Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes/Evidence

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, appreciation also to User Vecrumba and others. I never was anti-Semite or racist, as the bugger, who seems to keep more puppets than any Gypsy wagon could ever hold and still be able to move onward, implies. I may provide more diffs, but only on request. Wanna keep my entry concise and to the point and won't feed the troll(s). BTW, never had an encounter with User Irpen, but his allegation that collecting evidence by User Piotrus (black book) is against WP:AGF is just silly. After two ArbComs against me I would do that too. greg park avenue (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Permanent link added per request. --Irpen 02:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Procedural question

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

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)

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)

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)

Yes, you did not ask him to revert. You asked him to help. You only discussed the article. But what you both actually did were a series of reverts, which happened after your conversation (one can check time in the diffs provided as evidence). Hence WP:DUCK.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. 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)

Thank you. The point about time is important. I will reduce and rephrase this.Biophys (talk) 04:40, 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. --Relata refero (disp.) 04:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I changed this per comment by Irpen above. Better? Note that I do not have any serious content disputes with you. It is you who has a content disagreement with a large group of people who edited Holodomor denial. Biophys (talk) 04:40, 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? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Following Piotrus claim

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)

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)

Satisfied? In as so far that it is next to impossible to prove otherwise (albeit I could just copy certain editors and spew bad faithed accusations). But - do tell us more about your articles, and your encyclopedia-building content contributions in the past year or so. Do tell.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Piotrus, I fully agree that in the absence of direct evidence we have to go with circumstantial evidence. Just like your Gadu Gadu edit warring collusion, that I assert is taking place for a long time, can only be proven indirectly (I have neither access no interest in your IM logs), if you claim that I am lying when I say that I do not follow your contributions please find one article by you that I got to before it was announced.

You asked me this question already and more than once and, yes, every time you received an answer that even you found satisfactory. IIRC it was some time in 2007 when you last time asked what brought the particular article to my attention. If you insist on resurrecting that issue, I am sure you can find it in the history of your own talk faster than me, but I can do it myself if you want.

I stated many times that although you follow my edits meticulously, as shown at the evidence section, I do not pay you with the reciprocity. I have enough stress without looking for more that I would get from seeing all your edits. As for additional proof that you follow me around (besides your black book) I will compile it too, since you seem to insist. --Irpen 16:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced info claim

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)

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

Irpen's comment assumes Soviet archives are (a) complete and (b) truthful. That is, that the translations on his "Rosetta Stone" are accurate reflections of each other. If someone goes out at the time of the event and counts, say 100 bodies and recounts that to a researcher, and someone 50+ years later checks official archives just opened and it lists 10 bodies, which is the more "correct"? If someone recounts that all the grain was requisitioned from a silo and taken from the Ukraine, and another author writes there was a famine because of drought and there was no grain, which is the more "correct"? It is not our prerogative to determine what authors have been discredited, as when Irpen advocates that Davies and Wheatcroft (as a source) has done so with reference to Conquest--while D&W (the authors) in their book acknowledge Conquest's research. It is far from as definitive as Irpen posits. —PētersV (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Vecrumba, I believe we had a discussion on this topic at the article's talk page. Additionally, you also discussed it with Fkriuk up to the point when you ran out of arguments and stopped responding to him on topic. Talk:Holodomor has several references to the statements made by several researchers, both Ukrainian and Western, that the information released from the archives is both credible and sufficient to estimate the number of victims. The extent of its accuracy and the completeness of the release may be discussed but many historians said many times that what they have is enough to make an estimate and neither you nor Biophys brought up a single complaint from a respectable scholar who studied the archives that there are any hurdles for the researchers to do their work, both in terms of the information's accessibility or of its credibility. Also note that archival research is bread and butter of any serious historian and their conclusions, unlike yours, Biophys' or mine, carry significant weight. Additionally, multiple modern scholars have shown that Conquest's research is outdated based on the data they have seen while not a single scholarly source was brought up by you or anyone to question the integrity of the research of D&W or of the Vallin's group or of the Kulchytsky's group by questioning their credibility, sources or the research technique. Additionally, not a single calculation based on the post-1990s data was made that would produce the result that would stray significantly from the data obtained by these three scholars independently.

But this is really off-topic here. This arbcom is not the place to decide the content of the Holodomor article. The charge that I "remove sourced info from articles" is an arbcom matter only if there is an allegation that I do so in bad faith while in fact I explained in every detail why Conquest cannot be used to "balance" modern research made both in Ukraine and in the West. I would appreciate if you continue this discussion at talk:Holodomor rather than clutter the arbitration pages.

Posting irrelevant stuff to the ArbCom pages is a known tactic used to derail the cases. If you think you have credible evidence of my misconduct at the Holodomor-related articles, please post it to the evidence page, with diffs, just like Biophys has done when he alleged my "tag teaming" on these articles (an allegation to which I believe I answered right above.) If you just want to discuss the situation with the Holodomor research, please use a page designated just for that but make sure you read past discussions. Thank you. --Irpen 19:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, case in point: being accused of a known tactic to derail the cases -- just one of the many times Irpen has accused me of bad faith, vicious (his emphasis) personal attacks, rather than simply responding to what I said. The last attack paragraph was clearly not required. —PētersV (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Vecrumba, I cannot make sense why you chose to try to bring a normal content dispute to the arbitration page. You did not really think that it belongs here, did you? So, what other reason than cluttering this page you had in mind? Or are you saying that you truly think that the ArbCom page is a proper place to post your opinion about the truthfulness of the Soviet archives and the completeness of the information released to researchers? You are here long enough to know what discussions belong to what page.

I want this case to bring an outcome that would help improve the climate in EE topics and bring the environment of writing content to some minimum level of comfort for the writers. This requires all its participants to pinpoint the exact problems that stay in the way of harmonious editing climate. My view is that the main obstacle is that some editors engage in dishonest conduct and this is what I am trying to show in my evidence. To maximize the chances that this case brings any good solution, we must try our best to keep it structured and not stray off-topic. At the same time, your post was so shockingly off-topic that I simply cannot see a good reason for it to be here. --Irpen 20:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Response

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Intimidation of witnesses?

Biophys started a new section, "Intimidation of witnesses?". I'd like to chip in a few words here. There are indeed many users (on all sides) who could present evidence and haven't. I am however not familiar with any overly attempts of intimidation (albeit there is fear that one's involvement may lead to it); the lack of evidence I am familiar with (based on replies I got from several users on why there are inactive here) comes from following rationales:

• misunderstanding of arbcom policies (some users presented diffs in outside statements and expect it to be treated as evidence)
• fear of being targeted by mudslinging after becoming involved here
• dislike of mud slinging ("I am not here to do this") combined with "I prefer to spend my time creating content" (an attitude I greatly sympathize with)
• belief that enough evidence was presented in past ArbComs so that 1) Arbcom should have enough evidence already or that 2) ArbCom will issue another set of pointless general guidelines ("so why waste time becoming involved?")
• lack of time (this is important factor - the longer we wait, the more evidence will be presented... but the longer the current problems will continue, of course)

I find statements by Poeticbent and Lysy to be of relevance here.

That said, as I've noted before, there are editors (Halibutt, Balcer, Lysy...) who have been intimidated (chased away) and are unlikely to participate mainly due to past harassment by tag team. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, wild and deliberately broad accusations of tag teaming are both uncivil and offensive. So, could you please be a little more specific on the compositions of the "teams" that chased away these editors. Preferably with diffs. Because as far as I am concerned, I believe I addressed many times [2] [3] your attempts to hold me responsible for misconduct towards Balcer and others have commented on that as well [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. As for Halibutt, I spoke highly of him many times, including on this very page. And my interactions with Lysy are very rare and perfectly polite despite it was him who long time ago made to me a remark that I consider the rudest thing ever said to me on Wikipedia. --Irpen 02:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, to keep this short: the users in question claimed you are partly (varies from user to user) responsible for them leaving. You deny it, claiming you were right in accusing them of things like 'intellectual dishonesty' and so on. Who was right, this is for ArbCom to judge. I certainly find your accusations against me (ex. Piotrus has no right to complain about others, edits tediously, leads the Polish cabal, etc.) offensive, increasing my wikistress and making it more likely that I leave. Whether this is your intention or not, this is the outcome of your behavior. Whether it's acceptable or not, this is for ArbCom to decide. Please note I'd not be complaining about it if you haven't made yourself involved here, thus proving that you still are willing to harass me (and presumably, others, like Biophys). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is incredible stuff, Piotrus. Now, I am harassing Biophys (whom I in fact most staunchly defended against harassment.) Any diffs for that you got? You may find my accusations of yourself stressful, yes, but there is no harassment whatsoever. Your slandering me by misusing this very strong and specific but very offensive, when misused, term is exactly the type of dishonesty in you that I have a problem with (more at my talk). Now, you say "users in question claimed". Which users? Balcer, who first accused me in no less than sympathizing with antisemitic views, may claim what he wants (while diffs are there for anyone to see) but this is the first time I hear that I was harassing Halibutt and Lysy. Can you show me where they claim that? Or got any diffs of me harassing them in your black book? Of course you can't. Looking through your black book this comes across as the only diff that relates to Halibutt at all. Does our perfectly normal discussion you logged there even remotely resembles harassment? Just throwing out stuff hoping some would stick. Unhelpful. --Irpen 06:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought about this, but not sure this is helpful. Strange things are happening around here. Let's consider these bare facts:

1. So far, only two users supported you with evidence: Greg and me. Greg was immediately and unfair accused of antisemitism, which resulted in frustrating discussions at several talk pages.
2. An attempted outing of me took place by User:Miyokan, almost simultaneously with opening your case [9], and it was predictable that I am going to be active here.
3. When I provided some evidence here, this campaign accelerated, with already two Russian users involved. Of course Miyokan was talking previously with Irpen in WP, but so did many other Russian users. There is nothing suspicious here.
4. After coming back, Irpen protected Miyokan at the ANI which resulted in this summary even though all other administrators (excluding Alex Bakharev) commented otherwise.
5. Irpen came to my talk page and suggested to use my right to disappear - please see a conversation here (these threads were accidently deleted). I am not sure he correctly interpreted WP rules about this. ("Abandon this account and start editing from a different one ... you don't even need to notify any admins of your actions.", said an experienced administrator Irpen - is that a good advice?). If I followed Irpen's advice, I would not talk here now.
6. He later also issued this warning. ("outlandish remarks like this in public fora are completely outrageous."). This is my "outrageous claim" he is talking about [10]. What he probably means are my words "(although probably true)".
7. Relata Refero issued me this ultimatum. Relata Refero collaborate with Irpen, as I presented in evidence.
8. Some people are talking that I am paranoid and talk too much about Russian state security services. Of course I talk, because I expanded a number of articles here on this subject including Alexander Litvinenko, Russian apartment bombings, SVR, FSB, GRU and many others. However when I used word "KGB" simply as a figure of speech (a quote of a famous Russian journalist who was poisoned by the FSB) [11], Irpen took it very personally [12], although I did not mean him at all [13]. Please note that my first statement was not directly addressed to Irpen, but I simply expressed my frustration from this witch hunt in general. But he decided to answer in this manner. The quote of the journalist tells: "we", it does not tell "you". "We" means: "we all". We all do not want such trials as this one.

Now you get the picture. I strongly feel, especially after the statement by Relata Refero that next their target is possibly me, and I do believe that you also has been a target of unfair accusations. But bringing such stuff to your case would probably be adding an insult to injury. So, I deleted this segment.Biophys (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, please do not use ambiguous and veiled language. What are you trying to say here? Besides, several issues in your itemized list are outrageously wrong.

On (3), I never ever talked to Miyokan outside of Wikipedia by any means whatsoever. I welcome you to study every entry I left at his talk. They were all calls for him to change his conduct.

On (4), the claim that I "protected" Miyokan is diffless for a reason. Because there in no way in hell to interpret anything that I have said about him as "protecting" him. Was there a voice more damning than mine about Miyokan's joking about outing you? Did I ever call for allowing him to get away with it?

On (5), this is a completely bizarre claim you are making. Despite all the stuff you said about me, I came in to help because I do not tolerate harassment and I saw that you were harassed. I've got an impression from your reaction that the possibility of your being outed worries you and I came to give you my best and the most sincere advise on how to deal with this problem in a way that would allow you to continue editing. I should learn from a mistake I made by sincerely trying to help you.

On (6), again, what a stunning way to spin my comment as the "last warning." I gave you my best advise thinking only about the unfortunate situation you faced.

On (7), your claim that I "collaborate" with RR has been addressed in a sufficient detail right above as well as by RR himself [14].

On (8), it is difficult to understand what you actually imply, especially by putting it together with the rest of your statement. It very much seems that you persistently see a hand of direct Russian security apparatus involvement in these Wikipedia conflicts and often make veiled suggestions about individual editors. It is not the first time it comes across this way. --Irpen 02:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I only answered to a question by Piotrus (as bare facts), and this is it. I am not proving anything here. No further comments. I had enough of that.Biophys (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Greg's libelous and disruptive "evidence"

Greg, why do you introduce my name to these proceedings when I have not made any complaint against Piotrus and am not a party to the RfA? It seems to me that you are just looking for an excuse to accuse me of trolling and of being a sockpuppeteer. You have no evidence of my being a sockpuppeteer because I am not one but since you have made the accusation please provide your evidence. As to my message on your talk page, it was a very civil response to your anti-Semitic comment. And you not only refused to apologize you simply made more insults. Wikipedia is large and there is some wriggle room for anti-Semites with you (yes, anyone who thinks the word "Jew" is an insult is an anti-Semite) but trust me, sooner or later people will lose patience with your anti-Semitism. My advice to you is to start acting civilly, and not look for excuses to insult other editors. Now, can you put your money where your mouth is? You just accused me of sockpuppetry. Please provide your evidence (or if you retract the accusation you may strike it out and apologize) Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lack of non-arbcom participation as an avenue to discredit contributions here

M.K., Irpen, and I all have real-life issues to deal with. Jobs, family, etc. We don't feel obligated to explain the details. Piotrus has described M.K. as "Curiously Inactive" and pointed out that "all but one of (Novickas) edits from September 2 to September 25 are related to this arbcom." [15] Are we in fact obligated to disclose, discuss, or otherwise justify our personal reasons for absences or limited participation? How about interpreting this focus as using our limited time to address what has been a problem to us for several years? - hoping that some sort of reproof from this committee will help? Novickas (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The committee tries to be understanding about these things. If parties and others closely connected to cases have a time when they are busy and unable to give full attention to the case, then we are willing to hold on and wait for them, within reason. As members of the committee have these times just as often - perhaps more often - than editors generally, we can't hold others to different standards. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have noticed that you cut people slack in regard to ArbCom participation, and I appreciate that. My question was more towards P's comments on the evidence page, diffed above; whether is it fair to criticize us for being "curiously inactive" or inactive in other areas. Novickas (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I also have limited time to dedicate to Wikipedia, and this arbcom (as the previous ones) have eaten significantly into time I can dedicate to this project (directly translated into less content created). For obvious reasons, I have however little choice but to join these proceedings. I do find it very strange that some editors who were not named as parties editors discussing other editors to creating content. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not discuss others; if one cannot find time to do something constructive, why is one here? The length of this proceedings has to be balanced with two considerations: the longer it takes, the more evidence various parties can present - but also the more time of other parties will be wastedconsumed, and the longer stressful, battleground environment will continue. This case has already gone for weeks, I for one hope it will end as soon as possible, and I will freely admit that the time of each arbcom case, with tons of slander coming may way, are the least favorite of my wiki times, and in fact they are the times when I dread to log on and check my watchlist, for fear of what more slander I will see on those pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The case was unanimously accepted, no dissenting votes, so the committee members did not feel it was a waste of time. Re slander - in the evidence section I have focused on directly and exactly quoting your own statements and on quoting other admins, eschewing the temptation to use my own rhetoric. If you feel slandered by other admins, you could take the issue up with them. Novickas (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. If the case will put an end to harassment that has been going for years and resulted in deterioriation of certain topic areas into battlegrounds and good editors leaving, it will not be a waste of time in the long run. It is, as any dispute resolution, still a waste of time compared to the ideal situation in which editors would be peacefully creating content instead of bickering with one another. I have addressed your section here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone had a lot of time to provide evidence. The sooner this case will be taken for voting the better.Biophys (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I anticipate that the case will move to a proposed decision within the next few days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be nice, Piotrus 1 took 4 months... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad that this case will move forward soon, likely within the next week. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Why were no Fofs and remedies posted on the workshop page by any arb? I've been waiting on them for sometime, and I think I made a note at some point in Sam's principles too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I plan to post some Fof and remedies on the workshop page later in the weekend or early next week unless another arbitrators does them first and I feel that they are complete. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay; thank you for clarifying. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of User:Biophys

I just looked into Biophys's entries to the Evidence page and I am astonished by the concentration of the bad faith assumptions here. The case is not about Biophys but if he could reconsider or retract something it might help. A few notes to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Biophys:

• The history of Polish capture of Kiev (1018) was already discussed on this page. Deacon is a professional Western historian who removed glaring inaccuracies from an article on medieval history based on a newspaper article. It was a clear case of WP:OWN that fixing the staff required so much of effort is a clear indication of the problems we have with Eastern European articles.

The point is not about qualification of Deacon (I did not see his diploma). The point is about him suddenly coming to the Polish capture of Kiev (1018) page and other suspicious circumstances I described in evidence.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• If you consider Deacon's blocks on 3RR violations to be bad blocks then please elaborate, if not why the material is here. I have blocked, the IP doing anti-Polish edits on Stefan Banach does it indicate I am a member of the Polish cabal?

I said in evidence that I do not consider his blocks to be wrong. This is not the point. I simply noticed the fact. Deacon almost never appears at 3RR noticeboard. When did he made similar blocks previous time?Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I do not think Defense of the Brest Fortress edit by Deacon was a joke rather than explanation of negative allusion for a particular article title. Quite useful actually for non-English speakers.

I provided the diff. It is up to others to decide was the notice about "porno" was appropriate or not. I have no idea.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding Holodomor denial. Sorry, but we have WP:BLP and WP:NOR policies. We simply cannot lump together living tenured academics from USA as "denialists" and suggest their work was directed by KGB unless we have multiple reliable sources for that. Anybody accustomed with Wikipolicies and acting in good faith would return such tags there no need to be tag team here. The same way is true that most wikipedians would remove insertion of obscenities to Vladimir Putin or George Bush articles even if they are not members of Web brigades

The point is not about academics, and it is not about the KGB. The point is about massive edit war by Irpen and his ally Relato Refero.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am not sure what doubts Biophys has with intentions of Deacon. If he thinks intention "to address Piotrus' behaviour" is improbable then what was the real one?

My best guess is that he wanted to help Irpen. But I am not here to decide. This is up to ArbCom.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have already told about WP:BLP and WP:NOR violations on Holodomor denial. People restored the tags because the article was compliant with the policies, not because they were members of tag teams.

So you think that actions by Irpen and Relato Refero were just fine. Good. I agree to withdraw this evidence if another uninvolved administrator I respect (like DGG) tells that such edit waring is fine.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Holodomor is a high profile article that is a constant target of POV pushing as well as valid POV conflicts. In many sections literally every sentence is a result of a tortuous compromise. The amount of effort might be better spent on the extension of factual parts of the article rather than the propaganda efforts. And indeed estimations on the number of victims made before opening of erchives are as useful as hypotheses on genetics before discovering of the DNA.

This is mostly a content dispute. As I explained at Holodomor talk page, this statement by Irpen and you is entirely wrong. Soviet KGB archives were never opened. The Ponomarev commission, which tried to dig out something there, was disbanded immediately after publishing materials about Alexius II. As a side note, "some hypotheses on genetics before discovering of the DNA" by Thomas Hunt Morgan and Gregor Mendel were completely correct.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have not looked into the Gavrilov discussion on the Brest Fortress, but Biophys's diffs seems to indicate an honest dispute. Were there hordes of Russian tag teams members who reverted to Irpen's version? And yes, if in doubt better leave an information out.

No that was not an honest dispute at the part of Irpen, but it was honest dispute on the part of Piotrus. I provided the diffs and my opinion. If they are not convincing, I am sorry.Biophys (talk)

• Have not looked into the Przyszowice massacre article but usually checking sources on highly emotional stories is good thing especially if all the sources are from one side. No proof of the tag teaming from Irpen's side.

The point is not about the tag teaming. The point is about waste of time. I believe there was no any reason for the prolonged dispute. The intervention by Irpen and some others there looks like harassment to me.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding Putin. Yes, he is a living person and all the negative information about him should be well referenced to multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a tribune to reveal "the truth long time suppressed by Putin's agents in the Western media". Wikipedia is not an anti-Putin or a pro-Putin propaganda website so even the language should be neutral. Insertion of obviously biased entries are effectively work against their POV - people just see the entire text as propaganda piece. And yes, Biophys again and again violates those core policies. Indeed it becomes tortuous for both him and people who had to clean after him.

I believe none of the diffs I cited or Irpen cited (when he warned me), just represent a WP:BLP violation. If I made any BLP violations anywhere in WP, you or anyone else, please tell me about that, and I will fix the problem immediately or ask an advice from other experienced people. I agree that Wikipedia should not be an anti-Putin or a pro-Putin propaganda website, as you tell. But I believe it is de facto is a pro-Russia propaganda site, which is indeed a blatant violation of core WP policies.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is no WP:NLT in saying that violation of WP:BLP might bring Wikipedia into legal troubles and indeed people are get blocked for this.
• I do not see anything wrong in warning a relatively new user that removing somebody's good faith contribution with references to troll or stalking troll is [16] and [17] is a bad etiquette. Especially if the warning starts with "This is not an official warning so you are free to remove it from your talk page..". Anyway it worked Colchium is one of the most civil users now.

Of course Colchium is one of the most civil Russian users, and he always was.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am not sure why the Ellol's history is here. It is a monstrous assumption of bad faith that you suspect ellol was threatening you and you repeat this offensive nonsense many times. No you accuse Colchium that he is also a FSB team member covering ellol? Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I provided the evidence.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have no evidence that Miyokan cared about Piotrus, but he indeed had a few conflicts with Biophys. Thus, assumption that he had harrassed Biophys so to indirectly hurt Piotrus seems quite far fetched.
• I had no idea who Captain was until Alaexis accused me that I have blocked a reincarnation of M.V.E.i but not Captain. The accusation was made on Biophys's talk page, thus, I have answered there. I have no interest in blocking Hanzo (in fact I have given him a barnstar) but had to block because he was community banned. I have also tried to get him unbanned but failed. Obviously, I was trying to unban Captain (and indeed protected Biophys on AN/I) because I was an anti-Russian tag team member and all the people protesting unbanning Captain/Hanzo were Irpen's friends. Or were they?
• I am not sure I have got Biophys's point: Irpen removing the gallows for Saakashvili from a user page was also acting pro-Putin? I would think that removing offensive and controversial staff from userpage is a good thing.

Agree, that was right thing to do.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Irpen argued at ANI in favor of Myokan. I lost count of all people I have argued at ANI at favor of. Which tag team I am at?

I agree that Irpen and you argued in favor of all Russian users: Vlad Fedorov, ellol, Miyokan, RG CG, M.V.E.i. and many others. You both also argued in favor of User:Petri Krohn.

• Advise was done in good faith. Biophys even could continue working on the case by the old nick and make content edits with the new edits.
• Some people forgive Biophys all the harassment so he could continue working. Some (like Relato) protect their rights. There is indication of the tag teaming?

So, you consider this statement as an attempt by Relato "to protect his rights". I would like to listen 3rd opinion here.

• I really find "jokes" by Biophys accusing people he has disagreement with to be a member of FSB web brigade troll squads or murderous hit men to be quite offensive. I happen to be a butt of one of them some time ago. In my company the only response to such a "joke" would be a slap to the face. Still I guess an anonymous over thousand miles of his internet can allow throwing mud without risking to have some facial damage. Though he might reconsider his behavior.

Please provide diffs to support your accusations. No, I have never accused anyone personally in WP to be a member of FSB teams. Yes, I have seen how another user accused you of "corruption", but that was not me. If people made and placed such userboxes themselves, this is their problem. Telling about the "slap to the face" without providing any evidence is an obvious example of harassment.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

... I would stop by now the list is to long anyway Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I must honestly admit that I provided this evidence in part because I believe that next victim of Irpen's team will be me, especially after this threat. If an uninvolved and respected administrator (like DGG or Moreschi) decides that I am wrong, and it is me who actually harasses other users (as Alex seems to imply), I am ready to apologize and correct my behavior.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)