Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:18, 16 September 2008

Comments by uninvolved editor Malik Shabazz

I am not involved in this dispute but I feel the need to respond to Wikipedia's antisemitic troll, Greg park avenue. I would like to point out that I am not a "mirror account" of User:Boodlesthecat (whatever that means). As far as Greg being an antisemitic troll, res ipsa loquitur. (If further evidence is needed that he is an antisemitic troll, take a glance at his contributions to Talk:Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz.) — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 23:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Per my statement in this arbcom, I agree with Malik that he is not any puppet, but an independent and constructive editor, whom I respect and with whom I and other editors were able to work peacefully and constructively. I asked greg to refactor his statement (he has been inactive since he posted it few days ago). That said, any accusations that greg is an antisemite are baseless and defamatory. And yes, I believe that analysis of Talk:Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, where greg was baited (not by Malik!) into certain too flowery statements, is certainly useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been alerted to this ArbCom case off-wiki. I'd encourage the arbitrators to read that page as well, where I tried to get discussion back on track at a couple of points. It's a little hair-raising. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I don't really have any evidence to offer that seems to fit within the scope of this ArbCom, but a couple of people from various "sides" have asked me to weigh in, so I might detail my peripheral involvement in one or two disputed articles a little later if I have the time. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to statement by User:greg park avenue

Clearly there is absolutely nothing "anti-semitic" in his statement. To the contrary, he speaks up against "edit warriors" who "antagonize Polish, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Germans, Jews etc against each other" in WP. So, Greg objected the strong "anti-national" claims, and ... here they are: User:Boodlesthecat comes and blames Greg of ... antisemitism. Biophys (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved thread from evidence page

Can an admin please refactor greg park avenue's anti-semitic rant above?

Or explain to me just WTH "Boody and his obvious supporters/sockpuppets who seem to play Jew but they don't sound like that. My impression is they try to impersonate the negative stereotype of Jewish people. That must end once and for all, at least here on Wikipedia" is supposed to mean? The ranter above is, btw, the same greg park avenue whom Piotrus protected and threatened to block me for removing one of his previous Jew-baiting rants. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed one of your "Jew-baiting" accusations (Greg park avenue comment and entire thread) and that accusation did not hold water. "Jew baiting" and "anti-Semitic" would appear to be any sentence in which Greg park avenue uses the word "Jew"/"Jewish" whose contents you disagree with. Please deal with your content disputes without making libelous accusations. —PētersV (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments; however, greg was asked by this page's clerk to refactor his comment because it "was clearly antisemitic." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated, I read through the entire thread containing the "Jew baiting" you referred to in your diff and while Greg park avenue's frustration level throughout that discussion is palpable, that is all. Perhaps you or this page's clerk might indicate an exact phrase which is explicitly anti-Semitic as opposed to expressions of editorial frustration which you are characterizing as anti-Semitic. —PētersV (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most explicitly anti-semitic part was removed, per the demand of the clerk. It is cited above in my comment. The whole post is typical of Greg's wiki oeuvre (he actually adds zero actual article content to wikipedia)--a race and ethnicity obsessed nasty ranting (and one that has no apparent bearing on this arb--I dont even know one of the two parties.) So Greg somehow, typical of many of his posts, considers me to be the cause of whatever problems Piotrus has run tnto (despite the fact that I had zero involvement in the dispute covered in this arb--can you spell S-C-A-P-E-G-O-A-T?). Peruse Greg's history. by and large what you will find are a compendium of rude insults, nasty comments, spiced with ethnic and Jew baiting. Why he is even on Wikipedia is a mystery to me, other than to try and support, in some perverse way, the team edit warring of Piotrus and his allies. As for your comical claim that I am making "libelous accusations", like they say, so sue me. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments were refactored, this is now moot and not relevant to the evidence page. — Coren ^(talk), for the arbitration committee, 21:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current report on WP:ANI

Piotrus_and_Boodlesthecat_edit_warring_on_Controversies_of_the_Polish.E2.80.93Soviet_War. If someone could make this a permanent link, I would appreciate it. I am posting this here for the information of all. Risker (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question

Is anyone enforcing the 1000-word limit in this case? Renata (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not. During opening of the case one of arbitrators asked to allow sides to have as much space as they need.Biophys (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen's comments to evidence posted so far

I would like to respond to Biophys' claims here for now. As I said, I am now under severe time pressure due to issues that have no relation to Wikipedia. So, I will respond briefly for now but will try my best to elaborate in a greater detail with diffs:

On Holodomor denial article

In response to Part_2. A case when tag-teaming is more obvious I would ask anyone to actually take a look at the history of this article and its talk page. The article was started by Horlo, a single-purpose account whose sole agenda of editing Wikipedia is spreading "truth" about the unique Ukrainian suffering in the hands of Russians (to be exact, his other agenda is renaming the Kiev article to Kyiv, but he he abandoned that crusade a while ago.) In his quest, Horlo created two POV forks of the Holodomor article titled: Holodomor denial and Holodomor-genocide denial.

The subjects of these so called "articles" was neutrally covered in Holodomor article and lack of any scholarly research specifically on the issue of denial does not allow to create encyclopedic articles on the denials themselves. What these articles remain to this day is an ORish hodge-podge of disparate stuff Horlo and a couple of other editors managed to google by searching for any string that would include words Holodomor and denial in one text. Talk pages contain multiple objections by myself, Relata refero and several other editors which are brushed aside. With the objections not being answered at all, several editors are taking turns in removing the tag from an article. From time to time, they demand for a tag explanation all anew, ignoring the objections stated multiple times at talk pages. In fact, behavior that consists in "continual questioning with obvious or easy-to-find answers" is widely considered to be a sign of obvious trolling.

Relata refero, who stated that many times, is completely neutral and uninvolved in any EE spats. In fact Gatoclass, another respected editor and admin, expressed the very same concerns about this article in its early stage and later left the issue due to exasperation. I would welcome his comments on the issue. --Irpen

Reply. My point was not about the content, but about behavior (including teaming up and edit warring) of certain users. No, Horlo is not an SPA by any means. As about content, anyone can look at Holodomor denial to see if it is consistent with WP standards. Perhaps this not such a notable subject, but this article is at least a "B" level or better and very well sourced, including books by academic scholars, and so on.Biophys (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Relata refero and I happen to agree with each other on something, it does not amount to us "teaming". I never asked him to revert for me and neither I was asked by Relata to do a revert for him. --Irpen 21:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did not ask him to revert. You asked him to help. But what you both actually did were a series of reverts. Hence WP:DUCK.Biophys (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, please make sure you carefully check all the facts before posting anything to the ArbCom pages. This is Relata refero's first edit to the Holodomor denial article. Note the timestamp: 07:04, February 12, 2008 (UTC). He arrived to the article and posted his objections that were largely similar to my own objections completely independently from me. I do not recall ever interacting with Relata refero before he joined this article last February. Can this be honestly called as my asking him for help? I invite anyone to check what I actually said. Calling this "asking for help" is a rather skewed way of describing my post. And in any case, I posted at 18:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC) after he started editing. --Irpen 02:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Biophys, I must ask you to withdraw this accusation and that section of ArbCom or I will have no option but to request some sanction on you -- not just for tendentious, unsatisfactory and unencyclopaedic editing, but for truly extraordinary assumptions of bad faith, apparently intended to win a content dispute. Forgive me for my bluntness, but it seems necessary. --Relata refero (disp.) 04:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However if I and let's say Halibutt (or some other Polish editor) agree to something, it is "teaming" and cabalism according to you. How is that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bring Hali in here. Despite our many disagreements, I consider him an honest person and hold him in high regard. He may be biased, but he is honest. As for "some other" editor, Polish or not, it is teaming, yes, if you ask for a revert at Gadu Gadu. --Irpen 22:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your proof that Polish editors do so is based on what, exactly, other than bad faithed speculations? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have no access to your Gadu Gadu logs. However, even without direct evidence, there is enough circumstantial evidence (a very established term even in RL law) in my view that several editors regularly reverted for you upon your off-line requests. I will let others to decide whether this is convincing. --Irpen 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On this section I have two comments.

First, I stated multiple times that I do not follow Piotrus. I only get to editing the articles that I see on the new article's announcement board or if they are attempted to be pushed to a main page through a DYK-path. I challenge anyone to find a single article created by Piotrus to which I got before its being announced on one of these boards. I had to watchlist the DYK submission page after this incident because while it is not my intent to follow Piotrus' articles per se, I care what appears on the Wikipedia's main page because I care for the reputation of this project.

Second, regarding the Przyszowice massacre, that Biophys' claims that since "[t]his article is about an important but a local event it, [t]herefore, was described mostly in the Polish press" is a problem. Polish press is no better or worse than any other press but press' being a reliable source of current events (which is the purpose of the press' existence) does not make it a reliable source on history. If the subject is a remote historic event and not a single academic publication is found to describe it, it's a problem. This was the subject of the discussion at Talk:Przyszowice massacre as well as at this noticeboard. --Irpen

Reply. I provided only a couple of examples. Yes, this is not enough to establish WP:STALK. But my point was actually different: interactions of Piotrus and Irpen are counter-productive, as was mentioned in previous ArbCom cases. One possible suggestion: ask Irpen not to edit any articles that were edited before him by Piotrus.Biophys (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My interaction with Piotrus is strained, yes, and I take no pleasure in that, but I would not call it counterproductive. My catching of his DYKed articles and NPOVing them before they got to the main page was certainly good for the Wikipedia overall.

As for establishing of WP:STALK, it is easy. Find one article Piotrus created to which I got before it was announced at DYK or a new article announcement board. In fact, Piotrus asked me this question before and even he was satisfied by my explanation. But you are welcome to study my contributions to prove the contrary. OTOH, I can easily show my articles that Piotrus noticed before I announced them anywhere. I did not think it is necessary for the evidence but I can compile such list. --Irpen 23:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On this claim.

I believe I have addressed the problem with using Conquest's numbers in Holodomor here. Conquest published his book in 1986 and the formerly classified archival data on the Soviet demographic statistics was made open to the researchers only in 1990s.

If significant new data becomes available the research published after such breakthrough cannot be countered by a research whose author simply had no access to such data. This would be similar to discussing the Egyptian hieroglyphs but using the works written before the discovering the Rosetta Stone. Conquest's book can be discussed in the context of the history of progress on the subject but it cannot be used to "counterbalance" the modern academic research. In fact, I added several modern calculations to the article, two of them western, one Ukrainian. They do not even come close to the outdated number given by Conquest. --Irpen 20:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will address evidence by Piotrus on the main page. --Irpen 21:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I was discouraged by Piotrus and by one of Arbcom members to go to any "good-faith"-"bad-faith" content issues (see Workshop). But if this is required, I can easily prove with sources that (a) Conquest published other books in 2000s with the same numbers; (b) Relevant Soviet archievs were never opened; (c) refs by "contemporary" Russian/Ukrainian scholars are much worse sources for WP than scholarly books by Conquest.Biophys (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, I do not act based on abstract truth but based on my knowledge and sources presented by all sides. As far as I have read, multiple researchers stated that the information now open is sufficient to estimate the number of victims. Also, if Conquest published any numbers later, you never brought them up to the article's talk. I am not invoking just some Ukrainian scholars. I am using specific researchers of highest academic standing, both western and Ukrainian. This discussion belongs to talk:Holodomor. Here, I simply explained by objections to Conquest which you seem to present as malicious. --Irpen 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, if you don't follow me, how do you explain that in your "stressed for time" current situation, you still find time to participate in this ArbCom, even through you were not listed as a party? Particularly in light of this? We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to discuss other editors. Wouldn't a more constructive use of one's time be to create content? Do I follow you around and criticize you like that? Why have you never replied to my ceasefire proposal here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I participate in this arbcom, because I find your conduct a big hurdle in my ability to work productively for this project. You are entitled to claim the opposite, fair enough. This is what this arbcom is for. I posted my first comment to the case when it was considered for acceptance and, naturally, I am willing to follow up on this since, while I was away, you started to post evidence alleging my misconduct, similarly to how you did it in a different arbcom to which you even had no relation [1].

My main problem with your conduct lies in your off-line activity: your black book and using off-site communication to get help in your editing conflicts. As long as I have to edit with the thought that you scrutinize my every edit for your black book, I cannot edit comfortably and I want ArbCom to address it. It should either be said that you are doing nothing wrong when you log my edits (and in this case I will strongly consider leaving this project to which I contributed a lot of my time and dedication) or it should make a finding.

As for your "ceasefire proposal", the thing you never proposed was a promise to stop logging and to stop recruiting support off-line for revert wars and for your opponents blocks despite I begged you to do all of this. I can live with us disagreeing on content but I am not comfortable to edit and expect being stubbed in the back all the time. --Irpen 21:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that I had to post evidence against you; however I had to do so once you indicated you will be involved here and posting your own evidence. I became involved in Digwuren's arbcom because I was somewhat familiar with harassment of Digwuren's and other Estonian editors, harassment which was very similar to that of several Polish editors. And I did so AFTER several other users mentioned my name (ex. Ghirla's "User:Piotrus steps up to defend Digwuren" and dispute resolutions procedures mentioned by Vecrumba).

Regarding the "black book" (what a biased way to frame the issue...), one has the right to collect evidence (based on publicly available diffs) for dispute resolution procedures which actually REQUIRE evidence to be presented, and one has the right to do so over extended period of times if one wants to document long-term editing patterns and trends (like a harassment campaign stretching for years). My only fault, year ago, has been to do so publicly, as it could have been interpreted as an attack page. I have fixed this long time ago and now my evidence is no different from yours or anybody else who is collecting them in Word documents or such. I have no problem with such evidence and drafts and so on required to be private and not-googlable to avoid offending/slandering people.

As for "Piotrus is the cabal leader", really, you could give it a rest after all those years...

In any case, I do hope that this arbcom will finally address those issues and tell us if they are true/ok or not. After the last one failed to do so, I predicted we will be back here... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing, Piotrus. I have no log of your diffs anywhere, on English, Russian, Ukrainian or Polish Wikipedia or on my hard drive. Logging your (or anyone's) activity for the purpose of collecting diffs to use them at the opportune time is something I consider unseemly. This is why it would take me a couple of days to write up my evidence section and, I am sure, it won't be all-inclusive. --Irpen 22:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not "invented" evidence collection, I simply started keeping better records after I was repeatedly targeted by dispute resolutions where I was required to present such evidence. Setting aside the fact that as anybody can see in my logs, I don't update them that often, we only have your word for the claim that you don't collect evidence... despite your past claims that you have started collecting evidence against me. But I have no problem with you collecting that evidence - I believe you (as all other editors) have the right to do so when and in whatever format you deem necessary (just as I respect the privacy of your correspondence). That you believe I have no right to it (or you requested that I reveal my private correspondence on my talk some time ago to disprove your accusations of my cabalism), however, is what I find troubling. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, please do not misquote me. In the diff you cite above I said nothing about "collecting" evidence on you. I said that I was writing it up. I do not have a log on you. I am not interested in your private conversations and, yes, I find logging with the purpose to gain upper hand in content disputes through pushing for sanctions of the targeted editors a malicious activity. Please see my evidence for why. --Irpen 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black book by Piotrus

I think it is perfectly fine for anyone to collect his notes or diffs anywhere - at his home PC or in Polish wikipedia. What's wrong with that? "Malicious" or not - this is none of our business. But digging out someone's private notes from Polish wikipedia to bring them here - this sounds like invasion of privacy. "Are we KGB of the Soviet Union?", asked one man. Biophys (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to see Piotrus's motives and means is to check his own black book. Examine these diffs and who they target. Try to understand why he is collecting them?

What is that? Nineteen Eighty-Four? Moscow Trials? Sorry, but this sounds to me almost like "Let's exterminate the mad dogs of capitalism, who want to tear to pieces the flower of our new Soviet nation!" by Andrei Vyshinsky.Biophys (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as Pitorus collected his diffs for his personal pleasure, I would not have cared. He, however, repeatedly unloaded them to various enforcement boards to call for the blocks of his opponents. This is why, they are important to understand why editing with Piotrus is so stressful. WP:BATTLE addresses that.

Biophys, your veiled hints about KGB connection you make towards so many people should stop. This has been going on for a while. This is the stuff that is very cute to say thousands of miles away from the person you speak with. I bet you would not have said such horrendous stuff in the face of myself or anyone on who you made such direct or veiled speculation. Please stop it. --Irpen 23:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gladly stop because I have never accused anyone in WP of Soviet KGB connections. Such claim would be really stupid because the Soviet KGB does not exist since 1991. Some other people were kidding about this by making certain userboxes, but that was not me. I am talking about witch hunts here, in the style of Nineteen Eighty-Four, Moscow Trials, and the Soviet KGB. Sorry, but such wording is their style. I have listen this enough in the old Soviet Union.Biophys (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 ::::Yes, you did not ask him to revert. You asked him to help. But what you both actually did were a series of reverts. Hence [[WP:DUCK]].[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys|talk]]) 22:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 :::::Biophys, please make sure you carefully check all the facts before posting anything to the ArbCom pages. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Denial_of_the_Holodomor&diff=190851847&oldid=189616985 This] is Relata refero's '''first''' edit to the [[Holodomor denial]] article. Note the timestamp: 07:04, February 12, 2008 (UTC). He arrived to the article and posted his objections that were largely similar to my own objections completely independently from me. I do not recall ever interacting with Relata refero before he joined this article last February. Can '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Relata_refero&oldid=191233213#Denial_of_Holodomor this]''' be honestly called as my asking him for help? I invite anyone to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Relata_refero&oldid=191233213#Denial_of_Holodomor check what I actually said]. Calling this "asking for help" is a rather skewed way of describing my post. And in any case, I posted at 18:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC) ''after'' he started editing. --[[user:Irpen|Irpen]] 02:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
+:User:Biophys, I must ask you to withdraw this accusation and that section of ArbCom or I will have no option but to request some sanction on you -- not just for tendentious, unsatisfactory and unencyclopaedic editing, but for truly extraordinary assumptions of bad faith, apparently intended to win a content dispute. Forgive me for my bluntness, but it seems necessary. --<span style="font-family:Georgia">[[User:Relata refero|Relata refero]] ([[User talk:Relata refero|disp.]])</span> 04:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 :::However if I and let's say Halibutt (or some other Polish editor) agree to something, it is "teaming" and cabalism according to you. How is that? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 21:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)