with some sort of worm or has known security vulnerabilities which could be exploited. (Software also has knowledge of known types of worm attacks, so it won't portscan computers which can be identified as zombies right away). If the intrusion is successful to my computer I can use the evidence to present to police, but there is no point in reporting some hacked or infected machines, as the owner of the machine is probably unaware of the event.

Just as I said before, there were some intrusion attempts from Morocco at that time frame. And the computers were counterscanned. Scan results don't show any known vulnerabilities or worms. So your "Intrusion Attempt" might be my computer counterscanning an attacker. But that means you had to attack my computer first. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Suva (talk • contribs)

Suva. How would you explain to me that among all the IP listed in the software report at that particular day and moment, the one flagged as the highest level of threat is the one i am talking about? Do you have any idea why? I've got others hours before that incident but all of them are from Latin America, US, Canada, etc... They were all flagged as medium and low. This is another question. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a clue what that "highest level threat" means? Is it a portscan? A viral activity? What? Without that info this discussion is pointless.--Alexia Death the Grey 07:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds plausible, being an admin, FayssalF would certainly know your IP address. Do you still have the records of the intrusion attempt from Morocco? Perhaps he was attempting some amateur detective work and was probing Estonia based accounts for some reason, and triggered youf computer to automatically counter-probe? Martintg 06:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another nonsense and harassment. Who told you that admins know IPs? Please read CheckUser policy and how admin can have access to the tool. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not sound plausible, it sounds like something out of X files, a total fantasy flight. But it sounds MORE plausible than the original accusation itself. As to harassment... Thats the name Id give to this whole accusation...--Alexia Death the Grey 07:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I still have the records. But I won't present them here yet. For security reasons and because I am not the one who started the case. If it comes out that the accused "hacker" came from one of my IP addresses I am sure to take it up in ~~FayssalF adminship review. This is clear misuse of administrative powers.~~ That kind of detective work is not only unethical, it is also illegal, atleast in Estonia. Suva 07:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that admins can't see the IP addresses. But during the BlockFest I was blocked aswell. I was shortly unblocked after an hour, but unblocking administrator forgot to remove the autoblock. So I was ipblocked when I came back. I requested autoblock removal. I just discovered that my IP address was publicly visible until few minutes ago, when I removed the autoblock notice from my talk page. Suva 07:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to recognise Petri Krohn as a party

3) Petri Krohn's rôle was crucial in executing the Big Sock Fishing incident (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren) that Irpen used to define the parties, and he has repeatedly made threats that the ArbCom will, in various ways, punish Estonian editors. It's peculiar he is not yet listed as a party in the first large-scale arbcom involving Estonian editors. Digwuren 20:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Supported.--Alexia Death the Grey 05:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully supported. Petri was first to show Digwuren that it pays to misbehave and it is allowed to insult other editors. Sander Säde 05:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think Petri Krohn's role certainly needs to be examined and how the behaviour of this experienced editor may have influenced the subsequent behaviours of other less experienced editors. Martintg 06:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a party already? I am suprised.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen hasn't managed to name even Estonian "parties". I have no idea if I am involved - and if yes, then exactly why. Sander Säde 17:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DLX is a party, that user page redirects to you. DrKiernan 12:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I change my name in the "party" list then? Sander Säde 05:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to take this motion seriously given Digwuren's inappropriate creation of {{Big Sock Fishing}} redirecting to the checkuser case on him. --Deskana (talky) 13:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deskana, I am not sure if it is inappropriate as you refer to it. The opposing editors use the reference to the RFCU case all the time, to discredit Digwuren or any other user who was in the case, or even those who wasn't. Digwuren added context to the case with that template for easyer linking into discussion. The event as he calls it "big sock fishing" was made in assumption that if you throw enough editors from one small country to one checkuser case, there is big chance that some of them are under same ISP and thus in same IP range. Because of that it is "sock fishing". Suva 15:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deskana, please note that when Petri started the case he knew full well that we were different people, he even knew some of our real names due to understanding networking as he admitted in the case. If someone files an RFCU knowing that implicated people are distinct there is reason to suspect that the person was abusing the process in hopes of making the opposition to go away and that Digwuren called as a joke "Big Sock Fishing" with a pretty picture of a fish. Are jokes no longer allowed? If that is the case, im not surprised about editors leaving en masse due to wiki stress.--Alexia Death the Grey 15:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it is not just any pretty fish; this is the fish from {{Template:Fishing}}:

CheckUser is not for fishing. Digwuren 02:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suva, I have been careful to not express any opinion on the case. The template is still entirely inappropriate. Alexia Death, if Digwuren wants to joke about, then he can do it in his userspace, not the template space. Not that I believe for one second that this was any form of joke. --Deskana (talky) 00:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take you by your word and recreate the template in userspace. Digwuren 01:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deskana, I have great respect for you, but here I think you are overreacting. Humorous nickname "Big Sock Fishing" has been the victims way of referring to the case for some time and can you blame us knowing the way the case played out? I agree, the template does not belong in template space, because it is highly specific to a group and should not be used outside its context.So the only fault I see is misplacement and that assuming good faith can be attributed to not knowing better and making a mistake.--Alexia Death the Grey 07:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the appropriateness of this template has any bearing on the validity of this motion, given the alleged abuse of the checkuser process by someone who subsequantly admitted they knew many of the editors were distinct. Since the form of this motion appears to be an issue, I've corrected it. Martintg 01:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern, but considering that this checkuser will be a central incident in this arbcom, and thus, will benefit greatly from a simple name, I reinserted the reference. This time, I created the template in userspace, as recommended by Deskana. Digwuren 01:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the template as either a joke or as inappropriate. Maybe it should be on user page, but that beats the purpose of having it in first place. I am a person who thinks that rules are made to help people. So as long as, something doesn't damage anyone's interests, and as long as it benefits someone, it should be allowed. I don't see how the template harmed anyone. It benefited digwuren for not having to type out the whole text and image. So I don't see any problem with it. Suva 06:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to direct Irpen to present his case within a reasonable timeframe

4) The arbcom acceptance discussion took over a week. By now, more than another week has passed since the arbitration was accepted. In about two hours, twenty full days will have passed from the time he made his original request. Yet, Irpen has made no move to elaborate on his accusations, or to present comprehensive evidence, or even to clarify the party list. Sander Säde has already pointed out that his true intention might be holding up a sword of Damocles rather than arbitration. This would constitute clear abuse of process, and as thus, such situation is against the spirit of the whole idea of arbitration.

(For contrast, it might be interesting to consider Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Evidence. That one was accepted two days later than this one, and the evidence page has been quite lively.)

Accordingly, in order to protect the integrity of the arbitration process, the credibility of the Arbitration Committee, and prevent abuse, the Arbitration Committee should direct Irpen to present his case. Digwuren 15:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three full weeks have now passed from Irpen's original request. Digwuren 23:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight -- in about 16 hours --, the 25-day mark will have passed. (And, to support the idea of arbitration as Sword of Damocles, Grafikm_fr and Irpen have been sighted trying to pretend the unpresented arbcom case indicates guilt on Digwuren's part.) It might be appropriate to throw a party of celebration. Digwuren 03:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has happened. Considering that Irpen has not even properly defined the parties, apparently instead preferring to us the arbcom case as an ill-defined smear directed generally against Estonian editors, I will now tag the four primary pages of the arbcom case for {{WikiProject Estonia}}, so all editors using Sander Säde's script of monitoring Estonia-related articles can easily see the proceedings. Digwuren 01:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the tagging. Digwuren 01:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: I am sorry but, as an arbitrator has indicated as well, tagging arbitration pages to fall within a Wikiproject category is not appropriate. Newyorkbrad 02:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Supported - It is getting ridiculous. Accused are entitled to see the evidence of conduct that has dragged them here. --Alexia Death the Grey 17:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supported. Irpen seems to have plenty of time for other Wikipedia activities - while we have even no actual knowledge why we are dragged into this. It has been more then a week since the case was accepted. Sander Säde 05:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize my responsibility to present the evidence in a timely manner. Note, however, that it is just one week (not three) since the case was accepted and created including the evidence page. One week is an acceptable amount of time, I believe. Also, my original statement included plenty of diffs, more than a typical statement, apparently enough to convince the arbs to accept the case because they do not accept cases based on the diffless words alone.

Anyway, more diffs on Digwuren's behavior are coming to the evidence page, and I am wrapping up too. --Irpen 01:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just Digwurens behavior? I am still waiting Evidence of MY alleged wrongdoings and so do all others implicated by this class action. I expect that evidence also be presented in a sensible time frame.--Alexia Death the Grey 08:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Alternatively, ArbCom dismisses the case against the so-called "Tartu based accounts". No need to continue this, Irpen has failed to concretely articulate his issue with these people, let alone provide any evidence, and plenty of time has elapsed for him to do so. Martintg 17:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Irpen, a very active commentator at my ArbCom, has promised to present evidence there several times - but in the end, failed to do so. It is suprising that a user so active in discussions is so hard pressed to present any concrete evidence in form of diffs...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, thank you for your concern. I presented plenty of diffs at your arbcom case. And I did not even ask for yours to be accepted, if you recall. But since you brought it up, my participation in your arbcom was broken following the discovery of your disgusting attack page that you maintained for months to unload on myself at the opportune time (that you still managed to find nothing after such a meticulous months-long operation is also a relevant although a separate issue.) This discovery led to a longest Wikibreak I ever took to get over such action by a person who I once respected. That your personal standards of decency permit such meticulous collection of material against your fellow editors, is a great convenience I congratulate you with. Unlike you, I resent such digging though other people's edits and collecting them to be used one day. Therefore, it takes me longer to collect them now.

Nevertheless, I gave many diffs in my original statement (many more than a standard evidence statement at ArbCom) and I realize my responsibility to compose another statement at the evidence page and that I am getting late. I apologize for testing people's patience. I need a couple of more days to make myself finish such an unpleasant work. Still there is a lot of evidence already in my original statement. --Irpen 07:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, evidence of your and your friends wrongdoings (copied to ArbCom evidence pages), is 'an attack page' aimed at you. Because, of course, you did no wrong and any such statement, even in ArbCom evidence section, would be nothing but a pure attack at your person. And that ArbCom ignored your comments and failed to recognize my evidence as 'an attack page', or that the ArbCom issued an amnesty for real and alleged past transgressions, of course doesn't stop you from repeating the accusations that I had an attack page, smearing my name in various off-topic discussion, and presumably will not stop you from doing that for years to come. I am thus not suprised that this ArbCom workshop has several proposals aimed at curbing such behaviour ('Baseless accusations are uncivil', 'No unproven accusations') - and your posts here only increase their importance.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

5) This matter concerns all disruptive editing related to Estonian-Russian ethnic conflict, particularly those who edited regarding the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn controversy. Any editor reasonably believed to have engaged in disruptive editing may be noticed in and evidence may be presented regarding them. If evidence is presented regarding an editor, they should be noticed in.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. What we need to deal with. Fred Bauder 18:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

In interest of factual accuracy, "ethnic conflict" ought to be replaced with "political conflict". Digwuren 18:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are Civility issues ignored by this scope statement?--Alexia Death the Grey 04:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this i has already been listed as a proposed decision. I have three objections to that in this shape.

1) The conflict is not as much ethnic as it is ideological and political. Evidence to that are the ridiculous holocaust denial accusations. At the root is different understanding of the events after WWII and usually failure to accept that there was anything wrong in the way Soviet union acted or with the union itself in spite what sources are presented by some editors.

2) Limiting the scope to Estonia related articles only is overly restrictive. The same disputes happen over and over again across the whole Eastern block unsurprisingly between the same group of Soviet minded people and other editors.

3) It completely ignores other issues raised that need to be either confirmed or debunked once and for all. Theres still the matter of the in my mind highly dubious hacking accusation, accusation of some sort of cabalism and issues of civility and flame waring in talks.--Alexia Death the Grey 19:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agreed. Bronze Soldier of Tallinn controversy seems to have raised passions in some, leading to the current situation. BTW, the conflict is not strictly ethnic, some Estonians support the Russian position (eg. Arnold Meri), and some Russians support the Estonian position (e.g Yelena Bonner) Martintg 22:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly acceptable, as long as Alexia Death's concerns are taken into account. Digwuren 23:27, 4

September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but, in my opinion portraying this as an Ethnic conflict is highly irresponsible. Not only because similar problems involving the same editors have been noted elsewhere on articles that have nothing to do with Estonia. Like for example Talk:Occupations_of_Latvia, Talk:Soviet_occupation_of_Romania not to mention the good old Talk:Soviet_Invasion_of_Poland/Archive_1. Not only because several editors involved have been identified as from a diverse ethnic and national origin. Starting from the Down Under ending with editors whose first language is Swedish. But mostly because the alleged "Estonian-Russian ethnic conflict" would involve real people out there. Including ethnic Russians living in Estonia. So once someone comes up with an idea on WP that there is an ethnic conflict, can those people go to work tomorrow in peace, in case there is "Estonian-Russian ethnic conflict" out there? So please, I urge whoever put down that highly inappropriate suggestion, please rephrase the statement according to the facts. Thanks!--Termer 05:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic conflict is completely inappropriate. One side is Baltic and Eastern European editors who have a dim view of Soviet "liberation" of Eastern Europe (especially the Baltics, where the Soviets invaded first). They have plenty of sources. The other side, for whatever reason, tows the official Russian pronouncements which echo verbatim Soviet tales of history. They bring no (substantial) sources, unable to even provide the factual basis for Russian parliamentary declarations regarding supposed historical fact. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks by FayssalF and the time scope of this ArbCom

6) On July 16, 2007 administrator FayssalF (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) issued the widely approved blocks to several participants of this conflict for the disruptive behavior giving the sides of the conflict an opportunity for a fresh start. Unless any case party returned to the pre-July 16 habits, the evidence should be limited to the post-July 16th events. If, however, the post-block behavior shows a continued disruptive pattern consistent with the pre-block behavior, such behavior is relevant to this ArbCom.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by Irpen. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive272#Getting the admin tools ready and threads below and above that at the same archive page. Totally optional and I don't care much if it is rejected. Accepting would make things simpler. Editors should have a chance to redeem for the past sins. If they improved after the block (a conviction and sentence, so to speak), they may considered to be punished enough for their wrongdoings. If the blocks had no affect and disruption continued, the whole pattern of disruption may be presented of course. --Irpen 01:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're pushing me towards proposing that the ArbCom find the whole block baseless, do you realise that? Digwuren 13:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Motion to ArbCom to present their findings in the case of the alleged hacking accusations by FayssalF

7) Its been 10 days since ArbCom announced that they have received the evidence. Reading a Zonealarm report and making a decision should not take longer than this. Since a hacking accusation is a serious thing, in fact hacking is a crime in most jurisdictions, and smears the reputation of an editor the findings should presented as soon as possible.--Alexia Death the Grey 18:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Supported. With any luck, the ruling in this matter will be out even before Irpen will have figured out how to present his case. Digwuren 18:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supported. This is by far worst accusation. Sander Säde 02:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? The announcement was made almost a month ago. 13 days have now passed since Alexia Death filed this motion. What's causing the stall? Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 22:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Supported. I think FayssalF allowed himself to get caught up in the anti-Estonia hysteria whipped up by certain Russian nationalists, and Digwuren appears to have become their bogeyman, attributing acts to him that he never commited [3]. (A quick glance at the template history reveals it was created by someone else [4]) Martintg 20:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of POV tags from disputed articles is inacceptable

8)

I suggest the {{NPOV}} tags incerted in articles by one party would not be removed by the other until the issue is finally resolved. I faced that such tag was continiously removed from Occupation of Baltic States by involved users [5][6]. A meditation cabal case was filled for this issue and the mediator placed this [7] conclusion on my talk page after the case was closed, but now the tag has been removed again: [8]. In general I suggest the removal of POV tags from articles on Baltic-Soviet relations without consent of the other partry to be considered a disruptive behavior. I should add that tagging an article is sometimes the only way to indicate the article is non-neutral when the topic is strongly occupied by a number POV-pushers. The tag does not say the content of the article is false, but correctly notifies that the article's neutrality is disputed.--Dojarca 23:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong oppose. Such a "solution" would constitute to "dividing the topics" among participants of the arbcom case, and exclude everybody not involved in the case. This is clearly against the whole spirit of wiki. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 01:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact some topics are already devided.--Dojarca 02:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is regrettable. We should try to find ways to reduce such division, not perpetuate it. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 06:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and your friends occupied some topics and do not allow other users participate and even place a POV tag in the article. And you now talking how to reduce the division?!--Dojarca 06:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setting the thinly veiled insult aside for now, it is my considered opinion that placing baseless POV tags onto articles, especially as a form of "final revenge" when unable to push non-encyclopædic content, is disruptive. See also the associated principle. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 06:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, if an article is improved or strong Talk arguments are presented then there would be easy to find a neutral party to remove the tags. There is no harm if erroneus POV tags would be there for a little longer than necessary. On the other hand additional disruption is harmful Alex Bakharev 03:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, if a neutral party was found to remove the tag, the tagger would immediately claim this neutral party was a biased POV pusher. If the exhaustive arguments of professional advocates at the European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States fail to convince the tagger that the Baltics were occupied between 1940 to 1991, what realistic hope is there that "strong Talk arguments" by anonymous amateurs here would likewise convince the tagger that a tag should be removed? Martintg 06:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV tags should be removed only if there is no dispute over the article.--Dojarca 06:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there's the issue of harassment that taints articles in this arbitration case's scope. Harassment creates drama, and drama drives many uninvolved users away, reducing both involvement by them and quality of the articles in question. {{POV}} tags are particularly harmful as they themselves induce further drama, perpetuating the condition.

As Colchicum has pointed out, we shouldn't expect a Wikipedia's reader to be a complete idiot. There is no need to warn the reader of possible problems; the tags are intended for purely technical use. In the environment of (hopefully, soon to be former) harassment, tags' overuse is still harmful. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 06:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tags contain no harmful information. If there is a duspute, it should be indicated with an approptiate tag. It invites a user to look through a talk page which may contain useful information, deleted from the article by POV-pushing users.--Dojarca 06:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. I will not follow your red herring of "harmful information".

If there's an actual dispute, it naturally follows it should be properly explainable -- and fixable. If you want to declare your personal dislike of an article or section, and not commit yourself into actually discussing your dislike, use {{I dislike this}}. Here's an example:

Template:I dislike this Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 07:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As a test case, I've deployed this approach on Occupation of Baltic states, an article whose mediation went belly-up fairly recently. Let's see what will come of it. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 07:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here [9] as well as in the article's talk page this all discussed very well.--Dojarca 07:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not acceptable. Such tags are unfortunately commonly used in cases of WP:IDONTLIKEIT - and in my opinion, must always be explained in talk page, giving sources and reasons. Dojarca's own tag warring on Occupation of Baltic States where he has totally failed to provide any sources to support his position - and furthermore, even failed to give exact reasons what in the article is not following NPOV guideline - is a prime example of tag misuse. Consider if article on Evolution would be constantly tagged with POV by creationists, claiming that since they don't like evolution, the article is POV. -- Sander Säde 06:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is very nice in theory; but in practice a common disruption strategy of users who cannot force their POV onto the article is to insert a tag of some sort, and revert war against its removal, in order to discredit the article which they cannot adjust to their POV.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a specific example, consider Denial of Soviet occupation. It was reviewed and found to be a good article, but because certain people -- some of whom, but not all, are participants in this ArbCom case -- didn't like its subject matter, a "small edit war" -- exactly over these tags -- was held, and that led to its delisting. Currently, the article has been protected, too. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 01:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Tagging is meant to be an aid to editing by flagging real issues. Unfortunately, some editors use article wide tagging as a disruptive WP:IDONTLIKEIT tool. Also many fail to indicate on the talk page what the specific issues are. Therefore immediate removal of such unexplained or disruptive tags is justified. In most cases, inline templates should be used instead of article wide tags. As with anything in Wikipedia, removal of legitimate tags is a concensus issue. This proposal here is in effect advocating the right of any one individual to veto the removal of tags against any majority concensus. I think every single article would eventually become tagged if this was allowed. Martintg 02:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In such a case the very idea POV tags is completely useless: if there is a consensus, then no POV tag is needed. And in fact we have no consensus over all Baltic politics topic, we just face some local majority of POV-pushers.--Dojarca 02:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately POV tags have been devalued through their abuse. When a local minority of amateur Wikipedia editors oppose the concensus of opinion reflected in the professional judgements based upon documentary evidence submitted in the European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States, then their only recourse is to resort to tagging the article. Martintg 06:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you assume there may be other points of view than that of European Court of Human Rights?--Dojarca 06:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that alternative viewpoints supporting and refuting occupation were not presented in these court cases? Given all the documentary historical evidence presented before the judges, they determined the body of evidence supported the occupation view. Or are you saying that the viewpoints of anonymous editors have equal weight to that expressed by the European Court of Human Rights? Martintg 07:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line, users can remove and re-add tags, and their edits fall under standard 3RR - so if there is a disagreement over whether a tag should stay or not, this will be solved after few edits and some discussion. The tags are no different from other article content - we could just as well argue that "Removal of content from disputed articles is inacceptable".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is intended to indicate disagreement. --Dojarca 23:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However the tags are meant to be temporary, but often the tagger provides little or no information on what needs to be done, what lines should be changed, new references to be added, etc. This is disruptive as no progress can be made, leaving the article in a permanently tagged state. Martintg 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... which is exactly what the FUDster wants in the first place. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 01:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The tags are meant to be temporary, but should stay until the issue is closed.--Dojarca 13:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, until someone thinks that the Earth is flat and doesn't even bother to give you a source that says so but only justifies the POV tag with his-her opinion, should the tag stay in place until the issue is closed? I don't think so. --Termer 23:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

x)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

x)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Motions and requests by others

Motion to strike out a part of Irpen's statement

1) I request that the part of Irpen's statement concerning the so-called "Tartu-based accounts" be struck out. The title of this RfArb has been modified from the original request. Is it now solely about Digwuren, or is Irpen intending to maintain his allegations in regard to the so-called "Tartu-based accounts"? It should be made clear what the actual scope of this arbitration case is to be. Martintg 11:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I do not support striking but a clarfication is needed. At this moment it is unclear whether I am a party to this Arbcom or just another person. Since at the core of this are the so called "Tartu accounts" then the name should be adjusted correspondingly and people considered parties NAMED. This kind of obscure class action is unacceptable.--Alexia Death the Grey 15:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supported. Throwing out blanket accusations covering all Estonian editors is not acceptable. Sander Säde 15:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't "strike" anything. Evidence of collective editing seems strong to me and case's name is by no means a definition of anything. ArbCom cases often go far and beyond the original case's scope and certainly beyond the case "name". --Irpen 19:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Usually we do not modify somebody else's comments unless absolutely necessary. I do not see the urgency here Alex Bakharev 03:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This should wait to be passed until "parties" motion is finished. That being made clearer will help all of us understand better. Cbrown1023 talk 20:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration clerks often, as here, shorten casenames for convenience (a name that's too long is harder to type accurately, messes up the pending cases template, etc.). This has no effect on what the scope of the case is about. Newyorkbrad 13:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this is a conspiracy claim that remains to be a conspiracy theory until proven otherwise. Everything I have to say about proposed struck-out is up there Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#No_unproven_accusations. Thanks!--Termer 05:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to strike 3 Löwi and Klamber from the list of parties

1) 3 Löwi, a long standing editor since July 2005, has been inactive since June 28 [10] and Klamber has been inactive since June 22 [11]. Therefore both could not have caused any disruption in the timeframe described in Irpen's complaint, nor are they likely be aware of this proceeding nor likely contribute to it. Martintg 00:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Supported. They have practically no ties to this mess, due to long inactivity cannot be checkuser-ed and were found to be unrelated to rest of us in the last case.--Alexia Death the Grey 04:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see their relation to this mess either. I am not sure why some think they are parties. If they are, they should not be. --Irpen 04:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are considered as parties to this case because you have not named any parties and they were part of the previous big sock fishing you linked.Now is about time you would make your list of people you as an initiator consider to be the parties.--Alexia Death the Grey 05:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your passion towards "being considered a party" issue. ArbCom's rulings frequently concern users who are not initially named as case's parties, and often omit users who are. ArbCom case is not only a judgment but also an investigation and the scope of parties and wrongdoings often shifts as the new revelations are added. The analysis requires the combinations of the checkuser results with the editing patterns since even the checkuser isn't conclusive. Only few Wikipedians have the checkuser access. --Irpen 05:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make a checkuser case you need a list of "suspects". You have not given any that are not already proven to be individuals. Theres nothing to checkuser or compare at this point!--Alexia Death the Grey 05:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Well, they were positively identified by checkusers as sharing the same IP as many participants of the case. One of the purpose of the investigation is to clear the suspicions caused by the checkuser data. Thus, they should be on the case Alex Bakharev 03:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that you had access to checkuser data, Alex. Neither checkuser case had "confirmed" as a result, "likely" and "possible" does not mean anyone was editing from the same IP, only that they were in same IP range. And as explained ad nauseum, Estonia can wholly to be considered one IP range - and as checkuser clerks did not do reverse DNS, they did not see any actual user information. However, I do support including them to this case, to clear their names of baseless accusations. -- Sander Säde 06:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex don't have access to checkuser. As his user listing shows he has administrator privileges. You also need checkuser privileges to see the data AFAIK. Suva Чего? 07:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bakharev's assertion is factually inaccurate. Whatever the reasons for the checkuser's false positive were, shared IP address was not among them. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 06:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support the motion. I can't believe I never expressed my position before! Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 06:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

To Irpen: why don't you add some evidence of the alleged wrong doings of this so-called "Tartu based accounts" to the evidence page, so that ArbCom can have atleast a starting point, and those you accuse can know what it is you are accusing them of. You have already admitted that two of the five checkuser parties 3 Löwi and Klamber should not be parties in this case. Now please articulate in detail for us all what your problem is with the remaining three: Alexia, Sander and Erik. Martintg 05:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the scope of the case as problematic. In my opinion, the present case should involve every account whose edits have been aimed at minimizing the scale of Holocaust in Estonia or at downplaying the extent of Estonia's collaboration with the Nazis. It's not that much of a secret that the majority of these accounts are based at Tartu and were registered back in May. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is no case to answer, since no one has minimised the scale of the Holocaust. Let's not forget that the Soviets collaborated with the Nazis for almost two years from 1939 to 1941, running amok executing and deporting people from the Baltic states. Martintg 00:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That "majority" registered in May and based in Tartu is one person, Digwuren. I registred in May, but I am not based in Tartu, I am based in rural area some 40km away from Tartu. Suva also registered during Bronze Soldier controversy but is based in Tallin... Sander Säde as DLX has been registered much longer and AFAIK is also Tallinn based, so are Erik Jesse(registered on April 16), 3 Löwi and Klamber. --Alexia Death the Grey 13:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point, Martintg, I second that. Cbrown1023 talk 13:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

I'd like to check on what exactly is this all about: Irpen*To his most frequent content opponent: reverted 1 edit by Petri Krohn identified as vandalism (make sure to look what he "identifies as vandalism")
As far as I can see, Irpen has in the end followed the example of Digwuren and removed the "category" from an article by him/her self. [12]. Therefore I must admit, I'm confused, why exactly was it worth mentioning? Regarding if adding such a category like Holocaust in Estonia to the article of Einsatzgruppe A, the article that does not mention Estonia or the Holocaust in Estonia, the Report down there doesn't have any Estonian place names as far as I can tell, or am I missing something? Interpreting the action as WP:vandalism Silly vandalism: Adding profanity, graffiti, random characters, or other nonsense to pages; creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages, etc or ‘Sneaky vandalism: adding plausible misinformation to articles- if thats was the case here could be argued over I guess. Thanks--Termer 08:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I removed the link to the cat when I saw that it was deleted. That the deletion was largely achieved by revert-warring for the removal of the cat from articles followed by claims that the category is "too small" and "has no potential for growth" is a separate issue. What I am talking about here, is more than mere removal of the cat in order to make a WP:POINT in connection with then ongoing CFD. The issue here is the summary where Digwuren calls his edit as revert of vandalism edit by a previous editor. The repeated and deliberate misuse of the V-word in direct contradiction with WP:VAND has become Digwuren's pattern. Characterizing the opponent's edits as "mere vandalism" constitutes a grave personal attack. When Digwuren was warned about it by an administrator, he responded that he "stands by such characterization" of his opponents' edits. --Irpen 06:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The whole issue was tied up with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_10#Category:Holocaust_in_Estonia. The majority view taken in that discussion was that applying a category "Holocaust in Estonia" rather than the category "The Holocaust" obsfucated the scale of this most heinous crime, which was a pan-European tragedy not restricted to the territory of Nazi occupied Estonia. Note there are no other "Holocaust in (country)" categories within Wikipedia, which is indicative of this effort to promote this image of eSStonia on Wikipedia. Martintg 04:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, Thanks! I think it should be kept as an evidence of a political attack against Estonia related articles on WP. There were exactly 7 Estonians that have been convicted of crimes against humanity during the Nazi occupation in Estonia. 2 more, one ethnic Estonian another ethnic Russian that are suspects. In my opinion making a WP category out of it is in sync with the pattern of similar political attacks against Estonia related articles. I would encourage anybody including Digwuren to react to such acts according to WP:vandalism Silly vandalism: Adding profanity, graffiti, random characters, or other nonsense to pages; creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages, etc or ‘Sneaky vandalism: adding plausible misinformation to articles. Regarding Digwuren was warned about it by an administrator mentioned by Irpen. Since the administrator mentioned has previously shown a similar pattern of politically motivated edits on WP, however as the pattern has stopped and the issues it seems were solved behind the scenes. I'd like to keep good faith and urge Irpen not to drag the questionable actions of the administrator under spotlight once again. Thanks!--Termer 07:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry DrKiernan, was the last post addressed to me? In case yes than unfortunately I don't see any other country specific categories at reverted 1 edit by Petri Krohn identified as vandalism than the one identified and removed by Digwuren. So as far as I'm concerned: yes Estonia was singled out in this case. Thanks!--Termer 07:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are indeed correct. There is only one other "Holocaust in (country)" category, "Holocaust in Romania", which was also created by User:Petri Krohn [13]. It must be noted that Soviet occupation of Romania also happens to be subject to edit warring by the usual crew, so one may draw the conclusion that these two categories are WP:POINT creations. Martintg 07:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Promotion of bigotry

1) Wikipedia should not be used to promote nationalistic stereotypes of others or used as a forum for bigotry.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Supported. Wikipedia, as a free encyclopædia project, is an obvious target to a number of cabals with hostile stereotypes, no intention to let facts get in the way of a good stereotype, and desire to evangelise those stereotypes to as wide an audience as possible. However, Wikipedia is not a shrine; there are other projects for that. It is disruptive conduct to try to use Wikipedia as an outlet for promotion of bigotry. Digwuren 16:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, good proposal. Alex Bakharev 03:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Martintg 01:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supported Suva 18:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supported -- Sander Säde 06:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supported Orderinchaos 09:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

2) Be civil to others if you expect others to be civil to you.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. See also the accompanying remedy. Digwuren 13:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - of course Alex Bakharev 03:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Martintg (talk • contribs) 23:24, 29 August 2007

Support. Suva 18:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Who wouldn't? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allowance for cultural background

3) Particular English terms may have different meanings for people of non-english speaking backgrounds, and may be misinterpreted as incivility or rudeness, or vice versa.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Weak Oppose - while sounds reasonable it is very easy to abuse. You can always say that in Ethnos XX Vandal is a noble warior and a compliment, not a personal attack. In the case of genuine misunderstanding the offending party is suppose to offer their apologies and the misunderstanding will be cleared Alex Bakharev 03:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose that proper application of the principle of Due forgiveness would take care of such abuse. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 06:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Martintg (talk • contribs) 23:24, 29 August 2007

Supported. Digwuren 22:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supported. Suva 18:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an encyclopædia, Wikipedia requires factual accuracy

4) All editors are expected to strive towards factual accuracy in Wikipedia's articles, as ascertained by appropriate use of WP:RS.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. While the policy of WP:NPOV requires neutral presentation of notable POVs, it also prohibits Prokrustes-style manipulation of facts merely so as to make them fit any particular POV. This principle addresses the precise meaning of neutrality, which, regrettably, is somewhat vague in the policy documents. Digwuren 13:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I would add WP:ATT: All facts should be referenced to the reliable sources, all opinions should be attributed as required per WP:ATT Alex Bakharev 04:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. However, WP:ATT applies to opinions, and this principle is about facts. Could you propose a separate principle for accuracy in attributing opinions? Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 06:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. Martintg 23:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Suva 18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite the newcomers

5) The age-old Wikipedia tradition of biting people shouldn't be extended to new editors of Wikipedia, as long as there's evidence of good faith on their part. Biting should be restricted to people who, despite long-time experience, and clear evidence of knowing better, wantonly violate core Wikipedia principles, or who come to Wikipedia with clear intention of causing havoc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I expect the Clerks may want to reword it; that's OK, as long as the point remains the same. Digwuren 21:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in this formulation propose 5a. We encourage biting of anybody. There is no "age-old Wikipedia traditions of biting people" Alex Bakharev 04:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you oppose Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, it is an official Wikpedia behavioural guideline which is generally accepted amongs editors as the standard to follow. Martintg 05:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Alex Bakharev is taking issue with my semi-humorous, semi-tragic reference to "the age-old Wikipedia tradition of biting people". I anticipated the possible need for rewording, but no clerk has done it. Please, propose a different formulation of the principle, and I'll consider supporting it. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 06:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. Martintg 23:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If user is not "established editor" it does not yet mean he comes in bad faith. Suva 18:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground

5a) Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal or ethnic conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point. Always assume good faith when dealing with new users: remember that their violations of Wikipedia policies maybe caused by inexeprience rather than bad faith Alex Bakharev 04:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Alex Bakharev 04:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not yet been declared a party. If you wrote in this section accidentally, and do not intend to become a party, you might want to move your proposal. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 05:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. While some of the ideas suggested are noble and good (and some are already embodied in other principles which I have supported), this proposal jumbles together too many of them -- possibly attempting to codify WP:DICK --, and does not lend itself easily to clear enforcement criteria. As a result, it has high potential on becoming another well-intended but non-enforceable footnote in the arbitration's history. Toothless tigers will help nobody. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 05:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact it is a slightly shorten version of WP:BATTLE Alex Bakharev 07:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying WP:BATTLE is a bad idea. However, I would oppose passing it, either in whole or as this contraction, as a principle applicable to this case. It's a policy of the kind that defines ideal case conduct; arbitration is about acceptable conduct, and, by necessity, enforcement. After Piotrus' arbitration case, I'm very concerned about useless declarations that just waste everybody's time and achieve nothing. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 11:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes, I like the ideas, just that would anybody explain to me why all the articles involving the long dead Soviet Union and the countries it oppressed have became battlegrounds on WP? Also the case here is a part of it I think.--Termer 23:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. That said, it's an n-th statement on this page along the lines 'we should be civil'. Since we all agree on that, perhaps somebody should start enforcing it?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. This is the core principle that should provide the backbone for the proposed decision. The latter may be expected to follow this model. Attempts to obfuscate the locus of this dispute are not helpful. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Building the Encyclopædia takes precedence over any personal ideas

6) Wikipedia's first aim is to build an encyclopædia; all else — processes, policies, and even the people — are merely tools to achieve that goal. It is disruptive to abuse Wikipedia processes to solve petty personal dislikes, and it is inappropriate to choose content for inclusion or deletion based on personal appeals or hatreds.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. It's not mere reiteration of WP:POINT; it's also a clear statement of Wikipedia's priorities. Based on evidence I'm going to present, this clarification is necessary. Digwuren 21:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - correct in principle but looks to Stalinist to me. People are merely tools to achieve that goal???? Alex Bakharev 04:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a crucial difference between using people as "mere tools" in a state and in a volunteer project. Specifically, it is a state's moral responsibility to sustain its people. A volunteer project, such as Wikipedia, has no such moral responsibility.

In other words, a Wikipedia user, wearing a Wikipedian's hat, is not really a "person" as much as a "contributor". If the contributor is terminated, he will no longer contribute, but nothing terrible has happened; the person can live happily ever after and possibly go on to contribute at, say, Citizendium. A country, OTOH, can not "terminate" its "participants" in this sense and remain moral. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 05:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. Martintg 23:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Suva 18:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No original research

7) Wikipedia's aim is to collect existing academic knowledge, not to attempt to research new fields, or to figure out the "rightful" history. In order to ascertain this, it is necessary to make sure any nontrivial claims are traceable to an external WP:RS. Personal interpretations not published by any WP:RS are not appropriate in an encyclopædia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Digwuren 21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alex Bakharev 04:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. Martintg 23:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Suva 18:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supported. -- Sander Säde 06:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of sources is paramount

8) Wikipedia's aim is to collect existing knowledge. Since Wikipedia can't collect it from its primary sources due to the principle of WP:NOR, sources used for Wikipedia are its eyes. Wikipedia can not thrive if its eyes are full of rubbish. Unfortunately, all sources are subject to human mistakes, and even usually reliable sources -- such as major newspapers -- may make mistakes. Some organisations even go so far as to deliberately spread misinformation to, for example, sell more magazine subscriptions. In order to ensure that the knowledge inside Wikipedia has any worth, it is the duty of every Wikipedian to ascertain the reliability of sources used.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Digwuren 21:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in principle but to Essay-like to my taste. Can also lead to the references-trolling: a party can reject all the references they disagree with as unreliable. Thus, Oppose. Propose 8a instead Alex Bakharev 04:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. Martintg 23:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Suva 18:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth

8a) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If there is a valid discussion over a subject matter it should not be presented as a solved issue according to the tastes of Wikipedia editors. All the notable opinions should be presented as attributed opinions, all the facts should be referred to the reliable sources. Alex Bakharev 04:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Alex Bakharev 04:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See potential problems. Will think about it; no strong position at this time. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 05:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose of this formulation as an arbitrative principle. This formulation is highly polemical, and makes use of the loaded term truth, clearly referring to it in at least two contradictory meanings -- one literal, one sarcastic through euphemism. As a result, this principle does not lend it to any objective enforcement, and may contribute to nonproductive bickering over pro-truth versus anti-truth factions.

That having been said, verifiability is indeed a core aspect of any encyclopædic content. I would support a principle outlining the importance of verifiability without the polemics. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 03:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose essentially same as Dojarca's re: opinions and citation; one can verify that statements have been made and present the fact that such statements have been made; that is not sufficient for inclusion as an encyclopedic statement regarding a situation. We are not striving for "truth", but we must minimally strive for reputably referenced facts. Without a basis in fact, an encyclopedia article is nothing but a worthless concoction of who said what presented as if it were of some factual significance. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Neutral position

9) Knowledge can be broadly divided into two classes. There are facts, and there are positions taken on these facts. Wikipedia, with the aim to collect encyclopædic knowledge, aims to accurately represent the facts, and also accurately represent the positions, according to their notability. Wikipedia's neutral position prohibits it from deliberating between positions, and Wikipedia's striving for accuracy requires it to report on any factual basis for these positions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Digwuren 21:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supported. -- Sander Säde 06:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. Martintg 23:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Suva 18:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There are facts and opinions based on facts. There can't be different facts. There can be different opinions based on facts which should be represented based on their notability. Suva Чего? 13:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed a slightly stronger version 9a Alex Bakharev 07:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11a) We are creating reference material that is used by millions of readers of different background. What is appeared to be a funny joke by some editors may be assumed by the face values by some editors. Thus, no jokes are allowed in the article space. Insertion of jokes into the articles constitutes vandalism. Humor in the Wikipedia and talk spaces can improve the morale and sort out disagreements that otherwise will require megabytes of talk page discussions. On the other hand, Wikipedia is written by the people with very diverse cultural background and points of view. A funny joke in one cultural background maybe a grave insult or a nonsense in another background. Editors are expected to apologies if their joke unexpectedly offend people. Alex Bakharev 08:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Alex Bakharev 08:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because of the "sparingly". Humour does not run out, after all. In other regards, I could support this, so I encourage you to create an according proposal 11b. (Furthermore, the ideas are not necessarily contradictory to proposal 11.) Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 10:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others: I'm not getting this! In case you say, no jokes are allowed in the article space, why exactly don't you follow your ideas but instead add jokes like Accusations of glorification of fascism [17] into Estonia related article? I think such accusations as anybody would glorify fascism in Estonia in general would be offending, insulting, and nonsense that's for sure. But since it's such an absurd claim, it's more like from Monty Python series rather than anything that can be taken seriously. So Alex Bakharev why exactly are you adding such absurd jokes into the article space, jokes that are BTW offending?--Termer 12:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the whole edit is biased. "Most Russophones..." about their feelings is a totally uncited WP:OR implication of what follows. Where's a survey by a reputable third party?

The later paragraph about "even" official Russian authorities denouncing fascism is totally biased (as in, even totally impartial and reputable authorities denounce Estonia for fascism). The human rights report cited, by the way, was blasted by impartial observers of the Baltics, but a separate topic. The whole edit from top to bottom is intended to verify that Estonians are indeed fascists--as opposed to reporting what certain sources say, which would be NPOV. The information is fine, the incited implications, conclusions, and attribution of repute to official Russian proclamations are not fine. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I would note that the edit cited was made AFTER I took a prior misrepresentation and NPOV'ed it to indicate only what sources said, so this edit was, in fact, an ideological revert with a cherry on top. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DrKiernan, you mischaracterize both my intent and response. I am not at all angry--I am merely striving for an accurate representation of sources as to the manner in which they originated/were meant--that means one cannot take official Russian pronouncements and ascribe certain feelings to the majority of Estonia's Russophones. MAJOR apologies for the typo! I had edited the prior misrepresentation to be NPOV, and then it was POV'ed again with baseless speculations wrapped around citations.

You dismiss far too lightly phraseology, such as "even...", meant to connote that pronouncements equal facts.

As for my part, I have been asking for months for one single reputable source examining the facts surrounding the Russian Duma's parliamentary proclamation that Latvia joined the Soviet Union legally according to international law. Following your "dropped or changed" example, let me similarly phrase the Duma proclamation: "Even the Russian Duma passed a proclamation that Latvia joined the Soviet Union legally according to international law." Absolutely nothing to be concerned about regarding such wording, yes?

Back to this case, I already did the edit-to-be-NPOV change once, then it has more POV piled back on top. This is not good faith "perfectly legitimate" editing. And I find your attribution of rage on my part (and everything it implies about losing sight of facts) and being blinded by my opinions (and everything it implies about not even caring about facts) grossly offensive. Do you know me personally that you can make such an assessment? I expect your apology. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another example [18] complete nonsense added to WP. This one is not even funny but just a stupid joke' by someone from magazine Kroonika, the king of yellow press in Estonia has made it to WP. Congrats to everybody!--Termer 20:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree -- this joke about Pro Patria scratching FSB's back and FSB scratching Pro Patria's back by carefully coöperating in orchestrating the riots is quite funny. (Can you tell I laugh at Is(s)and Sült & Ökul's work?) But it is not a reliable source, and since the joke is not a notable hoax, either, it shouldn't really be on Wikipedia. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 03:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to disagree on what's funny or not. I think the best joke still is that some editors take a parody for fact and add it to WP. Since the editors keep restoring the opinions of the Kroonika guy and he surely has a lot to say about the subject. I just added the full story for now instead of just going into an edit war about it. also added some more things he has came up with regarding the subject. If someone thinks Kangur is a serious guy worth mentioning on WP, I don't mind as long as we cite all the things he has said about the subject.--Termer 09:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To DrKiernan as usual [19] you have misinterpreted the whole thing without even looking into it. First of all, I personally have added at first the facts from both sides to the article Bronze Soldier of Tallinn that accusations of fascism have been made against Estonia, It was me, moa that did it originally, it wasn't there before I added the facts, OK? The facts were first removed as thought not relevant to the article, then restored [20] Now, the facts I've added to the article have turned into circus and nonsense like Accusations of glorification of etc. The others side of the story had long gone. For exmpl:(According to AXT, Anti-Jewish propaganda and manifestations in Estonia remained the work mainly of extremist Russian circles. The Russian-language newspaper Estoniya has reported that antisemitic literature has being distributed by local Russian-speaking organizations; the literature was to be found mainly at the Narva centre of the Union of Russian Citizens in Estonia. The chairman of the Union, Yuri Mishin, replied to criticism that Estonia is a free country and people could read whatever they wished.[21])

If you really think that beside the fact like "Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian" lets say someone might have claimed: Accusations of glorification of Hitler's beef and pork eating habits, as a fact would have any serious encyclopedic value, it would be your opinion I don't need to share. Thanks--Termer 21:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No mean mastodons

12) Wikipedia's purpose is to collect organised knowledge, not to hold shouting, trompling or insulting matches. It is disruptive to the core aims of Wikipedia to pretend a mastodon and to proceed to go on a rampage, or to exercise the mean streak a Wikipedian might have from a previous life. While good humour may sometimes take deprecative forms — and there's nothing wrong with that, in moderation — meanness towards co-editors is a Very Bad Idea.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Digwuren 22:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - redundant Alex Bakharev 08:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial overlap does not constitute a redundancy. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 10:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. Martintg 23:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Suva 18:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Partial support. Amusing title (somebody should write an essay with such a name), but as Alex points out, it's a bit redundant - just a rephrasing of various civility policies.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a shrine

13) Wikipedia has acquired a certain level of reputation from the work it has done so far, and this reputation attracts cabals. However, Wikipedia is not a shrine, holy, unholy or otherwise, for such cabals. While it is a bad idea to deny the existence of cabals, Wikipedia must actively strive to stay independent of these cabals' influence, by closely heeding the important policies of factuality, unoriginality and neutrality.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I like the numerological significance. Digwuren 22:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:BATTLE states the same in more exact form Alex Bakharev 08:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. Martintg 23:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Suva 18:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truth first, niceties second

14) Wikipedia expects its editors to strive, even if it is hard, to maintain intellectual integrity. Common societal niceties, on the other hand, are sometimes specially developed to downplay integrity, and to overemphasise pleasant lies. Wikipedia has a policy of civility, but the policy does not prohibit a honest assessment of a woman as unappealing, or evidence-based statement that a user who habitually trolls is, in fact, a troll. Like with libel, truth is always an appropriate defence against claims of uncivility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

~~Proposed~~. Digwuren 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By way of comment, civil exposure of a co-editor's flaws doesn't require the exposure to be too loud. It's certainly a bad idea to walk around and yell at every ugly Wikipedian how ugly she is, or, upon finding a mistake in an editor's work, to submit the mistake to the Main Page as the first thing. However, in the course of a Wikipedian's work, situations do arise when a co-editor's flaws need to be pointed out, and, while some tact is certainly useful, and no escalation should be done without necessity, truth must always remain preferred to pleasant lies. Digwuren 23:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn pending further meditation. Digwuren 05:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose encourages incivil behavior. If needed we can use WP:SPADE Alex Bakharev 08:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think it's valid to point to a person's behaviour, but not a person's perceived flaws. It's the behaviour, not the person, that should be at issue. Martintg 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, well worth considering. I will ponder on how to absorb its significance into the proposal. Digwuren 00:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless accusations are uncivil

15) Wikipedia depends on coöperation of its editors, and coöperation depends on amicable relations. Accusations that the accuser can not back up rapidly corrode any amicable environment that may exist, and this is disruptive. Accordingly, no Wikipedian should make accusations he can't back up, and should apologise if such accusations arise by honest mistake. It is utterly unacceptable to drop on a board, hurl around a handful of wild claims, and then disappear to the night, never to return again.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Digwuren 22:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. Enough of baseless personal attacks and accusations already. -- Sander Säde 06:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose encourages litigations. Nobody is forbidden in holding their opinions Alex Bakharev 08:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "holding an opinion" and "using slander in the process against other editors". We have a perfect example of this behavior in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of Soviet occupation, where Dojarca attempts to display Estonian editors as "created by a number of closely associated accounts" (despite that the article is written by Digwuren), "representing extreme nationalist point of view" (which just happens to be well sourced in great number of Western sources, including BBC, European Parliament, Holocaust Encyclopedia and numerous books), "accounts created a mob and promoted the article to GA shortly (several hours) after creation" (flat out lie, again, only Digwuren - and "several hours" are actually 28 hours), "The creator of the article has been recently unblocked from a two-week block only to give him ability to participate in an arbcom case opened against him" (half-lie, unblock was because "I've unblocked you in favor of protecting the article, since the edit warring is more extensive among others than I realized, and so that you can keep participating in the ArbCom case", see [22]), attempts to (ab-)use process with an attempt to compare the title with Holocaust denial - and all that in just lead. If that is not a gross personal attack and incivility, then I don't know what is. And yet you want to cover it with "holding an opinion"? -- Sander Säde 08:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. Martintg 23:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely important point - and extremly forgotten in common practice on Wiki.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, we all know about your love to talk about civility. Today we saw its new demonstration when you gave a barnstar "for good deeds"[23] to a user rewarding him for calling another editor a "paranoid loon"[24] behind his back and having no guts to stand up to such slur when confronted with it.[25] The principle above is a good one but sounds ironic when comes from a user who liberally spreads with a elaborately incivil pattern of conduct both on- and off-wiki, the practice of reprehensible off-wiki conduct, even if provable, usually and unfortunately, has no consequences. --Irpen 06:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how relevant here is a discussion of how User:Cyrius was baited into a single uncivil comment. But since you brought this up, yes, "paranoid loon" is not a civil description - but Ghirla has been telling us for years how there is a vast crusade and conspiracy out there to 'get him', and if some people chose to describe his condition in an uncivil way - it's a shame, but one reaps what one sawn. And your attempts to complain about Cyrius' mistake on various off-topic foras (like here), not to mention harassing him on his page ([26]) are hardly constructive.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough incivility and empty words, Piotrus. Please explain why you presented a barnstar to a user (unfamiliar to me) for his referring to me as a "paranoid loon", qualifying this escapade as a "good deed"? Do you find this line of conduct particularly helpful for solving the conflicts? Would you still deny that it's you who has been encouraging incivility all over Eastern European topics? --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off-site comments are personal opinions and prosecuting people for them smells like a police state where having an opinion is punishable. So Ghrila, staying civil on the *pedia pages does not mean I cant tell anyone outside these pages what exactly I think about you. You cant control what others think or communicate. It's my personal liberty not to like people and to express that. The rules of this media, Wikipeda, require that I do not express my opinions here. Fine, I wont. But trying to prosecute people for things they have expressed in other medias is WRONG.--Alexia Death the Grey 08:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Public logging is not allowed in those channels probably just for these reasons so WHAT is Irpen doing harassing people about something somebody said about Ghrila When HE was not around?--Alexia Death the Grey 08:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been repeatedly advised to stop ridiculously mangling my name. Incivil tricks add nothing to your argument. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla, stop picking on a person with disability. Aren't you ashamed of yourself at all? And when Suva tries very patiently to explain, see [27] and [28], you delete his explanations with edit summaries "I have never seen her misspell anyone's name but my own" and "has not user talk page harassing been mentioned in the evidence section?". You want cases where she has misspelled other names then yours? Fine, five minutes of looking gave me Digwuren --> Digwurren ([29], seen it elsewhere as well, I believe), Termer --> Tremer (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martintg&diff=prev&oldid=157821267), ProhibitOnions --> ProhibitOnion ([30]). If you want more, find them yourself - but meanwhile, an apology is in order, I believe. -- Sander Säde 13:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the public logging ban is just that -- this way, Wikipedians have a free environment, without having to fear that somebody will grep their name out of the logs, extract the quotes from their surrounding context, and use the resulting quote mine to "build a case" against them. It is extremely regrettable that this is exactly what Ghirlandajo is trying to do here -- and in his quest towards petty revenge against people who don't respect Ol' Joe's authoritah, he has already succeeded in producing considerable chilling effects, severely harming the former air of freedom floating at Wikipedia's IRC channels. Digwuren 20:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find your facile accusations of Stalinism extremely offensive, and I hope that the arbitrators will make note of this sally, which illustrates Digwuren's propensity for ad hominems. He ought to remember from our previous interactions that my family was decimated during the purges, so he purposefully keeps throwing around allegations of Stalinism with a view toward annoying and taunting his opponent. I recollect that Petri Krohn was blocked for 72h for alleging that the ancestors of his opponents may have been tainted by Nazi collaboration. I don't understand why nobody bothers to react to Digwuren's incivil allegations of Stalinism above. This is revolting. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not know this part of your family history. Please point me towards the relevant diffs so I can review them and give the data due consideration in the future.

I certainly had no intention to insult you, and I apologise. I hope you can forgive this unintended offense. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 14:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As obviously visible this is neccesary principle. 18:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Due forgiveness

16) Despite intensive research, no scientist has managed to find a non-mistaking Wikipedian, or a Wikipedian that started all-wise. Everybody errs sometimes, even when having good intentions. Therefore, it is important that mistakes be forgiven where forgiveness is due. It is uncivil to keep harping on a newbieful indiscretion, over and over again, and it does not help Wikipedia in any way. However, forgiveness should not be endless, and should not be used as an indulgence for intentional harm.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Thank God I'm an atheist! Digwuren 22:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that, applying the remedies of the Piotrus arbitration case, this principle should make it sure that every user covered by the amnesty is only entitled to one amnesty. Disruption caused by the amnestied people before the arbcom case forgiven can not be construed a license to cause more disruption following that amnesty, in hope that another arbcom case would come around and bring with it second, then possibly third and forth amnesty. Digwuren 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - not clear what it is suppose to mean. If it is WP:BYTE we can use the policy Alex Bakharev 08:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of intent: Honest mistakes are to be forgiven, but malice or intentional recklessness is a serious problem. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 10:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. Digwuren joined the project in 2007 and has already made a significant contribution to Wikipedia [31], greatly increasing our knowledge of that little country on the eastern shore of the Baltic. Petri Krohn has been around since 2005, what's his excuse for his incivility, or his contribution to Estonia-related articles? Martintg 23:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Suva 18:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. We are all human, we make mistake. But users who refuse to apologize, think they are perfect, and continue to harass others should not have a carte blanche for eternal disruption, no matter what are their other redeeming qualities (ex. activity). We are building a friendly consensus community, not a jungle of flamers.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of bad faith outside venues for solving these issues are disrupting, uncivil and constitute personal attacks

17) Bad faith accusations at random places generate disruption and are insulting. If one suspects malicious indent then he/she should take it up at appropriate places and not at every encounter resulting in long threads full of accusations. If an AFD nomination is a bad faithed one it will fail. If an edit is bad faithed one consensus will overturn it. Its as simple as that. Screaming bad faith and disrupting the deliberation with accusations of any kind should not be allowed.--Alexia Death the Grey 06:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed I'm getting sick and tired of the way every topic is disrupted by accusations of bad faith never proven because thats not the subject of the topic. This mainly happens in AFD-s but also in controversial talks and is VERY distracting.--Alexia Death the Grey 06:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am aware that I once have done it. It changes nothing. This rule is needed to stop disruption but theres a need for a separate place to report these suspicions to be commented on appropriately and further action recommended if theres ground for it.--Alexia Death the Grey 04:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point, and one I hadn't thought of, to boot. Thanks. Support. What kind of enforcement could be used for this principle? Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 06:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I gave this a lot of thought in spite my wikibreak I have written an essay on a proposed solution to the issue of not having to go anywhere with your complaints. What I propose is a Community Court empowering the community to assert what is and is not appropriate.--Alexia Death the Grey 10:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I have seen many such accusations on talks (I don't frequent AfDs too often) and can confirm they are common. They have led to good editors limiting their participation in this project and eventually leaving completely. Alas, unless you are a new editor, the chance of getting a warning are slim and block - almost non-existent, even for editors who have accumulated dozens of warnings (not the least because they commonly remove them from their talk pages). I am sure I could go and accuse any editor I dislike of nationalism, cabalism, falsification, propaganda and whatnot, wikilawyer my way out of any criticism until the critics fear to say another bad word about me, and keep stalking that editor(s) and repeat such slander until they leave the project in disgust - because I have seen this done to many editors, and only my own personal standards of decency stop me from replying in kind. I completly sympathize with Alexia on being sick and tired with editors who carry out such campaigns of harassment (I have seen them going on for most of my wiki career, that's close to three years now!), as I am constantly harassed by the same editors who are baiting him and his friends and try to portray them as some "evil cabal". It would be great if ArbCom would put an end to such harassment before we loose all editors who don't enjoy such flaming. It would be not so great if ArbCom decided to issue another non-binding ruling or select one or two least active and youngest editors for scapegoats.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree here. User:3 Löwi, a good editor here since 2005, seems to have left Wikipedia since this "Korp!Estonia" madness started. Now new editors like User:Alexia Death and User:Suva have now gone on wikibreak, having had a gut full of this whole poisonous business. There seems to be a core group of two to three very experienced editors who seem to be the common denominator across all this disruption in Eastern European and Baltic articles. There is absolutely no excuse for incivility, edit warring or harrassment by experienced editors, being experienced they should know the rules, and it gives the wrong model of behaviour to new editors coming on board. Perhaps it's time to prune a bit of the poisonous old wood to promote new healthy growth. Martintg 04:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag misuse is disruptive

18) In order to aid in organising editorial thought, condense priorities and aid in clear labelling of problematic articles or regions, Wikipedia has a number of technical tags, such as {{POV}}, {{OR}}, {{TotallyDisputed}}, and others. These tags intended use is generally listed in them, and they invariably refer to discussion on a relevant discussion page. However, there have been cases of attaching such tags to articles merely to express an editor's personal displeasure of an article or, worse, the article's subject matter. Most often, this kind of misuse is easy to detect by lack of any explanation of these tags on the relevant discussion page; however, sometimes a misuser may attempt to pass off a vague, generality-laden "objection" as explanation so as to avoid such easy detection.

Either way, attaching these tags to pages without clear and specific explanation of the problems should be considered disruptive editing, and borders vandalism. After all, if there isn't a clear definition of the problem, how could anybody tell if the problem has been fixed or not?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed as an alternative to Dojarca's suggestion above. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 01:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supported. And word "tagvandalism" used below by Suva is a great neologism to describe tag misuse. -- Sander Säde 06:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Object The tags intended to inform a casual reader of Wikipedia that the content of the article is disputed. Hiding such fact from a user is unfair. The only reason the "disputed" tags needs is that the article's neutrality is being disputed by other users. The function of such tags is purely informational, it invites the reader to look through a talk page which may contain additional information. The tag does not indicate that the article's content is wrong, so the person placing the tag is not required to provide a convincing proof of his POV or convict their opponents.--Dojarca 06:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not the purpose of tagging. See Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#What is an NPOV dispute?. NPOV Tagging an article is meant to be a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral. Therefore the person placing the tag is required to provide reasons for the tag. Martintg 08:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, tagging is a temporary measure and should take place only while the dispute is ongoing. But sometimes it is impossible to make the article neutral. In such cases the tag should stay until the dispute is resilved.--Dojarca 09:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If the neutrality is disputed then there needs to be a reasons WHY is this disputed. Reasons in the style, "this article is nonsense" is not a good reason when we are dealing with heavily sourced article. There are many articles in wikipedia with their neutrality disputed because other editor doesn't agree with the sourced mainstream views presented on article. At the same time those editors don't represent any sources to prove the topic wrong. Tagvandalism based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT must be stopped. Suva Чего? 06:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Placing tags without providing specific justification is disruptive because others cannot be expected to speculate what the issues are. The tagger must clearly explain what his/her POV is so that it can be adequately addressed. Martintg 08:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should be tagged if they are disputed. The tagging user should provide reasons, but he does not need approval of validity of these reasons from his opponents.--Dojarca 09:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are editors who edit articles if they think there is a problem and then there are some who go around and use tags to notify other editors that there is a problem? --Termer 23:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete sourced information

19) Removal of sourced information from articles is unacceptable. This includes removing of primary sources, citations, historical documents, links to researches, relevant to the article, including those made in the USSR and used in the article to illustrate the Soviet point of view, even on the basis that the USSR was undemocratic, as well as modern Russian sources.--Dojarca 07:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong oppose due to the conflict with another principle, #Knowledge must be systematised. If a vandal adds an irrelevant claim regarding the safety record of bicycle helmets into an article on the topic of watermelons, there's nothing wrong with removing it, source or no source.

Worded in a more picturesque way, Goatse.cx is a primary source. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 06:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequently, Dojarca added the words "relevant to the article" to his proposal. I have evaluated the new proposal, and my position is:

Oppose due to the conflict with another principle, #Knowledge must be systematised. As articles develop, it is natural to reorganise their structure, and to move content around between articles. This principle does not allow this to take place, and in this way, hampers proper developing of encyclopædic content. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 07:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: by the established policy of WP:IINFO, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 02:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Comment. Exactly how should the problems of Soviet historiography be pointed out in articles where Soviet sources are used? I don't think anyone in modern scientific community disputes the inaccuracy of Soviet sources when it comes to history of Soviet Union - and often to medieval history as well. For example, taken direct from Soviet historiography article, a quote:

“

All in all, unprecedented terror must seem necessary to ideologically motivated attempts to transform society massively and speedily, against its natural possibilities. The accompanying falsifications took place, and on a barely credible scale, in every sphere. Real facts, real statistics, disappeared into the realm of fantasy. History, including the History of the Communist Party, or rather especially the history of the Communist Party, was rewritten. Unpersons disappeared from the official record. A new past, as well as new present, was imposed on the captive minds of the Soviet population, as was, of course, admitted when truth emerged in the late 1980s

”

(Robert Conquest Reflections on a Ravaged Century (2000) ISBN 0-393-04818-7, page 101).

So, why exactly should we consider Soviet sources to be reliable and acceptable for Wikipedia? Compare Estonia in World War II#Historical Soviet sources with Estonia in World War II#Soviet occupation, for example - and note the differences. Soviet sources claim that Estonia happily joined Soviet Union, while sources from rest of the world tell a different story - as do eyewitnesses. Why should we rely on Soviet sources there?

Or take Finnish Winter War (do not confuse with Continuation War, where Finns actually attacked SU, to reclaim land taken from them.). I do believe Soviet sources claim that Finland attacked Soviet Union - and I've heard (note: hearsay, not RS) that Russian schoolbooks still insist that.

So, I ask, why should we trust and use Soviet sources if they contradict modern Western sources? You are not proposing, say, for example, that we use Mein Kampf as a reliable source about Jews? Its reliability is about the same as Soviet sources.

-- Sander Säde 06:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest is a strong anti-Soviet propagandist. By the way, in Baltic countries and Poland there are functioning state-sponsored institutions, opened especially to create new history. Anyway the Soviet sources are well-suitable to illustrate the Soviet point of view.--Dojarca 07:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to give some evidence on "in Baltic countries and Poland there are functioning state-sponsored institutions, opened especially to create new history"? I know that they exist in Moscow, but this is the first time I've heard such claim about Baltics and Poland (as a side note, I am very sure that someone will soon attempt to present this travesty as a reliable source about Estonia).

And why should we have "Soviet point of view" represented? There is no Soviet Union anymore, thankfully, and I don't think no one asks creationism to be given an equal viewpoint in the evolution article, as pseudoscience needs to be mentioned, not represented equally. You may also want to look at Wikipedia guideline on fringe theories, as this covers "Soviet viewpoint" very accurately.

Finally, Robert Conquest seems to be very highly regarded among his peers - and if anything, accused of too mild approach to Soviet Union. -- Sander Säde 07:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Irpen just went against this principle in this edit. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 07:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed --Dojarca 06:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I'd call "POV pushing" and making WP into a personal battle ground. The USSR is long gone and dead for good, still there are people out there that want to fight for the lost cause and have made articles and talk pages on WP into their personal battlegrounds. Although I think using Soviet sources for illustrating the POV of the totalitarian state once existed having a historic value to it that could be used on WP exactly like any other POV of any totalitarian regime.--Termer 00:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RS and WP:V, unreliable referenced information can and should be removed. Soviet historiography in particular is a mine of unreliable information that should be carefully double and triple checked before they are used in our articles.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly opposed The Soviet Union proclaimed that history served politics. Now we are to raise Soviet sources to the same level of "factualness" as non-Soviet sources? One can say what the Soviet version of history is, but one cannot represent the Soviet version of anything as even being factual. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not only that. Currently, there's a serious edit war going on at Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, where Beatles Fab Four, Irpen and Alex Bakharev attempt to use a humorous piece by one Paavo Kangur as though it was a WP:RS. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 04:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To guys bashing Soviet historiography: what about the historiographic views which were being expressed by the Soviet historiography? Is the introducing of those equally unacceptable? Yury Tarasievich 06:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intra-Wikipedia conflict of interest

20) It constitutes a conflict of interest for a Wikipedia editor to significantly edit an article being considered for deletion, under any applicable process, if he or she has voted for the article's deletion or plans to do so. Obvious typofixes and reverting blatant vandalism are OK, but arguing a basis for deletion -- for example, lack of references -- which was introduced by the very user -- in this example, by deleting the references -- is disruptive conduct and may indicate bad faith on his part.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I'm surprised nobody seems to have tried to codify this before. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 02:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supported. We are seeing even now how people, who voted delete, are trying to disrupt the article to achieve its deletion. -- Sander Säde 07:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable only to edits clearly aimed at making an article worse. This constitutes WP:POINT. Does not apply to good faith editing. --Irpen 21:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Endorsed. The AfD process often provides an excellent opportunity to improve the article, through the efforts by those who believe the article should be kept. It is disruptive if those who vote to delete begin hampering these efforts by reverting the edits made by those attempting to inmprove it. Martintg 02:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. Someone may in good faith vote to delete it, but at the same time recognise that in the event of the article's keeping, it should be maintained or fixed (this is especially the case where notability was the reason given for deletion). I've in fact done that on several occasions. This seems outside of ArbCom's scope and is venturing into making policy. Orderinchaos 09:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AFDs do not take that long. When acting in good faith, it shouldn't be hard to wait until the AFD is closed for such activities. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 07:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. If proved, this would be a clear-cut case of disruption.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is editing and editing. The COI point would be valid if the editor votes delete with one hand and makes sure that his edits make the article look worse thus ensuring that it gets more delete votes. I think Piotrus must remember the long-ago AfD (it was called VfD back then) of Anti-Semitism in Poland (it ended up deleted and redirected to History of Jews in Poland.) At the time some of the users who campaigned for deletion were editing the article they were trying to delete in such a way, as to make it as much nonsensially and Polonophobically sounding as possible in order to appall the unsuspecting observers and make them vote "delete". Some were replacing the lead by "The Poles are the most anti-Semitic nation in the world" and other such crap in order to make voters who would read such crap vote delete even though the article originally did not include any of that. This is indeed disruptive editing of the article under the deletion debate. The COI point would be valid if the editor votes delete with one hand and makes sure that his edits make the article look worse thus ensuring that it gets more delete votes. But as far as the AfD debate in question goes see this comment by no one else but Martin who with the other hand keeps accusing me in improper COI editing. --Irpen 21:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality shall not be misconstrued

21) A core policy of Wikipedia is that of neutrality. The purpose of this policy is limiting bias in Wikipedia, and to that end, it requires that all notable opinions, or interpretations of facts, are represented in accordance with their notability. However, facts themselves are not biased -- even when they might contradict, or be unpalatable, to some notable POV. It is a violation of the intent of the policy of WP:NPOV to pick and choose facts on the pretext of achieving neutrality, or some imaginable balance between positive facts and negative facts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. It should be noted that in some cases, there are not enough verifiable WP:RS to ascertain factuality of a proposed fact. When this happens, it may indicate that the subject is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 02:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True but not enough: #Wikipedia policies work together --Irpen 21:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Verifiability of included content is crucial

22) Wikipedia is a free encyclopædia that anybody can edit. Accordingly, it is -- regrettably -- true that anybody can insert nonsense into Wikipedia (see also the well-established concept of sneaky vandalism). In order to alleviate such problem, it is important to follow the policy of WP:V -- any non-trivial claim must be independently verifiable.

Claims of fact -- scientific or historical --, and of notable opinions must be sourced to the satisfaction of WP:RS.
Claims of logic must be presented in full, so as to allow independent tracing.
Non-opinion claims of classification or assessment must be sourced to relevant scholarly sources. Among scholarly sources, peer-reviewed sources are preferred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed as an alternative to proposal 8a. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 03:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WP:V is a policy. I am sure ArbCom could confirm it, but why bother? The ArbCom deals with editors behavior, not with content issue (and WP:V is a content policy).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting emphasize on just one policy allows to distort the balance as much more stuff can be "attributed" than what belongs to the encyclopedia. --Irpen 20:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies work together

22a) Wikipedia content is largely governed by the combined action of several policies, namely: Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, No original research along with several others. The combination of these policies applied in good faith editing has a balancing affect on the encyclopedic content. Emphasizing some policies at the expense of the others constitutes policy misapplication.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. It is a very delicate business and balancing the policies requires lots of good faith and academic honesty. Perhaps could be better reformulated. Clerks and other editors with better English who see my idea, please feel free to copyedit this proposal without asking or starting a new thread. --Irpen 20:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Umm, this sounds strange. One could use such claim to counter any argument backed by a policy, arguing that 'you cite Policy A, but not B to Zs, hence you are not giving enough weight to them and your argument is not valid'.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We all agree that all three of these (NPOV, NOR, WP:V) are virtues that a good article possesses, but when we go insane in pressing any of them, the result is gibberish or rebarbative editing.

NPOV could be pressed so hard that it constitutes "equal time" for Holocaust deniers, UFO believers, fairy believers, and the rest, simply because there is a simple statement that Hitler pursued the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question."

"Verifiability" can be pressed so hard that people want a footnote for "the Earth is the third planet from the sun."

"No original research" can be pressed so hard that the author cannot have a thesis or synthesize the information, because that's original work, and must instead copy every single word from another source -- making Wikipedia an article aggregator rather than an encyclopedia.

Any person who presses a single aspect of an article and goes into tendentious and legalistic extremes is going to be effectively arguing for argument's sake and attempting to damage another person's work, rather than describe a well made article or foster cooperative editing of a reliable encyclopedia. (P.S. Similarly, any person who uses one of these to justify an article is misunderstanding what the policies are. They are not justifications, not elements on a checklist. They are descriptions of the necessary qualities of an article. None of them amounts to the full satisfaction of a well written article, but all of them together are qualities that all well written articles possess.) Geogre 21:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions should be attributed

23) No opinion should be presented in an article on the Baltic-Soviet/Russia controvercy as the only correct or a fact. Other opinions should not be labelled incorrect, "unscientific", "revisionist", "made-up", "propaganda" etc. If such opinions exist, they should be attributed. This principle is proposed to enforce WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements rule. --Dojarca 04:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong oppose, based on conflict with the principes of neutrality and accuracy. Some options often contradict facts. If Wikipedia is to follow the WP:NPOV, it is our obligation to point out any factual basis -- or lack of factual basis -- of notable opinions. This proposal, however, would prohibit reporting on the facts if they contradict an opinion. Thus, such a proposal must not be accepted as a principle. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 05:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: the title of this proposal does not match its content. I will change the title accordingly, to Only opinions can contradict opinions. It's not perfect, though, and a further rename may be in order. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 05:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources should not be removed as well (see the other my proposal)--Dojarca 05:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not understand the proposal, especially since nominator is doing that all the time. Opposed until clarified. -- Sander Säde 07:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I do all the time?--Dojarca 08:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting unsourced personal opinions, of course. -- Sander Säde 10:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a diff please.--Dojarca 10:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What else can you call your tagging of Occupation of Baltic states with {{NPOV}}? Russia's position is explained in the article already - and you haven't managed to give even a single unreliable source to support your opinions, you just demand more and more sources - which you obviously are given, as can be seen on the talk page. I fail to see your actions anything other as pushing your personal opinions and obstructionism. -- Sander Säde 02:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag was incerted there because there were non-attributed POV statements in the article.--Dojarca 15:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dojarca, there are your contributions to discussing Occupation of Baltic states. In one single thread you contend:

"Occupation is by definition can only be of a foreign territory. If a territory already annexed, it can not be called 'occupation'."
"But the fact is that this is only one point of view and incorporation of the countries into SU was also widely recognized by many other countries." As it turned out, you meant the Warsaw Pact countries under Soviet domination.
"Even if the elections were falsified, it was widely recognized that the states became part of the USSR and as such they ware [sic] not occupied."

Not a single source offered for discussion. If you are proposing that from now on you will cite reputable sources to back up your contentions, then I would heartily agree. Is that what you are proposing? No, on re-reading your proposal, you ask that every opinion on the planet be allowed to be uttered, merely attributed, without any regard to its factual basis--editorial contributions prohibited regarding whether anything is factual or not. So, sadly, strongly oppose. Just another attempt to raise unsourced unverified unreferenced opnions to encyclopedic status alongside with irrefutable sourced facts. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide contributions to article, not to a talk page?--Dojarca 15:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided plenty of content regarding the topic. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed--Dojarca 04:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose, a whole new level of cynicism with regards to WP being a synthesis of reputable editing — Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever read this: WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements? --Dojarca 15:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read your proposal, and it suggests that all opinions be simply presented and attributed and that there is no need to substantiate any factual basis. You can quote what people say all you like, but to propose to put opinions (Duma proclamations, politicians' sound bites,...) and facts (circumstances of the occupation of the Baltics) on the same level playing field in an encyclopedic article is nothing but a blatant ploy to push your source-free POV with no fear of contradiction by inconvenient facts. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to attribute opinions--Dojarca 15:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you propose is:

"No opinion should be presented in an article on the Baltic-Soviet/Russia controvercy as the only correct or a fact." = All sorts of opinions can be presented whether or not there are reputable sources to provide basis for the opinion.
"Other opinions should not be labelled incorrect, "unscientific", "revisionist", "made-up", "propaganda" etc." = No opinion may be disputed as not having a basis in fact, no matter how outrageous. According to this, "Even the Russian Duma proclaimed the moon is made of cheese" cannot be disputed based on any verifiable facts or reputable sources.
"If such opinions exist, they should be attributed." = Everything is a level playing field of who said what without regard to sources or factual basis. "A says X", "B says Y", "C says Z". No disupting the verifiability of any statement. Because, the most cynical part of your proposition:
This principle is proposed to enforce WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements rule." = So anything anyone says against Russia saying the Soviet Union did not occupy, say, Latvia can simply be (a) attributed to who said it, (b) be labeled as a biased POV and (c) anyone agreeing with the Russian position does not have to bring a single fact to the table to substantiate that "opinion" which in your proposal is just as equally valid as the "opinion" the Baltics were occupied--since facts and sources are explicitly not part of this (everything can be called a biased opinion regardless of fact.)

This proposal is an insult to any attempt to write an encyclopedia article based on reputable sources. The "no occupation" camp has yet to produce a single source (Irpen's contention of producing lots of sources is nothing but insisting there's no occupation because a source doesn't discuss it). There is still no basis produced for the Russian Duma's proclamation about the legality of Latvia joining the Soviet Union. Your proposal (a) neatly does away with ever having to produce any facts to substantiate your "opinion", and (b) allows you to brand any opposing contention as an opposite and no more valid than yours "opinion." Your proposal is not about "attribution." Your proposal is about presenting all versions of history as equally valid opinions regardless of the facts. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part's of it are policy. Parts of it are gray area due to problems with fleshing WP:RS. Controversial (extraordinary) statements (facts or opinions) should be attributed, unless it can be shown that they are shared by a too large group of people to attribute properly. Care should be taken to avoid WP:WEASEL. In any case, I don't think that this proposal has much to do with the ArbCom - we should try to avoid content issues.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions and judgments have a much stricter inclusion burden than facts and numbers. Most should be attributed anyway. This is indeed a gray area and impossible one to fully be addressed by policies, guidelines and arbcoms. Writing good articles on controversial subjects requires thorough scholarly honesty and genuine commitment to the project's integrity rather than editing Wikipedia mainly to grind an ax. Sophisticated ax-grinding editors are very difficult to counter based on policies alone and here is where ArbCom's intervention was requested in the Piotrus' case while ArbCom declined being "too busy". This case, however, is much more simple. Digwuren and several other editors (although to a lesser degree) blatantly violated not only the spirit but also a letter of the whole bunch of widely accepted policies and could be dealt with regardless of whether the ArbCom is willing to undertake a much more complex task of enforcing honest editing and ethical conduct in Eastern European topics. --Irpen 20:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I find it impossible to take yours et al. accusations seriously when proposals are made here to ostensibly to enforce playing by the rules but which explicitly relieve editors of providing any reputable references whatsoever and prohibit editors from using facts and reputable sources to dispute opinions. This is not about scholarly honesty, it is about duping editors and readers. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy

24) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

30) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

eSStonia

1) There has been great controversy and emotion behind the Bronze Soldier issue and Estonia has suffered major cyber attacks originating mainly from the Russophone internet space. Some of this anti-Estonian sentiment has spilled over into Wikipedia resulting in some editors attempting to tendatiously edit Estonian related articles to promote the eSStonia stereotype.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support as a finding of fact. Remark that it's counterproductive to interpret this case as a battleground between ethnicity-based camps. What should be considered is conduct of individual users, not national stereotypes. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 06:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supported, that is a fact. -- Sander Säde 06:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Martintg 01:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure Martintg will have no problems providing proof for his "eSStonia" accusations, other then linking any disapproval of official greetings to Waffen SS vets to an unsigned article in Economist. RJ CG 20:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object. In fact the Bronze Soldier controvercy brought here a wave of nationalistically engaged users from Estonia.--Dojarca 05:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointedly lacks diffs. --Irpen 20:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supremely speculative and irrelevant. I may have a great deal to say about the political background to this case, but this would be beyond the scope of our arbitration. There have been no "eSStonia"-type comments that I am aware of. The only person using the term was User:ProhibitOnions who posits himself as a neutral observer. The only "cyberattack" involved in the case was attempted against FayssalF (after he issued a block to Digwuren) and that attack was apparently arranged from Tallinn. On the other hand, I was referred to as a "die hard Nazi screamer", Petri Krohn as a victim of "borderline paranoia", Irpen was accused of "hateful views" and being a "paid KGB troll", RJ CG of being an "Estophobe" and "hateful troll", etc., etc. Let the arbs to judge which side has promoted a negative stereotype of Estonia here. Furthermore, Digwuren and Suva have been known to spread anti-Russian stereotypes on IRC, such as "you roll vobla into pravda and drink vodka", "reading logs in loghouses", "the country of zombies", and so on. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smear emanating from FayssalF

2) FayssalF has persistently attempted to smear Digwuren with fictitious cracking accusations, and repeatedly refused to back them up.

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Digwuren 10:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on FayssalF's non-involvement in further affairs, I'm prepared to withdraw this proposal when the accusations get an acceptable solution. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 05:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

3) Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren

Comment by Arbitrators:

A note Fred Bauder 19:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I would like the ArbCom to stipulate that this case of RFCU by Petri Krohn constitutes abuse of Wikipedia process, based on his admitted knowledge of the listed users' distinctness. What's the appropriate manner for proposing that finding? Digwuren 20:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Influence of propaganda on reliability

4) Due to Soviet approach to propaganda, Soviet and post-Soviet Russian sources tend to subject treatment of history and news to ideological narratives. Consequently, a Soviet source that contradicts a multitude of non-Soviet sources on matters of fact can not be considered a reliable source under WP:RS for the facts in question. It may still be a WP:RS on Soviet POV, though.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. A necessary clarification if we're to discuss the view differences of former Soviet Union. Digwuren 21:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Not a single modern historian would not even dream of using Soviet historiography as an accurate source of events, that would be unthinkable. Therefore, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must not rely on unreliable material. -- Sander Säde 16:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that our coverage of WWII atrocities in Estonia should be based on "research" (or rather lack thereof) commissioned by a government that is at pains to cover up the entire story. It was the Soviet Union that put up utmost resistance to the Nazi regime, liberated Auschwitz and extinguished the plague. On the other hand, Estonia maintained a bunch of concentration camps where virtually the entire Jewish population of the country was exterminated. There is no way we shall impeach anti-Fascist sources as "Soviet propaganda" in order to give credence to pro-Nazi sources. Too often we witness how the Holocaust-related evidence of the Simon Wiesenthal Center ends up by being purged from the articles as "Russian accusations". We don't settle disputes by telling one side to shut up or declaring its sources unreliable en masse. Both sides of the dispute should be heard. Wikipedia does not condone censorship. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

We really need articles on Soviet historiography, Russian historiography, and more editors aware of the problems such issues represent at WP:RS.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We now have Soviet historiography, with all the foreseeable problems. I feel uncomfortable creating Russian historiography at this time. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 06:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Soviet historiography is an exercise in tendentious editing and should be either heavily revised or AfDed. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is a motion to place current Estonian sources (also influenced by propaganda) as well as influenced by Cold-war era propaganda Western ones above Soviet ones.--Dojarca 15:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... care to give an explanation where Estonian "propaganda-influenced" sources are wrong while Soviet sources about that are right? Why on Earth are you trying to protect Soviet sources, you must know that in SU, history was written according to official Party line, not truth - there are dozens if not hundreds of examples. BTW, you still haven't given a source for institutes in Baltics and Poland which re-write history. -- Sander Säde 16:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensial overly sweeping proposal. Firstly, there were lots of good scholarship under the Soviet times as well. There was also lots of bad scholarship. But most importantly, "facts reported even by biased sources must be examined, rather than brushed aside using inane and disingenuous, or even true, accusations about the source's character." Judgments from biased sources has to be judged differently from factual statements and have to be always attributed anyway. --Irpen 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This ruling on content has been discussed and discarded during the Piotrus arbitration. In short, some folks from the former Soviet satellite countries insist that cold-war propaganda from one side is invariably preferrable to cold-war propaganda from another side. While this may occasionally be true, this leads to indiscriminate impeachment of all Russian sources published before 1991 and most published after that date as "propaganda", either tsarist, stalinist, or putinist. This is ludicrous. It is incontrovertible that there were many areas of historiography where Soviet scholarship (Igor Diakonov, Mikhail Artamonov, Valentin Yanin, Alexander Kazhdan, Fyodor Shcherbatskoy, etc) was of the highest order and had no rivals in the West. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic harassment of opposed editors

5) Irpen, and ~~to a lesser degree,~~ other editors, has been engaging in a systematic campaign to make Wikipedia an intolerable environment for people whom he does not like or whose POVs he disapproves of. This has led to several good editors, such as Balcer, Lysy, 3 Löwi and others, leaving the project, and others, such as Halibutt, Alexia Death and Suva, as well as others, to drastically reduce their level of involvement.

I've stricken out the "to a lesser degree", per concerns expressed by Piotrus. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 19:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Considering Wikipedia's goals and principles, this is probably the most important issue in this whole arbitration case. See primarily the evidence provided by Piotrus for specific details. 泥紅蓮_凸凹箱 08:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly to the related "proposed remedy" I urge the arbitrators to take this proposal straight up for a vote at the /Proposed decision page. I would like to see it actually voted so that to end this speculation. --Irpen 19:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with that. I recall similar proposals in my ArbCom, and unfortunately I also recall how they were ignored - and how the issues that ArbCom refused to acknowledge continued to reappear, just as predicted. Mark my words: one day, those issues will have to be brought back and voted upon. Or if not, that will only mean one side got tired and left the project. Every day that they are not addressed, more flaming goes on, and more editors get tired of it and leave the project.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly supported. Let us not to forget very hard-working Constanz (talk · contribs), who left Wikipedia in March 2007, driven away by (a real surprise here) Ghirlandajo, Grafikm fr and Irpen. Would a list of editors driven away like that be appropriate? -- Sander Säde 19:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen today how Bishonen exploited Irpen's baseless accusations to complete a harassment cycle in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide, I'm starting to suspect that quitting is the wisest option. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 09:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen's accusations of impropriety in WP:GA arise in [32] (and a few following edits to the same article). Dihydrogen Monoxide's reaction is [33]. Bishonen expressed public opposition at the RfA in [34], and presented the message left by Dihydrogen Monoxide to Irpen's talkpage as inappropriate on its own. Later, she created [35] in this arbitration's evidence section. (I should point out that this is an inaccurate description of the events, and I can share the actual, full IRC logs with whoever wants to check, as long as they aren't left to a place public enough for a search engine to pick them up.) Note the classical approach to constructing artificial controversies; there is a fake controversy on RfA referring to a fake controversy on the ArbCom evidence page, and the ArbCom evidence page, in turn, refers to the fake controversy on the RfA. Bishonen's opposition, based largely on a fabrication by Irpen, was referred to by several other users in their own oppositions, and -- probably not very surprisingly -- a number of members from the Cartel soon appeared and voiced their own opposition: Alex Bakharev reiterating the lie (note that his public reference is to the message at Irpen's talkpage, but his attached description covers claims not made at this place), Ghirlandajo making a vague remark towards "disruption of the GA process", and Grafikm fr simply stating "per Bishonen and many others". Bishonen has pretended discussion from the previous night is relevant; I'm not convinced, but in any case, I would point out that Xizer's remark about deleting the article is obviously just a joke, as he later went on to copyedit the article in question; Francis Tyers has a long-term bias against articles regarding Soviet occupation which probably shouldn't be detailed here, and Bishonen's representation of the events leaves, for some quite unexplained reason, completely out supportive remarks by reinis and bogdan (sorry, can't link them to Wikipedia users right now). If this is relevant then it's probably also relevant that Francis Tyers' opposing vote at the RfA is also based solely on this incident, albeit referred indirectly.

The obvious moral of the story is "If you have anything to do with Digwuren at all, the Cartel will come after you, too.". Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 23:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 23:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I am not sure about the 'lesser degree' of other editors. Levels of harassment vary in time, as well as in scope - some 'harassers' have specific target they harass near constantly, but make only occasional harass-supports on others. But that's nitpicking, and and certainly endorse this finding.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supported. Note that Irpen has had absolutely minimal involvement in editing Estonia related articles, and only turned his attention towards harrassing Dirwuren and other Estonian editors after the completion of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus freed up his time. The fact that it took him one month after this present case opened, no doubt spent trawling through the edit histories, to actually present anything on the evidence page is telling. It shows that Irpen is misusing the ArbCom process to harrass editors, rather than attempt to fix any real issue. It must be again noted that no effort at mediation or other dispute resolution process was attempted by Irpen before launching this case. Martintg 20:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully endorse. Good editors--Constanz being a prime example--have been driven away. Baltic and Eastern European editors are RfA'd (as here) starting with primary evidence being "grossly offensive" comments regarding (demonstrated) Russian nationalism on the part of an editor, and others attacked for far less, being threatened with blocks and bans. Meanwhile, we have the most vile slurs directed against Baltic and Eastern European editors and peoples--and those pass with not a single comment as if they are some valid substantiated point of view. They are not. Tolerating anti-Baltic and anti-Eastern European hate speech as benign expressions of opinion has gone on for far too long. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. At this juncture, yet another generic finding that editors should in general be more WP:CIVIL would be grossly and offensively inadequate. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I don't care about nationality of the editors or their "goals". The fact that you have many good contributions to wikipedia doesn't mean you have the right to own articles and try to eliminate all other editors who care do disagree with you or one of your friends. I didn't know that User:Lysy also became an victim of the harrasment but Lysy was in my opinion a very good editor without naming others. I also thought about leaving the project for a while to save my nerves but I just decided to step back for a while and see how things are going instead. I hope we can get back at building encyclopedia soon enough. Suva Чего? 22:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad arbitrators are not attending this workshop to click on the diffs that are supposed to support such "proposals", see for themselves and comment. --Irpen 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we have no proof that any evidence or workshop or other discussion have been read :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not welcome drama queens

5.1) Those users who threaten the community with leaving the project, if their favourite POV is not honoured, lack dedication and neutrality required for building the encyclopaedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by way of response to the previous "finding of fact". I'm not sure who 3 Lowi is, but Halibutt and Lysy have been hardly active since last year and their departure seems to have nothing to do with the "Estonian-Russian ethnic dispute" (as the scope of the case has been determined by ArbCom). It is not apparent that either Halibutt or Lysy were interested in any country but Poland/Lithuania, let alone edited Estonia-related topics. Among Lysy's last edits were the Piotrus arbitration and the conflict on German minority in Poland. As for Balcer, he is intermittently in and out of the project; this may happen as often as five times per year. I am aware that Suva and Alexia periodically threaten the IRC folks with leaving the project, but they are neither established contributors nor editors in good standing to make a fuss about their threats or their "level of involvement". The less drama, the better. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to back up your comment about Suva and Alexia not being in good standing with something? Or is it just the usual baseless Ghirla-speak? Furthermore, care to explain how it is relevant to Wikipedia what someone does in IRC? -- Sander Säde 11:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that Wikipedia will collapse just because these two editors are sent on a furlough. It actually stands to reason that the project will benefit from such a development. I'm not aware of their threats to leave the project or cut their "level of involvement" on-wiki, so I assume the proposal refers to their threats on IRC (which have become pretty routine). IRC is very relevant to this particular case inasmuch as it is owned by one of the arbs and some of the parties were blocked based on IRC bla-bla. There will be more on the subject soon. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing a point. This ArbCom is not about 'Estonia' or 'Estonian editors', it's also about 'Russia' and 'Russian editors' (you need two to tango, you know). Some of whom are responsible for editors like Halibutt, Lysy or Balcer limiting their participation or outright leaving.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is you who miss the point. The scope of the case was determined to encompass "Estonian-Russian ethnic conflict, particularly those who edited regarding the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn controversy" (not that I agree with this summary, though). In light of this decision, your sally on the Evidence page and most activities on this page are patently offtopic. You need to understand that the Piotrus arbitration is over; this is an altogether different case. Your attempts to expand the scope to include all Eastern European grievances from several years ago are not helpful and may prevent ArbCom from issuing any specific ruling to address the Digwuren situation. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please make a motion to the ArbCom to ban me from commenting here. My evidence and comments are at least applicable here as yours or Irpen's in mine (or Polish-Lithuanian) ArbCom. If the behavior discussed here is visible in other wiki areas, it is only logical to note that it is more widespread and thus even more in need of addressing.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 12:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is indeed a near perfect description of a philosophy that threatens to ruin this project. Let's ignore that productive users are leaving; after all, if they can't stomach day-by-day insults and harassment, they are simply too weak for us to be of any help. Only flame war veterans, who eat personal attacks on breakfast, should be allowed to expected to this project. Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone with a tough enough skin can edit.-_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from the thread below that you endorsed the description of myself as a "paranoid goon" by speedily presenting an award to the offender. Should anyone wonder that I transferred all mainspace activity to Russian Wikipedia after that? Of course if your consider Suva and Alexia to be a great asset to the project, the departure of Ghirlandajo means nothing for you. But even though I'm basically inactive nowadays, I don't whine about it or threaten anyone with leaving for good, as some of the parties to this case choose to do. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem started on May 1

6) The accounts Digwuren (talk · contribs), Suva (talk · contribs) and Alexia_Death (talk · contribs) appeared on Wikipedia within several hours from each other[36] [37] [38] and instantly started revert warring on Bronze Soldier of Tallinn.[39] Sometimes there appear one-purpose accounts whose activity is limited to seconding Digwuren's opinions; they normally disappear once their possible connection to Digwuren is exposed.[40]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as per WP:MEAT: "Some users begin editing on Wikipedia because another user has recruited them to push a certain agenda. Though such users are distinct people, it is difficult to tell them apart from sock puppets". --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the explanation given by Suva here perfectly reasonable. Trying to use WP:MEAT is going against WP:AGF, and an example of unfounded bad faith cabal accusations constituting in fact a harassment pattern.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 12:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advocating again? Actually, I don't believe that Wikipedia has seen more clear-cut cases of meatpuppetry. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cartel USSR Forever!

7) Digwuren, Suva, and related Estonian accounts misrepresented their conflict with the community as an "Estonian-Russian ethnic conflict", while in reality their most vigorous opponent was a Finn, as well as several Belgian and Dutch editors. Characteristically, User:Bishonen, a Scandinavian who has not been known to edit USSR- or Estonia-related pages, was declared by Digwuren "an associate member of Cartel USSR Forever!"[41]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Due to Digwuren's efforts, the conflict came to be perceived as involving Estonians and Russians, which is simply not true. Actually, I doubt that any ethnic Russians took part in this supposedly Estonian-Russian ethnic conflict. The Estonian accounts and one Latvian editor were confronted by a bunch of disconnected wikipedians from different countries who complained that "most of my contributions to Estonia related articles have been summarily reverted, usually in under ten minutes" (User:Petri Krohn), "any attempt of mine to keep the words "fight against fascism" in the text was summarily reverted within minutes" (User:Paul Pieniezny), "an attempt to unbias it failed on revert warring and insults from Digwuren" (User:Otto ter Haar). It is true that User:Piotrus joined the Estonians, but after the case was adopted by ArbCom. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petri Krohn was stalked

8) Digwuren (talk · contribs), Suva (talk · contribs) and Alexia_Death (talk · contribs) engaged in stalking the anti-Fascist Finnish User:Petri Krohn on his talk page, on AfD and elsewhere.[42][43][44][45][46] This "sifting through his edits" (as Digwuren put it) caused Petri to cut his level of participation in Wikipedia for a considerable period. Suva openly admitted that he "has, does, and will "stalk" some editors whose edits are on the suspicious side to monitor the factual correctness and NPOV" and that he "takes a look at [Petri's] contributions log from time to time".[47]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Dismiss per WP:NPA. No evidence of stalking - and once again, Ghirla attempts to portray that users he is attacking are pro-fascists. Can an administrator please finally clarify to him that baseless and unsourced fascism accusations are not acceptable on Wikipedia, please? -- Sander Säde 13:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

20) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Adhere to policy

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose, at least as long as the "independent third party" is construed in the naïve sense, as contrary to spirit of Wikipedia. However, this proposal has some value, and it may be possible to work it into a supportable proposal. Digwuren 20:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Well, the only thing that has worked the best so far is strictly following the WP:NPOV by dividing articles up according to the conflicting verifiable perspectives that have been evidenced by reliable sources. The only way to solve the issues in my opinion is by putting an end to the soapboxing and political debates on talk pages and only tolerating citing facts or opinions from published sources in the articles. Regarding the proposal than it's hard to imagine once the parties can't agree on the political issues, how are they going to agree on an independent third party whose identity is to be agreed by both parties? The proposal is not going to work I'm afraid. What would work I think if an independent third party would help to enforce strictly the WP:NPOV policy, making sure that all the opposing claims in the articles are properly referred to reliable sources. Thanks!--Termer 08:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"independent third parties" merely refers to existing mechanisms already detailed at the official policy page, WP:DR. DrKiernan 08:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have spared no pains to demonstrate that content arbitration is the only feasible way of settling a never-ending dispute. I don't understand why ArbCom is willing to spend so much time and effort to hear similar content disputes again and again. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the Digwuren saga is not about content but about incivility, revert-warring, meatpuppetry, harassing, and WP:POINTing on the part of an ethnic clique. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:DR was working, we wouldn't be here. It is obvious that when both parties are acting as they are right, and consensus cannot be reached, DR is failing. We need to introduce a way to deal with that - particularly in environments where incivility and harassment of editors are common. Saying 'use WP:DR' is not going to change anything.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Wikipedia has no content arbitration procedures. We need to introduce them on the Eastern-Europe-related segment, because it is there that some of the worst POV-pushing and tendentious editing take place. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content is not the problem; EE topics generate their fair share of GAs, FAs, DYKs and so on. The problem is disruptive and incivil behavior of some users frequenting those topics, users whose names often come up in DR or AN(I) (or WP IRC, for that matter...) and who are responsible for driving other editors off this project. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Application of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus

6) The remedies of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus apply in this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

They apply Fred Bauder 19:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only remedy adopted in the Piotrus arbitration was the general "amnesty". Fred, if you propose to extend amnesty to Digwuren and his company, I beg to differ. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, that cannot be applied to Ghirla and his company. -- Sander Säde 15:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have I committed an infraction, such as accusing my opponents of "bad faith slander and lies", "petty hatred against Russians", or "silly conspiracy theories", to apply for amnesty? --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the edits you link above date to May-June this year, we can see baseless accusing editors of admin tool abuse and "hijacking" of ANI thread, accusing others of harassment, accusing editors of trolling and pestering, calling reliable sources like BBC / The Economist full of vile bias and Russophobia, accusing editors of voting based on ethnic cliques, accusing other editor of taunting, claiming that a a crowd of Transnistria-related warriors is disrupting AfD procedures...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

An absolute no-no. Those remedies in Piotrus' case were poor ones even at that time. Applying them here makes even less sense. There are clear policy violations, boorishness, rabid revert-warring, provocations and, sometimes, outright disruption. Pure and simple. --Irpen 02:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support in provisions of civility and editing guidelines. Unique traits of this case, the accusations of some sort of cabalism, and hacking accusations need their own solutions.--Alexia Death the Grey 04:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of the application is needed. Digwuren 20:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Martintg 01:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that behavior of some editors - particulary those that were active in my ArbCom - should be reviewed with the remedies of my ArbCom taken into account. To be specific: certain editors, despite calls for improved behavior discussed ad nauseum and finally passed at my ArbCom, seem not to have changed their behaviour at all, leading to this ArbCom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Piotrus' case is totally different: here we have pure and simple WP disruption that must be dealt with. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Create content, not discussions

7) We are here to build an encyclopedia. This is not a discussion forum. All editors are reminded that creating new articles and expanding existing ones is much more useful than taking part in talk discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose Discussion is a natural and essential part of creating content and achieving NPOV. Discussion should be encouraged. However, not all going on talk pages is discussion, in fact lot of it has become flame festing, bulling and name calling and THAT is is wrong. Banning discussion is equivalent to cutting of an aching head to kill the headache... So lets cure the headache. Flame festing and accusations of some sort of political/ethnic agenda should be banned under guidelines of disruption, NPA and civility and enforced decisively. As long as this is not done situation cannot improve. --Alexia Death the Grey 12:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to properly understand the context for this one, one needs to remember [53]. In light of that suggestion, which is obviously a bad idea, I find it impossible to support this proposal, which could be construed as supporting that bad idea. Digwuren 12:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed by Piotrus. It appears that some editors involved in this case are guilty of forgetting we are here to create articles; not to convince others that their POV is wrong.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agreed~~ Partially agree. With limited bandwidth due to family commitments, I find the various RfAs, RfCs, etc, can be more disruptive than the alledged behaviour these cases are meant to address. I'd rather be spending my time building articles. Martintg 22:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might perhaps be useful to distinguish classes of discussion by their purpose. Digwuren 12:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it would actually be impossible to construct articles without discussion, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, so that aspect I disagree. It's having to spend time defending against these block shopping exercises that is a tremendous waste of bandwidth. That checkuser case against you and the so-called "Tartu based accounts" was classic case in point Martintg 20:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this gets accepted this needs to be reworded. The first two sentences would be omitted. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would replace the "...taking part in talk discussions" with "...taking part in soapboxing and political debates" and enforce the: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.--Termer 05:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert-warring is better than attempts to reach some sort of compromise on talk pages? I don't understand the point Piotrus is making here. Too confusing to be accepted. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No unproven accusations

8) If the 'Tartu Estonian cabal' is not proven to exist, then we should presume innocence / assume good faith and state clearly that it does not exist. Further, no user should bring forward such accusations unless new evidence can be presented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Supported. No evidence whatsoever has ever been presented, only baseless accusations and insults. Sander Säde 05:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supported. Digwuren

Meanwhile, I have gathered full evidence of another incident of baseless accusations made by Irpen.

It's really hard to prove that you're not, in fact a camel -- but, despite all difficulties, I've managed to do it. When the formal issues get worked out (see evidence discussion page), I can present my evidence to the ArbCom for formal review. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 03:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed by Piotrus. Otherwise this will never end.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Derogatory labels such as "Korp!Estonia" should be deemed uncivil. Martintg 01:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion Conspiracy theories should not be a serious part of any serious case or discussion. But since we're dealing with a Conspiracy claim here, it should be taken seriously. In case the Conspiracy claim is going to be proven having no basis that would end the seriousness of the claimer for good. And therefore I would still leave it up to every user if they'd like to bring forward such accusations. And I think there is no need to presume innocence and state clearly that it does not exist. That is the way it works: everybody is innocent until proven guilty, there is nothing more to it--Termer 05:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of evidence at the evidence page already. And AGF has an important exception for the cases when the pattern of the evidence to the contrary exists. --Irpen 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely the kind of authoritative-speak where you imply evidence is already beyond question, where information has already been validated as being contrary to something else, ad nauseum. This is just like the Soviet procurators denouncing those on trial, addressing them in guilty appellations before the trial is even started. Stop talking in authoritative sounding generalities and stick to specifics. These sorts of statements of yours are nothing but innuendo on your part. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is entirely without merit. I don't believe in a Tartu Estonian cabal as Piotrus put it, but the existance of a well-organized ethnic clique is obvious from surveying this very page. Furthermore, the clique coined a special term for its opponents, be they Russians, Ukrianians, Finns, Belgians, Dutchmen, Frenchmen, Australians, Canadians, or Swedes: Cartel USSR Forever! It is instructive that no previous commentator on this proposal seems to bother about the offensiveness of such a generalisation. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does a cabal differs from a "well-organized ethnic clique", exactly? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment parole

9) A harassment parole's conditions will be worked out by the Arbitration Committee. Irpen, as well as other editors whom the investigation will have shown to have engaged in systematic harassment, will be placed on a harassment parole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Harassment is a problem different from civility in scope, so a mere civility parole will not do. Harassment can be done in the way of death by a thousand paper cuts without any of the individual incidents being in clear violation of WP:CIV. Furthermore, it's imperative that this remedy be enforceable and actually swiftly enforced; another toothless tiger will not help Wikipedia in any way. 泥紅蓮_凸凹箱 08:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been struggling to figure out to define the good criteria of harassment. I still don't have a final suggestion, but I believe that baseless accusations (see #Baseless accusations are uncivil) should be covered by it. How about a deadline for any accusatory remark directed at another editor? If an accusation is made, and not backed up in, say, 24 hours, an indefinite block would follow until the accuser either withdraws the accusation with apology, or backs up, to the satisfaction of an uninvolved admin, the accusation with evidence? Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 19:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:HARASS?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have. I have also observed WP:AN/I in action, and I have come to conclusion that WP:HARASS, as it's written, can not be duly and swiftly enforced because it is defined through a time-wise lengthy pattern. Detecting such patterns is complicated and messy work, and administrators may fear (rightly) that upon detecting a pattern of harassment, they themselves would fall under harassment. Accordingly, I believe it's important that criteria for harassment be developed that could be applied and enforcement by an uninvolved -- that is to say, uninformed of the background's nuances -- administrator reasonably fast, without fear of plausible-sounding claims of subjectivity.

While I accept the idea of non-differentiation of paroles and policy in most areas, I would suspect that in case of harassment, because of the complexity of its detection by uninvolved editors, a multi-stage approach might be appropriate. In the future, the invocation of such a parole needs not necessarily be made by the ArbCom, though, if a better approach for that can be found.

Finally, I want to reinforce that it's very important that harassment be dealt with quickly. Even the 24 hours I mentioned may be too long time, and allow accumulation of stress. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 22:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Harassment parole can be just a variant of a civility parole. I have long argued that every single Wikipedian should be placed on civility parole, which would be no different from saying that every single Wikipedian is placed on a 3RR parole: in other words, it's high time to start enforcing our policies like WP:NPA. This remedy has a potential to cure the mess that is EE relations, and even to bring back some of the editors that left because they couldn't bear the constant harassment they were subjected to. I sincerely hope ArbCom utilizes this as a base for some enforceable remedy.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that figuring out the criteria for harassment detection -- preferrably, something as simple and obvious as 3RR -- is not a trivial thing to do. I have some ideas, but they're so incomplete I'm not ready to offer them yet. Maybe, you have better suggestions? Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 18:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen was engaged is "systematic harassment" being uttered by no one else but Digwuren himself and Piotrus who carefully jots down any diff he can use and unloading them at the opportune time commenting on that? Nice. I urge the arbitrators to take this proposal straight up for a vote at the /Proposed decision page. I would like to see it actually voted so that to end this speculation. Clicking on the diffs presented by the party above that allegedly support this outrageous accusation is a useful intellectual exercise. --Irpen 16:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do your Wikipedia edits contain things you're ashamed of, or want to hide? If so, why do you keep putting such edits on Wikipedia for everybody to see? If not, what's the problem? Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 19:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence talk page, as well as arbcom page outside comments, not to mention previous DR linked, shows many more users sharing this sentiment. That said, many users who would likely endorse it are not hear - because they left the project... One has to admire the efficiency of such strategy.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digwuren, I have no edits I would rather see hidden. And I could not even if I wanted to. Piotrus faithfully reviews my every edit and documents everything he can find usable in his log for future use. Arbitrators, I request this to please be copied to the /Proposed decision and voted. Please no "amnesty" to me like the one Pitorus received. I would like this outrageous accusation receive all the attention it deserves from the Arbitrators and I am not sarcastic in saying so. Thanks, --Irpen 19:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Outrageous?" You create a talk page section dedicated to threatening me that I could be banned over using of the word "schmutz" but tolerate it when editors you agree with call others "Holocaust deniers." Don't make me do the diffs again, they've been done enough times already. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I call you a Holocaust denier? If not, cut the nonsense please. --Irpen 20:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said you tolerate the most vile accusations on the part of some editors while you threaten other editors over their using the German word for mud. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility policies should be enforced

10) Disrespect and ignorance of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:HARASS and related policies is no less damaging to our project than disrespect and ignorance of WP:3RR (for example). Yet while 3RR is well enforced via WP:ANI/3RR, there is no easy way of enforcing civility related policies. It is our failure in quickly addressing civility violations that leads to many editors leaving, and cases like this dragging before the ArbCom. Perhaps WP:PAIN should be resurrected in a format updating concerns that led to its shutting down, or perhaps a different forum needs to be formed, but the bottom line is that users who violate civility policies should be warned and then blocked just as 3RR violators are.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong support. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 08:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you your own motto: "If an accepted Wikipedia civility dictionary makes it impossible to state what happens, then screw the dictionary. This is especially important in context of arbitration." How does it square? I infer from your words and actions that, in your estimation, incivility by the parties to an arbitration is acceptable, while all other users should be subjected to rigorous block shopping on the grounds of incivility. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility does not mean that an editor will be blocked for an occasional swearword (although their usage is not recommended). Civility means that an editor should be blocked for continuing personal attacks or harassment.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed my query to Digwuren. I believe he does not need an advocate. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under this principle, I expect you to be blocked for presenting a barnstar for "good deeds" to a user who found it helpful to refer to me as a "paranoid loon". It is amazing how one can endorse incivility in one edit and pontificate about civility in the very next one. I have not seen anyone censure Piotrus for braving his incivility during the entire case. Basically, the guy is given a free pass to be expemt from every rule he subscribes to. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And where, pray tell us, do you see that I rewarded that user for calling you that? Your bad faith assumption that I have done so, on the contrary, is quite incivil. Cyrius, an admin and quite an active user, is doing a lot of useful work and hence deserve a barnstar. And I found his refusal to engage in flame war after being accused of "unseemly, indecent and disgusting conduct", "throwing shit on contributors behind their backs", "spread the horrific insults", "having no guts" commendable and congratulated him for being able to stop discussing editors, put the issue behind him and carry on doing encyclopedia-building tasks despite some strong flames directed to his talk.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In short, you endorse his description of my person as a "paranoid loon"? Or would you deny that you presented a barnstar to the offender within an hour after the infraction and in connection with it? --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you above.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

11) {text of proposed remedy}

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of Irpen's evidence

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence#WP:MEAT

This accusation indicates a certain level of immaturity, unable to accept that other people can independently form a common view different to their own, they rationalise it as some kind of meat puppetry. These meat puppetry accusations have their origin in the Bronze Soldier events. Note that Estonia is a relatively small country, with a handful of primary population centres. If anything significant happens in any of them, a significant percentage of Estonia's populations would be able to see it, the local news would be all over it, and if national news gets interested, can arrive within hours. Thus, Estonian news is has redundancy; multiple news sources often report on the same events and can be easily backed up with eyewitness accounts.

Here is real evidence of Petri Krohn attempting to incite ethnic Russians to act as meat puppets in his battle against the "Estonian POV pushers" in Bronze Soldier on May 4th:

Message from Petri Krohn to Irpen "Where are the Russians" [54]
Message from Petri Krohn to Ghirla "Where are the Russians" [55]

Martintg 12:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of inflammatory templates for article space

{{Notpropaganda}} was subjected to TfD, but there was no majority nor concensus for deletion, hence the inflammatory nature is unproven.

Template the regulars

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline, thus it is not generally accepted among editors. Petri Krohn admits he, an experienced editor, provided a poor role model: "I may be partly to blame, as I regurally placed 3RR and some vandal warning tags on User Talk:Digwuren" [56]. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, on the otherhand, is a behavioural guideline which is generally accepted amongs editors as the standard to follow.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

More to follow. Martintg 20:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Ghirla's evidence

General concerns regarding Ghirlandajo's "evidence"

Ghirlandajo states: "I was informed recently that Digwuren, Alexia, and Suva took to using #wikipedia for spreading Russophobic propaganda and block shopping" and then goes on to claim "As a result, I stopped editing Estonia-related articles altogether". However a look at his edit history [57] reveals he has never edited Estonia related articles, and he confirms this in his initial statement [58]: "I have no interest in anything related to Estonia". Note that there was no mention of this IRC issue in his initial statement either, so it all seems rather contrived. Martintg 00:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack pages against Petri Krohn

Petri Krohn had first created a similar attack page against several Estonian editors User:Petri Krohn/Evidence, which was subsequently deleted after Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Petri Krohn/Evidence, to quote: "The page is a list of "evidence" which at most should be kept somewhere at user's hard drive. The presented "evidence" does not represent consensus of the community. As a public page it constitutes an attack page with the sole intent to compromise the users mentioned on the page". Note that Digwuren created his pages following the discovery of Petri Krohn's attack page, which at the time Petri used as a tool to promote his view of these Estonian editors within the community. Petri refused to delete it for many weeks until Digwuren created his pages then only offered to blank the page after the MfD case was opened. Whereas Digwuren could be excused for inexperience, there is no similar defence in the case of Petri Krohn, an experienced editor who should have known better.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

More to come. Martintg 02:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Grafikm's evidence

Virtually all of Grafikm's evidence in regard to "edit warring" is connected with Estonia related articles. It takes two to edit war and note that it is either RJ CG or Petri Krohn involved here. Note too that Digwuren, Alexia Death and other Estonian editors, by virtue of the fact that they are Estonian and reside in Estonia and having language skills in Russian in addition to English and obviously Estonian, allowing them to access sources in all three languages, would have a better idea about Estonia related content than these two editors RJ CG and Petri Krohn, who can only access sources in two languages. There are two sides to every edit conflict, so who is disrupting who here? Is it the Estonian editors disrupting Estonia related articles, or is two editors with documented attitudinal issues RJ CG and Petri Krohn disrupting Estonia related articles.

In regard to his evidence of inflammatory templates, both are being adequately handled by the TFD process. There is no concensus for deletion, let alone that it is in any way divisive or inflammatory in Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Notpropaganda. In regard to Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:POV_Russia, while there is concensus for deletion here, it is because the existing NPOV template is adequate for the job, not that it is inflammatory or POINTy. In regard to Digwuren's action in striking out a part of Irpen's statement, I believe he was simply acting according to WP:BOLD, striking out a part of the allegation which FR_Soliloquy objected to as being a suggestive, and prejudicial comment, lacking WP:AGF, be should be removed from this discussion. --Martintg 20:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Anaylsis of Bishonenn's evidence

Digwuren misuses the Good Article process to further his POV

There appears to be a bit of a beat up over this GA approval thing over IRC. I've seen the logs, and from what I can see, there was absolutely no collusion. Collusion requires an upfront agreement to scratch each other's back. This did not happen. There is no relationship between Dihydrogen Monoxide and Digwuren, just two random individual who's path crossed. I don't think there are any privacy issues if I give a summary of the chat:

At 01:18:37, Dihydrogen Monoxide broadcasts a general offer to review a random article for GA, explaining he's in the mood. Anyone on the channel could have accepted it.
At 01:28:49, Digwaren takes up the offer and mentions Denial of Soviet occupation, which which he had previously nominated for GA review in the usual process. Dihydrogen Monoxide presumably took a glance at it, and indicated he would recommend changes, and put the article on hold while the changes get reviewed.
At 01:40:35, Dihydrogen Monoxide indicated he'd left improvement suggestions on the talkpage, and presumedly, some time later, completed the formal passing procedure.
Ten minutes after the completion of this review only then does Dihydrogen Monoxide ask Digwuren for the first time to review his own article.

Since there was no prior agreement to mutually review each other's articles, there was no conflict of interest for Dihydrogen Monoxide, since he never asked for the return favour and Digwuren never offered. Only after the review was completed did Dihydrogen Monoxide request a review of his article. I see no misuse of process here by Digwuren. There was an unsolicited request for articles to be reviewed, followed by an unencumbered acceptance of the offer. Martintg 17:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note on quoting #wikipedia logs

I am also willing to e-mail the relevant logs privately to any arbitrator who requests it, to be checked against Bishonen's logs as a verification of authenticity. Martintg 17:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,140: / Line 1,140: @@
 ::: Advocating again? Actually, I don't believe that Wikipedia has seen more clear-cut cases of meatpuppetry. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</sup> 13:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
-===Template===
+===Cartel USSR Forever!===
+) Digwuren, Suva, and related Estonian accounts misrepresented their conflict with the community as an "Estonian-Russian ethnic conflict", while in reality [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive261#Korp.21_Estonia_on_wheels their most vigorous opponent was a Finn], as well as several [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=139203881 Belgian] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=139265935 Dutch] editors. Characteristically, [[User:Bishonen]], a Scandinavian who has not been known to edit USSR- or Estonia-related pages, was declared by Digwuren "an associate member of ''Cartel USSR Forever!''"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=159052069]
-) {text of proposed finding of fact}
 :'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
@@ Line 1,150: / Line 1,150: @@
 :'''Comment by others:'''
+:: Proposed. Due to Digwuren's efforts, the conflict came to be perceived as involving Estonians and Russians, which is simply not true. Actually, I doubt that any ethnic Russians took part in this supposedly Estonian-Russian ethnic conflict. The Estonian accounts and one Latvian editor were confronted by a bunch of disconnected wikipedians from different countries who complained that "most of my contributions to Estonia related articles have been summarily reverted, usually in under ten minutes" ([[User:Petri Krohn]]), "any attempt of mine to keep the words "fight against fascism" in the text was summarily reverted within minutes" ([[User:Paul Pieniezny]]), "an attempt to unbias it failed on revert warring and insults from Digwuren" ([[User:Otto ter Haar]]). It is true that [[User:Piotrus]] joined the Estonians, but after the case was adopted by ArbCom.  --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</sup> 20:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
-::
 ===Petri Krohn was stalked===